{"id":15186,"date":"2015-09-15T12:52:43","date_gmt":"2015-09-15T16:52:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=15186"},"modified":"2015-09-17T18:53:26","modified_gmt":"2015-09-17T22:53:26","slug":"trivial-pursuits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/trivial-pursuits\/","title":{"rendered":"Trivial Pursuits"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\"Dilbert\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Now that the draft version of the so-called “community-based strategic plan”<\/strong> has been presented to council, I felt it appropriate\u00a0to comment on this latest version. I have already posted several pieces on the earlier draft. If you haven’t read them, you should start with there:<\/p>\n

Strategic Planning, Part One: The Woo-Hoo Factor<\/a>
\nStrat Plan Part 2: The Shuffle Game<\/a>
\nStrat Plan Part 3: The Waterfront<\/a>
\nStrat Plan Part 4: Economic Vitality<\/a>
\nStrat Plan Part 5: Healthy Lifestyle<\/a>
\nStrat Plan Part 6: Culture and the Arts<\/a>
\nStrat Plan Wrap Up: Addintional Comments<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

All the comments and criticisms made in these earlier posts still have relevance in this latest draft.<\/p>\n

I say the document is so-called<\/em> because it’s not really community-based: it’s committee-based, and it’s just a wishlist, not<\/i> a plan. It doesn’t even adumbrate a plan.<\/p>\n

A proper plan should have measurable actions, a detailed timeline, specific costs and budget laid out. This has none of that. It has some vague time frames listed a S-M-L (short, medium and long terms) but these are 1-3, 3-5 and 5-10 years, respectively. Nothing to aim at as an immediate goal. \u00a0And no priorities are identified among the wishlist items.<\/p>\n

Given that no council can bind a subsequent one, and there is but three years left in this council’s term, and equally that after five years, almost every plan or policy is out of date and needs revision, planning beyond the short term for most of these wishes is pointless. Not to mention that there is no indication who will pay for these wishes, or how.<\/p>\n

First let me say that the new draft is very pretty. It looks attractive in the way that every other generic, bland strategic plan<\/a> of this ilk does. However, style cannot top substance, and no matter how much of the former is present, the document lacks the latter. So let’s look at the presentation while we measure the content.<\/p>\n


\n\"Dilbert\"<\/a>
\nLet’s start with the so-called vision. This reads:<\/p>\n

Collingwood is a responsible and sustainable community that leverages its core strengths: vibrant downtown; a setting within the natural environment; and, an extensive waterfront. This offers a healthy, affordable and four-season lifestyle to its residents, businesses and visitors.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, that isn’t<\/em> a vision. It’s a description<\/em>, and an inaccurate one at that – Collingwood is one of the most-highly taxed communities in the region (a problem exacerbated by the current council which raised taxes this year in order to pay for their own pay hike and fund “Senator” Jeffrey’s cavorting around the country on taxpayer expense.).<\/p>\n

(Taxes, by the way, aren’t even mentioned once in the document, yet during the election campaign it was the number one issue raised at the doorstep by a large margin. Nothing about culture, accessibility,\u00a0or walkability in the “vision”, either, you’ll note.)<\/p>\n

A vision statement should look ahead; give us something to aspire to; suggest goals and challenges. This description looks backwards, not forwards. It’s what we were, not what we can or should be. It is flaccid: it doesn’t reach, it droops.<\/p>\n

Psychology Today<\/a> notes a vision statement…<\/p>\n