Re: National Indigenous Day BCWF Reconciliation Dialogue
Originally Posted by
BydeIt
By your own admission though, the policy is outdated, and there is no appropriate replacement at this time, so in my mind there would not have been anything for the panel to credibly offer in terms of policy explanation at that town hall.
We agreed to disagree on this one, right? You are of the opinion that the townhall had one purpose, and I know for a fact that it had another.
If your opinion of what the organizers were trying to do is accurate then your criticism makes sense. If what the organizers actually say they were trying to do is accurate (which it is) then your criticism does not make sense. We were looking for questions, fears, concerns and other types of feedback and input. We were not ever attempting to explain policy. Everyone on the committee and on the Board knows that we are not at the explanation stage yet.
You see where I'm going, right? You cannot reasonably say we did a particular task the wrong way when we were never trying to do that task. You can criticize the quality of the communication, but you're kind of stretching when you claim that you know what we were actually thinking but that I don't. I was there, and I was very involved.
We can't explain policy when the policy is outdated and needs to be updated.
We can't create policy without knowing what the membership thinks.
We need to communicate with membership to obtain that knowledge.
Once we obtain that knowledge we can update a policy to be sent to the Board to go through the approval process.
Nobody is "admitting" that existing policy is outdated. When you use that term it sounds as if you've proven that someone has been doing something wrong. That's not what occurred between us. You said we should have policy before the committee does anything. I told you that we do have a policy and that it requires updating, ergo the townhall. Your assumption about the state of BCWF IR policy was incorrect. You've gotta take the L on that.
The word you're probably looking for is "recognized*. Everyone involved in BCWF governance, including guys who were instrumental in writing the existing policy, *recognized* that the existing policy is out of date. Now you've also *recognized* that policy both already exists and is outdated. You're not *admitting* anything. There was nothing particularly wrong with the existing policy. The problem is that the world changed (court cases, new precedents and rulings, plus government policies and goals) and the policy has not yet changed with it.
I was explaining to you that a) BCWF IR policy exists, therefore there is no "putting the cart before the horse" as you outlined and b) we need to update the policy and that requires feedback from the membership.
Originally Posted by
BydeIt
Solomon is a nice guy but I don't think he will build bridges you can't build yourself when needed
It's not Solomon's job to build bridges. Asking him to do that would be a mistake. We identified early in this process that the bridges cannot be between a BCWF retained consultant and First Nations, nor even between an individual within BCWF and First Nations, but must be between the organization and various First Nations. Solomon's job is to provide BCWF with some Indigenous perspective and some First Nations/government relations insights.
Originally Posted by
BydeIt
I don't want to give the impression that I'm not sensitive to FN issues, and recent news. My point is that this tragedy shouldn't be a pretext for concessions on wildlife management, nor should conservation be handed over as some sort of reconciliation offering.
I'm at a loss for why you're telling me that you're sensitive to First Nations issues, or any recent news.
I'm equally at a loss about why you're linking the news out of Kamloops to some sort of pretext that BCWF is using that information to make concessions on wildlife management or conservation. Like, are you under the impression that BCWF is conceding something? What, exactly, would that thing that we're conceding be?
What, aside from less than perfect communications that gave you an incorrect perception about the purpose if the townhall, do we actually disagree on? It's not the first time I've asked. It would be helpful to know because a) you're a BCWF member and b) we're looking for that kind of input to help us update policy and ensure it reflects what membership wants.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey