Public Commons

• John Bowker on the status of community engagement with municipal staff

Part of Community Engagement Ombudsman

To Fiona Crean, City of Toronto ombudsman,

I understand that your mandate is to investigate systemic concerns as well as individual complaints. I am concerned about the Parks department's apparent policy of centralization, which is being undertaken despite the concerns of the local councillor and the opposition of the Dufferin Grove community. What mandate or authority is there for a policy that could destroy the vitality of this very special park?

On May 15, 2009, City Council received a PFR report that sought "approval for the principles of equitable access, quality, inclusion and capacity building as a foundation for the development of a City-wide, multi-year Recreation Service Plan." The report defines "capacity building" as the creation of programs that "create a sense of community, belonging, and vitality." The report's proposed work plan promised that "a strategy to engage staff, key stakeholders, and the broader community in the development of the Service Plan will take place over the next several months."

Nine months later, no such community engagement has taken place. Instead, a strategy of community disengagement has been taking place. The reassignment of the senior staffer who worked most closely with the neighbourhood appears to contradict the principle of community engagement that was mandated by City Council.

Therefore, my concern is not so much about one staffing decision, but is rather the failure of PFR to uphold its commitment to public engagement and its apparent indifference to the staff/community partnership that is responsible for the unique "sense of community, belonging, and vitality" that exists at Dufferin Grove. This commitment was a key part of Council approval for restructuring, and without such community engagement, PFR appears to be acting against Council's mandate.

To Councillor Janet Davis, Chair of the Community Development and Recreation Committee

I am alarmed at reports that senior PFR staff are seeking to implement what appears to be a fast food franchise model of parks management. Under such a model, it would become more difficult for the community to work directly with local park supervisors to create innovative programs without first going through a mountain of red tape. This policy is being undertaken despite the concerns of the local councillor, Adam Giambrone, as well as the opposition of the Dufferin Grove community. What mandate or authority is there for a policy that could threaten the vitality of this very special park?

On May 15, 2009, City Council received a PFR report that sought "approval for the principles of equitable access, quality, inclusion and capacity building as a foundation for the development of a City-wide, multi-year Recreation Service Plan." The report defines "capacity building" as the creation of programs that "create a sense of community, belonging, and vitality." The report's proposed work plan promised that "a strategy to engage staff, key stakeholders, and the broader community in the development of the Service Plan will take place over the next several months."

Nine months later, no such community engagement has taken place at Dufferin Grove. Instead, there seems to be a strategy of community disengagement. The sudden reassignment of the park supervisor who worked most closely with the neighbourhood appears to contradict the principle of community engagement that was mandated by City Council. I understand that other local park supervisors have been inexplicably reassigned as well.

City Council is debating the rink time allocation issue at its meeting on Monday. This is an opportunity for City Council to clarify the mandate of PFR, preserving local control of the city's parks and rinks. Council should direct PFR to seek strong, direct relationships with the local community, and to welcome local experimentation in the pursuit of program excellence. PFR should interpret the goal of "consistent processes and methodologies" (under the proposed Recreation Service Plan principles) in a way that encourages the spread of successful experiments, and not in a way that discourages such experimentation.

The worthy pursuit of gender equality and access must not be allowed to become a Trojan Horse for needless centralization and bureaucracy.