Finding legitimacy…

It’s been quite something to watch some of the comments fly around — here, on Facebook, on the petition, and in emails — with regard to Collingwood council’s decision last Monday to go ahead and build two structures — sole-sourced, at that — to cover Centennial Pool, and a new rink at Central Park.

As Councillor Ian Chadwick notes on his Facebook page:

The tone of the discussion over the Central Park decision has taken a rather ugly turn. Some of the emails and comments from opponents are adversarial, angry and accusatory. We’re still being dunned with misleading inaccurate information about costs, the structures and the future of CP itself.

What happened to civility and respect? I like citizen engagement and debate – I encourage it – but some of what I’ve seen is simply confrontational. Angrily denouncing us and demanding council rescind its decision will not win any supporters at the table.

I would tend to agree; even the petition takes on a very adversarial tone, which could lead to its legitimacy being questioned by council. It also includes a misinterpretation of the town’s procurement policy; the limit for sole-sourcing is not $50,000 – it is unlimited. The only reference to $50,000 is under Sec. 3, requiring anything more than $50,000 to be ‘by tender on prescribed forms’. But from Sec. 6.7 of the policy:

Notwithstanding any other requirement of this bylaw, circumstances may arise where competitive tendering is undesirable and a proposed procurement excluded from the requirement to obtain competitive bids, or where direct negotiations are appropriate, provided that such measures are not taken for the purpose of avoiding competition, discriminating against any supplier, or circumventing any requirement of this bylaw. Such circumstances include the following…

B (b) Where there is only one known source for the goods of services (sole source);

Now, as it was stated at the meeting, Calgary-based Sprung is the ‘only known source’ for this particular architectural membrane structure technology; a couple of people have sent me links to other manufacturers of similar structures, but I can’t see the comparison.

But back to the petition. The idea of a petition is that it’s an ironclad argument; you don’t want to give whomever you’re presenting the petition to any holes — and in this case, the statement with regard to the procurement policy is big enough to drive a truck through. And, importantly, as noted by Ian, it’s extremely negative — which is bound to turn off councillors who might otherwise be swayed by the argument to review the decision.

Now, if I were writing the preamble…

WHEREAS, The Central Park Steering Committee spent 10 months, conducting numerous stakeholder meetings and two community consultation sessions, to arrive at a proposal for a ‘community hub’ that included two indoor ice surfaces, a 25-metre pool, and community space, tied into the Collingwood Curling Club and Collingwood YMCA; and,

WHEREAS, The Central Park Steering Committee recommended Town Council explore funding opportunities, and the potential to involve private partners, a recommendation which Town Council deferred; and,

WHEREAS, municipal staff were directed by resolution (July 16) to report back to Town Council with a project timeline and detailed estimates to enclose the outdoor pool with a fabric building and construct a single pad arena that could be phased into a double pad, and report back by Aug. 27; and,

WHEREAS, municipal staff presented a recommendation on Aug. 27 to purchase two ‘architectural membrane structures’ from a single source, for $10.6 million; and,

WHEREAS, financial information with regard to the capital costs of those purchases were only publicly presented the Friday previous to the Aug. 27 meeting of Town Council, and operating costs were only publicly available that evening;

THEREFORE, the petitioners request the following:

THAT, in spite of Sec. 6.7 of the municipality’s procurement policy permitting sole-sourcing in the case of only one known supplier, that Town Council publish a Request for Proposals to cover the outdoor rink with a fabric structure, and construction of a single pad arena, with a deadline of Oct. 1; and,

THAT, given a private partner presented an option for Central Park, but without an opportunity to present a full financial picture, that Town Council immediately proceed with the Steering Committee recommendation to explore funding and partnership opportunities, with a deadline of Oct. 8; and,

THAT, Town Council request staff to present a report, by the Oct. 15 meeting of municipal council, weighing the capital and operational costs of all options; and,

THAT, to maintain the open and transparent nature of the process, that a public consultation session be held at the municipal council meeting of Oct. 22; and,

THAT, Town Council, presented with the advice of staff, and the comments of the public, set aside the evening of Oct. 29 for council to meet and deliberate on this single issue, and come to a final decision.

But, that’s only if I were writing the preamble. It’s straightforward, neutrally-worded, gives deadlines (though municipal staff would be in a far better position than I to determine if those were realistic or not; I would tend to think I’m leaving it a little tight), and only delays things by a couple of months. And, importantly, gives council a time to make an absolute final determination — which, at the end of the day, could be the same decision they made on Monday night… but, gives the public the opportunity to have meaningful input into all options.

Discuss…