"I may have been born at night, but not last night."
I knew that when I took the town halls notion from soapboxing on My Stoney Creek to the next level –actually implementing it– that the path would not be smooth.
On many fronts.
The first thing I understood I'd encounter was cynicism from observers. Residents, 'commenters', etc. Cynicism, skepticism, negativism... I knew that part of this would be attributable to the 'legacy malaise' of the city. Part of it would be the person's preternatural tendency to scoff at an endeavour that was, well, 'aspirational'. And part of it would be borne out of insecurity. Envy, if you will. People don't like to be shaken up. They don't like the status quo to be questioned...especially if they're then forced...even sub-consciously...to be nudged to deal with their status quo.
The second thing I understood was that what I was proposing was, for the Councillors involved, subversive. That no matter how I couched the effort, it could easily be seen as slagging-off their habits where engagement with their constituents was concerned. That it could easily be seen as encroaching on their turf. That it could be seen as being invasive, abrasive...insulting, even.
While there are many other fronts-of-concern regarding 'bumpitude' on this project's path, these two were paramount on my list.
The former- Well, I can't do anything about how an individual responds to an idea. I can listen to their 'observations', respond with clarification and expansion for better context...but in the end, if they're so inclined as to rev their cynicism engines, there's little I can (or should) do. The proof is in the pudding; over time, I'm hoping to convert the nay-sayers by producing town hall meetings that lead to the 'landscape change' I've inserted into this site's 'masthead'.
And the latter?
That's a little more complicated.
I had the option of approaching Councillors about this project prior to initiating anything. In fact, it was suggested by one of my blogging contemporaries that a proposal be submitted to Council to get their 'participation'. (Read that as 'approval'.)
Here's the thing: town hall meetings as I see them, as Town Halls Hamilton will be producing and presenting them, are not Councillor-driven or even necessarily Councillor-based.
Councillors have always had meetings with their constituents. They will continue to do so long after we've arrived on the scene.
As well, neighbourhood and community associations have had their own meetings. We're not looking to establish a monopoly there, either.
What's 'new' –apparently, anyway– is the idea that a town hall meeting where the Councillor is a guest as much as the residents in the audience are, that it's driven by the local associations as a gesture of ownership of their own governance. And it seems from my vantage point that this is either a tough concept for some to grasp, or there's maybe some benign willfulness at play.
Or maybe I've not done as good a job at communicating our intent as I'd have liked.
Over the past week over at The Hamiltonian, there have been some articles on what we're attempting to put into play. Specifically this one, 'Town Hall Roll Call'. I'm not going to get into my interpretation of how things have been framed, save to say that I've tried to address some of the misconceptions in a comment (or two) there.
Here's the bottom-line:
We're not doing what we're doing to step on anyone's toes, or to imply that we're trying to bring 'meetings' to a city where they've been absent. We're trying to inject into the mix something that many are making assumptions about based on what they've either experienced or seen in the past. Not to put too fine a point on it, our town hall meetings are not going to be someone standing at a podium disseminating informational updates, or answering questions a la a teacher in a classroom.
We're not going to be reinventing the wheel in our efforts, but we will be striving to nudge people towards a shift in mindset, in how they see their roles in local governance ('civic duty', if you will), so that the dance that they do with their Councillors isn't one that for many is awkward, clumsy, and in the end, disheartening.
Surely it's all worth a sincere try?
Or maybe I've misjudged the situation and all concerned parties are perfectly happy with the status quo.
M Adrian Brassington
No comments:
Post a Comment