Masterful

Town hall meetings seem like a good idea—vox populi, democracy in person and all that—but rarely are they worthwhile experiences. At least, that has been my experience attending dozens of such complaint- driven gatherings over the better part of two decades. Like sidewalk sausage carts, the idea is immensely more attractive than the actual product. I tend to come away from both experiences disappointed and a wee bit queasy.

So I squinted involuntarily at the County’s New Year’s Levee when Mayor Steve Ferguson announced that he wanted to see more town hall meetings in his term. Had he not had a bellyful of grieve-fests—dominated by two or three people who won’t relinquish the microphone? Was he really eager to give over his evenings to a litany of perceived injustices, neighbourhood disputes and the breathless reports that a County truck had been spotted in the Walmart parking lot, repeated over and over again? It seemed an ill-considered ambition.

It was with the same uneasy feeling that I wandered into Councillor Mike Harper’s Town Hall meeting last Thursday. Now, it must be said that Harper is a pro. I knew this. I’d seen him manage difficult meetings about the future of the convenience store before he was a council member. I watched those meetings veer toward land mines and noted how Harper skillfully navigated around the hazards in order to move the agenda along. But those were single-issue meetings. How would he manage a town hall gathering in which folks were called upon to bring out all manner of grievances? No matter how narrow, i.e. a single pothole, or as expansive as climate change.

How would he manage to save it from devolving into a shouting fest between a handful of angry old men? (And for those itching to point out the irony of this particular old man and his angry opinions writing these words, I am conscious of the contradiction. And yet I persist.)

The answer is: masterfully.

From the moment he clicked on the sole handheld microphone until he persuaded folks to stack the chairs upon which they were seated—Harper had control of the meeting. Not in an overbearing way. Not in a my-way-or-get-out manner. Rather Harper was genial, accommodating, funny at times, serious at others, but always focused. He had a plan. He knew what he wanted to accomplish and he knew how to get it done. He conducted this Town Hall with a light hand, but never allowing it to unravel.

I reported on the content of the meeting in a story on page 3 so I won’t dwell on it here. That said, Harper’s meeting covered an immense amount of ground. Clear garbage bags. Recycling. Composting. Traffic speed and congestion. Parking. A bucket of beach and harbour issues. The fate of the convenience store. The Recreation Committee’s need for volunteers. The future of the Town Hall structure. We learned about waterworks plans and various development projects around the village, big and small. Each of these issues had the potential to spiral into paroxysms of acrimony. And while there were indeed moments when it seemed that this was where we were headed, Harper deftly jumped in and seamlessly guided the meeting back on to safer, more productive ground.

Harper started the meeting promptly at the appointed time of 6 p.m., even as some folks continued to file into the back of the room. It ended promptly at 8 p.m. In the meantime, we had collectively covered—and gained feedback on more than a dozen issues.

There can be no debate that this was an extremely effective use of a couple of hours. The 130 folks who came out to the Town Hall learned about the councillor’s priorities and his thinking on other issues in the village and the larger County. They received updates on a range of matters. They posed questions. Got answers. (Maybe not the ones they wanted. But that is the nature of politics. You don’t always get what you want, but you should get the sense that your voice was heard.)

Which brings us to the conundrum of town hall meetings. Mayor Ferguson’s ambition is good. Town hall meetings ought to be good venues for folks to hear from constituents—the complaints and the encouragement. To share expectations. To explain challenges. To brace for change.

The idea is good. The execution, historically, has been terrible. That is because anger and frustration are far more effective agents in moving us off the sofa and into a town hall than is the vague gratitude we feel that our water is safe, our bridges still work and the arena is a great place to teach our kids to skate.

This is why Shire Hall must learn Mike Harper’s method. Council members contemplating their own town hall meetings really ought to invest some time with the Wellington councillor. Even as I write these words I feel some bristling at this idea. Many of us harbour the notion that these talents are natural and godgiven. We believe this skill will spring from the strength of our convictions or commitment to serve our community. Council members, furthermore, tend to delude themselves into thinking that campaigning and participating around the horseshoe equip them to have a productive conversation with a frustrated gaggle of I-pay-your-salary taxpayers.

This is not true. To do this requires skill, training, preparation, and focus. There is nothing natural about it. Harper spent his career facilitating diverse groups of individuals toward an objective. His expertise shows.

All the ingredients were present in the room last week to send the meeting into the ditch. But that didn’t happen. Instead, everyone went home having learned something about their community. Most went home feeling they had been heard. Most will come back to another Town Hall and likely recommend it to others.

Harper demonstrated that town hall meetings can work. And are worth doing. That is a remarkable achievement.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca