Have I flip-flopped?

re: Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge's comment in the CBC article 'Hamilton committee votes for ward boundary review', that her constituents want an amalgamation review rather than a ward boundary review:

"Duh! Of course they want this! They're probably the most outspoken opponents of amalgamation. But reversing amalgamation is another creature entirely from ward boundary review. Re-doing ward configuration is something that can be dealt with primarily within the municipality. But de-amalgamation...as with the notion of term limits...is something that would have to be done at the provincial level, requiring legislation at Queen's Partk. Besides, it would require the kind of initiative that frankly, this city, with the apathy on the street and the dearth of authentic visionary leadership at 71 Main Street West, isn't capable of. 

So my advice to Councillor Partridge...because I generally respect her abilities, I think she adds a lot of quality to the proceedings at Council meetings...is to show some true leadership and educate those malcontents within her ward who are seemingly so adamant to see de-amalgamation carted out as a discussion item. (And I'm saying this as someone from Stoney Creek) People are entitled to their own priorities. But leaders are supposed to be capable of preventing those they're leading from getting lost in the weeds."

I have longstanding opinions on 'amalgamation/de-amalgamation'. They can be found here and here and here and here and here and here and here...for starters.

In a nutshell, if de-amalgamation is an issue that sufficient people want to have dealt with, then first and foremost, The Unacceptable Answer is 'It'll cost too much.' Unacceptable because nobody I've ever heard utter this response actually knows how much it might cost. 

Nobody. 

So right off the bat, I take offense at the 'dialogue': I don't like being patronized or dismissed or made to feel like the question is somehow frivolous, that I'm being told 'We've got more important things to deal with. Go play."

So I guess I have to reconcile this with my reaction (at the CBC site as well as in material I published yesterday) to Councillor Partridge's tactic of bringing up “What I hear from my residents is that they don’t want ward boundary review, they want an amalgamation review. They see that as their democratic right.” (For the record, her online poll shows that more than three-quarters feel the opposite way. Hmm...) 

It's quite simple: Just as the declaration by other councillors yesterday that "I never hear my constituents bringing up the issue of ward boundaries" and "The residents in my ward see a whole lot of other issues as being more important than ward boundary reform" were, at best facile, so was Councillor Partridge making her declaration about ward boundary review vs amalgamation review. Actually, not just facile, but all things considered, insulting. 

Keeping in mind my stance on the need for greater resident engagement and participation in our own governance, this may come off as heretical, but here goes: I would never depend on what residents are 'upset' about as being a means to order the issues of the day. Our councillors are in place to manage the day-to-day requirements of the city, but just as importantly, to lead. 

Leadership in its original sense means to take someone from Point A to Point B. Sometimes this requires pointing out the folly of urges or desires. Sometimes it requires being bold and plotting what seems to be a divergent course. (Assuming that there's been solid commiseration and it's not an arbitrary decision that's been made, or worse, the result of pandering to an outside force.) 

I don't think that Councillor Partridge (or any of the other councillors who used this tack-of-logic) showed much in the way of leadership when they rolled out their observations. And outside the scope of the GIC's intent...to pass or not pass a motion to get ward boundary review underway...it actually did a grave disservice to the issue of amalgamation/de-amalgamation. Especially in light of the motion having passed. 

It gives the impression that the ward boundary review process is more important than any discussion about amalgamation/de-amalgamation. Which it's not. 

The fact is that both discussions need to be had. Just as we need to be discussing all kinds of other  issues, including term limits, AEGD, our infrastructure crisis...and what kind of future Hamilton its street-level residents want to see. 

The unfortunate truth is that virtually nobody on Council wants to have any of these discussions. Nobody really wants to dig in and get their hands dirty...and potentially risk re-election...by actually engaging these contentious issues. (I almost wish we had one councillor who made it clear once in office that they were only going to be serving for one terms, so they'd be holding nothing back, going all-out, putting what was important at the forefront and not being hindered by any hesitation due to re-election concerns. Almost.) 

Councillor Partridge needs to walk the walk after talking the talk: she heads a 'community council'. (Don't get me started on that paradigm.) Therefore, there's a mechanism in place for starting a dialogue about amalgamation/de-amalgamation. You know, an exploration within her ward, using the vast resources available to anyone these days. With two or three community meetings, with an online chat or two, a message board on her site, some seminars delving into the realities not just of Mike Harris's initiative but of 'Where We Are Now; The Pros and Cons of Amalgamation for Flamborough', I'm sure that the councillor could guide her people out of the weeds. 

Who knows; maybe she'll have set the stage for the rest of Hamilton to deal with the issue. Now that's what I'd call 'leadership'. 

M Adrian Brassington