Re: Recreation and Culture survey
It is disappointing, but not surprising, neither council or town administration has contacted me in regards to this matter. Their governance model views community through the lens of winners and losers. In order for them to be perceived as winners there has to be a loser – in this case character assassination and imposition of a financial penalty being the weapons of choice.
The town has chosen me as the scapegoat to cover for its inability to create, administer and analyze a survey in accordance with well documented and accepted survey principles, guidelines and practices. At the very least, the town should have been aware and followed the census and survey guidance published by Statistics Canada.
The town created a survey that permitted multiple responses from any respondent, or anyone acting on behalf of a respondent, as no personal identifier was required when responding. A respondent could thus submit multiple paper surveys -- surveys were available at the town office, memorial complex, the library, plus at the trade show -- go home and respond by computer, respond by computer at school or work, and then further respond by computer at the library. Simply put, if the town wanted to restrict one response per respondent, they should have done a better job creating the survey.
Surveys gather flash opinions from respondents and are one of the least effective tools for engaging others in dialogue and setting strategic objectives. Do you like vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream for dessert? Most will not give a second thought to the possibility of replying they like maple walnut ice cream, chocolate cake, apple pie with ice cream, or even no dessert.
Consider for a moment the town’s survey process compared to the library expansion process that used a variety of learning and communication tools whereby 200 people contributed more than two hours of their time, and provided over 700 ideas. Which one is the more effective tool in providing guidance towards next steps?
Finally, the community should be gravely concerned that the Recreation and Culture Master Plan process was started and continued based on motherhood type opinions (for example: the town needs a rink) without a detailed review of usages and operating costs of existing facilities, trends, challenges, best practices and informed information on community needs.
Are there alternative models – such as the Shantz Village Land Corporation idea presented in their sales brochure of building a new twin arena on their lands north of Highway 582? Why are groups who have been alienated by the town who contribute to cultural aspects of the area, such as the ag society, not included in the conversations? Who isn’t at the table to provide input? Are the needs of area youth who want a place to meet and call their own being considered?
High achieving communities are leaderful communities, defined not by one individual, or by a common set of traits. Rather they are defined by the connection of people to each other. These communities also follow the wisdom of Coach Vince Lombardi who said “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence.”
At the present time Didsbury is not a leaderful community. It is a community that tolerates second best as being an acceptable objective, and considers itself fortunate when it captures mediocrity. Until this changes, and community ceases to be defined in terms of winners and losers, Didsbury will not grow and prosper. It just won’t.
Most importantly of all, what are your thoughts?
Kevin Bentley,
Didsbury
