Two quotes...

From an article over at The Hamiltonian:


"It strikes me that the public often feels left out in some of the larger questions such as the Pan Am stadium site or LRT planning. Our most difficult issue, area rating, was solved in part because of Mayor Eisenberger's Citizens Panel, which I supported, and which provided another set of eyes and some extra time to assist the Council in coming to a good decision."

"There also needs to be a mechanism that allows for broad public input on policy proposals being dealt with by elected officials. In some cases referendums might be the preferred approach for proposals such as term limits or changes to Municipal Structure." 

First off, I applaud Mayor Bratina for responding to The Hamiltonian. Also, his willingness to be honest about the status quo, and be able to admit that we don't have a perfect construct. 

But I have to address the basic thrust of his comments, keeping in mind that an elected official does not ('cannot'?) see things from the same perspective as a resident. And by the same token, I can't possibly know what it's like from the perspective of a mayor, or a councillor. Though I do believe I'm more sympathetic than some.

-"It strikes me that the public often feels left out in some of the larger questions..." Um... No kidding. The fact is that 'public consultation' is, in many instances, an exercise in lip-service. The governance construct we currently have is not predicated on consultation. Oh, there are absolutely instances of it unfolding in sincere and genuine ways, but for the most part (and I will concede fervently that we, the people are complicit in making it so), Council does what it does independent of  broad-based input from residents.

Addressing that 'complicity', the fact is that, given that only about 4 out of every 10 Hamiltonians vote in municipal elections, and of these, roughly two-thirds cast their ballots by 'name recognition', what do the prospects appear to be that we have a citizenry that would be inclined to contribute to a process of public consultation? As for Council's default of 'Please don't bother me too much, I'd really like to just get on with my job...', I'm going to come to their defence and say 'And for good reason.' Because we have an disengaged residency, because of the general profile of our community in terms of being an active role-player in the governance process (keeping in mind that we are, in the end, the 'employers'), where we have on the one hand, 'the 10%' who are involved, who make a noise, who raise their voices, and on the other, 'the 90%' who are utterly ambivalent (or more accurately, wholly disinterested and unaware), councillors don't consistently get a high level of input from residents. In fact, I'll venture so far as to say that most instances of contact with residents fall within the category of 'complaint'. So, in a nutshell, there's very little interest out there, and in the main, we don't have a good skill-set when it comes to either consultation or collaboration. 

So it's not just a question of 'feeling left out'. It's also a question of motivation and inclination. (Please note here and elsewhere, that I am not placing 'blame' on councillors.) One feeds the other in an endless cycle. 

-"Our most difficult issue, area rating, was solved in part because of Mayor Eisenberger's Citizens Panel, which I supported, and which provided another set of eyes and some extra time to assist the Council in coming to a good decision." I can't argue with this. But I do have to point out that while it's great to get participation on the part of some, many times it's little more than a participation variation of 'preaching to the converted', and I'm not sure that having more instances of this would be something to crow about in and of itself. (While keeping in mind Council's general reticence at being involved in -'burdened by'?- consultation and collaboration.) 

-"There also needs to be a mechanism that allows for broad public input on policy proposals being dealt with by elected officials. In some cases referendums might be the preferred approach for proposals such as term limits or changes to Municipal Structure." Again, I appreciate Mayor Bratina's seeming openness to consider a process wholly different from the one our local governance currently exists within. 

There are a good handful of ways to effectively garner public input. Some are electronic, some aren't. Clearly, I have a bias towards an in-person approach. One that I do not believe has ever been seen in Hamilton in the form I've been proposing for the past eight months or so. 

And yes, referendums could be an approach for the public to weigh in on issues. But I have to point out that if there's  insufficient general engagement on the parts of residents –that is, if people aren't developing informed, qualified opinions on a day-to-day basis– then we probably won't see anything better than our current situation at election-time were referendums held. That is, a minority voting, and many of these swayed to vote a certain way, rather by genuinely drawing their own conclusions. 

In the end, whatever happens in terms of more engaged residents can't happen as a result of a mandate from City Hall. In other words, all the sessions and forums and opportunities for citizen charrettes planned by 71 Main Street West can't have the same impact as impetus from the communities. It's vital the the City be ready, willing and able to afford more access, more consultation and more collaboration with its citizens, but I believe that the motivation, the energy must come from residents in the form of price-of-place by way of neighbourhood associations and the such. Anything mandated will undoubtedly result in some success, but won't come close to what you'd see if we have people wanting involvement in their own governance, and investing accordingly. 

M Adrian Brassington