In a recent letter to the Peninsula News Review, local resident Sheila Bailin raises concerns about changes to the Approving Officers Bylaw. Whereas before this sudden change, the approving officers included the: Chief Accounting Officer (CAO), corporate officer, and heads of financial services/operations, infrastructure, planning, public works and emergency services. The new Bylaw bestows all the approving powers into the hands of the CAO.
Bailin notes that the revised bylaw “concentrates administrative powers in a single person, with no public consultation and no clear explanation of why the sudden change.” Whether one agrees with Bailin’s conclusions or not, the questions she raises are legitimate. Why was this change necessary? Why now? What problem was it intended to solve?
The issue is not simply administrative. It is about public confidence. The OCP describes the municipality as “North Saanich, in its decision-making… supports transparent community communication, engagement and education in recognition of the importance of the community’s collective expertise, knowledge and creativity.” (Pg. 40). The OCP was not created by staff or council alone. It emerged from one of the most extensive public planning processes in the municipality’s recent history.
North Saanich residents spent years helping to shape the municipality’s new Official Community Plan (OCP), through public meetings, surveys, workshops and council deliberations, residents debated difficult questions about housing, agriculture, environmental protection, infrastructure and growth. The result was a document reflecting a shared vision for the future of the community. That is why recent council decisions deserve closer attention.
For that reason, residents are understandably sensitive to changes that may affect how planning decisions are made. This does not mean every by-law amendment is inappropriate. Nor does it mean administrative efficiencies should never be considered. It does mean that transparency matters. The OCP explicitly commits the municipality to transparency and engagement. Now a resident has publicly asked why a governance change occurred?.
Therefore, answering that question is not merely good politics; it is consistent with what the OCP itself states is important. Trust is built through openness. The larger question facing North Saanich may therefore have less to do with any individual bylaw than with the relationship between governance and community vision.
The OCP is a shared roadmap for the future, given these recent developments; it is reasonable to ask; how will residents know that future decisions remain aligned with the values and priorities expressed in the plan? The answer cannot simply be “trust us.” It must be demonstrated.
North Saanich has spent years discussing what kind of community it wants to be.
Residents are now asking how recent governance changes support that vision.
As Bailin observed in her letter, “Something changed; residents deserve to know what.”
That seems a reasonable question. Council needs to answer it. Promptly.
Sources:
