TTC Board meetings (not to mention meetings of various Committees of Toronto Council) often entail a series of presentations by members of the public. In Toronto parlance, these are “deputations”. Some of these are entertaining, some are heartbreaking, and some are, let’s face it, an ongoing soapbox for a few regulars who can be counted on to show up at every meeting. I used to fall into that category, at least until I got my own much larger soapbox with this site.
It is no secret that some members of boards and committees regard this as a huge waste of time. It is common to see many of them wander out of the room, hold press scrums, consult their email, and generally ignore what the poor, ignorant public might have to say. Moves to restrict speaking time, normally five minutes, to three, or to limit a speaker to one presentation regardless of the number of items they might wish to address, are not unusual.
They are also wrong, very wrong.
Without question, some public presentations are little more than hobby-horse repetitions of standard speeches. We see the same sort of thing in some of the comment threads on this and other sites. Unless they are abusive or utterly beyond redemption with a bit of careful editing, I let them through. For public addresses at City Hall, the Chair can intervene if a deputant gets abusive and, in a worst case, someone might be barred from speaking because they cannot be trusted to maintain civility. However, such speakers are quite rare among the much larger number who might appear on an important issue. If a group of speakers appears on an issue, the Chair can gently suggest that they avoid duplicating their presentations.
Let’s turn the tables around and see what we in the public gallery get to suffer through as “informed debate” at some meetings.
Management makes extensive presentations that are rarely challenged, even when they are, shall we say, misinformed. This is particularly difficult if their time comes after the public has spoken, and there is no opportunity for rebuttal or questioning unless a board/committee member knows enough to ask the right questions. Technology helps in this regard, and it’s not uncommon these days for the public gallery to send tweets and emails to members in the hope they can work it into their own material. But politicians hate to look stupid, and they tend to ask questions only if they already know the answer. Moreover, they really (with few exceptions) don’t like to wash the dirty laundry in public. On occasion, the gallery knows more about the issue and its history than the management, but it’s not our role to kibitz from the sidelines.
Board members might speak at length on matters of which they know little. Most Board members mean well, but they are limited by what they are told, not to mention by political agendas dictating that some issues be left quietly alone. Debates may go on for hours with a more-heat-than-light character that drives informed observers bonkers. But we don’t get to call “time”.
What’s more, the whole process works against dedicated members who might legitimately be seeking better information for policy decisions because most requests inevitably turn into a report that might appear, eventually, and might address the questions asked.
Particularly galling are instances where a board or committee member, or even the Mayor, openly ridicules or insults members of the public claiming that they don’t know what they are talking about, or that they have a hidden agenda, or that they are simply too negative for our enlightened age. There is no right of rebuttal from the public gallery, nothing to match the “point of privilege” any elected member has to challenge such statements. There are blogs and Twitter, but their reach is only as good as the popularity of each writer, and often we’re preaching to the choir.
I know I have really hit home when I get complaints from “official” sources that I have been too hard on someone. At least they are reading, if only because they suspect others who are less inclined to view their works favourably are reading too.
And so, gentle politicians (and the “public members” who, wink wink, nudge nudge, are not also “politicians”) imagine that you wanted to come before a body peopled by, well, we the people. You should sign up well in advance, and you will be included on a list of presenters that we might eventually get around to hearing. If the item is only “for information”, don’t even bother unless you have a friend at court who will hold it over as an “action item” on a future agenda. Come back another day.
You will sit through all manner of debates that have nothing to do with your topic. This may suck all of the air out of the room both for media attention and for the endurance of the members. We might even artificially drag out debate in the hope that the more contentious of you get tired and leave. When you finally speak, one or two of us might pay attention, and even less often, you might even get a question to clarify something you said. The question might even be relevant, as opposed to a thinly disguised rant imputing your utter ignorance. Don’t try to interrupt. Took a day off work to attend, did you? Feel like it’s been a waste of your time?
