June 3, 2001
The article in the Peninsula News Review that we received at the last class has changed the context of the texts that we have previously seen. Up to now, this was a discussion that was taking place within the municipality; external reports were requested, but the discussion itself was an 'internal manner'. Now this discussion has moved to a larger playing field.
As a result of reading the newspaper report , I have the following questions:
Is there a clear definition of a 'health hazard'
Why is a 'three-three' vote interpreted as a clear direction for the mayor to follow?
Who cast the deciding vote in the 3-3 decision that made it a 'no' vote?
Dr. Stanwick is to review 'all reports' on the Senanus water quality issue--does that include the transcript of the public meeting? What else does it include? What does it not include?
The Holzcamp reading is using examples from psychology to discuss the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity. What we have, I think, in the Senanus situation is a similar conflict between 'clinical practice' the situation and experiences of the Senanus Road residents (subjective & particular) and the general scientific objectivity of water testing procedures and identification of hazardous water. For me this is further complicated by the seeming inability of the scientific experts to agree on a methodology for testing water, and indeed a definition of 'safe water'. Perhaps this is compounded by the fact that no matter what science is presented as objective evidence, subjective arguments are put forth to discredit the objective . In fact, I think there is a second subjectivity at play here--that of the anti-development folks. Perhaps there is no way that 'science' can be presented in a context where there are too many subjective positions about how science should be used.
The legal move to involve the larger community--CRD -at a formal level, is I think an attempt to remove the 'subjectivity' of the anti-development forces in the local community, and involve the larger community in a discussion of the right to safe water ( whatever that is).
What can we say about this in terms of an educational process--First, knowing the law is an asset. The residents of Senanus Drive knew that they could hire a lawyer to take their concerns out of a context where they felt their needs were not being met.
Secondly, persistence is necessary in any dealing with an elected body. Don't expect to get results or agreement quickly.
Thirdly, if science is going to be used in a political process, one has to be very careful about how it is applied; scientists beware!
Fourthly, if politicians are going to turn to science to help them find desired solutions to problems, they had better be aware that one report, based on nine water samples, does not give anyone the ability to speak from a position of 'truth'. Politicians beware!
Subsequent to our last discussion, I would answer the call for a definition of 'democracy' as "government for the people, by the people, of the people.
Perhaps, following your call for learning to teach at the elbow of a another teacher, rookie politicians could enter a training period akin to a four-month teaching practicum, whereby they learn appropriate democratic conduct and process at the elbow of an experienced politician. This would mean a four-month transition period between outgoing and incoming governments at the municipal level, which is so largely unregulated in spite of the existence of a provincial Department of Municipal Affairs which seems to practice a largely hands-off approach leaving municipalities at the mercy of their small handful (7 - 6 councilors & 1 mayor) of local politicians.