By Pepper Parr
December 19, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
She did it differently from the very beginning.
For Marianne Meed Ward, connecting with the people she had chosen to represent was her prime focus. Her style was to listen and to be aware of what was happening in her community. Many assume that is why we elect politicians – comments from Gazette readers suggest that does not always happen.
Meed Ward created what was loosely called a ‘ward council’ soon after she was first elected to represent ward 2 at city hall and gave the thirty to forty people who showed up at the regular meetings work to do.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has identified 15 different communities in her ward and is looking for people to liaise with her on what’s happening in each community.
Participating democracy was the approach she used and it worked. For many her supporters are a fan club. During the swearing in ceremony at the Performing Arts Centre for her second term of office the applause from the audience was significant – it came very close to being a standing ovation. No one else got that kind of applause.
Meed Ward has taken the ‘getting right into the community’ a couple of steps further when she announced the creation of Community Liason committes.. She has mapped ward 2 into 15 different communities and is asking for people who want to volunteer to be her eyes and ears in each of those communities.
Meed Ward said: “Residents are the eyes and ears of your community; you know your neighbours and are often the first to learn of issues or opportunities in your area. I’d like to stay in the loop of activities in each neighbourhood in my Ward. So I’m working on creating a Community Liaison committee and am looking for volunteers.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward at an event with Mayor Rick Golding at the opening of a plaque on the waterfront.
She added: “We’ve identified 15 distinct neighbourhoods in Ward 2. I’m looking for at least one point person for each area to serve as a Community Liaison, to assist me in sharing information from my office to the neighbourhood and vice versa. Once or twice a year, I’ll convene a meeting of the Community Liaisons to share issues and learn from each other. The idea is that this group would replace the less formal Citizens Advisory Committee from the previous term of council.
“I will be gathering all interested Community Liaisons together to share more information about the role and ask for your ideas. The meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 20, 2016, 7:00 p.m. at the Salvation Army, 2090 Prospect St.
This is a new initiative and Meed Ward wants input and ideas from the volunteers involved. If you are you interested in being a Community Liaison contact Meed Ward’s assistant, Georgie at Gartside@burlington.ca, and plan to attend on January 20.
Good idea to followup on in 2016. Don’t lose it.
Merry Christmas to all.
To add Tom, let all residents have a say in decisions. City Online voting/comments process for large issues…meaning that for agenda items that need to be voted on by council…the Burlington tax payers should always be made aware of what they are and when they are going for final vote by council and have the opportunity to vote as a community and their vote has to be accounted for. The Online voting system could allow residents to identify which ward that they live in by postal code and if the tax payers vote in favor of an issue then the Ward Councilor has to follow his constituents unless he/she has best interest not to and that would have to be disclosed…not closed…as in closed door meetings which there are too many.
applaud Councillor Meed Ward for engaging her constituents with these area groups and disagree with some of the commentators on this forum . First of all ,the citizens of Burlington requested more community engagement ,well guess what,someone has the guts to move forward and try it ,and then people jump all over her for trying . Why not have people advise a Councillor of what’s going on in their area ? Are they not the best people to speak to ? Where does it say that these groups will run Ward 2 ??????
Some wards don’t communicate very well at well ,in fact it appears like a one person show ,so why not try this initiative to see if it works . How is this different from ward advisory groups or ratepayers associations
I do not reside in Ward 2 ,but sure wish i did ………………….Keep up the good work Councillor
Don’t get me wrong as being negative about this engagement initiative. I think it’s great and pretty much agree with Yvonne’s comments and applause.
The more engagement the better, and Councilor Meed Ward certainly leads in this effort.
Ward 1 Councilor Craven has his North Aldershot Leaders Group and several regular meetings of North and South Aldershot residents every year, but the personal and organizational style is different, and not always satisfactory to me.
But I am not being critical of Craven in this comment, and I like having these meetings.
My criticism raised here, above, is specific to the ADI Martha issue as stated, and what it said remains.
Moving forward, the more engagement the better. Let residents have a say in decisions.
Dear Helene,
This is another Helene. There is a way of knowing that neighbor hood “eyes and ears” are snoops…it’s human nature!! I bet your neighbours know your schedule…you would be surprised. Gossip…most common hobby!!
Well put Tom!
I guess Mead Ward putting a “hall monitor” system in place is meant to assure us something like this won’t slip by her again.
Tenni – there is no way of knowing that neighbourhood “eyes and ears” are not snoops and busybodies and self-appointed mini-councillors, but I suspect that most of them have only the common good at heart and are simply observant types who feel obliged to share their observations with others, especially when it comes to public safety – traffic, parking violations etc. They have no interest in peeking into neighbours’ homes and apartments or snitching.
Shannon, I do not know Vietnam but I have worked in China on a number of occasions and the system of a hierarchy of “information gatherers” just would not work here. Yes, I know you’re joking!
Concerned and observant residents usually take the time to contact their councillors when they spot things that might have a negative impact/potential. Such residents expect nothing in return. Most have full and satisfying lives anyway and do not have to live vicariously!
Joyeux Noel!
I’m afraid that the lengthy and repetitive explanations of the ADI Martha issues are looking more and more like weapons of mass confusion.
