Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Some clarification, if you please...

"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.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

May we have your attention, please...?


Town Halls Hamilton is proud to announce:


Ward 2 Town Hall: An Evening with 
Councillor Jason Farr

Thursday, November 10th. 7-9:00 pm. 
City Hall

(Doors open at 6:30)

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Wowza. Big news.

I can't let the cat out of the bag quite yet...but hopefully within a few days, we should have an 'official press release' that will preface the initial results, the culmination of over a year's worth of soapboxed ruminations...and the start of this endeavour's real work. 

Stay tuned. 

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Dedicated to all the cynical and the down-trodden Hamiltonians I've met...and have yet to meet...


The Story of Town Halls and The Do-Nuthin' Bunch That Decided to Finally Do Something
Once upon a time, a Stranger strolled into a city. He could tell from the moment he arrived that something wasn't quite right; the mood of everyone he met was...off. That they were each having a bad day. But soon enough he realized that it was more than just a 'bad day'.
"What gives?" he asked his Server in the diner he had a late dinner in after spending his first day wandering around the city, dipping into this neighbourhood and that community, venturing far and wide...for that is what a strolling stranger does. Even if he may be sticking around for a while. (Or not.)
A sigh and a shrug...and a faraway stare was her response.
Later, when she brought the bill, she didn't let go of it right away, played tug-o-war with him for a few seconds...then sat down opposite him in the booth. "You have to understand," The Server began, wiping the table with her utility cloth. Back and forth and back and forth, shining it mindlessly... "We're a city with no hope."
"Cities don't have hope," The Stranger winked. "People do."
Rolling her eyes, she began to get up.
"Why no hope?" he asked in a kind, conciliatory way. 
And she explained.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Yup.

"That government, no matter what its failures are in the past, and in times to come for that matter, that government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind."


Not to flog a dead horse (honestly, that'll never happen here), but if local governance is a place where 'people come together', 'where no one gets left behind', then I have to ask what that process currently involves. 

By 'coming together', are we talking about something more than casting a ballot? Are we talking about having someone on Council who represents your ward? Are we talking about your Councillor being available for consult, for commiseration, for kvetching at the other end of the phone line, or via an email or letter? Do any of these possibilities seem reasonable variations on 'coming together'?

And by 'where no one gets left behind', can we offer up the same notions? 

I agree with the quote at the beginning of this editorial. But I'm just not so sure that in the main, we're executing democracy in a way that fully manifests its potential here in Hamilton. 

I believe that 'coming together' means more than voting, that it means more than somewhat-access to your representative. I believe that it means to have congress outside the legislative processs, with neighbours, with people from the same community, with fellow ward residents and most of all, with your Councillor...because without consultation, without collaboration with the very people Councillors are paid to represent, how can they effectively serve the public good?

Properly held town hall meetings provide the opportunities that allow for this 'coming together', that allow for 'no one to be left behind'. 

Shouldn't we be doing what we can to make things work as well as they can?

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Comments on The Spec article...and my responses...


There's not been much that's surprised me in the comments. And maybe that in itself is disheartening. 


Stephen22By: Stephen22 
Sep 7, 2011 5:42 PM


So many things.. are being done with little or no input from area residents. I feel major issues should be put to a vote. The fact that many one way streets are being put back to two way is a major issue. Also, putting medians in and widening sidewalks that make main arteries 2 lanes only is insane. This has been done in many areas of the city. Its causing traffic congestion and increased accidents. What are these councillors thinking? It seems common sense has been thrown out the door. I am in the group that has no respect for city council. Their actions and errors make them look like the Keystone cops. A collective bunch of people who seem more interested in getting their names in the news rather than achieving some real progress for the city. Nice job on the Lister Block at least but why all the waste of money on King William St. and York St. etc. ?


-Well, yes; no input, no consultation. 
-I don't think it's necessary for us to be having plebiscites on so-called contentious issues. Why not just have uniform, widespread town hall meetings so the the Councillors fully understand their constituents' stances?
-If you have no respect for your Council...then there needs to be more contact, more engagement. Getting a new Council is not an answer. (You didn't say that...but I'm extrapolating it.)

