Good Green Town Hall Notes on event and process – how to improve. Compiled from comments from Gerry, Lilly, Suzie, Arik and Naomi The written survey - too long for candidates and readers – consider reducing the number of questions, and avoiding multi-part questions. - Recognition that, although we had good participation, the process was not inclusive to those not on the web. We did a good job of reaching people engaged in the issues – how to reach a broader audience? The Town Hall - Requests to have it televised – this would be helpful. If that is not possible, we should be quicker about getting it on-line. - The follow-up questions were sometimes confusing for the audience – we should clearly communicate the original questions and answers (and maybe provide a copy for audience members). - The audience appreciated the audience questions more than the pre-made questions. - More question sheets are needed for the audience – 30 were printed this time, maybe 60 next time. - Candidates and audience would have appreciated more time for candidates to expand on their answer (expand to 1.5 min from 1 min). - Traffic light was not effective. Suggestions: make it more visible, or use a non-obtrusive but clear signal like a bell. - When candidates have reached their time limit, cut them off at the end of a sentence and not mid-sentence where possible. - Avoid compound questions – candidates can avoid the part they don’t want to answer. - Follow up to get a clear answer if one is not given. - Consider not allowing questions from councillor candidates – tone was often aggressive. - consider allowing the audience members one optional comment or follow-up question in response to the answer they get from a candidate. It would create a different dynamic, more of a discussion than a grilling, and would empower the audience to keep the candidates accountable on their answers. Positive feedback (received by Gerry) - Most of the feedback I have gotten is that it was the best organized event of all of the candidates meetings - Candidates appreciated knowing the direction the evening was going to take as we identified the 5 major questions - They liked the fact that the topics were introduced by people in the audience (and not the usual suspects) and that this served to put the candidates and the audience on the same page as to definitions and meanings of the questions

- Everyone I spoke to liked the public format of the questions being vetted by the scrutineers and the people who raised the questions being allowed to ask the questions themselves. - People appreciated the 4 Years GO video (some of them told me, initially the thought we had prepared the video specifically for the event and were really impressed until they realized it was not ours) Maybe we might consider making a video in three years for the next municipal elections using this year’s video - The audience appreciated the facilitator not sitting on the podium and lord over the session like the two debates but instead roved and talked to people ensuring that things moved - I was told that they liked the fact that no one was allowed to abuse others by being allowed to go overtime on the answers. (“Everyone was treated equally with respect and not allowed to break the rules) Audience feedback from survey (from Chris) 91 people returned the How Did we Do? Abut half knew of our event ahead of time and did give us input. One third thought the candidates responded honestly - not as many fully, and half did not think we got honest and full responses Followup questions: 1/3 found them useful, the rest not so much, but 3/4 found the audence questions did clarify, and MOST INTERESTING: 2/3 said the event helped them decide who to vote for, and half found the responses reinforced their support for a candidate they were already leaning towards. Only 7 were too young to vote. ALL comments were positive: Some specifics: Great format - best candidate meeting I've been to in years Great for community awarenes Very well done -All candidates should have been there You did your part I didn't do mine as a citizen Can't reconcile devt in the Npeahwin Wetlands with leading as an environmentally concerned community And about the candidates: If only we had better candidates Candidates: 2 comments the Ted C didn't understand the issues - poorly informed Candidates were rather awful All candidates should have responded and been there - "A separate press release doesn't do it - just seemed like damage control" Candidates were rather awful Suggestions: All candidates should have answered all questions Why try followup on-line?

Some general comments on the election - Other than the Town Hall’s at Parkside, and the ward 11 Town Hall, there were no opportunities for candidates to share their ideas and residents to ask questions in a public forum with all candidates. When asked, quite a few CANs indicated it was not their role, and that it was too ‘political’. What is the solution to making sure residents have this chance to engage with candidates in their ward? Should the city or candidates themselves take this role? Should the media? Should CANs be directed that it is part of their mandate? - No candidates meetings were held at the schools or post secondary institutions. This needs to change. - We reached ~ 1000 people through this process (very roughly, considering the networks used). This is great – but it is still a very small percentage of voters. How can the wider population be engaged? It is fair to say the event affected how a number of people voted, but it did not affect the final outcome of the vote. Should people like us be doing some door knocking as well, not to endorse candidates, but to provide information about the issues and the candidates platforms? - I think it is fair to say that most of us, and most of the people engaged in this process, made voting decisions largely based on the issues, ideas, and platforms. I also think it is fair to say that many voters did not – food for thought…