This letter was sent to mayor and council, and shared with Pique.
My partner, Rebecca Smith, and I are not members of the Whistler Waldorf School. Our children attend the public Myrtle Philip Community School, however the Waldorf community is an integral part of our shared and diverse town. We believe in a future where Waldorf has a permanent home at Spruce Grove, where a renovated Field House is open and available to any community group 365 days a year (including Waldorf for special events), and where sporting facilities have been expanded as needed. There’s space available for everyone at Spruce Grove, and if we all communicate and work together, this future IS possible.
Simply put, this council has no mandate to cancel Waldorf’s lease without prior public notice and engagement. During your individual campaigns for office in 2022, the Waldorf school was already in its 21st year of operating at Spruce Grove. We believe you were all obligated to share any concerns or ideological positions you have against Waldorf operating at Spruce Grove with the electorate, yet not a word was spoken to give any indication that when given the chance, you’d vote to cancel their lease.
During one of your campaigns, in reference to the Whistler Sessions long-term strategic planning initiative, one of you stated, “Our next steps are to gather community responses, engage local stakeholder groups and launch engagement events so that the community is at the forefront of our planning efforts.”
Make no mistake, this misguided Spruce Grove U-turn, undertaken completely within the constraints of a closed meeting, was made at council’s discretion, or more aptly—your indiscretion. And your chosen path has undermined your obligations to transparency, accountability, and public engagement.
There is no legal impediment to stop council from pursuing public engagement concerning the future of Spruce Grove while Waldorf continues to operate. And if council is relying on a legal opinion that states otherwise, it’s time to get a second opinion. Especially if you’re listening to the same people who were responsible for suing Pique! Your advisors are not infallible. And neither are you.
How else could this have been handled in a way that provides a balance between public disclosure and involvement and private contractual requirements? Let’s review the very similar Audain process from 2012-13:
First, a private individual came to town with a vision for a private art gallery and museum with controlled public access. The RMOW quickly identified a parcel of public land that was actually being reserved for future development as a public park! Plans were prepared to illustrate the proposal.
Second, the municipality issued an official press release, followed by a public open house. Public comment was sought and received.
Third, a closed meeting was held to sign an MOU agreement with the proponent’s foundation.
Fourth, a public hearing was held to change the zoning of the parcel to allow for the construction and operation of the art museum.
And finally, another closed meeting was held in accordance with the Community Charter to negotiate a lease agreement. THAT is how it’s supposed to be done. Somehow you have skipped a number of important steps. So, let’s start over. Together.
And please, don’t ever again let yourselves forget these two fundamental tenets of holding public office: Primum non nocere “First, do no harm,” and second, don’t mess with people’s children!
