Another side to WASI story

Your representation of ongoing issues at the Wasilla Senior Center Campus seems noble and appears to be offered as help to seniors who may feel they have no voice. I would like to bring to light a little different perspective than what has been published to date.

First, in defense of the WASI Board and staff, in many of the issues that receive media attention there has been threat of litigation. The board and staff are restricted, by their attorney, from speaking about “their side” of an issue until the legal threat ends. Obviously, this leaves the complainants open to painting a one-sided view of their situation with no fear of rebuttal and makes a media trial very appealing since no opposing voice can be heard.

Secondly, with regard to the group of seniors who feel they have no voice and the suggestion of the [state Office of Long Term Care] Ombudsman to form a residents’ council, this proviso has already been offered. An attempt to have a liaison from each apartment building meet with the board to voice any and all concerns their group may have has been met with complete apathy. Only two of the buildings have chosen to have a liaison to participate in the process that has been in place for sometime now. One of those two liaisons recently had to resign for medical reasons. That leaves one participant.

The reason for lack of participation in the residents’ liaison group already in place is the same reason there are ongoing vacancies on the board. Everyone wants to “have a voice” but few are willing to step forward and try to work to make the Wasilla Senior Center all it can be. Those who doggedly participate in the governing framework in existence are placed in a no-win situation.

As an outsider looking in, it appears there is a bully mentality. There are a handful of vocal residents claiming to represent a nonexistent majority. The real majority of the residents, by their choice, are simply not engaged in the governing process and don’t appear to feel disenfranchised over it. It’s the “squeaky wheel” principle .

It is unfortunate that the ombudsman did not take a more representative sampling of opinions, but appears to have listened to the vocal minority and, from those few, recommended an already-failed process be implemented.

Cathy Gedicks

Wasilla