What's Up With "What's Down" About Gravenhurst, And How Can It Be Fixed?

WHAT'S UP WITH "WHAT'S DOWN" ABOUT GRAVENHURST, AND HOW CAN IT BE FIXED?

TOWN COUNCIL CONTINUES TO INSULATE ITSELF FROM WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN THE MUNICIPALITY

     I want readers to keep one thing in mind while reading this politically natured tome. There is nothing with our town, in regards to governance concerns, in the eyes of constituents, that can't be fixed, and improved upon in a reasonable amount of time. It does however, hinge on our councillors insight, and willingness to listen to local issues, to appreciate there is a problem in the first place. It has a negative beginning, and a positive outcome. The benefits? Well, anything is better than the dissatisfaction at present, and it is limited our ability to compete, attract investment, and progress past this current stalemate. It doesn't have to be this way, and no one, and I mean that, has to surrender, in order to make constituents feel their voices will be heard.
     When someone like me, a troublesome chap with a laptop and a blog, offers up a critique of some action, or reaction of our municipal council, here in Gravenhurst, it is immediately considered by those it targets, to be the work of a miserable old bastard, a little better than a heretic, who might well have been burned at the stake, for speaking out against authority, had it happened five hundred years ago. I had the same non-appeal to other councils in the District of Muskoka, when I was an editor with Muskoka Publications, and then the Gravenhurst Banner, back in the late 1970's until 1990. I asked too many questions, poked my nose in where it didn't belong, according to those I was reporting on, and who hated me most profoundly, when I caught them in the act of some cover-up, or compromised position, contrary to what they had maintained to be truthful. Honestly, our reporters could have cleaned house on quite a few occasions, but instead of plunging in the swords to finish them off, we allowed them to recant, and re-visit opinions, they thought were cast in stone. We called it our own mercy rule. We knew they were afraid of bad ink, and especially if they had greater political aspirations. After a few years of badgering, and watching them closely, The Herald-Gazette, and Bracebridge Examiner, just doing their job of providing information to readership, had our local governance answering our questions, and volunteering themselves for interviews; because avoiding us with ridiculous excuses was also worthy of ink, a bold headline, and a position above the fold. "Councillor unwilling to talk to reporters," wasn't the kind of headline most of these political hot shots wanted, especially in a special place we had for those kind of stories, above the fold, which looked great on the news stands.
     There are council representatives, past and present, in Gravenhurst today, who know that what I'm alluding to is true. They knew what it was like when there were tenacious, mildly vicious reporters, hanging off their every words, with media scrutiny at a sharp edge; newshounds following-up with investigations until all the information was ferreted out, printed and editorialized. They might shiver at the thought, but it was, as well, one of the most transparent times in the history of local municipal government. The media didn't give an inch, and they didn't get thrown off the scent of a good story, just because an official wouldn't return a phone call, or attend a meeting with a reporter. It is a huge difference with the media, as it exists today, which hasn't facilitated much in the way of hardcore, unflinching reporting, preferring instead a softer, more feature oriented approach. When in reality, what readers want, other than the classified ads and obituaries, is the skinny on political and governance misadventures, to inform them about what is going on in their communities, and town hall, deep, deep behind the scenes set out for public consumption. What's good about hard-core investigative reporting, is that it keeps our administration on its collective toes. If they know guys like me are lurking around, they're going to make sure to cover their bases. Do you mean, "cover-up" stuff, from the constituents they represent? That's yet to be determined, because, well, I don't work for the community press, and it doesn't appear likely, the local media is going to grow fangs in the near, or even distant future.