I think most people will be unable to penetrate the dense maze of circularity to get to the truth of what actually happened and the consequences.
This may be the focus on tedious issues to distract and placate that you feel.
I see no understanding of the contradictions and irony in what was done, and the resulting consequences, by anyone involved.
The 180 day timeline was not seen as a priority.
There is no acknowledgement of the complete lack of flexibility managing the timeline, and that the public engagement so trumpeted as the reason for this, was completely lost because of this and did not happen.
Instead, we are told something like; we did what we did, and we got what we got – that’s our story and we’re sticking to it.
One excuse given is that there were hundreds of residents involved in the ADI Martha context, so we had to stick to the original process schedule in order to protect public engagement.
Another excuse made all along is that ADI could appeal even if the 180 days was met, and so that somehow became a reason to let the 180 days elapse because ADI could appeal regardless.
Then we see a double down on this excuse by saying, as above, that it didn’t matter one way or the other at the OMB even if the 180 days elapsed – the non decision grounds was no different in effect than a regular appeal after Council decision.
And now in their case law brief, the city legals tell us the same thing – it doesn’t matter either way they said. It didn’t matter at the OMB, as whatever the reason for the appeal it wouldn’t make any difference.
What really bugs me is that all the repetitive newsletter and City Manager messages, the weapons of mass confusion, are being used to make it sound like something of substance happened to further public engagement.
This is completely contrary to the facts of what happened.
In actuality what did happen completely sabotaged public engagement and expression of opinion where it counted in the legal planning process, and when it was supposed to happen.
The real Bottom line is – legally required public engagement, opinion, debate, Council and Committee votes were all risked, and predictably lost, for nothing, and this nothing was known beforehand, and is now being used as an ironic and perverse excuse for what was done.
So what supports the rationalizations for what happened and why Councilor Meed Ward (and the City Manager and apparently the Mayor) agrees with it?
Public engagement, which was presented as sacred, was actually lost, and everyone involved knew of this potential all along.
This natural process will not be what happens at the OMB.
Yes council is to blame for ADI issue but Meed Ward especially as it was in her ward!! She of all of them should have made noise. I feel like she is focusing on tedious issues to distract and placate us
I generally like Meed Ward’s decisions. I did not vote for her during her first election but did for the last election. This may or may not be a throw back as to why I did not vote for her during her first election (granola hippy attitude towards issues). It reads well but my concern is about these unelected candidates making decisions and assumptions about my view. I know that Meed Ward does have an open approach and genuine caring for her constituents.
I also know that someone from my area presented themselves as a spokesperson for where I live. That was a deception.
What process is Meed Ward using to back up her belief that this ward council is not full of people with little to do and a sense of entitlement? What proof is their that these ward community reps are speaking for the people in that area? Some sections have detached houses while others have detached houses, town houses, apartment renters etc.
I suspect that Ward Meed will continue to send out newsletters to those who ask to be on the email list. I don’t always have time to read all of her thoughts unless I am aware of the issue. I wonder if adding something like a survey approach will help? Then again, I suspect busy people tend not to do surveys.
I did attend one of her community meetings and found it in part interesting, in part over my ability to make a quick decision. Bottom line is that she tries and not all councillors try to involve their constituents.
Time will tell.
As far as the ADI decision, I’m only vaguely aware that council is responsible. (not just Meed Ward?) A sign that we pay attention to issues that we know and not other issues.
Tenni, I agree with your point regarding the problems surrounding one person (unelected) presenting him/herself as a spokesperson for a neighbourhood. I think it’s a bad idea and it’s actually not participatory democracy at all. Every citizen of a ward should have an equal voice. Most of us are perfectly capable of communicating with our councillor–in writing, by phone, or in person, and from what I’ve seen, Councillor Meed Ward is extremely responsive and well informed about issues in her ward.
If residents of certain neighbourhoods truly feel that their voices aren’t being heard or they would like to participate more in decisions affecting them, perhaps neighbourhood councils would be a better alternative. By definition, neighbourhood councils are driven by the residents themselves, not by members of the local government, and are not formed in reaction to, or to “fight”, specific issues (group homes, traffic, noise, development etc.)
A true neighbourhood council would exist to help build social and political inclusion within that neighbourhood–not simply as a communication channel for the councillor.
Of course, forming these kinds of councils in a fair, inclusive way would be a challenge, but they might be a more democratic alternative to “community liaisons”.
The communist country Vietnam actually uses a similar system called People’s Councils and People’s Committees to be the government’s “eyes and ears” on the street.
The People’s Council and the People’s Committee make regular reports on the local situation in all fields to the Fatherland Front. Every head of household reports regularly to a neighborhood solidarity cell. Party directives and policies reach the citizenry via the party’s mass organizations or the hierarchy of the party and its representatives at the ward level.
Oh come on, I’m just having fun, but I’m not sure we really need or want busybody neighbours (who weren’t elected) reporting back to city hall on street hockey bylaw violations, who has five cats and grass that’s half an inch too long, and who’s getting a new deck (DO THEY HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT?!)
Merry Christmas everyone.
All this praise meaning less if when it really matters she sleeps on the job and smooths the way for ADI’s free pass to the OMB. Phony.