Tag Archives: Joe Pantalone

Playing Politics

Posted on by
2

Try to parse the dark logic of this.

In the end, city council voted unanimously (with a few notable abstentions) to adopt the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’ report into the civic appointment process conducted last year by the Civic Appointments Committee. Recommendations a handful of councillors and the mayor vehemently argued at council and/or in the media were unnecessary because the problems they are intended to address never occurred in the first place. Or, in the always blithely oblivious words of Councillor Norm Kelly, “… the Ombudsman is fixing something that is not broke.”

Only could a hardcore ideologue or someone completely disengaged with the reality swirling around him sit through this week’s fiery council debate, shrug his shoulders and conclude, what’s the problem? This, coming from a guy who sits right beside the budget chief, Councillor Mike Del Grande. At the height of the viciousness being tossed around at council chambers yesterday, Del Grande stood up on a point of privilege to essentially wipe his hands of the proceedings, disgusted with the gutter tone it had descended into, claiming he’d never been a part of anything like it in all his time in office.

As any of our regular readers know, I am not a fan of the budget chief. He represents almost everything I dislike in right wing politicians. And not for nothing was he once dubbed, Cardinal Mike Del Grandstand.

But in this, I have to say, his repulsion felt genuine. He talked kindly of gentlemanly behaviour at previous councils towards him by Joe Pantalone. His abhorrence at the fight over the Ombudsman’s report crossed political lines.

This is both good news and bad news for Mayor Ford.

The Ombudsman’s report and ensuing debate over it saw him abandoned by almost all of his natural allies. Not only did the budget chief walk away but other conservative councillors kept their distance. You heard nothing from councillors David Shiner or Karen Stintz. Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday stood and expressed complete and utter incredulity at why council was spending so much time on this debate. The recommendations in the report were clear and good. Let’s just get on with it. At one point of time, the deputy mayor could be seen standing on the periphery of the chambers, glaring in the direction of Councillor Mammoliti, looking as if he couldn’t bring himself to be sitting in the same row as his colleague.

Even Mayor Ford’s bad lieutenant of devious doings, Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong steered cleared. There was no upside to be seen going to bat for the mayor on this issue.

Only those must entrenched and (not coincidentally members of the Civic Appointments Committee) stood with Mayor Ford. Much has been rightly made of the bully antics of Councillor Mammoliti but the true depths were dredged by Speaker Frances Nunziata. Assuming her councillor seat, her 7 minute speaking time extended to at least 15 minutes with all the points of order and privilege demanded by those she shrilly huffed and puffed and hurled baseless accusations at. It was during this time, the budget chief rose, castigated his colleagues and left the chambers.

Which may represent the silver lining of all this for the mayor.

All the hurly burly created by his defenders helped impugn not only the integrity of the Ombudsman’s report but that of city staff as well in at least the minds of his most ardent supporters. ‘Politically motivated’ they managed to insert into the debate and got the chatter of it being nothing more than a he said-she said, hearsay document despite the fact that all the non-material evidence in it being sworn to under oath. They demanded names and documentation, ultimately revealing only their supreme ignorance of how the work of the city’s Accountability Officers is effectively conducted.

Yet, when all was said and done, despite the protestations of innocence and claims of partisan, political attacks inflicted upon them by the office of the Ombudsman, they voted (with the exception of councillors Kelly and Mammoliti who stepped out of the chambers when the vote was held) to accept the report’s findings and adopt its recommendations. How couldn’t they? After all, Councillor Doug Ford said over and over how the administration was dedicated to openness, accountability and transparency. For them, to vote against receiving the Ombudsman’s report would be nothing more than trying to suck and blow at the same time.

The only element of ‘politics’ introduced into all this was done on behalf of the administration. To accept the Ombudsman’s finding without attempting to denigrate it first was tantamount to admitting mistakes had been made (and I’m being very generous with that assessment). And we all know, Mayor Ford and his closest advocates are loathe to admit to mistakes. Ever.

Instead unsubstantiated allegations were thrown out against everyone and anyone. The Ombudsman, council colleagues, city staff all came under fire from Team Ford. At one point, Councillor Ford said that whatever may’ve happened, the mayor’s hands were clean. Not that the report ever named the mayor specifically, only referring to the mayor’s staff. No matter. The mayor was above reproach.

But that’s not exactly how things are supposed to work.

From the 2010-2014 Council Handbook:

2.14 Councillor staff – conduct and policies

Councillor staff, when acting in their role as a representative of the Councillor, must comply with the Code of Conduct for Members of Council (see page 100). Councillors are responsible for ensuring that their staff understand their obligations and responsibilities.

(h/t to Jude MacDonald)

Certainly the same goes for the mayor and his staff.

