It was only two weeks ago:
I played the last game of the season at the Collingwood Curling Club
I voted to close down all public facilities at the end of the day.
There were only a few deaths from COVID 19 in Canada, and none in Ontario.
Today:
53 people in Canada are dead from this brand new disease.
Ten people were reported killed by COVID 19 in Ontario just today.
Millions of other people are unemployed.
Billions of dollars has been pledged to keep us all afloat.
It feels like a year since January 25th, the day the first case was identified in Canada.
To the families of those killed and sickened, it must feel like an eternity.
Monday, March 30, 2020
Friday, February 14, 2020
Questions and Leadership
Year Two on municipal council in Collingwood has begun with a pair of opportunities to learn how to lead. I have been elected Chair of the Corporate and Community Services Committee in Collingwood, and Vice-Chair at the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.
Since I had been Vice-chair of C&CS, I expected the nomination to the Chair's role, and spent the weekend before the meeting re-reading Collingwood's Procedural Bylaw and the amendments we passed just a couple of months ago. I wanted to be ready, just in case. Even so, plopping my bottom into the chair at the front of the room, I was very certain I was about to make some terrible gaffe. Sure enough, the Clerk had to bail me out with some hastily written post-its.
My habit so far has been to take notes throughout our meetings: points that occur to me, reminders to look something up afterwards or to get in touch with someone affected by the outcome of a decision. I show up at committee meetings with a list of questions, and cross them off as they get answered during the presentations or if my question is asked by someone else. I also jot down new questions that sometimes bubble up as presentations are made or I write follow-ups to other councillors' queries. Now, as a Chair, I still get to ask questions, but I also have to keep track of where we are in the agenda, be ready with a response to anything that happens and direct other councillors' questions to staff members. It's a different kind of listening, and while I only have half a meeting under my belt, I can report that it's a more intense experience.
It seems there are two divergent philosophies about the flow of municipal council meetings. The first I'll call Quick and Quiet: the thought is, we councillors should not have questions at an actual Council meeting, since anything factual we need to know about a topic coming to the table should have been answered at the Committee level or through emails to staff or other council members after the Committee meeting. An extreme adherent to this philosophy told me, there shouldn't really be councillor questions at the committee level, either, since council members should read the reports trying hard to understand where staff is coming from, and then to be in contact with the relevant staff member to have any questions answered in advance of the meeting. If a question occurs to the council member during the meeting, the Q&Q think, "Well, that's too bad since the councillor clearly didn't think things through enough in advance." Q&Q people suggest meetings should be very short, with presentations made and discussion containing only debate among councillors.
The second school of thought I'll call Long and Loud: under this philosophy, meeting time is for thorough and fulsome discussion with staff and among councillors. L&Ls figure it is the responsibility of our senior staff to be ready to answer anything under their purview, even without much warning. L&Ls see committee and council meetings as an opportunity to educate the public on the topics at the table, by giving staff a chance to explain what's going on with a certain project or program. Extreme adherents to the L&L philosophy figure there is no such thing as an under-prepared question, never a wrong time for even simple questions. Some L&Ls ask questions they know the answer to, in order to get the information into the public realm. They also think a meeting should take as long as it takes, and that we councillors should be prepared to stick around, listen, and have our minds changed.
The cynical journalist in me notices that closer to election time, some councillors who are usually Q&Qs become L&Ls, perhaps to demonstrate to voters how hard they work and how engaged they are. Some might even jockey for a late-term Chair position to shore up their bona fides with the electorate.
I'm all for efficiency, but I'm also a fan of transparency, so I'd like to think I'm in the middle of these two philosophies. But, I confess I likely lean toward the L&L group for reasons to do with spontaneity and a career interviewing people with an ear for not only what's said, but what's NOT said. I'm torn when raising my hand, though, because right from the orientation sessions in November of 2018, we councillors were told repeatedly that meetings were never supposed to be a 'gotcha' moment. It was said several times: councillors were not to ask questions that might put staff members on the spot or in a difficult position. I can see the point, but I can't imagine any question of mine could stump our deeply knowledgeable staff. That said, I cannot forget the CEO I once worked with who told me, right out loud, that they would use or withhold information to manipulate their Board of Directors. I have not seen manipulation of this council, but the concern remains on my mind, especially in light of the testimony at the Judicial Inquiry.
