Thanks Chris for your comment – as always, many good points. My counter argument would be this:

City halls need to hear everybody – activists and non-activists. The plain fact is, activists are very good at getting their voices heard, if they are good at being activists. The challenge for cities is to hear the activists – who absolutely have an essential role in any democracy – but also have the tools in place to hear ‘engaged non-activists’. By confusing activists and non-activists and demanding vaguely-defined ‘expertise’ to be on an advisory committee, we skew the committees far too far towards activism and, worse, special interests and resume-padders looking to run for council. This hurts the committees’ ability to get the respect they need to be heard, and the most rare commodity at city halls – independent assessment and insight from a citizen perspective – is cut out of the process once again.

BFAST was created, as I understand it, out of an advisory committee that was seen by some city hall insiders as ‘too pro-transit’ and in essence got fired. As a citizen activist group I’m not sure any organisation in Burlington has managed to change the conversation around transit so effectively. As an advisory committee they were dismissed, ignored and ineffective at changing the direction of a chronically anti-transit council. They got far mpre respect outside city hall than they would ever have gotten if they stayed as an advisory committee.

Heritage Burlington also ran into a council (or councillors) who felt it was too ‘pro Heritage’ about 10 years ago. It was reorganised, members were forced out, the Burlington’s heritage register/database was abolished and replaced with something much smaller, and by the time of the last council it came to be dominated by a group of people with a hardline “property-owners’ rights” agenda. Believe me – that’s not me guessing or editorializing. I have multiple very good sources to that effect.

People with a view of the rights of owners of heritage properties deserve to have their voices heard, but they have no right taking over a committee and using it for their personal agenda. Activists have a right to be heard, but will tend to undermine the respect that councillors will give to advisory committees when working inside city halls.

This is exactly the point people made against ECoB. That it didn’t represent citizens, only an angry sub-section of citizens that had been orchestrated by the future mayor to aid her campaign. None of that is true, but let me ask you this. How would you feel if ECoB’s board took over the Sustainable Development Committee?

My final point would be: look at Toronto’s Planning Review Panel and tell me that those members are less capable than the volunteers the same committee would traditionally attract. Think of that same committee filled with 50% anti-density/anti-highrisers on one side, and 50% pro-density or development interests on the other. How would such a divided committee provide anything of value to a council or its staff? It would be ignored – and frankly, rightly so.

In your delegation, you state that ‘activists’ belong ‘outside city hall’, and seem to be of the perception that because certain members of the community have expertise with or interest in a specific subject, that they are therefore of little value as advisors. This is where I would strongly disagree.

The reality I’ve experienced is far more messy and far more real that what you suggest. Yes, committee members all bring their biases and experiences to the table. They also learn from the experience and knowledge of the others, from the staff that they interact with, and the developments taking place in the field. People often use the terms ‘activist’, ‘cyclist’, etc. as a means of dividing people and making them into an ‘other’ or something to be feared. But every person who volunteers for a committee is also just as much a member of the community as any other.

“A member of a cycling committee is probably a keen cyclist”. But what does that mean? In the cycling advisory committee, there are members with small children, grown-up children, high-schoolers, no children. Cargo bike riders and roadies. Members who commute to transit, members who take part in triathlons and charity rides, We have members with a police perspective, members who span the political spectrum from left to right. Women and men. From every ward in the city. There is a great deal of diversity already around that table. Could there be more dimensions of diversity represented? Absolutely. But the exposure to others that is inherent in the process is a great way to temper one’s biases and include different perspectives.

A few years back (I believe the end of 2016), the City conducted an open house where members of all advisory committees presented to the public. It was advertised widely. This was a great recruiting tool. We started the following year with many new members and a lot of new energy. Unfortunately, our committee hasn’t been enabled to keep up the recruiting since prior to the municipal election. As a result, we missed quorum several times, and many of the more senior members have passed the limit on our terms. Events were scaled back in 2019 due to lack of volunteers, and understandably events planned in 2020 haven’t happened due to COVID.

Like you, I hoped to see more come out of this review. I hoped to see a robust effort to market participation in citizens’ committees, and to focus on underrepresented groups in soliciting additional volunteers. I hoped to see some improved guidance and tools for committees to improve communication and involvement between them, the communities they represent, and Council. That can still happen but it’s been a long time coming. I’m glad they at least decided to open up recruiting. As it stands, we need to get moving quickly if this committee is to be even marginally functional in the remainder of this council term. Also, hoping that people know about such opportunities and decide to participate. We need you!

This council has a very aggressive goal in V2F to increase the mode share of active transport during its term. Getting input from the community of people who have expertise with and understanding of the challenges that people using active transportation face, is critical to help them get their goal achieved. They need the help of citizens, and citizens need the help of a Council that makes decisions on a fully informed basis.