swbrt feb 23 2016 engagement session experience survey

8/18/2019 SWBRT Feb 23 2016 Engagement Session Experience Survey

1/18

calgary.ca | contact 311

SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement

Session Experience Survey

Feb. 24, 2016


2/18

Prepared by The City of CalgaryFeb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session2

Methodology

An online survey was conducted among staff, consultants, and members of Council and

Ward offices on February 24th, 2016 to collect impressions of the SWBRT engagement

session on February 23rd, 2016.

30 completed responses were received.

calgary.ca | contact 311


3/18


Detailed Results

1. How safe did you feel at last night's SWBRT session?

Response Chart Percentage Count

Very safe 26.7% 8

Somewhat safe 53.3% 16

Somewhat unsafe 20.0% 6

Very unsafe 0.0% 0

Total Responses 30

2. Why did you feel that way?

1. No specific threats from citizens but some people were upset, and the room was so fullthat I didn't feel I would be able to grab another staff member easily/quickly if I needed

backup.

2. I did not encounter anyone who appeared personally threatening (though some

bordered on verbally abusive). Corporate security was also in the room.

3. I felt that corporate security was really on top of every situation. At one point a

participant approached me about a man outside the event who made her feel

uncomfortable and seemed intoxicated. I immediately approached security and they took

care of it. The tension in the room could be felt but I felt good knowing that corporate

security was there to help.

4. Many of the constituents who were adamantly opposed to the project were unwilling to

listen to reason and when they felt unheard became quite aggressive

5. There were a large number of staff at the event last night and corporate security was

also there. While it was a heated conversation at times it was not beyond what we have


4/18


seen in other projects of this nature.

6. There were many people who were very aggressive. They were there for the specific

purpose of disruption and confrontation. I am male, so have a higher degree of safety,

but I think if I was female I would have felt more unsafe.

7. Some people were certainly emotional and heated in their discussions, but remained

focused on the project, did not resort to finger pointing or cursing, and were respectful of

my personal space. Most of my concern for safety is based on having attended the

October sessions, knowing how some people acted in that case, and seeing them

amongst the crowd.

8. Let's just say if it wasn't for [NAME REMOVED FOR PRIVACY] and [NAME REMOVED

FOR PRIVACY] being there, I would have changed my answer to "Very unsafe". Partly

due to the several people there who just wanted to vent out their frustrations and yell in

your face, but mostly because of the condescending, threatening and disrespectful

attitudes of a few that I personally interacted with and those I knew affected.

9. Emotions were high, and folks were shouting their mouths off, but there was no serious

threat of physical harm. However, one particular gentleman smelling of whiskey and

yelling should have been removed.

10. Team was well staffed and well prepared.

Corporate Security was in attendance and we knew how to get a hold of them.

I was mentally prepared; I anticipated opposition and anger (similar to early engagement

on NE LRT and West LRT in 2008).

11. I did not feel that I was in a space where I was going to be physically harmed. There was

a lot of high emotions, strong language, and disrespectful behaviour and I think we could

do a better job of mitigating that by escorting people out and asking them to leave.

12. While the crowd was agitated, and the volume high, there was no organized or physical

or verbal protestation. Most of my interactions were with individuals who expressed

frustration and sometimes anger, but for the most part, did not drift into aggression.

There were a few individuals who did appear more aggressive (though, less angry, if

that makes sense) and I was comfortable knowing there was a strong corporate security


5/18


presence if there seemed to be any physical risk.

13. There were a few individuals who were slightly aggressive, trying to provoke a reaction.

14. Crowd control could have been better, seemed like there were 8-10 residents for 1

project person.

15. Felt comfortable that there were enough people from the project team should an issue

arise. Residents had moments where they were heated in their comments, but not to a

point where my physical safety was a concern.

16. I felt safe knowing that Corporate Security was present. I do however, believe that

improvement could be made in terms of Security's role. At any onset of poor behavior,

that citizen should be asked to be respectful, upon a second incident, removed from the

building. Any citizen smelling of alcohol or appearing under influence of any substance

should not be allowed entry. In light of some of the behavior exhibited last night, I would

feel secure going forward with 1 Security personnel at the entrance, another at the exit,

and have 2 in circulation.

17. Corporate security was very present and walked around the room a lot which made it

known to me that if anything came up that assistance was close by however, the spacecrowded so I was more vigilant than normally at a session.

