I found it interesting to read the fallout from the Halton District School Board decision to close four schools in east Oakville and build a new one in the Clearview area, because several years ago I was involved, as a parent, in a similar PARC exercise in respect of the public schools in West Oakville.
Regardless of the merits of the outcome in this case, I find it difficult to believe that participants in the PARC process thought that whatever they recommended would be accepted by the school board trustees. I also find it disturbing that some people believe the process was not "democratic".
On the first point, I would like to endorse the comments made by letter writer Denise O'Connell (PARC Recommendation was unrealistic, Oakville Beaver, July 9).
Unfortunately, the PARC committee process used by the HDSB usually draws parent representatives whose personal goal is to keep their "walk-to" school open at all costs. Parents who volunteer for the PARC exercise solely to lobby for continued "walk-to" school situations are not doing themselves or the community any favours by skewing the process. Realistically, with so much surplus (and expensive) space available, it seemed obvious to me that someone's children were going to end up walking longer distances, or driving.
On the second point, let's be quite clear: the PARC exercise was not, and is not designed to be, a "democratic" process. It is designed to be a transparent process. The "democratic" process involved was the choice of trustees by the public school supporters at the last election. Those parents who mistakenly thought that whatever the PARC committee came up with would be adopted have learned the hard way that our public schools belong to all public taxpayers and it is right that only our elected trustees should have the final say as to the retention or otherwise of schools.
Finally, to those involved in pushing for a review of the process, I would say that the transparency of the process used to consult with the public in this case was satisfactory and very similar to previous similar exercises.
Although no system of consultation is perfect, I don't see anything special about the east Oakville situation that merits a major review and the possible repetition of the process, especially since it would likely come up with the same result.
Perhaps this is one occasion when our neighbours in east Oakville will need to recognize that, in a democracy, all parts of Oakville are equal.
Nicolas W. R. Burbidge