Regarding underlying impressions of the Council meetings this week

Often when people are trying to make up for other things -such as a sense of control, or authority or conviction...or credibility- there's a tendency towards earnestness.

If we don't have the necessary facts at our disposal, if we're feeling unsure...we often start adding sentiment. (Admittedly, some of us stop, reconsider, recalibrate and re-navigate.)

Indulging in bafflegab.

Or as the Brits say, 'faffing-about'.

(While there is a nasty extrapolation to be made here regarding lying, how we tend to 'say too much' when we're 'weave that tangled web', I'll leave that tack alone. For now.)

One of the comments I heard regarding yesterday's Council meeting was 'Why do they all seem to be fumbling? Don't they do any research of their own?' I ended up playing Devil's Advocate, apologist, whatever; I maintained that this entire process has been so utterly fuckled that what we're seeing now is the end result.

If you construct a building on a bad foundation, everything will be off. There are knock-on effects that you may not see until down the road...doors and windows not closing correctly, etc...but eventually they're going to be issues that bite you on the ass.

I believe that even if the 'foundation' wasn't off regarding the stadium, then you can at least point to a few salient 'incidents' or 'developments' along the way that injected the same degree of 'misalignment'.

But regardless of my own take on 'all this', these truths are pretty indisputable: a) not much confidence was inspired in the public by the goings-on during the meetings, and b) perceptions, even if just subconscious ones, were reinforced.

In Hamilton there is an innate cynicism towards both politicians and politics. We can debate just how pronounced this cynicism is, but in the end, maybe the best 'proof' is our voter turnout rate: I doubt very much if we saw habitual rates at 75% and above, we'd also witness rampant distrust. I really do believe that the rate reflects the tenor...another reason for not seeing the merits of 'mandatory voting'.

This cynicism is fed by the smallest things. (As are all emotional reactions. People who have a mindset about something, a person, an organization are inclined to filter information about them with this bias. If a manager 'has it in for' an employee, they're going to see negativity in the smallest of things. Or, in the case of a fractured marriage, every gesture by the one being judged will be seen this way.) So it doesn't take a heinous transgression to add to the accumulating tally of cynicism. It can be a comment, it can be a report of behaviour at appearance...anything.

It can also be something that by rights, shouldn't be held against the person at all. Such as not really having been equipped with what's required to effect good governance information-wise, insight-wise, preparation-wise...or having been saddled with a 'bad foundation' or 'revisions of the plans' part the way along.

I believe that any negative reaction to the meetings (and I'm not talking about the specifics, the 'known facts') have added to this tally of cynicism.

In fact, going back to the 'lying' reference, to those who are especially cynical about politics and politicians, whether it's an actual lie or an interlude of fumbling, some incident involving perceived 'dysfunctionality', the truth is that all this becomes tally 'input'. If the observer is incapable of discerning nuance, generating context, then all that matters to them is the increase in the ledger.

In fairness, much of the goings-on I witnessed during the past two City Hall meetings was hardly anything more nefarious than basic human behaviour on display. Fumbling, incredulity, exasperation...anger. I'm going to throw my lot in with the idea that every Councillor...according to their abilities (how's that for a little bit of deft manoeuvering?)...conducted themselves within reasonable expectations, given how truly handicapped the entire process has made them.

(Please don't take this as any sort of reduction of my belief that this adventure has been, for the longest time, pooched. I have commented on Raise the Hammer, I have editorialized here that there is an opportunity to be seized regarding effective decision-making. Or, 'ineffective decision-making'. That is, examining this whole PanAm Games Site Selection Process and figuring out 'What went wrong?' is potentially a more valuable accomplishment for the people of Hamilton and their city's future than any stadium that could possibly be built. After all, what's Einstein's definition of insanity...?)

The announcement from CIty Hall that meetings will be live-streamed, is a game-changer. Meetings have previously been available via Cable 14, if I'm not mistake, but we are now in the Internet-Social Media-Information Age. The game has changed, the rules have changed, the stakes have changed...the implications have changed. My belief is that Councillors are going to have to re-tool themselves, how they present themselves...even if they're just hashing out stuff in chambers.


While I'm not suggesting that the end result will be something reminiscent of a cardboard cutout offering up sound bites at a podium, I will say this: if Councillors want to move forward to a better place regarding how they're perceived, how local governance is perceived...if they want to do what they can from within the arena of Council meetings, then 'makeovers' should be on the agenda.

Unless of course, all 'tough discussions' will be held not 'on camera', but in camera.