18. There were many people in the room and unexpected behaviour can happen when there

is outrage and emotion, but I did not have any personal encounters with anyone I felt

was angry or emotional enough to be verbally abusive or physically violent. I have

confidence in my abilities to try and de-escalate or know when to refuse to continue to

interact. I have experience with outrage that leads to raised voices and while that

happened at the SWBRT session I did not feel it impacted my perception of my safety.

19. Being a member of the security team my perspective on this is different than others. My

own personal safety was not in doubt at any time, my concern for mainly the Councillorsand GM Logan was heightened, beyond anything I've experienced with working with the

Mayor. The agitation and persistence and in some cases the aggression of an extreme

minority of the attendees towards Councillors and the GM. Staff present appeared to

not have issues as the "aggression" or attention was mainly focused on these 3 main

parties.

The extended presence of the Ready to Engage group also provided fuel to the fire so to


6/18


7/18


3. Were you physically or verbally threatened or abused at last night’s event?


Yes 30.0% 9

No 70.0% 21

Total Responses 30

4. If yes, please provide as much detail as possible.

1. Not threatened or abused, per say, but on the receiving end of very frustrated

comments, the City is wrong, etc.

2. [NAME REMOVED FOR PRIVACY] specifically, not only berated me but attempted to

belittle me in front of other constituents who were asking legitimate questions and

invoking thoughtful conversations.

He continually asked, "if I was stupid?"

At one point he raised his fist right to my head in a knocking manner and asked, "Does

the City just feed you candy bars, shine bright lights in your eyes to force you to repeat

anything they tell you?"

At that point I attempted to end the conversation and he said I don't know what I'm

talking about anyways and urges others to not listen to what I was saying.

3. Just general ongoing verbal abuse from angry citizens.

4. I'm not sure if this really counts, but I felt verbally abused where a man kept calling me

"sweetheart" in a degrading, sexist way. His name is [NAME REMOVED FOR

PRIVACY]. (The same man who threatened [NAME REMOVED FOR PRIVACY].)

5. While I did have a couple of interactions with individuals who spoke quite angrily, and

with one, who while appearing calmer, spoke quite venomously/offensively (towards the

City and City council) none of what I experienced I would constitute as a threat.


8/18


6. I would clarify to say that some interactions I had could be considered emotionally

abusive. I was cognizant of the "high-emotional" environment, and felt I had the

resources needed to defer border line comments and concerns to a more productive

form of feedback.

This type of emotionally abusive feedback was directly related to members and affiliates

of the Ready To Engage group.

In terms of going forward with the desired 'meaningful public engagement', I would

recommend they not be included in the future sessions. Other community members also

have a right to this form of session, and should not feel threatened or accosted in

bringing their feedback forward.

7. Part of the expectation and understanding of this session was the emotion and outrage

would be very high.

Even though there were a number of instances where very strong language was used,

comments and were made about my skill, ability, job, employment, home ownership,

age, and gender I felt confident in my training (mediation and IAP2 Emotion and

Outrage) as well as my past experiences in very similar situations to still actively engage

with the individual, gather feedback and deescalate the situation.

I have a very strong sense of self and situation awareness to know what situations are

emotion directed at frustration/a project and when it is something that will escalate into

violence. Strong language and loud voiced do not trigger me into thinking that something

is dangerous and I had the utmost confidence in my experience, training and our

protocols (including the presence of corporate security) to know how to handle each of

the situations.

Of all of the instances I encountered and the individuals I intersected with I only

experienced three who did not walk away saying thank you for listening and did not have

a noticeable change in both body langue and tone.

8. Minor contact by an attendee.

9. For the most part verbally, a lot of shouting and finger pointing, and some cases where

they were literally 'in your face'.


9/18


A few snide remarks, 'if you don't know the answer, then you shouldn't be here'

Being called a liar when disputing a false claim with real facts, ie. existing bus services,

existing design not taking up traffic capacity, not needing to take up green space.

10. I was not personally abused, but there was a significant amount of verbal insults and

abuse towards City, Administration, and Councillors. Also lots of inappropriate language

used to describe members of the team and Councillors.

11. There were several instances where individuals were very pointed and passionate abouttheir position. While I wasn't physically harmed, there were several times where I felt

concerned for my safety. I also witnessed others (such as Mac Logan) in a very

confrontational situation and I alerted corporate security to assist him. Ultimately, that

individual was removed, I believe. This was typical of the night in terms of the "tone" of

the conversation for most there I think:

https://twitter.com/cbccalgary/status/702567865094950912

12. Confrontational people moving into your space. Putting me on notice to not get re-

elected. Yelling. Talking over and not letting me to give a response.

13. I was not threatened personally, but I did speak to a couple people who were

threatening of councillors. In particular: One man stood inside the hall while we were

setting up from about 6pm on. When I asked him to wait outside while we set up and did

our team briefing, he was very rude. He didn’t leave when I asked, and shooed me away

saying “I’m busy, here”. I said to him “I’m not sure why this is so confrontational right

now,” and he replied, “You think I’m being confrontational? Wait ‘til I get my hands on

Brian Pincott.” He then left the room and waited in the hall. He stayed the duration of the

event and was part of a loud, hostile group.


10/18


5. Were citizens in attendance at last night’s event prevented from having meaningful

engagement with the public due to the actions of others?


Yes 85.7% 24

No 14.3% 4

Total Responses 28

6. If yes, please provide as much detail as possible.

1. Unsure

2. Some conversations were clouded by emotional outbursts about the project or personal

attacks against certain individuals.

3. I'd say most people were able to look at the boards but I would also say from what I saw

that a lot of the SME's were being monopolized by people from opposition groups.

4. Many attendees who were on the fence about the project or all for it were afraid to speak

up in fear of, "Being lynched"

I spoke directly to a few constituents who told me firsthand they were excited about the

project but were afraid to speak up because of the aggression of certain people.

5. I was able to engage with numerous people throughout the event last night. At various

points in the evening I talked to people who were unhappy but not we were able to have

a conversation, I listened to their points and we discussed the project. While not always

happy, after people had a chance to vent they typically were able to engage in a

conversation with me.

6. I can't say on this one. My head was down for the whole time just addressing a very tight

circle around me. And they were all angries.

7. Only moderately. A handful of times I had residents that did not agree or did not want to

accept my answer and continued to press me on it for a length of time, while others were


11/18


waiting to speak to me before they gave up and walked away.

8. I overheard that someone said they are supportive of the BRT, but don't want to say

anything in fear of getting yelled at or attacked. I also feel a lot of people wanted to have

constructive and meaningful conversations with Diane but there were several people

taking up her time who were upset about the project. I also feel that because there were

so many people at the event, it was hard to fully engage with the poster boards or have

a chance to speak with an expert and have their questions answered.

9. Several folks showed up to repeatedly interrupt citizens asking me questions with the

phrase "we don't need it".....over, and over, and over...perhaps a town-hall type format

would be better next time, where the interactions could be more streamlined/controlled,

and everyone could have a chance to hear the answers.

10. Amplified/weak information was provided in advance to a lot of attendees by other

community members (R2E). I spent a lot of time correcting information in my

conversations (which in turn kept me from having conversations with other people).

11. Somewhat. The vocal majority pushed their dialogue over everyone else’s. If we had

made people leave or enforced more that probably wouldn't have happened. I think

these sessions are important for the people who actually want to see the project and

voice their questions and concerns.

12. Tough call.

I think the overall tone in the room was one of opposition to the project, and that might

have meant that folks who would be neutral or positive to the project were dissuaded

from engaging or providing input, I didn't see any active attempt to intervene or keep

supportive or neutral individuals from having a chance to interact. I did speak with a

number of individuals who were either supportive, neutral, or opposed, who were

thankful for the opportunity to learn more and provide input.

13. There were a number of individuals who would cluster near the project team and/or the

boards. They weren't there for information, but appeared to be blocking others from

viewing the information.

A number of individuals were there well before the event started (6:15pm), it appeared to

be a strategy of flooding the venue before the event started to "block" other citizens from


12/18


receiving the information and/or engaging with the project team.

There were also a number of individuals who were walking up to people in the lineup to

the event, trying to get them to sign a petition and also spreading misinformation before

citizens entered the venue.

14. I talked with several folks who seemed supportive and wanted to get more info, but felt

intimidated by the louder unsupportive group.

15. Some people did tend to linger, making it a challenge for everyone to gain access to theinformation or speak to a project team member.

16. Absolutely.

Please see my comments for Question #1 regarding security enhancements. I will add

that I think that the role of "asking people to leave who are disruptive, or have been

loitering for some time to leave" should fall to Corporate Security.

The Ready To Engage group continues to insist that no outlet for engagement has been

provided; however, they are themselves getting in the way of the process.

17. The expectations of the level and type of engagement the participants were anticipating

and the level that was being offered by the project did not connect so at the start there

were challenges for the project even without the presence of 'ready to engage'.

18. One general reason was because of the crowded room and some folks staying at one

place/board/section too long for others to see/interact. Specifically, at one point a small

group in the middle of the room (6-10 people perhaps, not sure of exact numbers as

there were many in the room) began cheering/clapping about a sign (purple-ish lawn

sign of opposition to the project) being lifted in the air. The noise made it impossible for

the person who was speaking with me to be heard. Myself, this man and the citizens

around me all had to stop talking as we could not be heard. The man I was speakingwith (who was expressing his own opposition to the project) looked frustrated that he

could not be heard by me. The noise lasted only a minute or two at most, but once it was

over we continued and he wasn't deterred from providing his input.

19. I believe some citizens didn't get the opportunity to engage the senior officials and the

councillors due to the monopolization of a few persons.


13/18


20. Some of the people with issues would not allow opportunity to speak. The moment I tried

to say anything, they would cut me off and start ranting again. They would try to answer

other people's questions with wrong information and try to make everyone else angry.

21. There were residents, many from the lobby group, ready to engage!, that remained at

the event the entire duration and were focused on continually questioning team

members where it did not allow for other residents to have questions answered. Also,

misinformation was being purposely spread by folks to gain support against the project

with signs and other materials being distributed.

22. It was difficult for some people to interact with City staff as the more irate individuals

were monopolizing time, yelling, swearing and generally derailing the process.

23. I believe citizens in attendance were not able to have full discussions as they felt

threatened by others in the room. Several people were "whispering" to me so that others

couldn't hear (assuming they were fearful of being overheard and "called out" but some

of the loud and vocal non-supporters of the project).

24. It was difficult for people who were in favour of the project to be able to express

themselves as there were a number of very aggressive people against the project who

were intimidating. Also I had someone tell me that they felt the session was more about

getting a petition signed than about hearing points of view. She had been faced with

more than one person trying to get her to sign the document. A few folks shared their

positive comments verbally but didn't want to write down their comments and put them

up in front of the very opposed folks who were in front of the comment boards.

25. There were a few instances where one person was dominant and not allowing others to

ask questions.

26. I believe the actions and misinformation spread by Ready to Engage prevented many

Calgarians from having meaningful conversations with City staff last night. Much of our

energy was spent correcting misinformation or trying to calm people who had been

worked up by Ready to Engage.

I observed a group of men (some of whom I recognized as members of R2E) yelling and

clapping, trying to instigate a protest, while lifting one of their “Better Re -Think” signs into

the air.

I observed members of R2E sharing their petition with people in line, telling them that it


14/18


was the City’s event sign-in sheet.

I spoke with one man who had refused to sign the petition outside until he had seen the

City’s presentation materials, and he expressed frustration at having been pressured

into signing something without all the information.

27. Some individuals that were in opposition to the project dominated the conversation and

prevented people with questions from having their issues addressed.


15/18


Please provide any additional comments you might have.

1. Would recommend allowing fewer people in at one time and running the session for a

longer period of time. For example, in a room that size (with capacity 256), we allowed in

about 200 at a time, plus 30 staff. I think it would have worked better if we had allowed in

150ish, and also run the session from 6-9 to give citizens more time/reduce line-up.

2. Overall, this event went much better than expected.

3. Overall I think the amount of preparation for this event was good. All the staff seemedreally prepared to be able to handle whatever might happen. Fortunately it seemed to go

relatively smoothly. It was easy to pinpoint people who might be trouble.

4. While the event was busy, loud, and full of unhappy people that is what we were

expecting. I think that the councillors and Mac Logan really had to deal with the loud,

angry and rude people. I was able to deal with people who were mad, but once they

understood some details around the project were able to listen and we could have a

conversation with. I was also engaged by a number of people who were happy that the

project was going forward and were happy to get the information presented at the open

house.

5. I think we can have tighter controls, I think we shouldn't hesitate to escort some people

out. I also think that the serial abusers (and I can put three names on that list) should be

sent a letter from the law department saying they are not welcome at future events. Also,

people should not be allowed to wander around with signs and metal stakes.