In a perfect world, the best case scenario would be somewhere between Quick & Quiet and Long & Loud, with councillors carefully reading all the prepared material in advance of meetings and seeking answers beforehand, but also free to ask something that only occurs to them at the time of the meeting. Perfect presentations from staff would not only make recommendations, but also fully explain any and all points the councillors want to make constituents aware of even while providing positive or detrimental effects of all possible choices. But, we live here and now and not in any kind of perfect world. (plus, those would be some very long reports...sheesh!)
Several people have told me there have been Collingwood town councillors who opened their agendas only as the meeting got called to order, and we know from the JI testimony there have been councillors who were emailed directions on what to say at the table even while meetings were underway. I am pretty sure those days are over, but I suspect there will be at least one Committee Chair who somehow lets a meeting get out of hand, in spite of their best intentions and a stack of sticky notes.
Since I had been Vice-chair of C&CS, I expected the nomination to the Chair's role, and spent the weekend before the meeting re-reading Collingwood's Procedural Bylaw and the amendments we passed just a couple of months ago. I wanted to be ready, just in case. Even so, plopping my bottom into the chair at the front of the room, I was very certain I was about to make some terrible gaffe. Sure enough, the Clerk had to bail me out with some hastily written post-its.
My habit so far has been to take notes throughout our meetings: points that occur to me, reminders to look something up afterwards or to get in touch with someone affected by the outcome of a decision. I show up at committee meetings with a list of questions, and cross them off as they get answered during the presentations or if my question is asked by someone else. I also jot down new questions that sometimes bubble up as presentations are made or I write follow-ups to other councillors' queries. Now, as a Chair, I still get to ask questions, but I also have to keep track of where we are in the agenda, be ready with a response to anything that happens and direct other councillors' questions to staff members. It's a different kind of listening, and while I only have half a meeting under my belt, I can report that it's a more intense experience.
It seems there are two divergent philosophies about the flow of municipal council meetings. The first I'll call Quick and Quiet: the thought is, we councillors should not have questions at an actual Council meeting, since anything factual we need to know about a topic coming to the table should have been answered at the Committee level or through emails to staff or other council members after the Committee meeting. An extreme adherent to this philosophy told me, there shouldn't really be councillor questions at the committee level, either, since council members should read the reports trying hard to understand where staff is coming from, and then to be in contact with the relevant staff member to have any questions answered in advance of the meeting. If a question occurs to the council member during the meeting, the Q&Q think, "Well, that's too bad since the councillor clearly didn't think things through enough in advance." Q&Q people suggest meetings should be very short, with presentations made and discussion containing only debate among councillors.
The second school of thought I'll call Long and Loud: under this philosophy, meeting time is for thorough and fulsome discussion with staff and among councillors. L&Ls figure it is the responsibility of our senior staff to be ready to answer anything under their purview, even without much warning. L&Ls see committee and council meetings as an opportunity to educate the public on the topics at the table, by giving staff a chance to explain what's going on with a certain project or program. Extreme adherents to the L&L philosophy figure there is no such thing as an under-prepared question, never a wrong time for even simple questions. Some L&Ls ask questions they know the answer to, in order to get the information into the public realm. They also think a meeting should take as long as it takes, and that we councillors should be prepared to stick around, listen, and have our minds changed.
The cynical journalist in me notices that closer to election time, some councillors who are usually Q&Qs become L&Ls, perhaps to demonstrate to voters how hard they work and how engaged they are. Some might even jockey for a late-term Chair position to shore up their bona fides with the electorate.
I'm all for efficiency, but I'm also a fan of transparency, so I'd like to think I'm in the middle of these two philosophies. But, I confess I likely lean toward the L&L group for reasons to do with spontaneity and a career interviewing people with an ear for not only what's said, but what's NOT said. I'm torn when raising my hand, though, because right from the orientation sessions in November of 2018, we councillors were told repeatedly that meetings were never supposed to be a 'gotcha' moment. It was said several times: councillors were not to ask questions that might put staff members on the spot or in a difficult position. I can see the point, but I can't imagine any question of mine could stump our deeply knowledgeable staff. That said, I cannot forget the CEO I once worked with who told me, right out loud, that they would use or withhold information to manipulate their Board of Directors. I have not seen manipulation of this council, but the concern remains on my mind, especially in light of the testimony at the Judicial Inquiry.