But accountability, it would seem, only applies to others and previous administrations. Demanding it from the mayor’s office and his most rabid supporters is just playing politics.

— demandingly submitted by Cityslikr

Where Have You Been?

Posted on by
4

“Time to talk about taking on the Fords” was the headline in a National Post article written by Chris Selley yesterday. “Three times this week,” it opened, “City Hall poured gasoline on Ford Nation’s smouldering embers.” He then outlined those three examples: the Metrolinx approval of council’s decision to go ahead with 4 LRT lines, the chief medical officer’s recommendation to lower speed limits in the city and the growing talk of looking at road tolls.

On top of which, Mr. Selley suggests later in the piece that in taking over control of outsourcing practices, city council “…added a weapon to the Mayor’s arsenal.”

There seems to be some inconsistencies in this argument.

For starters, city council has moved beyond talking about taking on the Fords. They’re already doing it by rolling back proposed cuts in the 2012 operating budget, successfully defending the Portlands from Councillor Doug’s incursion, reversing new fees for sports fields along with the examples above. The mayor’s self-proclaimed mandate continues to be challenged.

But to Mr. Selley this is pouring ‘gasoline on Ford Nation’s smouldering embers’, intimating that by defying the mayor council is only succeeding in making him stronger. (With a nod to @HULKMAYOR) DON’T MAKE FORD NATION ANGRY! YOU WON’T LIKE FORD NATION WHEN THEY’RE ANGRY!

This argument grates. It pops up every time the mayor suffers a setback. A wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth and the wailing of, but we’re just giving him a re-election platform.

What?!

And the alternative? To sit back, let him run rampant, implementing the worst of his policy ideas? When it all goes to shit, we then step up and say, see? We told you so? Then start picking up the pieces.

That’s certainly not what Mr. Selley’s suggesting. He believes the mayor’s opponents need to take control of the narrative and contest the fallacious assertions Team Ford continues to make. Like the St. Clair “disaster” and its mutant spawn, St. Clair-ization of the city with the building of LRTs. Agreed and I think that’s already under way with the work John Lorinc and others have been doing exploring St. Clair Avenue post its St. Clairizing.

“When it comes to subways and LRTs specifically,” Selley writes, “someone needs figure out how to make staying the course look sexy.”

That’s kind of a tall order and perhaps a little bit of overkill. While I know the mayor has pledged to make it a campaign issue and the likes of the Toronto Star’s Royson James worries that the timing of the Sheppard LRT’s commencement of construction in 2014 could be manna from heaven for Mayor Ford’s re-election bid, I’d really like to see him try and run with that frankly. Already having put off the timetable by 18 months with his declaring Transit City dead does he really think promising further delays is going to be a winner for him?

The statement issued from his office yesterday in response to the Metrolinx decision to proceed with LRTs suggests the mayor isn’t looking to go to the mat for a Sheppard subway. It attempts to put the matter fully into the province’s lap, saying that the focus for the TTC should now be solely on “…delivering operational and customer service excellence — and not on capital infrastructure planning and construction.” The mayor’s continued ‘push for subways to form the backbone of Toronto’s future plans for rapid transit expansion’ is vague enough to open the possibility of talk for something as out there as the downtown relief line. Subways are subways, right?

Inadvertently, Mayor Ford has triggered a transit discussion this city has not had this openly in decades. Very few people now disagree that we have fallen woefully behind, to the growing detriment of commuters and businesses alike. A Spacing-Environics poll last week suggested an eye-poppingly large number of the GTA are more than willing to consider a regional sales tax dedicated to building transit.

That’s a tax increase, folks. The polar opposite of what then candidate for mayor Rob Ford ran successfully on in 2010. All the talk of evil taxes now seems to be little more than pissing in the wind, a naked appeal to a narrowing base of support.

So the mayor and his brother want to recreate the conditions that got them elected some 18 months ago? Good luck with that. Like they say, you can’t push toothpaste back into its tube. The agenda has changed, the discussion advanced. Fighting yesterday’s war seldom leads to victory today.

That’s not to say I’m writing the mayor off as one and done. Mr. Selley’s correct in pointing out that then Councillor Rob Ford was severely underestimated. The anger he helped foment and then champion was surprising and misunderstood. He will be helped by the power of incumbency.

But 2014 will be a different political landscape, one the mayor will have contributed to having altered. Last time out, his main rival, George Smitherman, forged the anti-City Hall mindset that Ford ran away with. Every subsequent move Smitherman made to differentiate himself from Ford only seemed to reinforce the argument that Toronto’s government was out of control in every conceivable way. The only main candidate defending the status quo, Joe Pantalone, was simply a bad campaigner. His arguments were closer to the truth but he just couldn’t effectively deliver that message.

