You see, it's a dance.

Marianne Meed Ward won the race for Ward 2 Councillor in Burlington. I've referenced her before, in this post.

When she was running, she made some commitments to Burlington voters, found here. What interested me most was the section 'Improve Transparency, Accountability and Public Input', in which the following could be found:

• Continue to publish a free monthly community newsletter and periodic email alerts, letting you know about public meetings, community events, decisions coming up at city & regional committee and council meetings, and seeking your input.
• Publish an annual accountability report, so you can assess my voting record and performance each year against the goals and commitments we have made together as a community.
• Seek recorded votes and post these online, so you can hold council accountable for our decisions on your behalf. Currently, unless you attend meetings, don’t know how your councilor voted.
• Establish an open, public and citizen-led neighborhood council, instead of the current hand-picked, closed door advisory committee.
• Push for greater transparency and disclosure on big ticket items like taxes, Pan Am games, the pier.
• Host public meetings that work, using a variety of models that stimulate productive conversations on making our city better, early in the planning process.
• Provide daily Tweets and Facebook updates of public meetings and breaking issues so you can stay informed in real time.
• Tell you what’s happening in brief, plain language, no matter where you live in the city.
• Implement the recommendations of the Shape Burlington committee, including restoring trust and confidence in City Hall, implementing an “early notification system” of upcoming decisions, transforming City Hall’s communications policies and methods, and maintaining independent communications with residents.

Obviously, I'd love all Hamilton Councillors to take as thorough and inclusive an approach to doing their part to increase what I've been yammering on about this year, the 'relationship of engagement' between the citizenry and their elected officials in local governance.

But I'm not so naïve to not understand that as this post's topic declares, we're talking about a dance. And if the other 'partner' isn't inclined to want to dance, or hasn't yet grasped the importance of the dance, or doesn't really comprehend that in order for better local governance to be in place, that they need to begin contributing to the process, such as participating in the choosing of the music, or the actual steps being performed...then what we have isn't really 'dancing'...or at least not the kind that satisfies those involved. Instead, what results is something bound to disappoint. And infuriate. And frustrate and constern...and eventually generate cynicism that produces shamefully low voter turnout rates because so many figure there's no point, they've lost faith in the process.

Which is sad, seeing as the essential dynamic of the pairing is that this currently generally-disengaged party -us, the electorate- is the one calling the shots...and that the other party is, essentially, being paid to dance with them, for their benefit and general well-being.

Our benefit and our general well-being.

So my question to Stoney Creek residents has to be:

Do ya wanna dance?