If something doesn't seem to work to our satisfaction...

...does that mean that it's 'broken', or more that it just doesn't do what we'd like it to...and maybe was never meant to?

There are lots of invectives sailing through the air this week regarding HWDSB trustees.

And the same could/will be said about City of Hamilton councillors. Or the mayor.

Nightmare decisions being handed down. Questionable procedures unfolding. A lack of accessibility abounding...and worse, the distinct feeling that "consultation is a joke; there is no 'consultation' when the decision's been made before we've even taken our seats for the first time".

People are angry (at least those who are aware, interested and energized), and the common refrain goes back to CHML's Scott Thompson's exhortation from the last election:

'Vote them all out!'

I've never understood this mindset. It's like going from relationship to relationship, serially ending them without ever really examining what's not satisfactory, let alone voicing that dissatisfaction...except when it's too late. 

In other words, it's sortakinda like firing employees without ever really having sat down with a proper job description, making clear what the expectations are, assessing them regularly, or providing sound feedback.

So really, if we're not actually engaged in our own governance...be it at City Hall, or at the HWDSB...they do we really have a right to rail ad nauseam at the people (and the processes) that have so disappointed us?

More to the point, if we feel that, for example, the consultation process as it pertains to our schools is fuckled, then shouldn't we maybe question whether or not it's even set up to provide what we (mistakenly) feel is broken?

If we feel that how things constantly unfold at City Hall brings on more frustration, more bitterness, more cynicism that more and more people are either going back to Mr. Thompson's refrain, or injecting into the conversation (!!!) a notion even less likely than this, 'term limits', then shouldn't we maybe go back to this post's title?

Here's the problem:

Most Hamiltonians don't vote.

Most Hamiltonians who vote, do so by 'name recognition'.

Most Hamiltonians have no means by which they can determine whether or not this candidate or that one is best for the job...and certainly have no means by which they can assess their councillor's performance in mid-stream, once elected. 

Most Hamiltonians don't stay apprised of the goings-on in City affairs, and generally only do so when something truly  newsworthy unfolds.  

So back to the title of this post: A hands-off approach to our involvement in our own governance clearly doesn't yield a consistently high feel-good level. Therefore, is it reasonable to assume that changing councillors -or Board trustees- is really going to change much? Is this the part of the system that's 'broken'?

If we feel a serial lack of fulfillment from this longstanding paradigm, if we're able to acknowledge and embrace that the system was in fact never designed to provide us the kind of collaboration or input that clearly seems to be required for us to get what we crave...governance more reflective of what residents want, not what their Council sets down...then is anything 'broken'?

Or is it more that we need re-tool municipal politics using this newly-understood 'goal' as our guiding principle?

M Adrian Brassington