There are politicians we tired of years ago. They have their pet transit projects. No matter what the topic at hand, they will work their hobby-horses into their speeches. They happily insult people from any ward beyond their own as foreigners who just don’t understand their manifest destiny. They blather on forever about issues nobody cares about. Well, at least in our world, their blather only goes for five minutes, three if we’re feeling churlish. We will not ask them any questions, but thank them politely while thinking why do we have to listen to this crap?
If that’s not bad enough, imagine that the board you wish to address is populated by allies of a hostile administration whose idea of public participation is to fill bellies with hot dogs and beer, but ignore the real work of improving the city for all. Who terrorize well-meaning staff to avoid saying anything that doesn’t fit with the political program. Who feel that every deputant is a paid shill for a trade union, or a silver-spoon lefty who has the time to sit through city hall meetings because they don’t even need, let alone have, a job.
Four years of that, and you would ask why anyone would bother to show up – only the really dedicated, the nerds, the transit groupies, the people for whom the transit environment is their one chance for a bit of public exposure. People who speak rarely, maybe never before, but have something worth listening to, they expect a modicum of attention and decorum at their presentations. One or two experiences at City Hall, and they will stay away, maybe watching the meeting online provided there’s nothing better to do.
Boards like the TTC or the City’s Budget Committee must be green with envy looking at Metrolinx. It is not subject to the Municipal Act (or equivalent provisions in the City of Toronto Act). It meets infrequently, and the agenda is just chock full of good news. If there is any dissent on the Board, it happens in private, and I suspect that it’s rare. Public presentations which might upset the carefully orchestrated agenda timetable and openly challenge policies and assumptions simply do not occur. Bliss descends over all on those occasions when the Board actually meets in public.
A word of caution to Board and Committee members who might throttle public input. Toronto has a long history of public participation, and some agencies even do quite a good job of listening. If that’s not your cup of tea, you’re in the wrong place.
I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed![From The Mikado by Gilbert & Sullivan whose works on occasion cannot be distinguished from the proceedings at City Hall.]
Steve Munro 
I’ve made several deputations, to various board/committees, I am respected by several people, (shockingly I might add!)
At my last deputation at TTC, I bristled at DMW, as he has absolutely zero respect for people that deputate, that take their civil rights quite seriously.
I took him aside later, and asked him about his comments, he denied saying the comments, but thankfully they were heard clearly by both the public gallery, as well as by staff.
I have been involved in municipal issues for almost 22yrs, up until the “nation” and its pied piper, I never thought that there could be so much disrespect, for not only interested & engaged citizens, but for democracy itself.
I grew up in a city that had the second longest serving mayor in Canada, who went on to become so much more; that same mayor had the unfortunate task of herding a bunch of wild, vicious (for many years) city Councillors that really treated citizens like idiots (to be frank). Unlike Toronto, that city’s executive meetings, as well as most committees, were held behind closed doors.
The transit system to this day is only regarded as a part of the massive ‘public works’ portfolio, the transit system is still to this day, a mere afterthought of most Councillors, considered by many in the city of over 500K people, only taken by the poor, disabled & seniors, it still does not have its only management committee, or ‘commission’, nor does it have its on security force, or proper public input.
I was on the Access & Equity committee for several years, until about a year after I moved to Toronto. I also used to be on the early versions of the AODA council as well.
I am proud of what I have done, what I have spoken about, fought for & have gained the respect from many people in city hall, both in my hometown, as well as in Toronto, 99% of what I have fought for, has not been in the public meetings, it’s working in hand with Councillors, staff, bureaucrats & like minded people.
If Councillors like DMW, & a few others, don’t like me, I love that. It means I’ve hit sensitive spots, or have made them think.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I went to the TTC Board Meeting at the North York Civic Centre and was shocked at how misinformed the board members were.
You do however get some rather entertaining deputations such as Alan Yule and that other gentleman who wears the suit to every board meeting (you know the person I am referring to Steve). It is those sorts of deputations that put shame to the things board members say and do. As you say, sometimes the board members are less informed than the people who depute.
Speaking of deputations … will you be at the Town Hall Thursday evening?
