Post-Forum Mashup: Keeping It Classy

This is the fourth installment in my High River Byelection Blog Series.  Read the first installment "Stirring the Pot in High River", the second installment "The 365-Day Councillor", and the third installment "Dance a Little Sidestep".  You can also skip ahead to "Bonus Round: Taking Your Questions" and "What's a Voter in High River to Do?", the final entry in the series.

As far as byelection forums go, that one turned out very, very well.  It had laughter, it had a few well-placed zingers, and it had tears.  By any measure, this would be good for a regular election forum, so it was an especially successful evening.
​
Last night I attended a Candidates Forum at the Highwood Memorial Centre.  The room was absolutely filled, perhaps even risking maximum capacity.  For my part as a resident, I wish to offer thanks to the High River and District Chamber of Commerce for hosting a spectacularly well-attended evening.

The High River and District Chamber of Commerce hosted the Candidates Forum, attended by well over 100 people Tuesday night.  At the front are the candidates being introduced by Chamber President Steven Muth.

It was likely an informative evening for the current Councillors who were in attendance as well.  As I mentioned to one Councillor, it must be gratifying to hear how many things the residents support the current Council in doing, even if they didn’t realize Council was working on them.

For example, some residents didn’t know Council had already approved the removal of the 12th Avenue sandbags.  Some residents didn’t know how taxes were calculated.  Some residents didn’t know that user fees for the recreation centre are established by a committee of residents.  Candidates were able to not only inform residents about how these things happen, but the questions showed that they approve of the current Council’s direction, even if they didn’t know they approved of it.

So how did the candidates perform?  The good news is that they all performed very genuinely.  Not a single individual at that head table came across as canned, plastic or curated.  Voters can count on the “what you see is what you get” feel of their choice.  Each of them are also very well-qualified in their own way.

I am excited to say that I could easily see any one of them in that vacant seat on Council, and feel confident with their work.  But alas, only one gets to win, so …

The evening started off with Sandra Wiebe, and so will this blog.  Wiebe is the least experienced when it comes to putting her name forward for political office, so it came as no surprise that she started off appearing nervous.  She started off by explaining that she “is not a politician”, and it showed.  However, that nervousness disappeared very quickly after her opening statement.  Wiebe is a “people first” candidate, with each of her responses considering the human implications before anything else.  How to communicate; be out with the people and connect in person and in Social Media.  How to deal with Downtown business vacancy; help people realize how great the Downtown is going to be, and help owners connect to the resources they need to move forward.  The role she will have on Council; communicate, volunteer and improve volunteerism, and connect with residents.
​
Wiebe’s most significant challenge was when she found herself having nothing to add following the very-detailed responses by other candidates.  On plenty of occasions she was caught confirming other candidates’ statements, even saying once “Michael stole my line”.  She balanced that by not only saying she puts people first, but by also standing up for an audience member when she was embarrassed by being put on the spot by another participant (who was obviously an already-decided voter).

The next to the microphone was Terry Coleman.  Coleman had already had an impressive resume listed off by the moderator.  He spoke confidently reading from a prepared opening statement, but he would only do that for that and the closing statement he had prepared.  The remainder of the evening he spoke without cue cards, and showed his understanding of the Municipal Government Act and many of the issues at hand.  Coleman is a “to-the-point” candidate, saying only a few things, but only because they are the things worth saying.  It is obvious he is also the safety candidate, focusing on a revised flood-zone map, a revised Land-Use Bylaw, visibility of a police force, and of course the flood mitigation.  He is also the “coffee shop candidate”, saying on multiple occasions that his best consulting is done in one of the coffee shops in town.  “You can hang around a coffee shop and I’ll show up sooner or later.”

Coleman unfortunately comes across as the driest among the candidates.  When asked about what the role of the Councillor is, he simply quoted from the Municipal Government Act.  When it comes to building vacancies or recreation user fees, he'd follow due process by listening to Town Staff or appointed committees.  In his dryness, he is also absolutely right, and minces no extra words to be right.  His biggest foible was with a question about what will be done with the sandbags on 12th Avenue, and not being aware Town Council had already addressed that issue.  He may have balanced that with a clear understanding of the police force, and therefore the ability to provide a detailed response to concerns about criminal activity.  He also closed the evening with a very strong statement of differentiation; “I know nothing about making whiskey, nor flying hot air balloons … and very little about publishing … but I do have the relevant experience and record to work on Council.”

---

Michael Nychyk set himself apart immediately at the opening statement by never once looking down at a script.  He purposefully made eye contact with as many people in the room as he could (which was a tall order considering the attendance).  His opening statement wasn’t much of one, instead opting to give more time for the forum so that he could “listen to the residents”.  Nychyk is selling himself as the next-generation candidate, focusing on the issues that pertain to those under the age of 29.  He focuses on economic recovery, development and diversification so as to encourage young families to set up shop and stay.  Nychyk also advertised himself well as the numbers guy, aware of the income and expenses and the necessity to balance both.  When discussing user fees for recreation, he rightly points out that there is a cost, and that user fees are set to help mitigate that cost.  He shows a genuine interest in connecting with the community to get feedback on how to get there.

