Gaslighting is Alive and Well at City Hall

Introduction

The consultations have ended, the delegations have finished, the decisions have been reached, and the verdict is: a 7.51% tax increase to existing Burlington home and business owners. The overall increase to our tax bill will be 5.82%.

If memory serves back when this process started the city was talking about 3.79%. How we ended up with 5.82% is still a mystery. Along the way, the city kicked out different numbers and estimates with such regularity that most of us were left totally befuddled.

BRAG repeatedly railed against what we felt were a number of inappropriate and unnecessary expenses. We even put together a 14-page report with a number of constructive proposals and changes that could and should have warranted a serious investigation. When BRAG’s President, Eric Stern, challenged both the city’s calculations and the reluctance to look at changes, he was taken to task for being disrespectful.

Give credit where credit is due. The city’s communication strategy around this budget was masterful and nothing short of brilliant. They leveraged every social media channel and media forum to get their story out. It left many of us scratching our heads in disbelief, and wondering if we were living in an alternate universe. Don’t kid yourself though. This wasn’t an accident.

The Time Honoured Art of Gaslighting

What the city was engaged in was gaslighting, pure and simple. What is gaslighting you may ask? Simply it is a ploy in which one person or entity engages in various actions that would lead another to question their sanity and mental fitness. The term was popularized in the 1940s in a movie of the same name. In the film, a husband employs many different acts to isolate his wife, an heiress, and eventually steal from her. It’s an excellent film, so I won’t spoil the plot for you.

The movie is available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYmtzaHwCKo

One of the critical elements in gaslighting is an imbalance in the power dynamic, sort of like the difference between individual citizens and a corporation not dissimilar to the City of Burlington. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia I thought was very revealing:

“Gaslighting involves two parties: the “gaslighter”, who persistently puts forth a false narrative in order to manipulate, and the “gaslighted”, who struggles to maintain their individual autonomy. Gaslighting is typically effective only when there is an unequal power dynamic or when the gaslighted has shown respect to the gaslighter.”

Not surprisingly, gaslighting is very prevalent in our modern political structure. Read this interpretation on the interrelationship between communications and politics in our society:

“In the 2008 book State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind, the authors contend that the prevalence of gaslighting in American politics began with the age of modern communications:

To say gaslighting was started by… any extant group is not simply wrong, it also misses an important point. Gaslighting comes directly from blending modern communications, marketing, and advertising techniques with long-standing methods of propaganda. They were simply waiting to be discovered by those with sufficient ambition and psychological makeup to use them.”

Finally, Wikipedia offers an extremely telling evaluation of some of the harmful effects of gaslighting:

Gaslighting is a way to control the moment, stop conflict, ease anxiety, and feel in control. However, it often deflects responsibility and tears down the other person. Some may gaslight their partners by denying events, including personal violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

An Interesting Metaphor

Here’s an example of how gaslighting might occur in another setting. Assume we have a family of four:  a husband, a wife, and two children. Assume the wife is an excellent cook. She bakes an apple pie, her husband’s favourite. After dinner, she serves the pie. Everyone has a piece, and there is some leftover which she puts in the fridge. In the night the husband comes downstairs and raids the refrigerator hoping to have a piece of pie. There is none there. The next morning he asks who ate the pie. His wife tells him he ate the last slice while watching the football game. He denies this occurred. The kids deny having eaten the pie too.

That day his wife bakes another pie, this time pecan. The wife, the husband, and the two children all have a piece of pie after dinner. There is some leftover. His wife puts the remaining pie in the refrigerator. Before going to bed the husband looks in the refrigerator. The leftover pie is still there. In the night he comes downstairs for a piece of pie. There is no pie in the fridge. There is only an empty pie dish in the sink. The next morning he asks his wife if she ate the pie. She said no. Ditto the kids. Again, his wife insinuates that the husband ate the pie, which he categorically denies.

That night his wife bakes a cherry pie. At dinner, everyone has a piece. Again, there is some leftover which his wife puts in the fridge. Before going to bed the husband who, by now, is deeply suspicious, checks the fridge to ensure the pie is still there. It is. However, rather than going upstairs to bed, he decides to sleep in the living room next to the refrigerator in the kitchen. In the night he hears the refrigerator door open. He leaps up from the couch, rushes into the kitchen, and confronts one of his kids who is holding the pie. “I don’t mind you eating pie” says the husband, “but when I asked who ate it why did you deny it”?  The kid replies “Well, it wasn’t really a meal, but a snack, and besides, no one else wanted any and I didn’t think anyone would notice”.

A Time for Reflection

My little metaphor highlights an important truth about gaslighting. You can fabricate an alternate reality, conjure up different interpretations, adjust the facts and events to suit your assessment of a situation, try to persuade others they are “losing it”, and then, when all else fails, offer up a lame excuse for your actions and behaviour.

The problem though is that, in the end, reality and truth will ultimately prevail. For instance, when I look at my tax bill next year, I’ll bet the increase is a lot more than the 3.79% the city started with. As a community, we are still paying for a lot of things (e.g. Love Your Neighbour program; Service Burlington; etc.) that offer marginal value and limited utility. And, despite hearing words like “engagement” and “consultation” the City of Burlington isn’t really listening, and, if truth be known, they really don’t give a damn either. How else can one explain the dismissive response to BRAG’s 14-page report on recommended changes and improvements?

In summary, like the husband in my little metaphor, it wasn’t Eric Stern who ate the pie, and it wasn’t BRAG who offered contradictory and confusing messaging throughout the budget review process. Going forward, BRAG isn’t going to settle for excuses, or stop looking for improvements, and certainly not because the delicate sensibilities of one Councillor were offended. Rather, we’ll be sleeping right next to the refrigerator watching carefully to see who actually takes the pie.

Here are two examples of our council interacting with city staff over the tax increase:

Ann Marie Coulson – Manager, Financial Planning and Tax – explains how a resident might calculate a tax increase. For information on how to calculate the tax increases using your bills visit: How do I … | Burlington Residents’ Action Group

Watch Craig Millar, Burlington’s CFO, describe a 7.5% tax increase as 3.79% in response to a question from Councillor Sharman. The city web page showing the increase is included at the end of the video. When you combine Burlington’s operating and capital budgets Craig Millar is the CFO of an organization that spends close to $500 Million a year.