BROCK’S BANTER: It’s One Louder

October 8, 2014 · 0 Comments

Public Engagement: It’s One Louder
By Brock Weir

There are few sure things in this world, but in efforts to attract a crowd there are several things which hold tried and true.
I’m sure you can think of a few right now off the top of your head.
Is it free? Lead with that.
Will there be any free food involved? Bellow that, or put it in big, bold letters.
Will there be any free libations to wash down said food? Shout it from a rooftop, and you’ll have a crowd quicker than Carl Weathers can whip up a savoury stew.
Of course, now that we’re in election season, these enticements – while still true – are completely unnecessary. Tell people there are two candidates, or 28 candidates, or even 38 candidates (including trustees) all vying for a piece of you, sure enough they turn out in droves.
They came out to meet the candidates and see Geoff Dawe and John Gallo undertake a Battle of Business on behalf of the Aurora Chamber of Commerce last month, they did so again – with the rest of the candidates thrown in for good measure – at the Aurora Public Library’s all candidates’ meeting on Sunday afternoon, and they will likely do so once more as Sport Aurora hosts their respective meeting, again at the Legion, next Wednesday night.
It was standing-room-only for the first two outings, so who said democracy was dead?
“You did!” some readers might say at this precise moment, but that is not entirely true. What I have bemoaned is a danger of democracy – or one conception of democracy – hanging by a thread in Aurora despite the best efforts of all our politicians, incumbent, hopeful, or armchair.
It was an opinion I held four or five years ago in the dying days of the last Council term where it was a rare day when more than a handful of people turned out for a budget meeting. It was an opinion swiftly put to bed by the time the 2010 election went into full swing, but was soon revived when the newly elected Council got down to business, and everyone else went back to theirs.
Now, here we are again. There are just two-and-a-half weeks left until the municipal election, and everyone is out in full force, meeting their candidates, seeking out candidates, and making their own notes on who they feel might best represent them. Some might take comfort in councillors who have been sitting there for two terms or more, or might be impressed with what they have seen from the relative newbies they elected four years ago. Conversely, they might think it is time for a change, experiencing a degree of buyer’s remorse. Whatever the reason, people are shopping around, kicking the tires, and getting engaged – and that is a very good thing.
But then what?
As much as I hate to say it, despite the best efforts of everyone currently on the campaign trail, I feel it will soon be back to status quo once the October 27 victors are formally sworn in in December.
Both candidates vying for mayor speak to this in their own ways.
In his re-election platform, Mr. Dawe speaks about going out and engaging the community and a focus on engaging “all of Aurora”, rejecting an idea of east vs. west, while building “strong community relationships” and engagement through “participating in the rich diversity of events held within and around” Aurora.
Conversely, Mr. Gallo’s platform includes a number of citizens’ groups, presumably in addition to Advisory Committees already established at Town Hall, ranging from a “Citizen’s Advisory Task Force” to build “public awareness and consultation” in several areas from land use to innovation, as well as groups devoted to youth and Aurora’s Downtown Core.
Both approaches have their merits, but Council candidates are also getting into the act, and I feel it might be muddying the waters for some voters. Of the 27 of 28 Council candidates who spoke at Sunday’s debate, more than half spoke of the importance of listening to the voters and being their voice at the table.
A fantastic goal, to be sure, but I get the impression from many voters I spoke to afterwards that while they are more than happy to speak up to a Mayor or Councillor when there is an issue that bothers them, it is important to know what the candidates themselves believe, what they would like to bring to the table and, in the end, what precisely they stand for.
While it is an issue that comes up every year, my mind went back to the 2013 Budget Process. (At this point, I feel it is appropriate to mention that my brain does not veer back to a budget process unless it has very good reason to do so) Council members, as has become tradition, were discussing the lack of citizens at large that picked up the invitation and came out to say what they would like to see in a budget.
It was unspoken in the room, of course, that they all knew people would complain about the budget figure ultimately decided upon after the fact, but their concerns zeroed in on how to buck the trend. Speaking of, Evelyn Buck did come up with the most unique suggestion on how to bring out the crowds: “Dancing girls!” She was being facetious, of course, but it was as good a suggestion as any.
Suggestions are always welcome, but the big question remains: Why is it that so many people turn out hear from politicians looking for their vote, but so few people turn out to see and hear what their ultimate choices actually do with the confidence residents invest in them?
Is it a lack of interest, or a perverse desire to simply complain about it after the deed is done? Perhaps.
Do the majority of voters subscribe to the view that once they elect their representatives to the Mayor’s seat and the eight Council seats around the table that the job of the voters is done, and it is time for the elected reps to get on with theirs, the roles they were elected to fill, sure in the knowledge that they, collectively, have the confidence of the majority of voters who actually took the time to vote? Maybe. But, on that last point, the people I have talked to seem relatively split.
Whichever way the political pendulum swings by the end of the month, the ultimate winners should sit down, put their heads together and figure out the best formula to maintain this momentum of public engagement.
Public engagement should always be encouraged and celebrated, and going out to the citizens with issues that directly concern or impact them should always be lauded, but it can’t be forgotten that it is a two way street. If you hold a public meeting on an issue, and a bare minimum of people turn out for it, it might be wise to cut your losses and move on, rather than repeatedly going back to the well in the futile hope you might catch residents on a good day.
Over the course of the last four years, we have heard time and time again that there hasn’t been enough public input on project X or initiative Y, and that it should be put on the backburner until sufficient voices have been collected.
If there are no voices to be heard, it might be more productive to move on, and then ask why rather than turning your amp up to eleven.
And, yes, I would be interested to hear your thoughts!