Board members' embarrassing behaviour should not be ignored

Mar 26, 2008

If you listened carefully amid all the bickering at last week's meeting of the South River-Machar medical centre board, you just might have heard the faint sound of Henry Martyn Robert turning over in his grave.

There is not a single member of the board who should not be embarrassed at the mess that became of a simple discussion of the Good Happenings Food Bank. But, if you want to trace the row back to its source, it probably began with councillor Kathy Parker.

Parker, based on previous discussion and gossip, was expecting a fight. She came locked and loaded, but unfortunately went off half-cocked, starting the fight herself. She was leaping to the food bank's defence while they were ably defending themselves. Matters were made worse by her emphasis on the decision ultimately being council's. It was naïve to think that would not be taken as an insult by the citizen appointees on the board.

However, while Parker might be called naïve, and certainly isn't a pro when it comes to duking it out in meetings, that does not make her wrong. Everything she said was perfectly correct. The appointees on the board are accountable to the councils who appointed them. They might be said to represent the public, but the public did not elect them. The decision is council's to make, and they are directly accountable to the public. The board is an advisory body.

What should have been an obvious statement of fact was greeted with indignation, sulking and passive aggression.

John Haller could have responded any number of ways, but chose to make matters worse. Barb Murdoch could have stayed out of what was clearly a fight between Parker and Haller, but opted instead to throw in her two cents. Edna Coughlin, however, bears most of the blame as chair of the meeting. Instead of restoring order, she joined in, delivering the most brutal ad hominem attacks of the meeting. When she is supposed to be holding the team together, Coughlin only added to the divisiveness. By the end, this board meeting bore a closer resemblance to a gang of schoolyard bullies picking on the new kid.

As for whether the board had, as Parker claimed, already made up their minds to deny the food bank's request, one can simply read through the lines. Haller's apparent ability to phrase rejection in the form of a question makes one wonder how he would do at Jeopardy. It is truly an insult to one's intelligence that he could then claim to be undecided on the matter.

The only people who conducted themselves with any class were the McNeils, and you have to feel sorry for them, walking into the middle of this. To say they'd rather pay rent somewhere else than cause hard feelings shows a degree of respect that was sadly lacking at that meeting.

And beyond that, all of Machar council should be ashamed. Not that they withdrew their support (they were kind of hurried into giving it), but that they did not properly inform South River council that they had altered a joint decision or offer an explanation before it caused a problem.

But what is most shocking of all is that this whole blowup was over the food bank. When did a food bank become a bad thing to have around? In most communities, it is a sacred cow, a motherhood issue. It's the charity everybody can agree on supporting. Is it only a good thing to feed the poor if they're not coming to your building? The comments that have been made reveal a shocking level of snobbery, and more than a little ignorance.

We're talking about a food bank. The majority of their clients are working people with families. Many are not regular users of the food bank, but only seek help when they come up short of money. For a family on a low income, living paycheque to paycheque, an unexpected expense, such as a car repair, can be enough to seriously mess up the household budget.

These are not bums, they're neighbours. But apparently, they'd be a burden on the medical centre.

And one has to wonder why the board should be making decisions about space the medical centre isn't using. It's vacant municipal space, and the board is allowed to guard it like dogs in a manger.

This raises some issues, not the least of which is the medical centre board itself. Much can be accomplished by appointing citizens to boards, but giving them too much free reign can be a risky thing. More than one council have put citizens in charge of a public facility and left them to their own devices, only to find out later that those same citizens have come to feel they own the place.

Boards have a way of turning into exclusive clubs while you're not looking. Long-time members become entrenched and their good works become a shield against criticism. The facility is running smoothly, so how can anyone complain?

That's all well and good until the rightful owners want to do something with it, then look out!

Perhaps South River and Machar need to take a look at their joint boards. Some new blood might be needed.