Steve: No. Some things are more important than the TTC. A lot of things, actually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I come at this from two sides – one, having worked in a job that dealt with the public quite regularly in meetings and information sessions, I have all the time in the world (and have taken a few hours in the past) to speak with people passionately interested in the subject at hand, want to learn more about it (whatever it may be), they may have a history and knowledge I don’t, and, quite frankly, isn’t grandstanding for their “agenda.” They just want to share their information. Give me these people all day, every day and twice on Sundays! I love these folks.
On the other hand, it gets frustrating to be that “face” of something and to have to deal with (in a not so constructive manner) someone who, frankly, uses very explicit language to express their frustration and cannot speak in a respectful manner (it happens more than you think, leaving you feeling just awful) and/or someone who refuses to budge off of one very particular item and is completely ignorant to the big picture. They typically have one issue, only relating to them in the narrowest sense, and that isn’t (most times) based in the reality of the situation today, or worse not realizing that it’s 2015 and things aren’t going back to the way they were in the 1950s/60s/70s – pick your decade. It’s these folks that do themselves (and everyone else) a huge disservice when it comes time to publicly offer your opinion in the forum you describe above.
And, I mean no disrespect because I do try to imagine what it’s like to hear canned messages from their point of view, but offer me something constructive that I can work with – not an absolute that isn’t going to happen….ever! And I know how this may sound, that I’m tone deaf to concerns, or that it may contradict what I wrote above, but that’s not it, and that’s not the case.
I think people need to think about their approach to how they give input – maybe not in the sense you describe above, but in others as I can only speak to the experiences I’ve had in my career so far. There are no absolutes in life, and these opportunities aren’t a negotiating table, so stop acting like it is and come with something people can work with.
It’s hard to give a public deputation. I’ve never done it but I have great respect for those who take the time to do so. I’m glad so many people are actively engaged. As the most recent example in the Brampton LRT debate shows, I can’t imagine how deflating it is to have a room full of people telling their local elected officials one thing only for them to turn around and vote against what the room is telling them. It must be crushing. And I can’t imagine how bizarre the good news meeting may seem.
It’s an interesting topic, Steve, and I suspect you may disagree with some or all that I’ve written, but it’s nice to read this and hear another opinion.
Steve: I know that people who are in the position of fronting for an organization or a project can run into a lot of bozos, and at an open info session, you don’t have the relative certainty of knowing they will be cut off after five minutes. Some people, organizations, consultants do public participation really well, although a lot depends on the culture of the sponsoring group. Waterfront Toronto are masters at this and they really listen, even though they cannot always do everything that’s asked of them. GO Transit, on the other hand, has a long history of “participation” being superficial and insulting, although they are changing. Metrolinx is good at sounding engaged, but they are stuck with their highly political, if out of sight, context that rules the day. TTC, in effect a committee of Council, depends a lot on the tone of the then-current administration.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have made many deputations to committees and Council over the years. The level of disrespect at City Hall for citizens who have taken the time to study an issue and speak to it is staggering. The politicians often pay no attention unless TV and other media is there to record them. It would be too embarrassing for them to be seen on the evening news talking to each other, texting their friends, sharing jokes, eating and walking in and out.
Once when I was given my 3 minutes at Executive Committee, Rob Ford was munching potato chips and drinking pop. Absolutely nobody paid me any attention. So I just stopped speaking to see how long it would take for anyone to notice. After a while the chair asked if anything was wrong, and I said I wasn’t sure anyone was listening — somewhat cheeky of me I admit, but mild compared to their rudeness.
My question is, how did this level of behaviour become accepted at City Hall? I have been on several private and public boards and committees in my life, and I would have been kicked out quickly if I had paid no attention or engaged in other activities. At City Hall you sometimes get the feeling that councillors think, “My mind is made up. Don’t bother me with the facts.” Staff is more polite.
Who can push the reset button and enforce a civil tone during public deputations at City Hall, demanding that members of committees and Council are respectful and doing their job?
