Questions arise over agency office

Questions arise over agency office March 23, 2010 7:00 PM

Some politicians fear progress on social issues could be jeopardized if a non-profit agency moves into city hall. On Monday, council members deferred a decision on a staff recommendation that the city provide the Social Planning Council with an office free of charge for five years. “If you’re living and working out of the planning department, you won’t be seen as neutral,” said Coun. Mary-Jo O’Keefe to Annette Sharkey, Social Planning Council executive director. The city currently has a contract with the Social Planning Council to pursue social matters such as affordable housing and services for the homeless. “That independence is at risk,” said O’Keefe of Sharkey working with other agencies.“If you’re perceived as the city, will the small players come forward? I think there will be smaller contributions and there won’t be as much of a success.”

Similar concerns came from Coun. Bob Spiers. “This will give anyone the impression that she’s an employee and not a contractor to the city,” he said of an office. Sharkey says the Social Planning Council must raise about $20,000 a year to keep its storefront office open and it’s not necessary for her work. “The majority of the work I do is out in the community. Rarely do I have meetings in the office,” she said, adding that space in city hall would primarily be used for storing files and accessing a computer. “I could still present myself as Social Planning and that I’m not a city employee.” Social Planning’s current storefront office also houses seniors and volunteer bureaus, but Sharkey insists partnerships are being considered to support their activities. “They would be with agencies that are involved with seniors and volunteers,” she said. “We want to look at ways that are more cost-effective and make sense for programs.”

Support for providing an office to Social Planning came from Coun. Patrick Nicol. “These are city issues and Annette has never been questioned on her integrity,” he said. “The integrity of this work will be benefitted by the arrangement.” Coun. Buffy Baumbrough doesn’t believe other agencies will refuse to rally behind social issues. “Having Annette’s office in the planning department doesn’t affect that process,” she said. “It’s about partners coming together and identifying issues. That model won’t be affected by housing Annette’s office.” City council is also being asked to renew its contract with the Social Planning Council for $60,000 a year over five years as a way of expanding community development work.

Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star Published: March 23, 2010 7:00 PM Public perception problem

There’s absolutely no question the Social Planning Council has helped lead Vernon out of the wilderness. Under the direction of the dynamic Annette Sharkey, the agency has been a driving force when it comes to tackling social issues that were ignored for years. Whether it’s the homeless, affordable housing or recreational programs for the disabled, the Social Planning Council has been there. Much of that success has come from being able to pull together diverse interests — whether it’s various levels of government, non-profits, businesses or the general public. And I believe that’s possible because Social Planning isn’t tied to anyone. It hasn’t forced people on to the street by cutting funding or created inflexible policies. It’s not seen as a threat but a conduit for change.

That’s why I am concerned about a plan that would see the Social Planning Council close its storefront premises and take over a desk in Vernon city hall. Even if Social Planning is simply the tenant of a free office, having a presence at city hall will create confusion among residents and other agencies. A lot of Sharkey’s time will have to be spent explaining that she isn’t a city employee. And while Sharkey is generally out in the community meeting with groups first hand, members of the public will come looking for her. Walking into city hall and having to deal with the reception desk will just further that confusion. When the City of Vernon entered into a financial contract a few years ago for the Social Planning Council to pursue social matters, it was supposed to be at arm’s length. Obviously there was going to be a relationship between Social Planning and city staff on some issues, but the politicians of the day didn’t want a social planner under their roof as other municipalities had done. They felt that engaging a non-profit organization would be the best way to work with other groups and to access grants.

Now apparently the thrust behind Social Planning moving into an office in city hall is because it’s looking for different ways to provide its services to the community. And certainly shaking things up could create new efficiencies and energy. But perhaps Social Planning should be trying to find a spare desk with a local non-profit instead of government. If trying to raise $20,000 a year in rent for the storefront premise is a problem, maybe the city could cover some of that through its existing contract. Once again I want to clarify that I have been impressed by the efforts of Social Planning and specifically Sharkey. This community would be lost without her thoughtful and passionate actions. My concerns in no way question the integrity of the Social Planning Council. But public perception over independence could quickly become reality. I worry that a simple move into city hall will create public confusion and undo all of the significant strides that have been achieved.