     But here's the thing. I think we had some great councils back in the days we were covering them, including Bracebridge, Muskoka Lakes, and Gravenhurst, because councillors knew how prudent it was, to face the press respectfully, and answer questions truthfully, because what was left to dangle, could snap back and hurt someone down the pike. They knew they couldn't outrun us, and that our publishers would give us the time to investigate the kind of stories that would sell papers, and inevitably, provide the circulation numbers to encourage more advertisers to jump aboard. It was win-win for us, whenever we got hold of a juicy story, especially if it was one that we uncovered by sleuthing, that council didn't want in the public domain. Like hitting a home run, with an old wooden bat, the feel of hitting the ball on the sweet spot, was a beautiful thing. By the end of my own tenure, we had really developed a good relationship with our coverage-area town councils, because they had given-up trying to sanitize what the public deserved, and had a right to know. They actually began to understand the "freedom of the press" thing, and we cut them some slack, and went off the record a lot, in order to protect what we felt needed to be protected, because of its sensitive nature. Even true to our mandate of this same freedom of the press, we also had to make dozens of value judgements every week, about exposing something prematurely, that could have put us in a courtroom, and having to suffer through a libel action. We actually got to a point, they trusted our discretion and professionalism, to be responsible with highly sensitive information; because we did make use of the essence of confidential information acquired off the record, which made us more astute when it comes to understanding the more complex, hidden, context of highly controversial issues.
     The are councillors today, who are fearful of media scrutiny, and this is unfortunate. They like media reporters at several arms' length, even football field distances, and preferably, working in another jurisdiction entirely. They will boast how transparent they are governing, yet it is their opinion of transparency, not that of an investigating journalist. Making claims of transparency and being transparent, according to what constituents might like to know, is a major divide, and I've found this out by being in the front line; answering to readers who don't buy the odor-free version as fact. Gravenhurst Council today, gets itself in quagmires as far as public perception, because they prefer to stay, as much as possible, ink-free, unless its to caption a grip and grin photograph of nothing in particular. They love media attention as long as it isn't negative. They like reporters, as long as they aren't prying for the big scoop. They are attracted to stories that show their kinder, more benevolent side, but not so much, when a reporter finds a fly in the proverbial ointment, and wants more information.
     Gravenhurst Council has become almost a non-entity, obtuse and an abstraction at times, like a Jackson Pollock painting, unless one has to actually square-off with them, across the table at town hall, and can detect the whites of their eyes. The administration at town hall, the working mechanism of local government, is far more identifiable, and it is not an exaggeration, to suggest they are a feared; many folks being nervous of what challenges they will face, trying to get even simple projects through the red tape of municipal administration. There have been recent newspaper reports highlighting this reality, that council doesn't appear to take very seriously. If I was asked, as a pretty beefy critic of local government, to offer one, and only one suggestion, about how to improve public perception, and address constituent mistrust, and malaise in general, it would be to let it all hang-out at a series of public meetings, with media front and centre, allowing constituents free time at the microphone, to present problems they have had dealing with town hall in the past. Especially the recent past.      Councillors should be forced to hear the truth, whether they can handle it or not. It's not to suggest they won't get positive feedback, and accolades at the same time. But it is entirely necessary, that they wise-up to what's going on in this town, which in large part, is rooted from town hall, and has something to do with either a lack of transparency, shortage of sensitivity, or glaring inconsistency, which we hear about most frequently. It's what happens when you have a council that likes its quarters at town hall, and prefers not to walk free range, amongst those who are pissed-off about the way the municipality is being operated, and the inconsistent decisions being made on their behalf. Avoidance has been the option most preferred. Yet there would be something truly inspiring, to know that councillors weren't afraid of taking some heat, if it meant an improved relationship with constituents as a net result. A new mutually appreciated forum, that would bridge the gap that exists today, between those who govern, and those who truly want to work toward a better, more accommodating community.
     The first step, of such a reformation of attitude, is for town council to take back the true authority of running this municipality. We didn't elect town hall staff. Constituents want to see council representatives moving about in this town, in a friendly and approachable fashion, like we do, on a daily basis, as members of the main street business community, and interacting with all of us good folk who call this place home, because it's the way this town used to operate, when it was a much more endearing and friendly place to live. If this seems shocking, that I'm bold and truthful enough, to suggest our hometown has lost some of its lustre, then your should label be a heretic, and be done with it! If however, you know I'm at least in the same ballpark, with your opinion, then suggesting we begin promoting a more accommodating, friendly, co-operative  town hall, would seem the kind of advice, you wouldn't burn a fellow at the stake for suggesting.