Steve: Some of this is directly traceable to the Ford era when he and his brainless (to be polite) cronies felt they could “get back” at the Millerites and insult or ignore them with no repercussions. We saw the same sort of behaviour at Council where a speaker worth her salt would have marched several members out of the chamber, if she had bothered to “hear” what was actually happening. I don’t remember things being that bad ever before, even under Lastman where the public received a semblance of respect. How we get back there is a hard call, and given that Mayor Tory wants decorum, but can’t bring himself to read the riot act publicly to the worst abusers (let alone refrain from his own trivialization of critical comment), I am not sure. A change in the Speaker and in several Committee Chairs would be a good start, but I’m not holding my breath.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hopefully the TTC meetings can start being streamed live, then at least there may be some people to listen to these deputations…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have sat in the audience as people have spoken in a similar style. I find you have to really sit and listen – sometimes the person is speaking with explicit language because they are honestly at the end of their string with the issue. For example, some people have disabilities that are not obvious (arthritis for example) and suffer using transit because of healthy people sitting in the disabled seats. The person may have complained – to the driver, to the TTC itself, on many occasions with no assistance at all. It may not be right, but the person may not be able to help their language, he/she just cannot get any help. Others may be simply speaking with inappropriate language – it all depends on the situation.
LikeLike
Apropos of nothing, I stumbled across this wonderful phrasing on The Guardian the other day:
LikeLike
I remember making one, and it was supported by Howard Moscoe. Planning dissed it, only to implement it less than a decade later. But, Steve: you can’t give up on Swan Boats.
LikeLike
I understand, and in most cases, being on the receiving end of this, as much as we’d like to do something for people who feel this way, sometimes there’s just nothing we can do because our hands are tied, which makes it worse.
Having said that, the behaviour is still no excuse – I am, along with those who do this sort of work, a human being and not piece of garbage. I think some people forget we’re humans too. It must be even worse for those who work in the public sector and have to do this. I would imagine the abuse is endless. You don’t have any more right to yell at me and treat me horribly than I do you – and plus, I would never go to where you work and start berating you.
LikeLike
These meetings & decisions can be highly “politically motivated” & the effects of these decisions can have serious consequences to many citizens. Unfortunately when you don’t have Political power or connections making “noise” is the last hope to make change. Being polite, nice & accepting of a process that chooses to ignore the needs of many citizens is not going to create change whatsoever.
I’m not saying this behavior is OK but I’m also not saying the process is fair either. Therefore to say as a blanket statement that there’s no excuse for this behavior is irresponsible in my opinion. I can’t really put blame on people who are extremely upset on specific topics which hit home. I agree that some people go way too far & many of the public servants on the front line that should treated with such negativity. But if your job is to support this type of Political process on the front line than this should be expected.
Change whether good or bad rarely occurs without chaos.
Steve: A further problem arises because to most members of the public, all staff at a “consultation” meeting are the same whether they are contracted facilitators, junior or mid-level, or senior planners who had a hand in whatever is being discussed. Only someone who knows the players well, and knows who really deserves a browbeating for a really dumb scheme, knows who deserves a public scolding, as opposed to those who are simply doing their jobs by being there to give information and get feedback. Everybody gets tarred with the same brush even though they may not all deserve this. Indeed, the politicians who launched the process and who really should take any blame might not even be present.
I have found that there are limits to the effectiveness of “being nice”, especially at the political level. Pols understand unhappy voters.
LikeLike
The TTC Town Hall Meeting apparently will be webcast on Youtube and via Twitter. Will they be doing the same with the all TTC meetings in the future, hopefully?
Steve: Facilities exist to do this with meetings at City Hall, but not, I believe for those at 1900 Yonge Street (TTC Head Office).
LikeLike
W.K lis said: The TTC Town Hall Meeting apparently will be webcast on Youtube and via Twitter. Will they be doing the same with the all TTC meetings in the future, hopefully?
As Steve said it’s beyond the limitations of 1900. As venerable an old building as it is it was never designed with the internet in mind. It was designed to offices and face to face meetings.
Eventually a new building will be constructed and no doubt that will be included. Quite frankly I’m surprised they still do meetings there.
After all, they do Monthly TTC Board Meetings at City Hall why not just have all the meetings there. With that in mind whatever happened to John Tory’s pledge to hold board meetings in all the former cities and boroughs (Scarborough, East York, etc)? We had one in North York but that was it.
