Updates
June 4th – Electoral Area Directors meeting

What Are Our Options for CSRD Representation?

Over the last several months, I’ve been spending time talking with community members, CSRD staff, and colleagues across the province about governance options that could give our community a stronger voice when it comes to local services. This conversation really started to take shape after the 2024 Electoral Area F Issues Identification Study, which made it clear that people in the North Shuswap are looking for more local decision-making power, not just better communication.

Many residents feel that Area F doesn’t have enough say in how services are delivered or how tax dollars are spent. The study pointed out that while we pay into a number of CSRD services, we often have little control over priorities, timing, or outcomes. That’s led to growing interest in governance models that bring decision-making closer to home.

Specifically, I’ve been looking at three tools that are available under BC’s Local Government Act: the Local Advisory Council (LAC), the Select Committee (SC), and the Local Community Commission (LCC).

Each one offers a different level of authority and accountability, and each comes with trade-offs. Here’s a plain-language summary of each one, along with a few thoughts on what might be best for Area F.

---

Option 1: Local Advisory Council (LAC)

This is the model most recently proposed by the CSRD. An LAC is a group of volunteers—up to nine people—appointed by the Electoral Area Director. The idea is that this group provides local advice and feedback on services like parks, fire, or planning, but it has no formal authority. It doesn’t vote on budgets, and its meetings are held at the discretion of the Director.

Pros:

• Easy to set up with little red tape
• Flexible and informal
• Gives the Director a sounding board from the community

Cons:

• Not elected, so there’s no direct accountability
• No decision-making power
• Relies entirely on the Director and Board to act on recommendations

This option is useful for short-term consultation or issue-specific work, but it doesn’t really give the community more control—it simply enhances input.

---

Option 2: Select Committee (SC)

A Select Committee is a more formal step. It’s a committee created by the CSRD Board, and while it starts out as advisory, it can be granted decision-making authority over local services if the Board passes a delegation bylaw.

Select Committees can be made up of community members, elected officials, or both. They can make real decisions—within limits—but they’re still appointed, not elected.

Pros:

• Can have real authority over specific services
• More structured than an LAC
• Faster to set up than an LCC

Cons:

• No election, so again, limited accountability
• Still relies on the Board’s willingness to delegate and support it
• Easier to dissolve or override than an LCC

This model could work as a transitional step toward stronger governance, or for single-issue decision-making (like managing a recovery fund or overseeing trail development). But it’s still not a permanent solution for full local service control.

---

Option 3: Local Community Commission (LCC)

An LCC is the only option that comes with binding, legislated authority. It’s established under Section 243 of the Local Government Act and governed by its own bylaw. It has elected commissioners who make decisions over specific services (like Economic Development or Parks), and it operates as a standing part of the CSRD governance structure.

Pros:

• Elected by the community = real accountability
• Has formal authority over budgets, service priorities, and planning
• Operates transparently with public meetings and published minutes
• Still part of the CSRD — not a breakaway model

Cons:

• Requires voter approval through a referendum
• Takes time and coordination to set up
• Needs continued staff support (admin, finance, and technical)

An LCC is the most involved to establish, but it’s also the most durable and democratic. It gives our community a stronger hand in shaping the services we rely on, while still working within the CSRD structure.

---

Edit: I’ve received some questions about Incorporation and yes, that is still an option. But as much as I’ve talked about it over the last few years there has not been enough interest to pursue that right now. I believe that at least one of these options puts us on a path to reducing our reliance on the CSRD and making our own decisions. This would be a good first step to show that we’re ready for that responsibility.

---

So, What Should We Do?

Each of these models has merit, depending on what we’re trying to achieve. If the goal is just to improve communication, an LAC might be enough. If we need to make decisions on a short-term project or program, a Select Committee could work well. But if what we’re really after is permanent, local control over key services like tourism, business development, or recreation, then the LCC is the only option that gets us there.

I’ll be sharing more information about these options over the next few months as we work through the options with the CSRD. In the meantime, if you have questions or ideas, I’d love to hear them.

We’re not just talking about governance here—we’re talking about how to make sure Area F can keep making decisions for itself, by itself, right here at home.

---