A letter to ChangeCampTO exec:

ChangeCamp is all good in theory...it's what I've been waiting for a long time, so yes, I applaud the cause. But because I applaud the cause, I want it to be the best it can be, I want it to progress, I want to see it succeed, I want my Toronto to shine because changecamp exists. In order to do that we need to continually revisit the drawing board and make appropriate changes, so here's my thoughts:

1. Yes, we direly need change.
No Torontonian that's more or less plugged into the city will doubt that we need change. That kind of goes without saying since so many of the problems we face, we have faced for some time...the archaic systems we have in place are just not providing us with the forward-thinking solutions that we need to be Toronto the GREAT. So yes, WE can likely all jump on the change bandwagon, no questions asked. But, who is this 'we'--that is what will make changcamp rise and shine or fold embarrassingly (more on this below).

2. Time is of the essence.
I came to changecamp a little early (I'm an avid people-watcher) to soak in the energy of the room, catch a glimpse of the organizers/t-shirt posse and shmooze before what I was expecting to be the first day of Toronto the GREAT. But as I got comfortable in my seat, watched some people around the room, I couldn't help but sense a tone of arrogance, a tone of privilege, like we were "the chosen ones" to decide how change could be made possible for Toronto the suffering. It was an open-door/volunteer event, so the inklings were completely unfounded. I quickly brushed my guilty conscience aside, high on the expectations that this could be the future as we know it. As time ticked on by, I became more and more anxious (I'm not a busy person by any stretch of the imagination, but when people waste my time I have zero tolerance). This rant could go on for forever, so all I'll say is all excuses aside, changecamp events MUST run on schedule, especially when held on a weeknight. If not, you will lose people fast and steady before you've even started your pitch.

3. "Quieting our cleverness"
So when the show finally got on the road, I was surprised that Mark Kuznicki focused more on the past than on the present and the future. I'm all for recognizing our past and how it can help move us forward...but nothing about Mark's presentation moved me, I was not inspired and to get the engines going (I'd read it roaring) you so need to rev the crowds. Peter Block and Clay Shirky on the other hand seemed like they'd have intriguing stories...hearing them address the Toronto audience directly would've been cool (even if through a video conference or something). I interviewed McGuinty's speechwriter once and he said something that I think we all know but we forget- "people don't relate to facts; people relate to stories." I know Mark started this whole shabang, but if he can't make the masses roar, find someone else who can! It's like my hero Dayna Baumeister says, "we must suppress our egos, quiet our cleverness, and admit that we actually don't know all that much." If this project is to ignite civic paticipation in Toronto, and by the sounds of it that's what the mission is, well then we need to be willing to question every move and make it better and better and better some more.

4. The story that will inspire is the story of Toronto.
The story-telling approach cuts on every bias imaginable. How can someone tell you what you're doing is wrong or isn't working when all you're really doing is telling the story of Torontonians? Kazam! So how can changecamp do this? Well, going back to the feeling in the room...I think there was a lack of representation/diversity considering the mosaic that is our city. From the people running the show, to the candidates spewing their agendas, to the activists who were too extreme...it all seemed a bit too chaotic and I thought, how can we possibly achieve harmony amidst such discord? My solution: A representative(s) from every neighbourhood (with a population of x) in Toronto, who is plugged into the issues that affects their neighbourhood, that is willing to speak on their neighbours behalf and bring their cause to the table (I'm not sure how to select these neighbourhood representatives, but I do think we need to seriously consider being more representative).

OR vet the people you accept, you already do this in a way, but I would push the envelope some more. As changecamp grows, it would be interesting to really experiment with the audience-the life and breadth of this vital civic debate. Those 90 sec. videos could be a compilation of random "changemakers" in Toronto, and how we're going to include their stories in the project whether they want to be included in changecamp discussions or not. I spent one of my reading weeks in university volunteering at various homeless shelters throughout the week, working alongside people who had dedicated their entire lives to the service of others was incredibly humbling. If we tap into similar stories in Toronto to inspire our audience, well as adidas would say, impossible is nothing.

5. Why does changecamp feel more like elitecamp?
Our table had some great conversations, albeit pie in the sky, the exchange was invigorating. But while we came up with these same place, different time examples I began to muse how this toolkit approach would manifest itself in Toronto's worst neighbourhoods, among immigrant populations who are mainly concerned with making enough money to feed their kids and pay the bills, or the homeless folk who desperately need a second chance, how do we account for them in this project? Because surely a dialogue about the future of our city must account for these complex intersections.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, at present, changecamp feels a bit more like elitecamp. How can a group of people that have lived "the good life" for the most part possibly understand the lives of disenfranchised groups without including them in the conversation? How can change be made possible by handing out toolkits to random folk with the hope that they will go back and "fix their communities" without considering what their problems are in the first place? It sort of feels like writing prescriptions for diseases that are yet to be diagnosed, how utterly absurd.

6. A voice for the voiceless
This all made me think back to Hilary Swank in the movie Freedom Writers (2007). Not sure if you've seen it, but I love it for so many reasons...and there are parallels to consider for changecamp. Hilary Swank as preppy teacher Erin Gruwell goes into an inner city school to teach a bunch of seemingly "unteachable" at risk youth mired by violence and racial tensions. But, she gets chewed up and spit out by her class when she attempts to tell them what their problems are until she comes to the realization that she needs to listen. She gives a voice to the voiceless, allowing them to tell their stories and hear the stories of their classmates. A mentality shift ensues and they reclaim their lives.

People always talk about changing the world and saving the planet, I don't think that's our problem. What we need is a mentality shift. What we need is to save ourselves. From our egos, from our arrogance and accept that while we may live the good life, while we may have a voice, there are so many more Torontonians who are truly suffering, who are truly voiceless and it's how we empower them, how we include them in this project that will make it a project worthy of emulation.

Rant over. Hands tired. Mind looking forward.

d.