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Some Suggested Reading

Scott London is someone I came across this year when I was immersing myself in all things-civic engagement. Here's a snippet from the bio on his site:

Scott London is a California-based journalist whose work spans print, radio, and photography. He's published widely in newspapers and magazines, and has written, edited, and contributed to some 20 books and publications. In recent years, Scott has devoted much of his time to consulting with academic, government, and nonprofit leaders on issues related to social innovation and civic renewal. He has led several national studies and research projects aimed at understanding how social innovators do their work, the power of informal networks, the uses (and misuses) of collaboration in the nonprofit world, and how communities transform and renew themselves.

There are three especially valuable essays on his site, and I highly recommend reading them if you're interested in the notion of town hall meetings...or just have an interest in better communications within our communities.



Pitfalls, Drawbacks, Obstacles...

Town hall meetings are not a cure-all. 

They're not instant solutions, either. 

But they are a tremendous means to effecting a change in the relationship of engagement between residents and Councillors, but they're not without their share of challenges. 

1) Residents don't have the time. Well, first off, what I'm suggesting eventually is a town hall meeting in every ward every two months. Given how big wards are, surely an hour or two once a year isn't too much to ask a resident to consider. And if it is? Well, I'm not expecting everyone to have an interest in attending town halls, but honestly, if there's no desire to do something, if you're not either compelled to do it or it's just not part of your value system...then that's your choice. I'm just looking at providing more opportunities for creating a better local governance landscape.

2) Councillors don't have the time. I believe that Town halls would end up being an invaluable practice to put into effect. So, not to put too fine a point on it, Councillors would simply have to change the way they execute their duties, how they do their job. 

3) They'll turn into shouting matches. Not with an effective moderator, they won't. Setting the tone, ensuring conviviality, keeping things real. And I'm willing to bet that as town halls become habit, as the contact between Councillors and residents is sustained, the protective bulwarks fade away and the relationships get more enhanced, the issues from which 'shouting matches' result would be few and far between. 

4) Councillor time will be monopolized as a result. As I'm clearly not referring to 'once-a-weeks', this must be referring to people glomming onto the elected officials as a result of the contact. Well, Councillors need to be good at prioritizing. And deftly handling such ancillary contact. (I don't believe a Councillor's prime duty is to 'trouble-shoot'.) But I don't believe that 'more contact = more headaches'. The only person who says something like this is someone who's just not that good at dealing with relationships. (And if the elected official isn't...then maybe they should think about another career.)

5) There's no point in trying. Ah, yes: apathy. It's the twin to Hamilton's other 'ailment', its 'legacy malaise'. After all, it's not easy transitioning from what was...especially when trauma was involved...when it's not clear what will be. But I see a vast, unapped resource. A resource capable of initiating and bringing about massive, remarkable change. Effecting a grand 'what will be'. And that resource is us

Moreover, I'm not aware of any situation between humans that can't/doesn't/is guaranteed to improve if there's more contact made, if there's increased effort applied to improve communications...if the relationship of engagement increases. So in a way, it's a sure-thing. Of course, I'll understand if you invoke both apathy and our legacy-malaise... But I still hope you'll give it a try. 


Goals: What Would Town Hall Meetings Mean?

Sometimes you get the strongest indicators of a situation in the simplest ways. Since I've been attempting to generate some momentum for the notion of town hall meetings, I've been struck by the cynicism and negativity that's been tapped into by 'observers'. 

I won't get into specifics here, but suffice it to say that people have a hard time seeing beyond current reference points and imagining another paradigm, and this inability is fueled by their hard-won nihilism. 

The thing is, from where I'm standing, while things can certainly get worse...this week's GIC meeting and all its revelations about missteps and faux pas and either bad communication or shadow directives taking place providing ample proof...if we take steps to move towards an increase in engagement between residents and their Council representatives, then we have so many opportunities for improvement. Sizeable benefits. Such as?

1) Increased Sense of Community. The dreaded 'Us vs Them' mentality that dogs most municipal relationships would be lessened simply because of the greater contact. I don't know how many times I've been told how frustrating it is to try and track down someone's Councillor, or get a response from an email or a left message, or that Council meetings are scheduled at incovenient times. 

