CRD Pedestrian & Cycling Master Plan
E & N Rail Trail
Shellbourne Corridor
Lochside Trail & Galloping Goose
Bay St. Bridge
Johnson St. Bridge
Events
Vancouver Island Spine Trail
Oak Bay Active Transportation Strategy
by Diana Butler - former Mayor of Oak Bay
Introduction
As a citizen, planner and politician, I have had a considerable amount of exposure to and varied experience with advocacy. I have been on the winning side and the losing side, inside and outside City Hall. I hope I can use this experience to provide some interesting and useful comments.
Let me start with a definition of advocacy
- It is the act of advocating, pleading for, or supporting
- An advocate is one who pleads the cause of another; one who defends or espouses any cause by argument
- To advocate is to plead in favour of, to support, vindicate or recommend publicly
It seems to me that there are more citizen advocacy organizations today than there used to be, and from a wider range of interests - there seems to be an advocate for just about every issue and on every side of every issue. The tactics have improved, advocates are proving less willing to accept defeat or a token victory. They are also often much better organized.
At City Hall there are several kinds of issues that advocates most commonly bring before their elected officials:
- issues related to land use: i.e. changes to streets, parks, residential areas, commercial and industrial areas, zoning, official community plans, development proposals, etc.
- issues related to services, process and procedures: i.e. budget and taxes, garbage and recycling, recreation, by-laws, licensing, grants, etc.
How can advocates get their concerns on the agenda and keep them there?
There are some typically used means to get on a municipal agenda: some of these are initiated by proponents; others are initiated by city hall. In the former category, most often advocates contact officials - elected and non-elected in person or by telephone urging them to intervene; write letters, submit petitions, comes as delegations and make presentations to Mayor and Council.
In the latter category, the Municipal Act sets out requirements for municipalities under certain conditions to establish procedures and policies requiring information to be made available to the public (e.g. the posting of Council agendas; notification and advertising of specific meetings so that affected and/or interested individuals and groups and the general public are alerted about a particular issue and, invited to make their views known; establishing access to information; holding open and public meetings).
Many municipalities supplement these requirements with other consultation and participation practices (e.g. using Web Sites, making staff available to answer queries, calling special meetings to gain input and reaction, conducting surveys, seeking citizen involvement in advisory committees, inviting citizen input at council committee meetings).
An advocacy group serves itself and the interest it represents well by getting to know how City Hall works.
It is relatively easy, following the steps I have just outlined, to get an initial hearing at a Council meeting. It is sometimes another thing to get a matter followed up on or resolved to the satisfaction of the advocates.
What information do decision makers need?
It is rare for politicians to hear from anything but a minority of residents of a municipality - even on issues of major concern. In a representative democracy politicians are elected to represent the interests of their community and their citizens - the public good. Politicians, therefore, need to consider the following possibilities:
- there is a silent majority opposed to the activist view;
- the silent majority has no opinion one way or the other and wouldn't care what the politician does;
- the articulate group, knowingly or not, is in fact speaking for the majority; and,
- no matter what the silent majority is thinking, the group is presenting the politician with an unmet need or a new issue that he or she ought to recognize.
Given the dilemma that these alternatives pose for the politician, in my experience, advocacy groups help themselves if they can establish the legitimacy of their organization and their issue.
How should advocates express their concerns? Some do's and don'ts.
Advocacy groups vary considerably in their structure; the area or interest they represent; and in their socio-economic characteristics. These differences can affect and influence their understanding and analysis of a situation, the tactics they will use to promote their cause, and how they are perceived by both the public and city hall.
Politicians also vary considerably: in terms of their backgrounds; their knowledge of the community; understanding of issues and how local government works; level of sophistication and skills; their values and personalities; willingness and ability to listen, to be flexible; their courage and persistence; whether they are followers or leaders. If advocates are trying to influence city hall, they need to understand who they are dealing with.
There are a number of tools commonly used by advocates in pursuit of their cause -
to capture the attention of a wider group - to gain allies and legitimacy in the community and apply pressure on Council.
For example: organizing themselves and others in the community to contact members of Council, write letters to Council and the media; prepare media releases and articles, take part in media interviews and discussions; stage demonstrations, protests, and special events; submit petitions and briefs; attend Council meetings, form delegations and make representations to Council.
This takes time, energy and commitment and in some cases financial resources. It also requires judgment of when and what to do. Tactics need to be tailored to the issue, the situation and the persons involved in the decision-making.
