Opinion

By Richard Rolke May 30 2007 http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/

Mayor Wayne Lippert was full of confidence last week as he inked an agreement with the Okanagan Regional Library for a new branch. And why shouldn’t he be? There’s no question a new library is required to keep up with a growing community. Also bolstering city hall’s spirits is a cumbersome, little-understood process to garner public approval. Once known as a counter-petition, an alternate approval process will be held in July to borrow $20 million for a new complex that would house a library, art gallery and RCMP/city administration offices. Through the process, only 10 per cent of registered voters signing a petition in opposition could scuttle the city going to the bank. And when you consider there are about 20,000 voters in Vernon, 10 per cent or 2,500 names is quite significant.

Generally, municipal leaders have counted on residents not understanding how counter-petitions work or not being interested enough to head down to city hall to ink their signature. Civic leaders claim it’s an entirely democratic way of determining public opinion, but I’ve always considered it as a chance for politicians to simply slide something through the side door. But while most counter-petitions are ignored by residents, there is some history of them embracing the process. Case in point is rural Lumby in March 2005. Twelve per cent of voters signed a counter-petition against funding O’Keefe Ranch. As a result, director Rick Fairbairn was forced to remove his area from the function. From what I understand, one or two residents, with petition in hand, began going home to home, rallying the troops. That diligence worked in rural Lumby, and there’s no reason why it couldn’t work in Vernon if a few residents banded together.

And I increasingly think that is possible based on the complaints I’m hearing. Whether it’s e-mails or phone calls, many people are expressing a concern about borrowing more money when taxpayers have already been hit by the Multiplex, Performing Arts Centre, sewer plant and water upgrades. Many also question squeezing a new building in between city hall and the museum, and why the Coldstream Hotel site was purchased for $2.1 million if cultural facilities aren’t going there? Of course it would take an organized effort to cast the city’s plans aside. That may not be too easy when most people have jammed schedules these days. But I can think of a handful of residents who may be up to the task, including the Vernon Taxpayers Association. The association appears to have taken a break from its rabble-rousing ways, but I could see it taking advantage of this situation.

If 10 per cent of voters’ names were collected, city hall would be forced back to the drawing board. The options would include shelving the project, finding other funding sources or holding an actual referendum to see if the counter-petition results were an anomaly. And that’s what council should have done from the get-go. A full-scale referendum would have allowed for all residents to have a say through a process that is truly democratic and that they are familiar with. It would have also provided the city with concrete direction. Instead, a counter-petition will only highlight public ignorance of how the system works, or the ease in which special interest groups can get signatures by knocking on doors. If the city is truly interested in meeting the needs of the community and cultural organizations, a legitimate process needs to be followed. But a new direction will only be charted if the politicians first admit they’ve made a mistake