"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful."
George Orwell
I have new least favourite word: consultation.
As soon as any politician tells me he or she is going to consult with me or, worse yet, "consult with all stakeholders," I know that some ridiculous idea is about to be thrown at me.
Our provincial government is especially good at this. A Liberal policy change can't be announced without the preamble, "After consulting stakeholders..."
Duck, here it comes!
Of course, claiming that they are consulting allows those with power to avoid taking responsibility for their unpopular decisions.
The word suggests compromise and collaboration. How can we complain about decisions if we were all part of the process?
Too often, however, the process is just meaningless. It's just avoidance of responsibility.
We've seen clear examples in schools with Bill 33. This bill passed by the provincial government in 2006 limits class size to 30 students and no more than three identified special needs student.
If classes exceed these numbers, then principals are required to consult with the teacher and discuss why the class organization is an appropriate learning situation.
So now every semester teachers teaching classes in violation of the legislation sit down with the principal to "consult." And every semester, nothing happens.
Even though a ruling last summer stipulated that consultation meeting be "thoughtfully, carefully organized, and conducted in good faith," most teachers believe them to be a sham and a whitewash.
Nevertheless the ministry claims: "Educators are making the decisions about class size and composition."
The truth is that accountants are making all significant decisions in schools these days.
Our board of education used the consultation strategy in its decision to reconfigure schools in Squamish.
It held some meetings to get feedback, and although there was overwhelming opposition from teachers, students and parents (the much vaunted stakeholders), the board did what it had planned to do all along: It moved forward with the reconfiguration with a small concession to delay full implementation for one year.
Without getting into the relative merits and disadvantages with reconfiguration, the question of the purpose of the public consultation process should be asked.
Was it, like the ministry's consultation on class size, just a PR exercise, or was the board really looking for feedback? And if it was looking for feedback, why did it seem so hell-bent on going ahead with reconfiguration?
I kind of long for the good old days when politicians got elected and then told us to "fuddle duddle" and did whatever they pleased. The system may not have been any more honest, but then, at least, you knew you were being screwed.
No one tried to hide behind the fuzzy language of consultation and compromise.
Then, it was all so clear. You could just grouse and vote the bastards out, and that's the way it's supposed to work.
