As I’ve tried to untangle the various threads in the Veiner Centre/senior centre debate for myself I’ve come to feel sympathy for this city council. They are under enormous pressure to resolve this situation, but key information has changed or has been unavailable making decisions difficult.
That many won’t agree with the final decision (whatever it is) is not a problem. In a democracy with numerous competing interests no one gets their way all the time. After all reasonable people can disagree over city development. Our city council is made up of eight councilors and a mayor each with a different perspective. What counts in our city and our council is not consensus on any issue, but whether the appropriate decision making process is followed.
So has the decision making process been proceeding adequately? The split council vote (5-4) on July 6 that approved funding for the renovation of the Veiner Centre (with a view to move the cultural centre groups in) suggests that councilors were divided on this question. The four councilors in the minority wanted more time to make a decision. The five in the majority felt that the process was carried out sufficiently and there was little sense in further delay. Fast forward to the September 8 council meeting and a motion to keep the Veiner Centre as an option for the senior centre passed 8 to 1.
This has been described as a failure of council. Nothing could be further from the truth. The decision to move the senior centre to a different location was premised on a number of things: the risk of flooding, the damage to the Veiner Centre and the outgrowing of this facility. Since that time two out of three of these premises have changed. The building’s issues turned out to be less serious than first thought and the newly constructed berm mitigated some (but not all) of the flooding concerns. When crucial premises in an argument no longer hold people have an obligation to revisit the original decision. If the building can be used the option should be open to retain the Veiner Centre site as a senior centre.
Proper decisions depend on our representatives and ourselves having the relevant information and having all the appropriate options open to us. Over the past few months it became increasingly clear that removing the Veiner Centre as an option for the senior centre was done prematurely. It is a credit to this council that this was recognized and steps were taken to correct this. To revisit this decision is not a failure of council, but a success. It is exactly what we should expect of our governing body. This does not mean that this council has been perfect. After all correcting course means that we did go off course, but mistakes do happen. And how we respond to mistakes is important.
Ultimately, the senior centre may still be moved. The two options for a new senior centre remain on the table and on Monday the public services committee recommended the Primrose location as their first choice. But since any of the three options entails decades of commitment from the city it is better to make sure we go through the right process even if that means some delay – as frustrating as it may be.
Medicine Hat News. September 18, 2015.