Here’s what the structure has been: • The RECC is operated by a Society, which is a common model for community facilities. The usual alternatives are running it directly as a municipal department or contracting it to a third party. • The Society is governed by a Board made up of community members with business and operational experience and elected officials. Offering a balanced structure. • The Board provides oversight, sets direction, approves major decisions (including what authority is delegated to the CEO), and ensures the community’s interests are represented. • Management runs the facility day to day. When governance is strong and clear, bylaws can be updated, delegation of authority can be refined, and operational issues can be addressed properly. Governance is the foundation that allows everything else to function. Another topic raised in this debate was whether the Society had the authority to enter into agreements outside of the RECC. If that authority needed to be clarified or limited, that is normally handled by updating the delegation of authority, amending bylaws, or revising the operating agreement. Those tools already existed within the current governance model. Removing community representation is not the only way to resolve that concern. Both municipalities suggested that the Society model remain in place because it is familiar, it keeps RECC employees in their roles, and it allows existing contracts to continue. On the surface, this sounds like the same structure the community has always known. But there is a very important detail buried in that proposal. The Society would remain, but the governance of it would fundamentally change. The single biggest change is the removal of community members as voting Directors, replacing balanced oversight with a Board made up entirely of councillors. Under the new model being presented by both the town and the county, the Society
would continue, but all voting seats on the Board would be held by councillors. A citizen advisory committee would exist, but it would only provide advice and would not have voting power or decision- making authority. In simple terms: • Community members could offer input. • Community members would not have a vote. • All decisions would be made by elected officials only, who may or may not have the business or operational experience that has traditionally helped guide the Society and secure World Class events. During the town meeting, one councillor suggested that the public likely does not care much about governance. I believe we should care because governance determines who has authority, how decisions are made, and who is accountable. It affects the RECC, the Exhibition Grounds, the Stampede, and every decision that will be made going forward. None of the questions people are asking about operations can be answered until governance is set. For a facility of this size and importance, removing community voting members is not a small change. It concentrates all decision- making within a fully political structure and removes the subject matter expertise and independent oversight that community members have always contributed. This is also a permanent change. Once community voting seats are removed and the Board becomes entirely political, there is no automatic path back to a balanced model. Future councils could keep full control indefinitely. That is a significant shift for a community facility that has always had both municipal and community oversight. If you are a resident of Colchester County or the Town of Truro, I encourage you to reach out to your councillors and mayors. Let them know that governance matters, and that the public expects transparency, balanced representation, and continued community seats on the Board before any final decision is made.
“ Photo courtesy RECC & CNSSE
Governance is the foundation that allows everything else to function. ”
Photo courtesy RECC & CNSSE
24 SPOTLIGHT ON BUSINESS MAGAZINE • VOL 26 ISSUE 1
INDUSTRY • SPOTLIGHT ON BUSINESS MAGAZINE 25
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator