Larry's Corner

On Transit, Bag Limits and the Running of City Meetings

For the first time since leaving local politics, I watched last week's Council meeting live on Cable 14. I tuned in because I was interested in the outcome of two crucial votes, one related to transit fare increases and the other having to do with allowable limits on curb side garbage bags. In fact, I wrote about both in last week's blog.

Unbeknown to me, and many Hamiltonians, as well as these issues being debated, I was also treated to the spectacle of unclear procedural processes and sidebar decision-making related to the above topics, and others, dealt with at the meeting.

Let me first remark on the new venue for city meetings, the Convention Center. I know that this logistical move was made necessary by the renovations to our city hall. At least on television, the new location seemed quite appropriate, if not as formal looking as the Council Chamber. There is a problem though and it is with the sound system. On more than one occasion when the Mayor was speaking, he became inaudible because he was standing and turning his head away from the microphone to make presentations to individuals. This was a distraction that can be corrected with the right sound system or by placing a personal microphone on the Mayor during the ceremonial part of the meeting. What was more than a slight distraction, however, was a problem with the sound when a couple of key people were speaking. Tim McCabe, the head person in Economic Development and Planning, and Councillor Brad Clark became totally inaudible when in Tim's case the microphone seemed to just die. In Brad's case, for some reason, the sound changed and his voice sounded momentarily like something out of The Exorcist movie. It was eerie and it distracted from listening to the good point he was making. We have the technology to fix this problem. It should be done.

On the Transit issue, as I stated earlier, Council was caught between a rock and a hard place. If Council didn't increase fares, taxes would have gone up; by increasing fares, ridership will hurt and that is counter-productive to the overall goal of public transit. Had I been there, I would not have supported a fare increase, but do understand why one was imposed. On the positive side is that system expansion is tied to the increase. That is good. Also, Council did implement a subsidy for the working poor which will at least help some of the most marginalized riders in the system. Council now needs to be bullish about improving this service and providing an effective educational component to our citizens, so that more customers will make the choice to use transit. Public education is extremely important not only in attracting new users but also in instructing non-users about the benefit to them of having a healthy transit system. I say this because as I knock on doors for my Federal Liberal ambitions, I am encountering an overwhelming distaste for high taxes (I knew this) and, in the Winona area of my riding, an opposition to transit charges on the tax bill because non-users see this as one item contributing to their high taxes. I have had more than one discussion with oppositional residents; and I do my best to defend public transit. This 'education' should be done system-wide to be most effective.

As for the garbage bag debate (some might unkindly say debacle), I found some high moments and low moments in the long discussion that Council had. Let me state the obvious: at the end of the session, I was unclear of what Council had voted on. I didn't realize until the next day that they too were confused!

I have since encountered much cynicism in the community about a Council that 'doesn't know what it is doing'; and have tried to defend Council by speaking of the complexity of the system and its procedures. I must confess though, that I have mounted a defence to incredulous ears. But I get ahead of myself!

I thought the high moments belonged to Sam Merulla who twice made eminent sense. The first time was when he argued against 'the garbage police' by saying that true leadership 'inspires', it doesn't 'punish'. The second time was when things got so complicated, that he tried to refer the matter back to committee for some second thought and clarity. On the first point, Sam was rebuffed being accused of championing the status quo; on the second, Council just didn't realize the wisdom of his suggestion given the confusing vote that ensued.

The low moments were when Council piled amendment onto amendment during the debate that they lost sight of the issue they were voting on. As a listener who knows his way around procedure, I found this most frustrating and confusing. Similarly, I was astounded to learn that the motion which was eventually agreed on was not even entirely interpreted the same way by the mover and the seconder (Powers/Pearson) as it pertained to the start date for the implementation of the new system. I have great respect for both Councillors. They are seasoned and knowledgeable. They have been around municipal processes for many years, so I don't know what went wrong here. I am not sure if the motion was oral, or written down, as it is supposed to be. This would surely have clarified the date. If it wasn't written, the Clerk and the Chair/Mayor should have ensured that this protocol was followed. At the very least, since the whole discussion had been long, circuitous and complicated, before a final vote was taken, the Chair/Mayor or Clerk should have insisted that the motion be re-read and, if necessary, be broken down so that ultimate clarity might have been achieved. Councillor Pasuta's statement, "This was the most confusing Council meeting I have ever attended" probably summarized how all of us were feeling at the end of the process.

So, now what is the fall out of all of this? Other than a public that seems to be shaking its head at the process of decision-making, there are also questions about the two bag (one clear one not) complexity. As well, some information needs to be provided about the timelines and actions related to those timelines. As I stated in my earlier blog, the reduced limit is inevitable. I even supported a compromise 2 bag limit step as an interim to the stricter one bag solution. I believe that this is achievable and all of us must start now to reduce to the ultimate goal in spite of the timeline reprieve. It only makes sense. However, when you launch a major change amid so many distractions and such confusion and appalling lack of clarity, it makes it that much harder to win people over to your goals. Our waste management plan is built upon a foundation of doing the right thing by an empowered, willing citizenry. Procedural hiccups of seismic proportions should not have been allowed to side track this dynamic!

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER