All Fried Up In The Big Smoke

Less political. More fictional.

Ooops! We Did It Again

Posted on March 31, 2014 by "Brother" of Cityslikr

Our bad.

After months and months and months, maybe even a year or so, of harping on about ignoring the mayor’s office as anything to do with the actual governance of this city — Boom! – there we were, right back at it. A full slate of “major” candidates now established, a couple of debates this past week under our belts, and it’s like March 2014 us doesn’t even recognize March 2013 us. It’s now all about the mayor’s race. How did candidate X respond to the accusations made about them by candidate Y? Why is what candidate Z saying now so radically different from what they said 3 months ago?

Yaddie, yaddie, yaddie, am I right?

Don’t get me wrong. The race for mayor is important. Much of how it plays out over the next 7 months will be an indication of where voters are sitting on bigger picture matters. It’ll serve as a civic temperature gauge. Is it still red hot with anger and resentment like it was back in 2010 or has the outlook cooled some, less volatile, making us more open to a larger discussion?

Following the mayoral campaigns is easy, pretty straight forward. It’s focused. Coloured coded to help all those of us playing along at home.

But as the likes of Jude MacDonald and Paisley Rae patiently continue to point out, that’s not where the big change is ripe for the picking. If we have learned nothing else from the ongoing saga of Rob Ford, the one take away should be, the office of the mayor can be reduced to little more than a figurehead. Without the will of 22 councillors, the mayor is impotent. Sure, the mayor remains capable of stealing the spotlight, having their views echoed by those paid to cover them. That’s it. Any other influence on the actual running of the city is minimal unless they are leading a team consisting of at least half of the 44 councillors.

In many ways, who will be elected mayor of Toronto in October is now largely out of our hands. All the frontrunners, from which we will almost assuredly be choosing one of come election day, have their teams in place, their organizational structure is up and running. Many resources have fallen into place in order to ultimately secure one vote of forty-five in the next term of city council. An important vote to be sure, one that will be given a head-start to influence the debate and set an agenda. But one vote just the same.

It could be argued that your time and effort would be better spent ensuring that your local voice on council best reflects your views and opinions, your civic values. When it comes down to the votes at city council at every meeting, your councillor’s counts equally with the mayor’s. After all the horse-trading and jockeying that goes on leading up to any vote, your councillor is just as likely to influence the outcome as the mayor is.

You put an x on the ballot for mayor to choose a direction you want to see the city go in. You make your choice for city councillor to see that direction is actually implemented. The first vote is a gesture. The second, a directive.

This goes beyond any sort of partisanship.

If you endorse the direction Mayor Ford wants to take the city, with a continued emphasis on low taxes and small government, make sure you have a councillor that’s fighting in that direction. Otherwise, they’re working at cross purposes, one vote pretty much cancelling out the other. The flipside of that is your councillor can serve as a bulwark if a mayor starts galloping off on a course you’re not happy with.

Ultimately, you elect a councillor to serve your interests not the interests of the mayor.

The thing about ward level campaigns is that even the slightest change can alter the result. Thirteen of the council races in 2010, nearly a quarter of them, were determined by just a few hundred votes. Twenty councillors were sent to City Hall with less than half their ward’s popular vote.

A slight uptick in turnout or switch in voter preference might’ve meant a different outcome. Residents in one building or on one block coming out to vote or changing who they voted for could well have tipped the balance at City Hall in another direction. Municipal elections are as close to direct democracy as we have right now. It’s a pity we tend to squander the opportunity through disinterest and disengagement.

Even Mayor Ford recognizes the importance of council’s make-up. He’s predicting big changes come October, a sweeping out of councillors not part of his Ford Nation. While his motives are entirely self-interested and woefully misguided – he had control of city council throughout the first year of his term; he squandered it through misrule and an errant belief that holding such sway came with the territory, was bestowed not earned – he knows of which he speaks. It would be unfortunate and unwise of us to disregard his words.

Changing the mayor (or re-electing the one we have currently) is only a part of what we should be looking to do in 2014, and a small part at that. If what you really want to do is transform the dynamic or the culture of behaviour at City Hall, it can be done one councillor, one ward at a time. Get involved with a local race. Start here at Dammit Janet!, with a primer of what your councillor’s been up to for the past 3+ years. Then, pick up the phone or click on the volunteer button to find out how you can pitch in and help elect the representative who you believe will best act for, speak for, stand for the things that are most important to you.

