By Don White.

I know my going back to the 2019 motions of Councillors Brown and Hemmens for ensuring gender parity and providing childcare might seem like beating on a long-dead horse. But there are important lessons for going effectively into 2020 in what happened related to those motions.

In short: Those on Nanaimo Council who wish to do things differently, who want to try new approaches in this rapidly changing world, need to start thinking and acting a whole lot smarter.

Reactions of some on Council to the tabled motions illuminate a number of important principles that can be helpful to this process. As such, the principles are well worth listing, and the pitfalls noted are worth avoiding.

1. Mind the wording

Just two small bits of wording created major hurdles for the initiatives being passed. First, the term “ensure” in the gender-parity motion raised resistance because it implied quota systems. Second, inclusion of the phrase “members of Council” in the motion to provide childcare rang alarms because it sounded like our Council wanted to award itself a subsidy.

Although Brown and Hemmens assured Council that “ensure” was only to create policy goalposts, not create enforceable bylaws, the limited discussion on the motion completely ignored that aspect. Similarly, debate on providing childcare became restricted to council compensation and ignored Hemmens’ stated goal of facilitating participation of volunteers.

Although Mayor Krog’s somewhat derogatory objection to the childcare initiative was voiced in in relation to that one motion, it applies equally to both. “[T]his is an issue that … based on the wording of this motion … divided this community…” But instead of considering alternative wording to address key concerns of the initiatives, Krog and the majority on Council opted to defer the motions. Which brings up the next principle.

2. Beware of deferrals (and possible hidden objectives)

Before either the gender parity or childcare motion was discussed at the council table, Mayor Krog went directly to Councillor Maartman and asked for motions of deferral. Maartman obliged, saying she wanted broader discussions of the motions than were possible in a council meeting.

Ironically, the motions to defer may have ended any real possibility of that happening. Deferrals are often used to reduce immediate, public interest in particular concerns. Immediacy is reduced simply by delay. Interest is further diminished by removing an unwanted debate from view. Out of sight; out of mind. The royal commission syndrome. The majority on Council opted to do both.

From the moment Maartman made her motions, discussion was limited to the motions to defer and necessarily excluded the original motions of Brown and Hemmens. And, as I’ll note next, no committee meetings will be debating those motions any time soon. So much for immediacy.

As for the motions’ removal from public view, I have written how our City committees, by their nature, are less accessible. Reduced space for audience, inconvenient times, etc., effectively limit public attention when an issue is sent away by council. Hemmens argued that a fully public discussion was a main reason for bringing the motions to a council meeting in the first place. Council’s passing of Maartman’s motions sidelined that discussion.

3: Watch for incorrect, incomplete, misleading information

Councillor Armstrong argued to defer the gender parity motion on the basis that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) was already doing a project on achieving parity in local government. She said the FCM is submitting a report on the project in April-May of 2020 along with a toolkit for implementing its recommendations. Nanaimo should wait until that report and toolkit are available before considering requesting City staff do a similar report.

Councillor Thorpe agreed with this reasoning, as did Krog, who was “most moved by what Councillor Armstrong had to say about the FCM study.” Thorpe then provided a similar rationale for deferring the motion on providing childcare. A report on council compensation is in the works by city staff, he said, and “will be coming to Council, hopefully within the year [2019].”

However, a closer look suggests the claims of both Armstrong and Thorpe were inaccurate in fact. The FCM’s website states their project is a three year initiative running from 2018-2021. In a clarifying letter, the FCM Project Manager said an Action Plan [not a report] will be presented at the March 2020 Board Meeting. Its approval will then allow the main project to begin.

Contrary to what was apparently understood by Armstrong, no conclusions on how to enact gender parity in local governments is planned for April-May, 2020. The project may continue until the end of 2021, with the final report coming in 2022. The toolkit Armstrong suggested “would be coming” is already here, but contains mostly blank questionnaires for collecting data.

Similarly, the report on Council Compensation heralded by Thorpe is further off than implied in the December 2, 2019 meeting. On December 16, Council only authorized creation of a “panel” that is mandated to assemble an independent task force to begin considerations and report back by the end of 2020. Actual discussion of the recommendations will likely begin in 2021.

Which begs the question: were there other reasons for delaying-to-kill these particular initiatives?

4. Note the biases present at the table

As defined by the delegation from Equal Voice at the December 2 meeting, unconscious biases are “attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions and decisions in an unconscious manner.” They can give us blind spots and impact how we think/act/vote. And biases impact and characterize groups as well as individuals.

How does our Council differ that that of North Vancouver, which recently considered a similar initiative for providing childcare for the public wishing to attend meetings at City Hall? Two differences are readily apparent: Average age on the North Vancouver Council is lower and they have a lower ratio of men to women.

Nanaimo, with an older, male-dominated council, deferred a motion to consider childcare indefinitely; North Vancouver, with a younger, female-dominated council passed its initiative unanimously.

This should not come as a surprise. Greater resistance to innovation for gender equity is to be expected in a council dominated by those normally considered change-resistant: i.e. older individuals; and by those who are members of the gender that has dominated throughout our cultural history, i.e. men.

However, biases can be mitigated if we are mindful of their presence and of what’s really on the line if we fail to be conscious of their impact. Which brings us to today’s last principle.

5. Keep the real stakes front and centre

To reach any goal, Council must prevent less important issues from deflecting their attention. In the same way that “ensure” distracted them from debating the real core issue – the electorate’s need for a more equitable representation of its voices – they will continue being derailed unless they consciously and actively take steps to prevent it happening.

Council needs also to remember that goals require appropriate terminology. “Goalposts” are, by definition, merely targets. Targets are wishes, intentions, and not insurable. Small wonder “ensure” in the motion on gender parity caused such consternation.

Those on Council who wish to propose novel initiatives need to clearly specify their ultimate goals, both to themselves and to others at the table. Hemmens argued for providing childcare for volunteers. Brown focussed on the need for childcare subsidies for councillors. These are different goals, that may lead, ultimately, to the same place – equitable representation of the electorate in city hall. However, they involve very different routes with vastly different obstacles. Council’s distraction by the issue of its own entitlement ended debate on support for volunteers.

Similarly, those on Council who would bring change should guard against others being unduly distracted by the target group specified in any particular initiatives. Working for gender parity in one initiative does not exclude working for equitable representation of other groups. Advancing gender parity does not de-emphasis the need for racial parity. However, it is unlikely Council will ever develop a single initiative that includes everyone on all parameters. Each advance needs to be seen as is a single step of many, all of which are needed to reach the ultimate objective.

At its roots, what occurred in Council on December 2 relative to the motions for gender parity and daycare may well reflect quite different views of the necessity for change. Voters might rightly conclude that our council is divided between those who defend policies that maintain the status quo and those who believe that continuing with the status quo is problematic.

Understanding the differences between the two approaches is crucially important given the numerous, looming crises humanity is facing. Every day, we hear of more instances where “established” ways of doing things, where “business as usual”, lead only to dead ends.

Increasing evidence supports the belief that the real movement toward sustainability happens locally, not nationally, or globally. If those on Council want their initiatives for change to be effective, they would be wise to understand the apparently, deep-rooted divide regarding change present at our current Council table. And they would be equally wise to keep the above principles in mind. Doing both can only assist them, and all of us, in going forward.