A few weeks ago the U of M’s president’s office sent out an email to notify students of the town hall meeting president and vice-chancellor Michael Benarroch will be holding on Oct. 16. The town hall’s primary focus will be the university’s financial health and budget process.

As tuition-paying students, I am sure we are all — at least to some degree — interested in the information he will be sharing. And yet, perhaps each of us is apprehensive to attend.  Many town hall meetings discuss topical issues which heavily affect people’s lives, yet they record great decline in attendance and participation over the years. Young people may be starting to believe that they are now insignificant to society.

A town hall is defined by Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries as an “event at which a politician or public officer answers questions from members of the public.” The concept of this gathering has evolved over the years to mean any gathering in which a leader or person of influence meets with the people under their authority to discuss matters that concern them.

Town halls tend to find relevance in democratic systems, in which administrators and officials require the willful co-operation and approval of their constituents. These public hearings allow the community to personally voice their worries while giving those in authoritative positions the opportunity to inform and understand their people. Gatherings of this nature are an important pillar for free and well-functioning societies.

However, in recent years, on both the local and national stage, I believe the significance of these public discussions has been undermined by the growing distrust people have toward those in positions of power.

An article from Environics Institute noted that “Canadians are less likely to have confidence in business leaders, governments and political leaders.” This skepticism is not random but rather a well-founded response to what the public has observed over the years.

In free societies, those in charge require the willing support of members of the community, but it appears to have become easier for them to get it by projecting an inauthentic stance. Those in charge pretend to care and consider the suggestions of the people, but in reality, disregard their input and anxieties.

Before, this calculated deception may have been difficult to identify, but now we have seen it all too often. So much so that I would argue it matters very little whether they are genuine or not. The perceived inauthenticity associated with their positions is enough to devalue the public gatherings they host.

People feel that if their presence and participation do not have any effect on their current situation, then attendance is pointless. It is an understandable sentiment. If the leadership they are interacting with is only holding a town hall for the sake of holding it and the seemingly positive effect it will have on their image, then why waste time going?

I think the validity of town hall meetings is further destabilized by smaller deceptions and minor inconveniences. Some people have noted that in certain assemblies they have attended, hosts have used manufactured questions in the Q&A portion. Questions that their teams or themselves have written and then presented as being asked by the public to boost their image or influence public opinions concerning them.

While seemingly small, these actions increase the sense of dishonesty and insincerity and make it nearly impossible for people to believe that their input is valued.

Additionally, the format of some town hall meetings can be inconvenient and dissuade participation. Some town halls begin with a presentation from the host. Many have noted that these presentations tend to go overtime, leaving a very short interval for questions. I feel that this marginalizes one of the most important aspects of a town hall: interaction with the people.

Although well-meaning town halls seem to be missing the point of their existence. I believe they exist to make people in positions of power more aware of the issues the public is facing. Carried out correctly, assemblies of this nature increase empathy between people and those in charge and ensure that leadership is mindful of how to effectively serve the public —which is the primary purpose of the position they hold.