In a perfect world, the best case scenario would be somewhere between Quick & Quiet and Long & Loud, with councillors carefully reading all the prepared material in advance of meetings and seeking answers beforehand, but also free to ask something that only occurs to them at the time of the meeting. Perfect presentations from staff would not only make recommendations, but also fully explain any and all points the councillors want to make constituents aware of even while providing positive or detrimental effects of all possible choices. But, we live here and now and not in any kind of perfect world. (plus, those would be some very long reports...sheesh!)
Several people have told me there have been Collingwood town councillors who opened their agendas only as the meeting got called to order, and we know from the JI testimony there have been councillors who were emailed directions on what to say at the table even while meetings were underway. I am pretty sure those days are over, but I suspect there will be at least one Committee Chair who somehow lets a meeting get out of hand, in spite of their best intentions and a stack of sticky notes.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
What Avril Said
Avril Lavigne famously sang, "Why's everything got to be so complicated?", and in a year of getting up close and personal with how municipal government works, I frequently found myself humming that song. I'm starting to understand why and I'm sorry to report, there is almost never an easy or quick way to solve issues and complaints, mostly because of rules and agreements that are already in place.
I've actually started to tune out a bit when people say to me, "Why can't they just..." As soon as anyone whips out the word, just, I just... realize they may not know the ins and outs of how stuff gets done and who's responsible for what.
For example, "Why can't we just say no to every and all new developments, and declare that Collingwood is full?", as a few people have suggested to me. Well, because municipalities exist entirely 'at the pleasure of the province', and we have to do what they say. We are allowed to make plans about what development goes where and how much of it we will allow, but those plans have to conform to the plans of the province and the county when we make them. Not just the province, but a whole whack of things at the province, like the Places to Grow Act, and the Provincial Policy Statement and the Municipal Act and several other pieces of legislation, too. So, if the province says Collingwood can have 62-thousand people by the year 2041, then, that's how many people we have to be ready to accommodate. Which is what they say, by the way. Sort of. It's complicated. The county's plans, which were passed this past year, go to 2031, but the province's plans, which are still in the making, go to 2041 and the allocations for population are different in those two documents so far. In addition to the plans is the LPAT, formerly known as the OMB, which developers can complain to if their plans get rejected by the town, costing us lots of time and planners' and lawyers' fees and there's no guarantee who will win.
Another example is, "Why can't they just... pick up my garbage every week like I want them to?" Not surprisingly, the answer to that one is... complicated.
First of all, garbage is not the town's job; it's the County's job.
Secondly, the trouble with trash in our area comes partly because of the economy, partly because of some zealous negotiations and perhaps because of some misunderstood circumstances. Once upon a time (about seven years ago, I think. Maybe 10), Simcoe County made a deal with a waste company to contract out its garbage and recycling services. A few years later, another company bid on and got the job, in what at the time was seen as a helluva good deal for the taxpayers of the County (that's you and me). The deal was so good, it was almost too good to be true. Well, last year, the too good to be true part started coming true, when the company that was doing the job, started not doing the job so well. They couldn't get enough drivers. Even with pretty great wages, they couldn't live up to their contract; even with bonuses and some pretty impressive incentives, there still weren't enough people willing to do the work of slugging your trash and recycling and driving the truck they slug it into. To be clear, there are a lot of people who are simply not strong enough to do that work. Furthermore, the economy is good enough that people who would take such a job unwillingly, don't have to, because there are so many other choices. If a person can get paid almost the same amount of money to work somewhere warm and dry without having to leap into and out of a big truck to lift heavy, smelly, disgusting items into that truck, which they also have to drive on snowy tiny country roads and wee small town streets, many of us would take a lower but still livable wage and choose the warmth and comfort. That extra five bucks an hour, for a lot of people, is not worth doing a job that is, in the case of the green bins, literally, shitty (diapers and dog doo now allowed!). What would it take, pay-wise, to lure enough people into the difficult jobs? 60 dollars an hour? 80? What would you say if trash collectors were paid more than your kids' teachers? Also, remember the company with the contract is a for-profit company, after all, and you'd have even less service if they go bankrupt to fulfill the contract.
