Where is there a Town Council, an administration and a mayor who justify policy by saying whatever seems to float through their minds, drowning out reason and truth (for this, there should be liability – political if not legal), and evoking anecdotes of their Mediterranean childhood and of seeing waifs alone on a shore? The answer, unfortunately for us all, is North Hatley. When the concern of councillors and administrators for their personal liability trumps the concerns of the community, and when remaining stone faced and silent in face of the opposition of more than one hundred residents becomes a strategy councillors and the mayor use against the community itself (the mayor has stated that those who oppose the decision to lock the gates to the beach are no more than children having a tantrum in a toy store, and then has tried to say he was only using an analogy!), then the time has come for the joke to end. 

It has become crystal clear that negotiation is no longer possible; it was evident at the latest Town Meeting that citizens are not being listened to. The mayor repeats the same tired, and incorrect refrains. The fence to the beach, he claims, was erected for reasons of safety. Yes that is true, it would seem, but for the safety of people already at the beach, and not to prevent access to it. The gates to the beach are open, says the mayor, forgetting or failing to add they are locked all mornings and most months in a year, thereby depriving of access to the lake residents unlucky enough not to own waterfront. In doing this, the municipality is enforcing and perpetuating a form of economic discrimination and is actively dissuading new families – new taxpayers – from settling in the village.  The finances of NHRS are in a mess, the mayor claims, despite a routine Federal audit three years ago that found nothing wrong and despite a new system of accounting already in place for the future.

Council, states the mayor, is limited in what it can do by the legal opinion it obtained from the firm of lawyers it retains on a commission basis. But how does this opinion fit with legal jurisprudence and doctrine, neither of which it cites, and how does it counter the arguments in the opinion obtained in 2016 and communicated to the administration of the Town? But of course this new opinion couldn’t counter them, since, or so it would seem, this 2016 opinion was never circulated by the administration of the town, or by the mayor – to the lawyers, or to all of the sitting councillors. And why wasn’t it circulated? Well that’s part of the joke, as is the cost of obtaining a new legal opinion that is unaware of the one that already existed. And again at the last Town meeting, the mayor cited the insurance company in his attempt to justify locking the gate at the beach. But the insurance company has made no such demand. But then the facts don’t seem to matter much. Laughable, if only it were funny!

Where can we possibly go from here? There would seem to be three possibilities: a) Council begins to take its role of ‘representation’ seriously and starts listening to, and actually ‘hearing’, what the community has been telling it; b) Council continues down the same path of searching for justifications of the ‘policy’ it has adopted (and continues to desperately count the number of drownings in lakes in Québec); or c) members of Council and of the Town administration decide they are unable to continue in the roles they have chosen to exercise, and to follow the policy they have adopted, faced with the opposition of a number of residents that is only growing. The first possibility would constitute a desirable but radical change, and so is unlikely; the second would constitute no change at all, and would be unbearable; and the third, well that would constitute a punch line and put an end to the joke.

• Paul St-Pierre

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.

(English follows)

J’ai assisté à la réunion de la ville hier soir et j’ai écouté les nombreux arguments présentés par des citoyens inquiets au sujet du verrouillage de la plage municipale. J’ai également lu l’avis juridique que vous avez publié la semaine dernière. 

Ce qui m’est paru clair hier soir, c’est qu’il y a beaucoup de questions qui se posent au-delà de celle de la responsabilité de la ville et de ses conseillers. Les gens se sont exprimés sur de multiples sujets. Les citoyens présents demandaient au conseil municipal de regarder au-delà de la seule préoccupation de la responsabilité. Dans votre réflexion sur l’avenir de l’accessibilité à la plage municipale, je vous demanderais donc de réfléchir aux points suivants : 

1. La nécessité de revisiter les lois et les avis pertinents, en particulier l’avis de 2016 qui fait état de la jurisprudence et qui a été mené par un expert dans le domaine. 

2. Il n’y a pas de risque zéro. La ville est responsable de tout ses sites, dont beaucoup sont plus dangereux pour la baignade que la plage municipale. 

