To the Editor:
Some thoughts on the Keremeos Irrigation District meeting regarding the reservoir.
I was one of the many people who attended the meeting last Wednesday regarding the reservoir. I must say I was disappointed by the way the meeting was run.
I should start off by saying that I was opposed to the reservoir from the start for a variety of reasons, not least of which was my concern that a reservoir would lead to chlorinating our water. After reading the pre-meeting mail out, I finally understood that we were not being asked to approve the reservoir. KID had the authority to make that decision and they had done so. We were being asked to approve a less expensive way to pay for the reservoir, which was coming whether I wanted it or not.
The meeting was very well attended, as should have been expected. It got off to a confrontational start and never recovered. A certain amount of confrontation was probably inevitable, but I believe it could have been kept to a reasonable level.
So what went wrong? I have some thoughts to share, having run a few meetings in my lifetime:
1. A microphone was absolutely mandatory for a meeting such as this one. The excuse that attendance was higher than expected doesn’t work, considering the history of this issue.
2. When trying to start a meeting, there is a respectful way to ask for people to quiet down and a disrespectful way. The person starting the meeting chose the disrespectful way.
3. The two primary speakers should have introduced themselves and their roles. Most people’s dealings with KID are limited to using the water and paying the annual water bill. We don’t know names or positions and the tone would have been set better by simply introducing themselves.
4. The speakers expected respect from the attendees but did not give respect to the people asking questions. Respect is a two-way street.
5. When it became clear that people wanted to debate whether the reservoir should be built, someone from KID should have respectfully brought the discussion back to the point. The decision to have a reservoir had already been made and was not at issue. The meeting was to gain approval for the financing method. Some people would have been unhappy but the meeting would have stayed on track better.
6. Only two people were on hand to try to register all those voters and pass out ballots. There was incredible confusion because there were supposed to be two lines of people, each with surnames from half the alphabet. However, nobody in the audience knew this because there was no way to tell them (see #1 above). As a result the voting took a very long time.
I know this is all closing the barn door after the horse is gone, but presumably there will be more public meetings in the future. Hopefully these thoughts will be helpful.
Rae Langille, Keremeos