Survived the first all-candidates' meeting

I survived the first big public meeting for council candidates, yesterday afternoon. It's a misnomer, of course, to call it an all-candidates' meeting when only a portion of the candidates are present. Yesterday afternoon, it was only the council candidates - 20 of us (John Kitchen bowed out last moment over a family emergency out of town).

For many candidates, it's a nerve-wracking time. Not only do we have to speak in public before a large audience, but we sit under bright lights that make it difficult to see the audience, and we are, of course, being televised for Rogers TV (TV cameras make some people even more nervous). Plus the setup was awkward and restrictive: we had to read from our seats. For those of us more comfortable at a lectern or podium, where we can use our hands to gesture or adopt a more relaxed stance, the seated position feels less natural.

While the public had a chance to see who was running (the faces behind all those election signs), it was also the only collective chance to hear them all speak. True, the time limit for speeches was a mere three minutes and the questions were from the media or moderated (not open from the floor). Three minutes isn't a lot of time to tell people about yourself, your goals, your reasons for running and your objectives over the next four years. Again, being seated while speaking means you look down at your notes rather than at the audience, so it's a less audience-friendly situation.

There was a limited opportunity for dialogue with constituents. We did get to put literature on the chairs before the meeting began (although a surprising number of people in the audience left theirs behind when they left). Even after the meeting it was limited - many people rushed home to grab a quick supper to be back in time to hear the mayoral and deputy-mayoral candidates at 6:30 p.m.

Most of us had prepared speeches. Sonny Foley spoke off the cuff (and was cut off when he ran over his time limit), and possibly one or two others (it was difficult to see who was reading from my position at the candidates' table, but I think Dave Cubbitt and Norm Minnikin either spoke extemporaneously or from brief notes rather than a speech). No matter how many times you practice it, how much you memorize, how well you think you know it, you always stumble or race to complete it as the clock counts down.

After the speeches, there were two question periods. First questions from the media panel, then the moderator selected some from questions the audience had written down and handed in before the meeting. Responses to questions were limited to one minute, which puts pressure on people to respond. It's not always easy to come up with a coherent response when you don't know the question in advance. Some questions were candidate-specific, others asked of all of us.

One of the questions asked of all candidates was "where would you put the patios: curbside or building side?" Three of the architects of the curbside move - McNabb, Foley, Labelle - were booed by the audience when they answered "curb." All the rest answered "building" and most were applauded for same.

Similarly, when candidates were asked if they would support a ward system, while most of us answered yes (generally a qualified yes, with reference to either a referendum or a public meeting), the same three answered no and were booed (these three also voted against a ward system when I attempted to get a public meeting or a referendum on the issue). McNabb rambled around his answer with some obvious fence-sitting, before catcalls from the audience made him respond "no." You may recall he spoke against the idea at council, saying he thought the issue was too complicated for voters to understand.

On the Admiral Collingwood question, Sonny ran over his time trying to blame the developer's financing for the debacle, rather than council's action. Mike Edwards, on the other hand, admitted he probably would have voted the other way, if he knew we'd have a pit on the main street today. Some kudos for being brave enough to admit his mistake now, but he also voted against a couple of later attempts to re-open the discussion after the HIA was repealled, and he did not make any effort to re-open the debate himself in the three years after the mayor's original motion was passed. So take his mea culpa with a grain of salt.

I got a question about the divisive council and what would I do, if re-elected, to help work with the new council. I said the first thing to do was for the group to discuss its goals and plans to develop a strategic plan for the next four years. That way we would all know where the others were coming from and if there were major issues on the horizon for the group. Second was to communicate, and not just at council, but to socialize and engage in collective activities that helped strengthen bonds of mutual respect. We did that last term because Mayor Geddes understood the value of social interaction for team building. This term we rarely socialized outside council and even collective events like the Canada Day pancake breakfast was denied us. Next term, things will change.*

Overall, I thought most of the candidates did very well and there were many good points made in the speeches. I think it showed the value of diversity at council because people focused on different issues - for some it was recreation, others the debt, others patios or Admiral Collingwood. Diversity makes us strong because it allows us to encompass a wider range of issues. I'm not sure how well (if at all) I did, but I hope I made my points and garnered some support.

I'll comment about the separate mayoral/deputy-mayoral candidates' meeting a bit later.

The next meeting - albeit without a chance for council candidates to speak - is the Connection's AC meeting, Oct. 6, also at the Legion.
~~~~~
* Mayor Carrier publicly blamed DM Cooper and me for any dissent and divisiveness at council this term (see my response here). Leaving aside the notion that dissent is the hallmark of democracy and a table full of yes-men is not democracy, seven of the nine members of council were at the table last term, and one of the 'newcomers' is Sonny who had previously been on Council, and the other, Dave, was known to most of the incumbents. The real change at the table was a change in the mayor's position. Most of us got along well last term under Mayor Geddes. The same group doesn't get along well under Mayor Carrier. But he says I'm to blame.