Impressions and thoughts on the proceedings post-presentations:
-One of Councillor Johnson's primary concerns seemed to be the accuracy of any boundary re-drawing as it might be affected by projected growth, and fears about 'getting it wrong', referencing the OMB as 'the decider'. (My term, not hers.) The fact is that the OMB doesn't 'decide' on the reforms in the sense that it makes the determination. It confirms that the end result of the review is sound. It's up to the consultant and their proceedings to get it right. In a will be plenty of opportunities to take a look at all variables. (Understanding of course that because this isn't an OMB-mandated petition initiative, less is proscribed. Another indication that we would have been better off with a petition-based initiative...one that had been executed better as befitted the issue.)
-I was a little stunned at the apparent lack of comprehension of the difference between the petition process and this Council initiative. This motion –though noble in its stunted way– is technically not binding. It's a 'commitment', but does not have the same teeth as those of a petition-based initiative...never mind the fact that it pushes it all down the road to be effective for the 2018 election, rather than the possible time-frame of having been in place for the 2014 election.
-Councillor Whitehead's a) Freudian faux pas and b) followup Forrest Gump declaration were a breath of fresh air as the motion/debate part of the proceedings began. The faux pas was the word 'innocents' instead of 'citizens'.
Yeah, I think we should just sit with that for a minute or two...
Right. And b), the declaration: "I use the word 'activists', but 'activists' isn't a bad word. Activists is part and parcel of what turns the wheels of decision-making and I appreciate the role each and every one of them play in the process."
Maybe it's time for another pause. To consider the notion that someone feels they have to 'defend' the concept of activism...and then, as a stumbling coup de grace, ladle some indulgent aphorism sauce all over it all. Anyway...
-The entire 'Hamiltonians for Ward Boundary Reform' effort resulted from Council deciding to defer any examination. As did its predecessor. Those of us who had long recognized that a reassessment was required took exception. And lo, uproar began. So it was interesting to hear Councillor Whitehead's explanation as to why the whole ward boundary issue was kicked down the road this past winter:
"We had a very- A forced amalgamation. We created a lot of animosity in the outlying areas. In the suburbs. A lot of distrust. With Council. (...) And it's been growing pains. And the last term in Council was somewhat divisive, then. What has changed? That's when we moved that motion originally to review the ward boundaries. What has changed? I tell you what's changed: It's the makeup of this Council, and this Council's desire to work together. And it's a pleasure to come into work every day, understanding that it's no more 'Us vs Them', it's 'Us'. And we're working collectively on issues, whether it's in the suburbs or in the urban or the downtown core working to come up with great solutions in conjunction with good reports from Staff. That's what's changed." He carried on, ending with the rhetorical question 'Why stir the dust now?'
sigh
First off, the 'makeup' of the Council hasn't changed. We have everyone back from the 2006 Council save for Dave Mitchell in Ward 11, Margaret McCarthy in Ward 15 and Ward 2 Councillor Bratina...who replaced Fred Eisenberger as Mayor. Now, if you're talking about 'makeup' as in 'the ability to get stuff done without rancour or spittin' nails', then I suppose he has a point. But this leads to my second point, that old 'Us vs Them', 'Original City of Hamilton vs The Suburbs' gem: these are paid professionals we're talking about. Each and every one of them should be able to work together and rise above what is, at the core, a variation on 'partisan politics'. Moreover, elected officials should possess within their skill-set the ability to move their constituents out of a parochial bubble, no matter how badly these residents resent amalgamation. Each and every councillor should be capable of processing their constituents' feedback while still maintaining the focus of building the best Hamilton possible. This goal shouldn't be some unobtainable Holy Grail. So to present it as a reason why nobody wanted to touch an issue that would invariably lead to resurfacing grudges and resentments is- Well, it's beyond the pale. Even for this Council.
It's disheartening that we appear to have so few people on Council with the will or sense of conviction to lead the city through contentious waters.
You know, I'd intended on going through the remainder of the proceedings, pulling out highlights, but I think I just summed up what the rest of the session was like.
So to bring an equally contentious notion to the fore, I'm going to wonder this aloud: if none of the current councillors were eligible to run in the 2014 election, how differently might this whole discussion be looking about now? Would there be such reluctance to upset the applecart (or voting residents) by doing what they're paid to do, which is to manage the city and shepherd it towards a better tomorrow?
Somehow, I doubt it.
M Adrian Brassington
Yeah, I think we should just sit with that for a minute or two...
Right. And b), the declaration: "I use the word 'activists', but 'activists' isn't a bad word. Activists is part and parcel of what turns the wheels of decision-making and I appreciate the role each and every one of them play in the process."
Maybe it's time for another pause. To consider the notion that someone feels they have to 'defend' the concept of activism...and then, as a stumbling coup de grace, ladle some indulgent aphorism sauce all over it all. Anyway...
-The entire 'Hamiltonians for Ward Boundary Reform' effort resulted from Council deciding to defer any examination. As did its predecessor. Those of us who had long recognized that a reassessment was required took exception. And lo, uproar began. So it was interesting to hear Councillor Whitehead's explanation as to why the whole ward boundary issue was kicked down the road this past winter:
"We had a very- A forced amalgamation. We created a lot of animosity in the outlying areas. In the suburbs. A lot of distrust. With Council. (...) And it's been growing pains. And the last term in Council was somewhat divisive, then. What has changed? That's when we moved that motion originally to review the ward boundaries. What has changed? I tell you what's changed: It's the makeup of this Council, and this Council's desire to work together. And it's a pleasure to come into work every day, understanding that it's no more 'Us vs Them', it's 'Us'. And we're working collectively on issues, whether it's in the suburbs or in the urban or the downtown core working to come up with great solutions in conjunction with good reports from Staff. That's what's changed." He carried on, ending with the rhetorical question 'Why stir the dust now?'
sigh
First off, the 'makeup' of the Council hasn't changed. We have everyone back from the 2006 Council save for Dave Mitchell in Ward 11, Margaret McCarthy in Ward 15 and Ward 2 Councillor Bratina...who replaced Fred Eisenberger as Mayor. Now, if you're talking about 'makeup' as in 'the ability to get stuff done without rancour or spittin' nails', then I suppose he has a point. But this leads to my second point, that old 'Us vs Them', 'Original City of Hamilton vs The Suburbs' gem: these are paid professionals we're talking about. Each and every one of them should be able to work together and rise above what is, at the core, a variation on 'partisan politics'. Moreover, elected officials should possess within their skill-set the ability to move their constituents out of a parochial bubble, no matter how badly these residents resent amalgamation. Each and every councillor should be capable of processing their constituents' feedback while still maintaining the focus of building the best Hamilton possible. This goal shouldn't be some unobtainable Holy Grail. So to present it as a reason why nobody wanted to touch an issue that would invariably lead to resurfacing grudges and resentments is- Well, it's beyond the pale. Even for this Council.
It's disheartening that we appear to have so few people on Council with the will or sense of conviction to lead the city through contentious waters.
You know, I'd intended on going through the remainder of the proceedings, pulling out highlights, but I think I just summed up what the rest of the session was like.
So to bring an equally contentious notion to the fore, I'm going to wonder this aloud: if none of the current councillors were eligible to run in the 2014 election, how differently might this whole discussion be looking about now? Would there be such reluctance to upset the applecart (or voting residents) by doing what they're paid to do, which is to manage the city and shepherd it towards a better tomorrow?
Somehow, I doubt it.
M Adrian Brassington
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'm always interested in feedback, differing opinions, even contrarian blasts...as long as they're delivered with decorum...with panache and flair always helping.