There's nothing like in-person contact. It's real, it's unambiguous, and it's reassuring on an elemental level. It's very difficult to feel you're part of a community unless you're actually engaging with them...and it's even harder to feel a connection to your representative at Council unless you have a chance to be in the same room as them on a somewhat-regular basis. While admitting the dangers of the analogy, I think there are parallels to be drawn between church-going and town halls; opportunities for connection are provided, for a sense of belonging, and for feeling reassured as to what's being done in the name of the common good. 

2) Better-informed Residents. No longer would information be issued on a 'need to know' or 'when it's convenient' basis. Right now, Councillors pretty much left to their own devices by their constituents has become the default setting. News is disseminated via mainstream media, by press release, perhaps by way of a personal blog or website, but it's done according to the elected official's sense of urgency...and inclination. In a nutshell, in most cases, there is a bulwark. 

With town halls, there'd be regular opportunities to relay information about ward issues, about city-wide concerns. Residents would feel more involved, feel not so less being held at a distance, and Councillors should find that their efforts being appreciated more. And because nobody likes secrecy...especially in the governance they're paying for...residents are likely to feel more trust. Towards their Councillor, towards City Hall itself, and mostly towards the very concept of local governance.  

On a practical level, it might very well be possible to prevent the kinds of situations that are now possible to see unfold, because residents wouldn't be kept in the dark...and then have to light torches and storm the castle when it's clear that action is required. 

3) Better Resident Feedback. We have governance in place to ensure that local needs are being addressed while the right decisions about our future are being made. We have Councillors so that all of this can be executed efficiently and with as high a degree of proficiency as possible. But if there's no regular consultation, then a further default is that it's City Hall staff recommendations that form the strongest 'lobby' for action. And of course, the problem here is that city staff are not elected and if there's no commiseration between them and those for whom and about whom the decisions are being made- Well, does this make much sense?

One of the biggest complaints you'll hear from residents is not feeling heard. Not feeling part of the process. Or, when they're included in the conversation, being patronized by those who are in office to serve them. Which is part of the reason we have such a low voter turnout rate: people have given up hope. 

Town hall meetings make it possible (for those who are inclined to get involved; not all are) for a better sense of contribution to the overall dialogue. The notion of improving engagement through deeper contact is the basis for improving all relationships. 

In fact, the core of all these benefits is this what's at the core of all successful enterprises, be they businesses, teams, organizations: relationship-building.

So; how did we get here...?

Apathy.

Distrust.

Betrayal.

Impatience.

Cynicism.

Though nowhere near representing the full gamut, these words sum up the general, longstanding relationship that exists between residents and Councillors, Councillors and residents.

Oh, not all residents possess the feelings in this list that their fellow-citizens do. And not all Councillors feel what I'm suggesting that some of their Council-mates do.

But I don't think it's being too harsh or critical to suggest that there's not a healthy, respectful, engaging relationship in place.

(N.B. a) I'm talking about the city in general. Yes, there are undoubtedly pockets and patches of conviviality. But I'll lay this out as proof of the general tenor: we're averaging about a 40% turnout rate at election time. Does that reflect a healthy relationship with either the process or the system? And b) I it's not a leap of faith to accept that all Councillors want what's best for their ward. That they genuinely care about performing their duties to the best of their abilities, and that they have their constituents' best interests at heart. I'm not trying to paint anyone as The Villain here. But I think it's an unassailable truth that there is an underlying 'Us vs Them' culture at play.)

My belief is that we got here by residents over time enacting a 'hands-off' attitude towards local governance, while Councillors sighed in relief, wanting to put their heads down and get their work done more than they wanted to develop solid, mutually-beneficial relationships with their constituents.

Simply put, one group couldn't be bothered, while the other...couldn't be bothered to get them to be bothered.

The bottom-line is that this construct doesn't work.

Not in a world that's changed so much, where information is available before yesterday, where people have access to it in myriad ways.

The days of governance being executed behind closed doors, where the machinations of decision-making are hidden from those who are most affected by these decisions...are gone.

We're faced with our own 'revolution' in Hamilton.

We have the opportunity, the ability to change the very tone of our local governance.

And it doesn't require legislation from anyone.

It doesn't require a plebiscite or a referendum, it doesn't require legislation, it doesn't require funding.

It just requires us to reduce the influence of that first word in this editorial...and make things happen for ourselves. When we do, we're sure to be addressing the other descriptives, and in the process, change the landscape for ourselves, our government, our city.