I kind of had two lessons in one in the first lesson, which was to get stakeholders involved in the process. The second lesson was that the Tiger-Cats Football Club are indeed a stakeholder, since they have a vested interest in the stadium, by virtue of the fact that certain aspects of the stadium could make or break them.
So how did the selection committee recommend the west harbour? Did you read any reports? I don't think anybody paid attention until the HTCFC mused that the west harbour location would not work for them. And when did they say this? It was February 18th of last year They cited accessibility, parking and visibility issues in the following month and promised a report to put those concerns on paper.
We also know that it was in May of last year that the Tiger-Cats publicly announced that they will not play at a stadium located at the west harbour and proposed a facilitator to look at other sites. So now we ask ourselves "what other sites were looked at?"
The problem is that we don't know. All that we know is that Confederation Park was taken off the list. But other than Confederation Park and West Harbour, what other locations were looked at? We don't know and that's another aspect of this process that has bothered a lot of people. We never had the chance to discuss what options there were. They just seemed to have come out with the West Harbour and we don't know how and why they came up with that, other than the fact that it's where they wanted it to be.
Of course people don't generally know what happens in committee meetings so nobody knows what was discussed and when. This committee is supposed to find a good place for a stadium that works for everybody. If I didn't know any better, I would have considered the "other options," straw men. They were just there to be eliminated. The level of ambiguity in the description of the so-called sites say so.
With the absence of this information, one can only conclude that the West Harbour was indeed the site of choice since day one, but nobody can really explain why this was the best site and how they came to that conclusion.
The perception I have is that a certain someone had delusions of grandeur and decided that building something to create a lasting legacy that would spawn the ascension of his "great" name. The problem was that this person was too naive to consider that he couldn't just turn into a great visionary overnight. He lacked the dynamic personality to even sell this vision, which really wasn't his to begin with. Moses, he wasn't.
So the lesson here is, if you want people to trust the decision that you made and that it was a good decision, perhaps it would be good idea to have the data to back it up, otherwise you leave the impression that was left when they did choose the West Harbour - not a very good one.
Ahem.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, suggesting that the Ti-Cats were a stakeholder doesn't count as a 'lesson'. It's a fact at best. :)
(So I'll be expecting an actual 'Lesson 2', thankyouverymuch.)
Secondly, this statement is very, very telling:
"I don't think anybody paid attention until the HTCFC mused that the west harbour location would not work for them." (Emboldened text, mine)
So even here, we can see a weakness in our system. The old 'hands-off' approach to our involvement in local governance. Which brings up a very intriguing dilemma: some of us don't want to be bothered with our own governance, outside of voting every four years. (Complicating this is the fact that we have no vetting system for candidates. No real way of determining whether or not a person is actually capable of doing the job. Except for the campaign process. Which most people don't pay any attention to, because an estimated 60% of voters cast their ballots according to 'name recognition' in the previous election. On a quick side-note, I'll soon be discussing the idea of having the equivalent of 'primaries' in local elections. To both weed out the 'questionable and time-consuming' candidates, and provide a more-focused field for voters to consider.) So we place enormous faith in our Councillors...and what; assume that everything will be fine, we can be passive, not be aware, not get involved? Huh?!?
Here's something for you to look at. It's not everything, but it's a start.
My point is that almost everything you might want to know about 'how all this happened' is available. It's no mystery. It might not have been laid-out for us at every step of the way...
...but there's been nothing stopping any of us from effectively demanding the information that's been available to be consumed. It's just that...
Well, it's that we we've had a lousy 'relationship of engagement with our Councillors'. We just haven't been bothered enough to ask. And they've been crap at proactively disseminating what we might want to know.
This can change. It is changing. Councillor sites. Sites such as yours, as Raise the Hammer...
But it's not just about 'transparency'. There's also the obverse of that coin: 'citizen involvement'.
But then, I'm yammering on about this constantly over at my own site, aren't I...?
So we see that Confederation Park, West Harbour, Downtown (where? I don't know!) and the Airport were on the short list. I'm not sure if there were other sites considered. Unfortunately, these reports do not say what was discussed, unless we try to get the minutes from these committee meetings.
ReplyDeleteBut with Confederation Park removed from the list, that left three choices. I don't know where downtown they were suggesting they would have put the stadium and the airport was just as stupid of an option, it's hard not to see how they came to the West Harbour.
Perhaps knowing who sat on this committee could bring more things to light. As Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the message." So in other words, the names of those people could speak volumes.
Sorry, from my perspective, you're starting to get caught up in looking for people to castigate (AKA 'demonizing') rather than actually taking a look at the question 'What happened?!?' ("...the names of those people could speak volumes.")
ReplyDeleteBefore I clamber up onto my soapbox, before I start pointing fingers (although I have no problem in identifying two players who ended up mucking up the process quite well on their own, never mind the exigencies of deliberating possible sites), I want to understand in as basic a way as is possible 'What happened?!?'
The link I provided was a start. That's all. I'd want to find out what the initial considerations were, site-wise. I'd want to know (against the backdrop of West Harbour having been the 'favoured location' through what, six Council votes?) what the process was to whittle down the possibilities to WH, IWS, East Mountain, The Airport, Longwood and Aberdeen, etc. And yes, I'd want to know what the Council meetings minutes show.
The funny thing here is that we've created this paradigm where we've got this perceived inability to find out these things. That there has to be a kerfuffle, some kind of crisis before the information can be accessed, an 'investigation' that must unfold before the truth is revealed. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
But... But we're handicapped by this paradigm. By the silence that predominates over much of these issues, mostly because people don't have as their local governance default, asking. Or communicating with their Councillor.
It's as if we seem to collectively believe that we've surrendered our rights by casting our ballots every four years...when in fact, we declare them anew every time we vote.
And of course, as we tend to have this detachment going on, where we by-and-large don't get involved...what was your quip, Rene? "I don't think anybody paid attention..." We're not in touch with our Councillors. And I'm not talking about 'keeping tabs on them'. I'm talking about a truly collaborative process. I'm talking about having a much better level of communication and involvement so that most situations never allow for such mysteries. We should not be looking at the result of this PanAm Games Site Selection Process as being a mystery. We shouldn't be needing to ask 'What happened?!?'
And we do because we're not living up to our end of the bargain.
And nothing will change, at least nothing substantive and authentic, until we change that role...and begin an entirely different relationship with our Councillors. It can't be one of 'Us vs Them'. It's all 'us'.
I'm not looking to vilify anyone. I am just curious about who had input in the choice. Like I said, the choice of people speaks volumes, not necessarily on the people chosen, but the people who chose them. I'm not interested in the people on that committee as much as I am interested in finding out who was on top.
ReplyDeleteBut in every situation, be it in governance of the people, be it in business, in sports... There will always be factions, cliques, groups that believe that 'this is the way forward'. That have an agenda. I don't blame anyone in any situation for this. (And anyone who doesn't think this is either the way the world works, or thinks it shouldn't work that way, that we should somehow be more egalitarian...I'd probably suggest that a materialistic, profit-based democratic society doesn't function that way and probably can't.) Clearly, many people believed that West Harbour was the way to go.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, in Hamilton, regarding the stadium, if people were more engaged in their own local governance, if people actually got involved, showed that they give a damn, were participating in dialogue with their Councillors, I'm willing to bet that this situation would not have unfolded as it did.