So, because of these complicated factors, we have blue bins left out in the snow for days and garbage not always being picked up, and frustrated, complaining people. There will be more complaints next month when we start to get trash collected only on opposite weeks to recycling. You can just take your recycling to the dump yourself; it's free and no one's stopping you, but will you? Most of us won't. The question is, how many of us will start scouting out private bins or illegally dumping trash in the countryside? It remains to be seen.
So, that's two examples. And here's a third: "Just who am I supposed to blame when I can't get you what you want?" Well, that one is really not complicated: municipal politicians blame the other levels of government. As seen above, sometimes it's even true.
I've actually started to tune out a bit when people say to me, "Why can't they just..." As soon as anyone whips out the word, just, I just... realize they may not know the ins and outs of how stuff gets done and who's responsible for what.
For example, "Why can't we just say no to every and all new developments, and declare that Collingwood is full?", as a few people have suggested to me. Well, because municipalities exist entirely 'at the pleasure of the province', and we have to do what they say. We are allowed to make plans about what development goes where and how much of it we will allow, but those plans have to conform to the plans of the province and the county when we make them. Not just the province, but a whole whack of things at the province, like the Places to Grow Act, and the Provincial Policy Statement and the Municipal Act and several other pieces of legislation, too. So, if the province says Collingwood can have 62-thousand people by the year 2041, then, that's how many people we have to be ready to accommodate. Which is what they say, by the way. Sort of. It's complicated. The county's plans, which were passed this past year, go to 2031, but the province's plans, which are still in the making, go to 2041 and the allocations for population are different in those two documents so far. In addition to the plans is the LPAT, formerly known as the OMB, which developers can complain to if their plans get rejected by the town, costing us lots of time and planners' and lawyers' fees and there's no guarantee who will win.
Another example is, "Why can't they just... pick up my garbage every week like I want them to?" Not surprisingly, the answer to that one is... complicated.
First of all, garbage is not the town's job; it's the County's job.
Secondly, the trouble with trash in our area comes partly because of the economy, partly because of some zealous negotiations and perhaps because of some misunderstood circumstances. Once upon a time (about seven years ago, I think. Maybe 10), Simcoe County made a deal with a waste company to contract out its garbage and recycling services. A few years later, another company bid on and got the job, in what at the time was seen as a helluva good deal for the taxpayers of the County (that's you and me). The deal was so good, it was almost too good to be true. Well, last year, the too good to be true part started coming true, when the company that was doing the job, started not doing the job so well. They couldn't get enough drivers. Even with pretty great wages, they couldn't live up to their contract; even with bonuses and some pretty impressive incentives, there still weren't enough people willing to do the work of slugging your trash and recycling and driving the truck they slug it into. To be clear, there are a lot of people who are simply not strong enough to do that work. Furthermore, the economy is good enough that people who would take such a job unwillingly, don't have to, because there are so many other choices. If a person can get paid almost the same amount of money to work somewhere warm and dry without having to leap into and out of a big truck to lift heavy, smelly, disgusting items into that truck, which they also have to drive on snowy tiny country roads and wee small town streets, many of us would take a lower but still livable wage and choose the warmth and comfort. That extra five bucks an hour, for a lot of people, is not worth doing a job that is, in the case of the green bins, literally, shitty (diapers and dog doo now allowed!). What would it take, pay-wise, to lure enough people into the difficult jobs? 60 dollars an hour? 80? What would you say if trash collectors were paid more than your kids' teachers? Also, remember the company with the contract is a for-profit company, after all, and you'd have even less service if they go bankrupt to fulfill the contract.
So, because of these complicated factors, we have blue bins left out in the snow for days and garbage not always being picked up, and frustrated, complaining people. There will be more complaints next month when we start to get trash collected only on opposite weeks to recycling. You can just take your recycling to the dump yourself; it's free and no one's stopping you, but will you? Most of us won't. The question is, how many of us will start scouting out private bins or illegally dumping trash in the countryside? It remains to be seen.
So, that's two examples. And here's a third: "Just who am I supposed to blame when I can't get you what you want?" Well, that one is really not complicated: municipal politicians blame the other levels of government. As seen above, sometimes it's even true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)