SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement

Session Experience Survey

Feb. 24, 2016

calgary.ca | contact 311

02

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

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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

Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Very safe

26.7%

Somewhat safe

53.3%

16

Somewhat unsafe

20.0%

Very unsafe

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 full
that 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

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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 space
crowded 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 Councillors
and 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

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

speak. Unlike the Jewish Community Centre event members of this group were free
from distractions and responsibilities to focus their efforts on being thorns in the sides of
the officials.
20. Was anxious that people may throw things, but was confident in myself to be able to
handle it
21. There were a large number of upset residents, some with raised voices and gesturing
with their hands and body. Insults towards the City, Councillors, and Administration.
Also a few folks that were noticeably intoxicated.
22. There were some extremely emotional, belligerent, disrespectful people there that
smelled like alcohol and I felt the situation could've gotten out of hand.
23. Several of the attendees were very confrontational: loud, yelling, interrupting and "in
your face".
24. There were a number of City staff and security in attendance.
25. Lots of very angry people. Some quite aggressive
26. How ready to engage were outside getting people cranked up and signing petitions.
People were angry arriving.
27. There was a group of about 10-15 people who were very rude and hostile. Lots of raised
voices and encroaching on personal space.
28. I wasn't threatened in any way. There were certainly some emotional and outraged
people, but through conversation we were able to calm things down and get
constructive. As an Engage Team member I am trained to deal with emotion and
outrage.
29. Some people were very agitated at the meeting

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

3. Were you physically or verbally threatened or abused at last nights event?

Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Yes

30.0%

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.

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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'.

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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 about
their 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 reelected. 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 didnt leave when I asked, and shooed me away
saying Im busy, here. I said to him Im not sure why this is so confrontational right
now, and he replied, You think Im 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.

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

5. Were citizens in attendance at last nights event prevented from having meaningful
engagement with the public due to the actions of others?

Response

Chart

Percentage

Count

Yes

85.7%

24

No

14.3%

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.

10

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

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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 elses. 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

11

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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 the
information 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 speaking
with (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.

12

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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

13

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

was the Citys event sign-in sheet.

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

14

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

Please provide any additional comments you might have.

15

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 seemed
really 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. He
refused 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

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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

16

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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, however
mostly 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

17

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary

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

18

Feb. 24, 2016 SWBRT February 23, 2016 Engagement Session

Experience Survey

Prepared by The City of Calgary