     It really doesn't matter to any of us frankly, if our elected officials feel a little hurt, being told they aren't the best and most capable ambassadors of goodwill for this community. I have never subscribed to the opinion, that problems will resolve themselves over time, or the "let them eat cake" scenario, where it's deemed better to follow one's instinct in governance, versus what may actually be correct, and the best way to proceed. Enablers whitewash council's foibles, and by their insistence on forgiving errors in judgement, we all fall further and further behind as a municipality, known for its inconsistent action and re-action to situations, and unexpected, unforseen circumstances. While council likes to hold its cards close, they are by this method of operation, creating a deeply rooted suspicion, they are inept to govern; but allowing the public to air these concerns, would clearly demonstrate, once and for all, for the public record, there are many of us, (contrary to their belief), who adamently believe something is hobbling town hall's ability to connect with constituents.
     Fearing criticism is counter productive to making serious improvement in this town. Constituent unrest is growing, and has been for the past three or four terms. It doesn't have to be this way. Much of the difficulty, lies in the perception, town hall is operating on their own agenda, more than for the good or pressing desires of constituents. I hear scathing reports all the time, as a willing ear, about unfolding debacles involving constituents frustrated to tears, trying to deal with town hall departments. I can't blame a specific department, because I am not an adjudicator, or writing a specific story, (although some of it is awfully tempting) and I must be neutral and fair in response. I don't write news stories now, so all my information is gathered "off the record." It doesn't mean I can't share generalizations and overviews garnered from these discussions. I just won't advocate for a specific cause, unless, of course, on a personal level, and for the benefit of our all important tourism industry, it involves parking ticket violations, and why I think council should drop the whole parking issue, until they can study it more thoroughly, and sensibly, later in the year.     Point is, and I wish I could convey this to councillors themselves, over a cup of java any place other than town hall, how this growing negative perception, and grading of town council, and town hall administration, is hurting us in all quarters of this beautiful little community in South Muskoka. If they're happy being deluded, believing that everyone out there thinks they're doing a bang-up-job, all they have to do, when they have a quiet moment, is to seriously contemplate the poor voting numbers, in last autumn's municipal election. Far too many constituents have quit worrying about town hall, and whether or not, it is providing even a smidgeon of leadership. Many have just learned to network on their own projects, and boost the community through their own hard work, refusing to ask the town for any assistance or endorsement. The most pressing reality, and I will take the blame for my own dissertations, of the negative flavor, is that the word is spreading, and not just about our municipality's much higher property taxes, than partner townships in the district. Critics are not confined to bloggers like me, or editorialists in the local media. We get our share of bombardments and truly nasty tweets online, and then there's the word of mouth, between stakeholders, and while it might be argued by councillors that you can't get avoid getting critiqued harshly, no matter what you do, there still shouldn't be any argument, it needs to be appreciated and understood, as to why it generated in the first place. Are all tweets negative? Are there positive tweets about Gravenhurst? Are they the only ones important to us? Or might there be some truth we don't want to admit or acknowledge, when someone issues a rebuke for the way they were treated by our town, or by local businesses. I judge these critiques, and reviews, adverse or complimentary, as being world-wide you see, as they are, and we should be clear, on what some of these damning overviews, are costing us in reputation. From what I gather, from minor discussions, in this regard, if the tweet isn't to the town's liking, it is dismissed as readily, as my blogs are discounted, as the ravings of a lunatic, who used to work in the local media. Wisdom should tell us, to the contrary, that criticism is what allows us the leverage, to make restoration when and where it is needed. If I was to report to town hall, that a building was leaning badly, having the potential to collapse at any time, how would my critique of the situation be reviewed? Would it be something like "that Currie guy, who is always hassling us, thinks a building is going to collapse, and potentially threaten life and limb." I imagine the rolled eyes on news like that, from a guy like me. But, I wouldn't go to town hall in the first place. The precedents of past frustrations, would lead me elsewhere.