3. D’autres municipalités de la région, comme Magog, ont trouvé des solutions pour offrir un espace sécuritaire pour la baignade. 

4. Fermer la plage en dehors des heures de surveillance prive le public, qui ne possède pas déjà une propriété riveraine, d’un accès équitable au lac. Dans un sens, cela équivaut à une privatisation complète du lac. Les répercussions sociales et éthiques d’une telle action sont importantes et compromettent sérieusement le bien-être de la communauté. 

5. Il y a aussi des répercussions financières rattachées à cette décision. Les gens cesseront de venir à North Hatley à des fins récréatives ou décideront de ne pas déménager ici. 

6. Sans doute le plus grand dommage fait par votre décision est la mise au rencart de la structure communautaire qu’est la SRNH, organisme essentiel d’engagement et de développement communautaire. À travers l’action de cet organisme, les gens ont développé un sentiment d’appartenance à un grand tout dans lequel ils pouvaient contribuer et recevoir de l’aide. 

J’espère qu’en tant que conseillers, vous considérerez le bien commun et que vous prendrez en considération ce qui précède. Le risque zéro serait de ne permettre à personne d’entrer dans le lac. Verrouiller la porte de la plage municipale implique ultimement, comme l’a suggéré un conseiller hier soir, d’appeler la Sûreté du Québec pour contrer les infractions. 

La seule préoccupation de responsabilité reliée à votre décision a réduit notre communauté dynamique à d’hypothétiques probabilités statistiques concernant la sécurité. Et la sécurité n’est qu’un des éléments déterminants du bien-être d’une communauté, l’équité sociale et le sentiment d’appartenance en sont d’autres encore plus importants. 

J’espère que nos conseillers assumeront leur leadership d’élus et insisteront sur le respect du plus grand bien-être de cette ville. 

Sincèrement vôtre, 

Mary O’Connor 

10 juillet, 2018.

Les opinions exprimées sur ce site Web reflètent celles de leurs auteurs. L’espace est offert à titre de service à la communauté et FANHCA, ses administrateurs et son hébergeur ne peuvent en aucun cas être tenus responsables des opinions qui y sont émises.

I attended the town meeting last night and listened to the many arguments presented by concerned citizens about the locking of the municipal beach. I have also read the legal opinion you posted last week. 

What was clear to me last night was that there are many issues at stake beyond the liability of the town and its councillors. So many people were articulate on multiple subjects. The town was asking the Town Council to see beyond a preoccupation with the single factor of liability. As you consider your decision about the future of the municipal beach, I would ask that you think through the following points that were made:

1. The necessity of reviewing the relevant laws and opinions, particularly the 2016 opinion that cited jurisprudence and was conducted by an expert in the field.

2. There is no such thing as zero risk. The town is liable for all its sites, many of which are more dangerous for swimming than the municipal beach.

3. Other municipalities in the region, such as Magog, have found solutions to providing a safe space for swimming.

4.   Keeping the beach closed deprives the public of an equitable access to the lake. We are limiting access to those who already own lake-front property. In a sense, we are privatizing the lake. The social (and ethical) repercussions of this action are serious and concern the health of the community.

5.   There are financial repercussions as well, as people stop coming to North Hatley for recreational purposes or decide not to move here. 

6.   What has been perhaps the greatest damage is the destruction of the community structure of the NHRS – a vital organization of community engagement and development. Here is where people have felt they belonged and were part of a greater whole, where they felt they could contribute and receive assistance. 

I trust that, as councillors, you will be attending to the greater good of the town and take into consideration all of the above. Zero risk would be not to allow anyone to enter the lake. And locking the gate at the municipal beach, entails, as one councilor suggested last night, an ultimate practice of calling in the Sûreté du Québec to police infractions. 

The single preoccupation with liability has turned a vibrant community into abstract efficiencies. People have become statistics. The determinants of health include not just the prevention of danger but the promotion of an equitable and thriving community with a sense of belonging.

I would hope that the councillors will take the lead and insist on the greater good of the town. 

Yours truly,

Mary O’Connor

July 10, 2018.

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.