Where's the debate?

Earlier this spring, I began this post. I never published it because- Well, I honestly can't remember, but I suspect it was because of what was going on at the time. 

However, with me posting this morning's piece on the differences in function and form between the Cities of Hamilton and Norfolk, VA's Council broadcasts, I got to thinking about exchanges between councillors and about exchanges in general.

Naturally, all of this ties into 'engagement', a discussion that is clearly the bedrock on which I stand, so I'm feeling the need to finally press 'Publish' on this piece.

I've been trying to figure out what opportunities there are for debate at City Hall.

From what I've gathered, when there's a citizen presentation to Council or any of its variations. there is no 'debate'. The person presents...councillors can ask questions...City Staff in attendance may be asked questions...but there's no 'debate'. I've certainly seen enough meetings to know the drill; when whoever's chairing the meeting deems that questions are morphing into debate, proceedings are reined-in and it's-back-to-questions-we-go. 

When City Staff are presenting, the same rules apply: questions only, please. No debating. For anyone. 

From what I've been told by Matt Jelly, the only time there's public debate at 71 Main Street West...

...is in camera. 

You know: 'behind closed doors'. 

I'm still trying to get my head around this. Because isn't one of the cornerstones of democracy, debate? The free-flow and exchange of ideas? And counter-ideas? The acknowledgements of differences and the subsequent efforts put into play to make everything work despite those differences?

And yet there is no opportunity us to witness debates amongst councillors (Though frankly, I've developed a sufficiently informed opinion about who's worth listening to so that I'm not crying the blues over this aspect. At all.)

More importantly, there's no opportunity for us to debate councillors. 

Yeah, I agree; for someone who has been quite insistent about not directing energies at lambasting councillors, at not making a point of putting any of them on the defensive, this may seem a bit of a contradiction. But really, it's not: I'm all about engagement. Specifically, engagement between residents and their councillors. So I'm approaching this from the point-of-view of there being a real absence of opportunity for people to debate their representatives.

Think about it: even during election campaigns, when you're actually encouraged to ask a question, even then you're not allowed to 'debate' the candidate.

I guess there are always the one-on-one situations, if you run into them on the street, or at an event (I'm somehow thinking they're not going to be too thrilled to duke it out intellectually or philosophically in public), or maybe if you make an appointment and see them in their office... But would that be a 'debate', or merely a 'conversation'...?

What is it about debating that has rendered it verboten? We have a strong heritage of parliamentary debate. Why not at the municipal level? And why aren't residents involved?

You know, I never envisioned town halls to be about haranguing councillors. It was never my goal to put them on stage so as to give people a chance to toss figurative tomatoes at them. But I'm wondering if we need to think about carving out some space for this. Even though most people aren't good debaters. Even if most people don't want blood, they just want answers.

Maybe what's motivated me on this occasion is the fact that we don't really have the chance to debate anything in this city.

We get the chance to present to Council. We can attend ARC meetings for school closings. We can contribute to forums and charrettes about urban-core parks.

But what opportunities do we have to get our hands dirty and debate an issue that's near-and-dear to us? To put those-in-power on the spot and get certifiable, informative responses? 

Is there something missing from the democratic process, something fundamental...?

M Adrian Brassington