And, back at The Spec...

Councillors Whitehead and Duvall are reprinted (as the piece was originally published last week in The Hamiltonian) in today's Opinion section.

I've already commented there, but I wanted to expand on my thoughts.

It was pretty clear that Council wasn't interested in getting into ward boundary reform when it deferred the issue in February, despite City Staff's recommendation. (This cynical take on the situation was essentially affirmed by former mayor Larry Di Ianni yesterday on Laura Babcock's facebook page.)

So it's understandably 'irksome' to have a Council decision not only questioned as it usually is, in casual conversation, in emails to councillors, on blogs and community activism sites and in The Spec op-eds, but  by a process mandated by the provincial entity that the City has to kowtow to. (Sorry for taking this needling tack, but I confess I'm compelled to at this point.)

And maybe this is at the heart of the majority of the responses from Council that I'm familiar with. (The ones that, in a decidedly paternalistic-bordering-on-patronizing way, wag a figurative finger at those who are stirring up trouble and pronounce that 'It's not just about 'rep by pop', you know!') Maybe being irked by the democratic process ruffles enough feathers, gets sufficient dander and hackles up as to want to hunker down and respond in the ways that reveal (at least to me) a certain amount of discomfort and bordering-on-condescension. (Never mind benign defensiveness.)

Because it's one thing to have the odd resident post a comment to a Spec article about a decision Council has made, to have an article in Raise the Hammer, or even start a citizen group facebook page...but it's another thing entirely to have a provincial municipal watchdog agency's process triggered, one that Council has no recourse but to deal with, one way or the other. 

Now, in response to this reality –that is, there's no wiggle-room for Council– part of me is inclined to say 'Suck it up, Ladies and Gentlemen!' You know, get confrontational, and invoke a further 'Us vs Them' construct. But I can truthfully say that this part is tiny. The much greater part is very much anticipating how this situation is about to unfold, especially as it seems that the 680-name petition as required by the OMB has either been submitted to Council for their consideration, or will be presented this afternoon/evening at City Hall. 

Councillors (and former mayors) can opine as to the inherent risks of 'awakening the giant' (read that as 'amalgamation grudges') all they want, they can attempt to lecture residents about the priorities as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada 'Carter Case' judgement to their heart's content (while seemingly ignoring how the OMB has laid out its guidelines and how 'rep by pop' is not some ancillary consideration), they can apparently choose to ignore the ward boundary re-drawings done by several municipalities across the province over the past decade, ones that had some difficult, even contentious considerations attached, most of which were self-initiated by those city's councils...

...but it doesn't change the fact that there is a process about to be kicked-off, the implementation of which is not something that can be deferred, no matter how 'irked' some councillors feel. 

Perhaps what can be drawn from this interlude is an appreciation for the disconnect that exists for us within our own local governance. 

That if we had a much greater level of engagement between residents and their councillors, that if we consistently had genuine consultation and authentic collaboration, this situation never would have reached the point where concerned citizens felt obliged to invoke a review process powered and authenticated from without. 

Councillors are certainly free to see ward boundary reform in whatever way they're inclined, as being 'premature', or 'ill-advised' or otherwise nettlesome. But that doesn't change the fact that in the end, this is a fundamental exercise in democracy, and will be moving forward regardless of what reactions it elicits in those executing their responsibilities on behalf of the very people who are 'perpetrating' the exercise. 

Putting on my Optimism Cap, I anticipate that in the end, while a bit unsettling for some, this whole endeavour will be a rewarding 'teachable moment'. 

M Adrian Brassington