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.
