Regarding the meeting held on March 16 -- a meeting which the governing members of the Olds Royal Canadian Legion Branch #105 have essentially labelled as “problematic” in a notice published in the March 23 Albertan. I attended that meeting and need clarification as to why it was labelled as such and why an apology was necessary.
Nothing was said at that meeting which could be construed as “unpatriotic.” We heard about UNDRIP - the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, land use bylaws, smart cities and 15 minute cities.
The Legion was chosen because, as the host stated, “What better place to fight for your freedoms than at the Legion?” His stated goal for the evening was “for everyone to have more clarity on the key changes that the government is trying to impose.”
How did an information night on the above, organized by respected members of the Olds community become “contrary to (the legion’s) values and those of our country.” Some key points from the Royal Canadian Legion’s Strategic Plan 2018 – 2026 which seem to have some discrepancies with how this issue was handled: • “Since its inception, the Legion continues to support Canada’s Veterans and communities.” (The apology made by the Legion over this meeting does not appear to support certain members of the community.)
• Vision statement: “Our vision is to be the most highly respected Veteran and Community Service Organization.”
• Mission statement: “To serve Veterans, which include serving military and RCMP members and their families, to promote remembrance and to serve our communities and our country.”
• “The Mission and Vision Statements go hand in hand and should always be used together.” The previous three points are problematic in that serving the community seems to only be important if the community members don’t disagree with specific rhetoric. How does an organization build and maintain respect when they are only supportive of certain members of a community?
• Core values: “Core values are what support the vision, shape the culture and reflect what the organization values. They are the essence of the organization’s identity…”
They include “Service." "Integrity – We behave ethically and in a manner which inspires trust, mutual understanding and confidence.” Again, how is “trust, mutual understanding and confidence” built when members of a community are not allowed to voice their thoughts regarding the biggest issues facing a society?
“Respect – We are supportive, inclusive, courteous and fair to all, honouring the dignity and worth of every person.” (Is the Legion supportive, inclusive, courteous and fair to all or only some? Are only those who follow certain dictates allowed to have their worth and dignity honoured?)
“Loyalty”
“Teamwork”
• Major goals: "Specific Objective 5. Culture. There are many reports of a non-welcoming environment when guests arrive at a Legion. In addition, in some cases, Veterans have been turned away from joining and/or participating in Legion sponsored events. There are also reports of anti-social behaviour by some branches and their members. Situations such as these do not serve to portray the Legion as a veteran and community support organization but rather as a closed, non-accepting private club. This does not serve to promote the Legion as an open and welcoming place… Cultural change in any organization is one of the most difficult objectives to obtain but is needed within the Legion.”
We have witnessed, first-hand, the non-welcoming environment for Veterans who were turned away from Remembrance Day ceremonies on Nov. 11, a day specifically dedicated to those who fought for our freedoms, simply because they had chosen to make a health decision that was best for themselves. That day was a searing example of the Legion’s decline into the “closed, non-accepting private club” a reputation it would appear they are trying to fix and avoid, according to the above statement. I would like clarification on how Legion administrators came to believe that the content of the meeting was “contrary to our values and those of our country.” I am a 61 year-old, third generation, very proud Canadian and I am concerned that the Legion may have taken the word of one or two people, who may or may not have been in attendance at the meeting, and not investigated further prior to making an apology that was unnecessary and does not fit with their vision and mission statements and core values, as stated by the Legion itself. The Legion itself acknowledges that “Cultural change in any organization is one of the most difficult objectives to obtain but is needed within the Legion.” This was made unmistakably apparent by their response to the March 16 meeting. Deanne Trewin,
Didsbury
