As-it-unfolds Commentary on the Ward Boundary Reform Presentations

-Ray Fullerton: I applaud the effort...but Geez, Louise; if you're going to get up to present such a contentious proposal, please be properly prepared. Not being aware of cities that were amalgamated, not being as conversant as he may have been regarding comparisons with other cities, and being –seemingly– arbitrarily fixated on a 10-member Council. Oh, and he got powned by Councillor Johnson...and faded a little more at the hands of Councillor Jackson because of the above. 

-Peter Hitton: Very sincere, very authentic, very personal...but maybe a little too vague and earnest. Lost it with the exchange with Whitehead, focusing on access to the political process re: running for office; this tack dilutes the whole discussion; suddenly we're talking about the electoral process. The 'councillors at large' argument also made reduced the power of his presentation. Further, making suggestions as to 'what might be best' is a death-blow when it comes to engagement on this level, when there's so much at stake. (More than just this issue.) From Duvall, we had a hypothetical situation that Mr. Hitton fielded...and this continued the process-of-erosion. 

-Christopher Cutler: Strong speaker. Well prepared. Maybe a little obsequious at the beginning, but he sure held his own later on. A good presentation. 

-Laura Cattari: Solid. Great communicator. Eloquent. Thorough. Spirited...and chock full of humanity. I resented Councillor Partridge's question about 'How do you feel rural people would react to the petition?' I also resented her final comment to Laura Cattari, going back to the fears of dealing with this issue. (Scary! Conflict!) Councillor Whitehead's question about how this issue doesn't seem to be important, why was it that the majority of people weren't engaged on this issue? Councillor Partridge's question about amalgamation being tied into a ward boundary review process was ridiculous, no matter how many people in her ward are expressing to her their preference to deal with amalgamation rather than ward boundary review. It was quite disappointing. Not relevant...and she knew the answer before she asked it...and I felt she was scare-mongering and trying to play one issue against another. (For the record, de-amalgamation is not a 'referendum' issue, not a process that can be initiated the ward boundary/OMB way. It's a provincial issue, and must be dealt with at Queen's Park. So should probably be pushed forward by local MPPs.) 

Overall: 

-If you're going to Council, it's paramount to have focus, to not be wishywashy. 

-It's very  dangerous to speculate on hypotheticals during post-presentation questioning. Better to beg off the answer and not diminish your presentation's effectiveness. (Some were better at doing this than others.)

-It was quite easy to see the defensiveness of councillors rise up and get expressed; this is why I wanted this entire review process be well-anchored and pushed forward cohesively.  

-The conflation of discussion was worrying: issues vs staffing vs representation. I surely hope the level of gamesmanship drops as the discussion progresses. Not only that, but issues aren't automatically mutually exclusive. It's not population vs diversity vs whatever else seems de rigeur. There's no reason why Council can't competently juggle more plates. Otherwise, maybe its makeup is in question. 

-I was a little pissed-off at how many councillors went back to the 'It's not just about population' argument. It's a facile strategy, and frankly, one that is akin to grandstanding for the sake of their constituents...and their possible re-election. 

-Residents of Hamilton are not currently qualified to vote on a referendum on this issue. You cannot vote on something  without a full and proper grasp of the issue. And getting residents to that 'qualified' state is a long process, one that goes well beyond City notices and Spec articles. 

M Adrian Brassington

Next up: The Council Discussion