MODS’ strategic planning process promised public engagement — but only 43 residents participated. Despite council acknowledging the failure, the process continues full steam ahead with no clear plan to fix it.
Initial Skepticism and the Need for Accountability
When I first learned that MODS was launching yet another strategic planning process, I was skeptical. My concerns weren’t abstract, they were grounded in specific questions I posed publicly, which you can find here: Warden Smith responds - SHELBURNE VOICE. What follows is a closer look at those responses, and how they measure up against reality.
Q2. How is the effectiveness of the advertising evaluated?
Warden’s Response: “We monitor social media engagement levels, feedback from residents like you, and survey participation to see if outreach is reaching different parts of the community. Where we notice gaps, we adjust our outreach accordingly.”
Analysis: Despite these assurances, council acknowledged during the October 29 meeting that the advertising failed outright. Councillors themselves recognized this failure — listen from the 47:50 mark in the meeting audio municipalityofshelburne.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025.10.29_Recording.mp3.
If outreach was being monitored and adjusted, why did it collapse so completely?
Q4. What mechanism exists for residents to indicate whether the process is on track?
Warden’s Response: “Residents can provide feedback at community sessions and by contacting their respective Councillor.”
Analysis: In practice, this mechanism is barely functional. The only formal feedback opportunity offered was a form with three simplistic questions. With just 43 participants, the process is not only off track — it’s derailed. Council’s reliance on passive feedback channels fails to empower residents to meaningfully shape the process.
Q8. Will the input be anonymized and made public in a timely manner?
Warden’s Response: “Yes.”
Analysis: To date, no anonymized input has been released. Transparency was promised, but delivery is still pending.
Q10. How will success be measured?
Warden’s Response: Success will be gauged by:
- Observing participation diversity
- Capturing input faithfully
- Offering quick feedback opportunities
Analysis: With only 43 participants, the metrics outlined are moot. Councillors themselves acknowledged the failure (again, see the 47:50 mark in the meeting audio). Yet the process continues as if these metrics have been met. This is not just a failure of outreach, it’s a failure of accountability.
Q15. What measures are in place to mitigate the risk of relying on a self-selecting sample?
Warden’s Response: “We’ve taken deliberate steps to broaden participation.”
Analysis: Whatever those steps were, they didn’t work. A self-selecting sample of 43 people cannot credibly represent the community. The promise to broaden participation remains unfulfilled.
Q19. How will data collection be standardized to prevent bias?
Warden’s Response: “All table facilitators will be trained to ask open, non-leading questions and record comments exactly as stated.”
Analysis: From firsthand observation, most facilitators were municipal staff with no training in neutral facilitation. Only two individuals from the consulting firm were present, and when asked, only one confirmed that she had formal training. This undermines the integrity of the data collection process and raises serious concerns about bias.
This analysis reveals a troubling pattern: council’s stated commitments to transparency, inclusivity, and responsiveness are not being upheld in practice. The consultation process, as it stands, lacks credibility. The community deserves better
Be the First to Comment
Add a Comment