Some do's and don'ts
- Get organized, find allies - it's hard to do it on your own
- Get involved - the sooner the better
- Be honest and sincere
- Get informed - be logical, research your interest or issue well, know your facts - nothing undermines your credibility more that faulty information
- Present viable and realistic options; try to keep the loonier notions to a minimum
- Be flexible and willing to compromise - sometimes it is better to get something rather than nothing
- Do not assume that all politicians are just out for themselves or their friends - avoid slander
- Keep to the issue, not the personalities
- Be responsible
- Be passionate if need be - but try not to gush too much, it puts some people off
- Avoid being rude, avoid heckling and interrupting - be respectful of others views - including the opposition
- Understand how Council works - its policies and procedures
- Keep a united front - avoid fragmenting
- Find champions in the community and, if possible, on Council
- Avoid lengthy oral presentations - put them in writing
- Try cooperation rather than confrontation
- Try using a little humour
- Identify spokespeople and supporters
- Be persistent if necessary, if at first you don't succeed, try again
Some politicians, but not all, are susceptible to protests involving large numbers of citizens - it takes courage to make a decision that is unpopular with a large group of citizens.
However, while credibility can be helped if there is demonstrated support for an issue in a community, numbers alone will not do the job. Credibility can be undermined if some of the above tactics and approaches are used inappropriately. Counting heads is not necessarily going to lead to the right decision on what to do about an issue.Hopefully, Council, having studied an issue in depth and having received input from staff and the public, will be aware of the merits of an issue - including financial and legal constraints, the larger public interest and the needs of the whole community rather than a localized group.
Two Case Studies
I now want to briefly look at 2 examples of advocacy which will pick up on some of the points I have made.. I was involved with them during my time on Council.
The Arts Policy for Greater Victoria
For many years, the 4 core municipalities funded arts organizations through the Intermunicipal Committee, basing their decisions on recommendations from a volunteer advisory group. This group, supported by the professional and community arts, identified the need to take a look at some additional and alternative supports for the arts. On the first try, the 4 core councils refused their request for a study. The groups persevered - demonstrating the importance of the arts to Greater Victoria - the economic benefits, community support through attendance and financial contributions, and the contribution to quality of life. They persuaded a number of members of the Intermunicipal Committee to champion their cause - they got a study. They worked closely with the consultant. When the study was completed, they lent support to the recommendations by attending council meetings, lobbying, presenting a unified and strong presence. The result was the establishment of a structure to support the arts and ensure their viability - a structure which is still in place today, some 10 years later.
This case demonstrates how people can build their influence by working together, developing a strong case, dealing directly with decision-makers, negotiating a settlement to address the issues solved, and backing it up with persistence in seeing that the improvements are adhered to.
Currie Road Pump Station
Some years ago, a decision was made to construct the East Coast Interceptor to carry sewage to Clover Point from Saanich, Oak Bay and Victoria. Given the topography of the area, there was a need to build a pump station in the Windsor Park area of Oak Bay. The site first selected by the CRD was in the park involving a largely underground structure. Neighbours were notified of a CRD informational meeting at the Park Pavilion. Although every house surrounding the Park was leafleted, only 6 people came to the meeting. Some time later, as plans proceeded, word spread, opposition developed, the media played up the opposition. After hearing representations from residents, Council asked the CRD to go back to the drawing boards - to look for alternative sites.
Eventually another site was identified, however it required rezoning. In the meantime Council had visited Seattle to visit a number of pump stations in that city and to learn from their experience. Opposition to the new site arose - Council was presented with a 1200 name petition some 250 people attended the public hearing which lasted 7 hours. At the end of the day, Council's unanimous decision supported the rezoning. The pump station has since been built and it would be hard today to find anyone who has a problem with it.
Why did the efforts of so many fail.
For the East Coast Interceptor, a site had to be found for the pump station. The wider regional public interest required a decision. The choice was in the location of the site. After reviewing many possibilities Council felt this was the preferred location in terms of its impact - the least bad alternative as one Councillor said. Many of the arguments presented, were not based on fact. Council having spent considerable time investigating concerns raised, including the visit to Seattle, was able to feel comfortable about the facts as they were presented by the consultants and CRD and municipal staffs. The debate went on for months, during this period, another group emerged who were adversely affected by the existing sewage outfall situation, they organized and championed the construction of the pump station. They were able to effectively counter the arguments of those opposed and to represent a wider community interest.