Nychyk edged somewhat close to the trap many politicians fall into – the “I have no platform, I’m just here to listen to you” trap.  Truly a Councillor will need to be all ears to be a great representative, however a platform from which to start is also necessary.  Nychyk has a platform, and it is a clearly-articulated balance-the-budget think-to-the-future youth-first platform, but he tries especially hard to ensure that it is balanced with the desire to elevate the importance of consultation with the public, and that is a hard balance to achieve during election season.  Nychyk did, however, have the first zinger of the evening, explaining that while Jamie Kinghorn may have only missed 5 Council meetings since 2010, he was actually required to be there for 3 years of those meetings as it was his job.

The final candidate, Jamie Kinghorn, sought to endear himself to the audience as quickly as possible.  He was not shy about his defeat in his run for Mayor in 2013, but was also not shy about his passion for the community.  He spoke to the first challenge being the budget that will be debated immediately after the byelection is over, and used that to springboard into points about balancing taxation, economic recovery, connecting North High River to the Downtown, and championing new facilities for Arts and Recreation.  Kinghorn touts the fact that he has been a regular attendee to Council meetings, and it paid off for him in spades during the forum where he could be relied on to correct misunderstandings and even educate the audience on the operations of the community.  He corrected such misunderstandings on 12th Avenue, finances for policing and recreation work, and how taxation works (even going so far as to say a question on taxation was “not a good question” as he embarked on correcting the misunderstanding).
​
Kinghorn’s biggest attribute may also become his biggest liability, if he’s not careful.  The statement “I think it’s really important to be at Council meetings, whether you are a Councillor or not” runs the risk of grating on the nerves of some who believe there is more to the job than showing up to meetings.  That being said, his understanding of specifics, including the Municipal Government Act, studies on policing that have disappeared, “Means Tests” to help impoverished families enjoy recreation facilities, or funding that was expected for Centre Street Bridge that fell through is an understanding of the position that cannot be ignored.  It made his zinger of charging that none of the other candidates were at yesterday’s Council meeting despite being in a byelection for the job have just enough bite to maybe make a difference, but he needs to be careful not to push that too far.

One place where every candidate shone was on the highest contentious issue of secondary suites.  A number of audience members spoke to the issue, and were joined by choruses of agreement from those who came to listen.  Each candidate stated something unique about the issue, which shouldn’t be surprising considering its complexity, but in doing so each showed they had done some research into the topic.  Wiebe first mentioned the Town Plan which seeks to increase density, but argued that secondary suites was not the way to do it.  Coleman rightly pointed out that the “policing” of illegal secondary suites seemed to be largely inadequate.  Kinghorn offered that it is a province- and country-wide problem that requires collaborative effort with other municipalities, and even suggested that a secondary suite should be classified as such if someone other than the family is living in a unit.  Nychyk pointed out that it cannot be as simple as that, especially with a large immigrant population whose norm it is to have multigenerational family units in the same dwelling.  The unfortunate news for voters is that there are no simple answers, and no single candidate will provide the silver thread that ties everything together into a nice tidy package.  The great news is that they can be guaranteed that no matter who gets in, they’ve all considered it, and are ready to dive into those discussions head-first.

There were a variety of questions that ended up having similar answers throughout the night.  How do you encourage businesses back in, boarded up houses to recover, young families to move in, additional facilities for Seniors, and the Arts?  In each of these questions the answer was common; support the Economic Development department because through economic development all of these other issues will be addressed.  That also means that each candidate is acutely aware of the necessary support Economic Development requires, and are ready to give that support.

In byelections, the best strategy for a candidate is to set yourself up as the one every other candidate is trying to beat, and forums help to solidify that stance.  No candidate did that yet with a significant amount of certainty.  If there was a candidate or two who had the opportunity to do that last night, they did not capitalize, and instead the other candidates closed the gap.  This election is still anyone’s game, and anything can happen in the last week. 

See all the installments of the Byelection series by WindyJMusic:

Stirring the Pot in High River
The 365-Day Councillor
Dance a Little Sidestep
Post-Forum Mashup: Keeping It Classy
Bonus Round: Taking Your Questions
What's a Voter in High River to do?

---

As a post-script, the byelection night was not without shenanigans.  An audience member chose to grandstand in support of a candidate with obvious intent to shame the other candidates, and in doing embarrassed another audience member, devalued every community-minded citizen’s contribution to High River, and stunned the candidate’s panel and moderator.  I’m not even sure the candidate receiving the support was even aware of what was going on because it was so out-of-place.  Grandstands like that have no place in Canada.
​
I’m sure the vast majority of High Riverites do not need the reminder to stay classy.  The respect each candidate showed one another was incredible and illuminated High River’s true nature.  With leaders like these on our Council, we will have no problems remaining High River Strong.  Let’s make sure we follow their lead.