Steve: The committee meetings were added to the schedule fairly recently, and all of the rooms at City Hall were already booked, particularly the two big committee rooms where the TTC usually meets. As for runouts to the local City Halls, the logistics of that are messy, and I don’t think the one at North York really accomplished anything. That’s the most accessible of the “remote” city halls being at least centrally located. Scarborough is next but it’s a smallish council chamber without much room for support staff. Etobicoke isn’t even on the subway.
LikeLike
Steve said ” Etobicoke isn’t even on the subway.” Be careful what you say, it’s talk like that that leads to ‘subways, subways, subways”! :->
LikeLike
There has been a shift to some greater respect with Mr. Tory, but it’s still City Wall, and it takes forever! to get scant done, even though it seems logical, fully in keeping with Official Plans and statements and motions about climate containment, and the opportunities of a rich city. The core is a goose and it’s outvoted all the time by the older suburbs; and it’s worse with what Don Harron rightly called “amanglemation”. The core councillors are often trying to do the good things, and what their locals want, but their agendas are far fuller than the low-rise old suburbs, so they’re spread thin along with the outnumbering.
This outnumbering maintains privilege, which is basically car-servative, and supporting of the enablings of a larger sector of society, which if they had the same degree of user pay as say the subway/transit, or the ferry, we’d have some free billions around for housing repairs etc.
And maybe it wouldn’t matter so much if we did waste a few billion on a stupid subway project, not that we can find out how other Big and less-wise subway projects have done ie. what are the numbers on costs for Sheppard, and the first Spadina Extension?
Trying to get simpler things to occur, let alone major change, is so very uphill, and the staff know that there’s a very low ‘ceiling’ of innovation and tolerance for truths and planning, so we tend to get folly after folly, with occasional moments of worth.
While this might work against some of the core councillors too, hmm, could we improve our voter turnout by allowing to vote against some of the existing members of Clowncil? Vote them off the Island? The four year terms are also part of our problem maybe – being stuck with some of these folks is an issue, and everyone listens better near elections.
Steve swipes at some of the deputants as having hobby-horses, and yet, one has to be on the obsessed side to drag the large City along. For instance, the Bloor/Danforth bikeway, now maybe to be studied again, has been nearly a ten-year commitment to study, and yet Bloor/Danforth was the #1 best for an east-west route in 1992, according to the first study, which neglected to look at the interplay between transit and bikes, which can occur in a positive way, though I also think that part of the reason why we don’t have good bike routes parallel to transit demands is that bikes represent competition, and the City/TTC makes money from core routes, where the bike clearly is good competition.
I used my friend Pat’s term of “Caronto” for us; but now I think it’s better called “Moronto”. And that can include the voters.
Steve: The point I was making is that whenever something like the BD bikeway is dragged into any issue, no matter how tangentially it may be related, it simply leads to the “here we go again” reception and listeners tune out. Also, I was trying to give some sense of how the “same old, same old” deps are viewed by the pols, some of whom are genuinely hoping for new insights and fresh ideas on issues of the day. But when something like a bikeway becomes a cure for all evils, then it is no better than SmartTrack which was sold as the one transit project to solve all problems. It’s not credible for ST and it’s not credible for the bikeway or for the Gatineau BRT, especially if this is peddled (pardon me on that) as an alternative to the DRL.
Repetitive deps turn off members to the good ones that do come along, even from people who usually have only one story to tell, because the assumption is that they are all a waste of time. There are serious proposals floating around to limit speaking time and the number of issues someone can speak on at one meeting. That’s partly why I wrote this article.
As for the voters, implying they are morons will get you nowhere at all. We may not like how they voted, but they voted. The challenge is to win them over next time, not to piss them off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think anything that is presented as a cure all – it is – or at least should be – received with great skepticism. A DRL is as close as it comes, and even this is a very long ways from solving all that ills Toronto transit. Transit City like wise. A silver bullet solution, is not even something we should be looking for. Transit and cycling, like autos, require networks.
LikeLike