Comment
Legislating civility
Asimmering unease is wafting across the shire. An edginess in the discourse. A restlessness fuelled by a sense that the elected council is talking down to residents—a growing feeling that Shire Hall has stopped listening or no longer cares what folks outside its walls think.
The malaise, so far, has mostly taken the form of apathy—why worry about things we can’t change? But lately, the mood is becoming darker. Grimmer. It is bubbling up in frustrated public meetings, angry interactions with municipal staff, and a general sense that the municipality is on the wrong track.
External factors likely drive some of the anxiety— the cost of living, mortgage renewals, Covid, social media and such. Some opine, too, that this columnist and newspaper are the engines of discontent. Maybe.
But relying on such explanations ignores the most obvious irritant: when you ratchet up taxes year after year, decade after decade, while simultaneously piling on staggering and unprecedented levels of debt upon residents, your constituents will notice. They are going to expect more. Not less. And they want to be part of the conversation.
When spending escalates at a dizzying rate and property taxes and user fees spiral upward each year with little or no apparent improvement in the things they use, see or experience, folks get uneasy. When new restrictions and regulations are layered on without explanation or apparent purpose, they ask questions. They want to know how any of it will improve their lives. Their families. Their homes. They certainly don’t understand why a paved road is set to be downgraded to gravel after they have paid so much to Shire Hall. They wonder if their road is next.
It cannot be a surprise that apathy becomes frustration. And that unchecked frustration boils up into harsh words. None of this excuses abusive or belligerent behaviour. No public official should feel unsafe or intimidated in their job. Full stop.
Yet, it was all too predictable. It didn’t have to be this way.
Council and Shire Hall must wear this disquiet. They have wrapped themselves so tightly in their bubble they can no longer hear the murmurings of discontent in the countryside. Instead, they seek to marginalize voices or ignore those trying to steer Shire Hall toward a more honest and direct conversation with residents.
Before they embarked on the brave experiment to transform Prince Edward County, council and Shire Hall had a responsibility to explain what they were doing. Honestly and openly. What was the grand plan? How much was it going to cost? What were the risks? And who would be left behind? What would this community look like when it was done? Who was all this for?
Council and Shire Hall had a responsibility to persuade. To listen. To bring folks along. To convince them of the merits of the revolution. They still do.
Ideally, the mayor and the last term of council would have run and been elected on a platform to tackle the County’s significant infrastructure challenges. Town halls. Affordable housing. Long-term care. Steve Ferguson would have laid out the plan and timeline. The public would have had an opportunity to weigh in. Residents would have known what was coming. That is how democratic change is supposed to work.
But it didn’t happen. Neither Mayor Ferguson nor Council sought a mandate, nor did it earn the authorization to change this place irrevocably. It has not built a consensus for the big-forever-changes it is imposing on residents. Nor does it seem particularly interested in cobbling one together.
Instead, Shire Hall believes it knows best. It understands the challenges better than you. It understands the way forward better than you. It is trying to save you—from yourself, despite yourself.
Anyone who sees things differently or urges the municipality to slow down and take another look is viewed as an obstacle to progress. To be marginalized and ignored.
There is no genuine attempt to engage residents. Consultation is a cynical tick-the-box exercise. A cattle chute—in which no matter where you enter, you end up in the pre-designated place. The outcome was ordained when you took the first step.
Information sessions are artificial exercises designed to give the semblance of public engagement while avoiding any real exchange of ideas or opinions. The sole purpose is seemingly to enable folks to ventilate without slowing down the train or confusing decisionmakers.
Surveys and online polling are worse, feeding pages in reports no one reads.
The relationship between residents and local government has broken down. Many feel as though they are screaming into the darkness. The relationship is increasingly defined by mistrust and disappointment. Folks no longer aspire for Shire Hall to make the County a better place, but instead pray that it won’t make it worse.
As if to magnify this sad state of affairs, at least one council member will propose to legislate respect this week. He will ask his colleagues to consider new rules and sanctions to ensure “the public under no circumstances may criticize or denigrate individual members of staff or Council.” (my emphasis)
Yes, as always, the problem with governing people is the people.
Makes me wonder if any Councilor has ever listened to Question Period in our House of Commons! They need to grow some thicker skin. Heaven forbid a taxpayer express any emotion to the decision making process.
I’ve taken the liberty of distilling the several proposed changes to the rules regarding civility to a single proposal that will make it easier for us to understand what Shire Hall requires of us. Apart from the request to be polite to staff and not threaten anybody, which shouldn’t need to be spelled out.
As follows.
“WHEREAS the public (henceforth to be known as “supplicants”) will address council in a
respectful and humble manner regardless of the deleterious effects our wise decisions
have upon their worthless lives.
A curtsy or tug of the forelock would be greatly appreciated but is not considered mandatory at this time.”
Possibly I’m exaggerating just a bit ( I hope) but that’s the way it reads to me.
The councillor’s entire list of desired changes can be found at the Shire Hall website but it takes some patience to find it.
Correction:
I watched the entire dreary video of the June 11 meeting this afternoon. When the motion went to vote, the councillor agreed to have the word “criticize” removed from the draft.
Still, the point was made by others that the person running the meeting has the power to shut down a speaker if he/she feels that the speaker is getting out of line so don’t go and present a deputation thinking that you can get too far with any criticism . You will be silenced..too much passion in your speech and that’s the end of it..
when the mtion went to