Regarding 'community meetings' and the such

This past weekend, I had conversations with candidates. Some of them were quite curious. As well, there was some online commenting that had me scratching my head.

Ironically, what seems to be at the core of some of the 'complaining' has to do with Councillor availability to residents. And it's the tone and tenor of the 'complaints' that have me writing this post.

From my vantage point, from my perspective, there seems to a disconnect, or perhaps a difference of philosophy on the part of some residents having to do with increasing their 'relationship of engagement' with their representative at City Hall.

In a nutshell, my take: this part of the equation is their responsibility.

It should not be part of the Councillor's role to organize or otherwise take it upon themselves to get citizens more involved in the dialogue.

And I suspect that this notion is one that candidates such as Mr. Josipovic of Ward 10 might actually take offense to, given our private conversations on a couple of his ward's issues.

For me, this is all about a relationship. A relationship between the Councillor and the people he or she represents. As with all relationships, both parties need to accept responsibility for their own involvement, declaring what they want, look after communicating these wants, registering their complaints as well as their satisfaction.

This is what a mature entity does. Otherwise, you've got a decidedly dysfunctional relationship going on. Where one party takes on the burden of looking after everything, while the other party exhibits what can often be seen as 'passive-aggressive behaviour patterns'. And we all know how that generally gets rectified: either by silence and years of suffering, by therapy...or by divorce.

I don't think I need to yammer-on about too much what I believe in where all of 'this' is concerned, seeing as I've been delving into it on a regular basis. So instead, I'll provide this brief summary: I believe that residents need to take far more interest, become far more 'involved' in their local governance, become far more knowledgeable about the decisions are being made, organize themselves and play their part in increasing the 'relationship of engagement' with their politician, their representative at City Hall.

Otherwise, what results is whining and kvetching of the most dysfunctional sort.

So none of this is a question of a 'better candidate' being elected to somehow lead all the disenchanted out of the wilderness. It comes down to being honest about the current dynamic's design being flawed...and the need to change things for the better. And only the residents can accomplish that.