It’s hard to imagine how that dynamic will be recreated for the mayor to exploit. Council has already established itself as a viable counter-balance to the worst instincts of the mayor. There is a working majority consensus on most of the important issues the city faces. Whoever rises up from that to take on Mayor Ford in 2014 will be the type of formidable candidate he didn’t face in 2010.

Chris Selley doesn’t seem to realize that and is writing from a few steps behind what’s happening on the ground now.

— up to speedly submitted by Cityslikr

Fringe Candidates

Posted on by
7

There was much talk around these offices last fall as the municipal election campaign wound down toward its ugly, ugly conclusion. Strategic voting or mark an X with your heart, or simply pack up and head somewhere more reasonable for the following 4 years. (Have you been reading Toronto Life again? — ed.) How best to try and stop the Ford juggernaut? Don’t go getting all high and mighty with me, mister. Splitting the left of centre vote will only help his cause. Yes, I do think there are fewer worse case scenario’s than the prospect of a Mayor Rob Ford.

In the end, none of it mattered. Our current mayor won with a big enough plurality that nearly all of the 3rd place finisher Joe Pantalone voters would’ve had to throw in their lot with the eventual runner-up, George Smitherman, to overtake the frontrunner. Smitherman simply had not made that possible. (Nor are we convinced Toronto would be faring any better under a Smitherman mayoralty. A big sigh of relief from residents followed by a slow, perhaps even imperceptible bleed, rather than a gashing head wound. — ed.)

My Pantalone vote sat OK with me. I was not a displeased Torontonian under the Miller administration and Pantalone, despite his underwhelming campaign style, made the case that the city was on the right track. Or, if not on the right track, hadn’t derailed as all the other leading candidates for the office claimed. Certainly, 10 months after the fact, his accusations of the other leading candidates being mini-Mike Harris’s, bent on re-configuring Toronto into another Buffalo or Detroit has something of a ring to truth to it. Oh, the mockery and derision Pantalone received from the others for his scare-mongering. Rob Ford ‘guaranteed’ no such thing would happen under his watch.

My colleague here felt no such peace of mind in defeat. His candidate for mayor, HiMY SYeD, to whom he felt far greater attachment to than I did toward Joe Pantalone, not only lost but lost big. Crushed. 31 of 40 bidders for mayor with a paltry .071% of the popular vote. The very definition of a fringe candidate.

Few folks here were surprised about the outcome. Despite a huge social network presence, Mr. SYeD failed to get himself included in any of the countless debates. Any press he did manage to garner came with the ‘fringe’ adjective attached. Expectations of some sort of Nenshi miracle were nothing short of delusional. (Yeah, alright. We get your point. — ed.) To vote for HiMY SYeD; to waste your vote. (I said we get it. Is that really a proper use of a semi-colon? — ed.)

Yet, as I sat watching Mr. SYeD’s deputation at last month’s marathon Executive Committee meeting, I began to wonder about the ‘fringe’ designation. Certainly he was only one of countless Torontonians who delivered passionate, articulate, highly informed presentations to committee members who almost all possess none of those attributes. Passion maybe, but not toward city building so much as city shredding. These were the candidates deemed worthy of serious consideration and here they were, being schooled on what makes a city work.

Think back over the antics and shenanigans on display by many of these councillors during the course of the last 10 months. Giorgio Mammoliti? By any measure except for electoral success, he should be thought of as a fringe candidate. Doug Ford? Only someone out on the fringes would have the ease to say the things that come out from his mouth. Didn’t Councillor Cesar Palacio express surprise at how little rent the city was charging some Toronto Community Housing tenants? How long does one have to be in office before learning the first thing about social housing? 6 months? 6 years? Or at least possess a sense of self-awareness that edits such obliviousness before you can send it along for public consumption.

And Mayor Ford himself. A career long fringe councillor, unable to get along with almost all of his colleagues for a decade and still woefully unsure just how municipal government works. Nothing he has done since assuming office has alleviated the feeling that he has no idea what he’s doing except for an ability to bully through his fringe ideas. If it wasn’t obvious before the election (It was. — ed.) it is painfully on display now that he is frighteningly out of his depth. We handed over the keys to City Hall to a fringe candidate.

We obviously need a new definition for the word ‘fringe’. Perhaps devising a means test for anyone seeking elected office. It should start with the question: Do you believe that there is a positive role for government in society. No yes or no responses please. Answers must be longer than can fit on a bumper sticker.

It would assist us in determining who is a fringe candidate and not leave it in the hands of some arbitrary adjudicator. (Yes, we’re looking at you, CityTV — ed.) Being fringe shouldn’t be about who you don’t know or how much money you don’t have access to. It’s ideas that count, and true fringe candidates are always incapable of coming up with any good ones of those. (Like I was saying all last year. — ed.)

— houndedly submitted by Urban Sophisticat