6. At my station I was able to engage with a lot of people with questions, and in most of

these cases the question was resolved fairly quickly.

7. [NAME REMOVED FOR PRIVACY] was very disrespectful throughout the night. He tried

to enter in through the exit doors with a petition sheet in hand. Then myself and another

colleague had to ask him to enter in through the front door along with everyone else. Herefused to leave and seemed to condescendingly laugh at us trying to stop him. We had

to get [NAME REMOVED FOR PRIVACY] involved and usher him out.

8. Thank you thank you thank you for everyone's work. The Administration team was

extremely helpful, patient, and it was reassuring to have corporate security there. They

didn't interfere, but were always immediately present whenever issues got heated, and


16/18


kept an eye on a few folks we were unsure of.

9. Overall, the mood wasn't physically threatening, but a number of individuals were trying

to engage with citizens with their own information before they were given an opportunity

to enter the venue and receive information from The City. I would term this interference

and hinders true engagement and access to official information. They were also

misleading citizens in the lineup - some citizens when asked to sign up at the sign up

table were under the impression that the petition outside was a sign up sheet for the

venue.

10. Crowd control seemed to be the biggest issue, was difficult to show people and talk to

the display boards with so many people let in at once.

11. I've heard that the coming sessions may be cancelled. As someone who will be present

at the coming sessions, I believe that to be a grave error.

The Ready To Engage group, in their advocacy of 'democracy', should not be granted

the cancellation of future sessions. That is precisely what they would like awarded to

them, so they can continue their campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering.

The opportunity to clarify misinformation directly with citizens is invaluable.

Citizens have been patiently waiting for the coming sessions, and deserve the

opportunity to see what is planned for their community.

From what we all experienced last night, I strongly believe we have the ability to move

forward with the sessions, better prepared to mitigate disrespectful behavior.

It should be made public that that demonstration of behavior is despicable, and that it

will be monitored at upcoming sessions, perhaps with more strategic security.

Please allow citizens to participate in these information sessions. Please do not let

Ready To Engage destroy this opportunity for other citizens.

12. Although there were a lot of challenges last night there were a number of truly positive

and genuine people who were interested, willing and able to participate in the process.

13. I would suggest that while the tension and outrage certainly existed and was easily felt in

the room and by particular individuals, many of the people who I spoke to throughout the

evening were very polite to me or wanted to learn more/provide their input into the


17/18


station design. Some folks apologized to me because of the past behaviour of others (at

events I did not attend) and many people who came to me visibly upset, left after our

conversation with words of gratitude that they felt heard or learned what they needed to.

14. Verbal abuse towards the Councillors was concerning and quite aggressive. Also, the

members of the public that showed up intoxicated should be prevented from attending

the events in the future.

15. I saw a member of the public become verbally abusive, swearing and threatening to

Councillor Pincott's staff.

16. This was a very difficult format for such a large group of emotionally volatile people.

There were many people in different levels of distress - anger, fear, confusion. It did not

serve the purpose well for people who were not assertive enough to get the information

they needed. It was not a user friendly experience. Definitely many comments about

the session not being useful - particularly in the case where there are many sources of

'truth' and people do not know who/what to believe.

17. Very glad that Corporate Security was there

18. In general, there were a number of people who were upset about the project, howevermostly as a result of the previous information or a perceived knowledge of the project.

The largest concern was the project budget being spent and the concern that Woodbine

was not going to generate ridership to justify the project cost.

19. I observed, on several occasions, a group of R2E members surrounding Mac Logan and

[NAME REMOVED FOR PRIVACY] and raising their voices.

I observed, on several occasions, very hostile behaviour towards both Councillors Brian

Pincott and Diane Colley-Urquhart. Especially Brian Pincott. (Yelling, getting very close,

etc.)

20. Overall I think the event went as well as it could have. I do not doubt, however, that

certain individuals (e.g. Councillors) may have dealt with more aggression than I did.

When projects appear to have a significant impact on people's lives, it's expected for

them to be emotional and outraged. So I was not surprised last night. Again, my opinion

is founded on my profession as a public engagement staff; our training and background


18/18

goes a long way to increasing my comfort level in events such as last nights.

swbrt feb 23 2016 engagement session experience survey

Documents