A few hours here and there of your time over the next 7 months might just ensure the city runs more smoothly, and moves ahead more enthusiastically with things that need to be done over the course of the next 4 years.

— voluntarily submitted by Cityslikr

This Cannot Stand

Posted on March 7, 2014 by "Brother" of Cityslikr

WE INTERRUPT THIS REGULARLY SCHEDULED WARDS 2 WATCH DISPATCH TO BRING YOU AN URGENT BULLETIN:

PEOPLE OF WARD 11 YORK SOUTH-WESTON! WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE, DROP WHAT YOU’RE DOING AND REGISTER TO RUN AGAINST YOUR LONGTIME INCUMBENT, COUNCILLOR FRANCES NUNZIATA? IF NOT FOR YOURSELF OR FOR THE CITY. DO IT FOR YOUR CHILDREN. YOUR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

I know it’s early in the race, still months to go before election day on October 27^th but when our friend Jude MacDonald pointed out that as of March 6^th, Councillor Nunziata was running unopposed, I just couldn’t help thinking, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! WHY ISN’T EVERYONE BEATING DOWN THE DOOR TO CHALLENGE HER!? SHE IS THE WORST!

(OK, I’ll stop shout-writing now. Deep breath. Deep breath.)

The thought of running against a firmly entrenched incumbent at any political level but especially municipally must be a daunting one. And few city councillors are as entrenched as Frances Nunziata. Along with the city’s 180^th birthday yesterday, the councillor celebrated her 180^th year in office, I believe. [Actually, she was first elected as a York school board trustee in 1985. A York city councillor in 1988. York mayor in 1994. Amalgamated city councillor in 1997. But who’s counting? – ed.]

Whatever.

A municipal elected official for nearly 3 decades. An institution, really. The Municipal Institute of Cranky Pants at the Frances Nunziata campus.

You know, I’m not one for the term limits. I’ve said as much on this very site. If someone is doing a good job, serving their ward and its residents well, why arbitrarily chase them out?

But, come on, folks. This is Frances Nunziata we’re talking about. This isn’t a case of a forever politician serving her ward and residents well. Think that’s just my opinion? You don’t have to take my word for it. The councillor pretty much admits it herself.

“My ward never gets anything,” is a frequent lament heard coming from Councillor Nunziata’s mouth. If that’s so, whose fault is that, I ask? Look into the mirror, councillor. Look into the mirror, Ward 11.

A wag once told me that the key to Frances’ electoral success lies in her getting 9000 of her residents’ fences fixed. That’s fine, if that’s the kind of councillor she wants to be. But you can’t scream and shout about the big stuff while only focusing on small matters.

Besides, if her total absence of skills as Speaker of city council in any way reflects her overall abilities as a city councillor, I’d say voters in Ward 11 have simply stopped trying. They are merely going through the motions. X marks the circle with name recognition.

To have someone run unopposed in any election race is a bad sign for democracy. To have the likes of Councillor Frances Nunziata run unopposed is nothing short of a travesty. A slap in the face of all that is good and holy in a free and healthy political system. It’s the surest sign of apathy run rampant.

As of now, Councillor Nunziata is not the only incumbent facing zero opponents. There are six other wards in the city where challengers are absent in running against their councillor. That situation cannot stand. Any acclamation looks bad. Two bit. Small time.

Maybe voters are content with the representation they’re receiving. Why exert the effort if everything’s hunky dory, a-OK? You don’t fix what ain’t broke, am I right?

But you know, the election process isn’t simply about voting. It’s about having a conversation, having your say. Every four years every ward in the city gets to have its own debate. What’s important. What’s working. What’s not working. During that time, if a politician seeks another opportunity to represent the residents of a ward at City Hall, they should have to explain why, and set out their record of accomplishments and a new list of priorities to justify a renewal of that faith voters showed in them the previous time around.

All elected officials, no matter how effective or popular, need to have their feet held to the fire. A trial, if you will, in which they must lay out the case to warrant their re-election. That can only happen if someone steps forward to challenge them. Failure to do so is an abdication of responsibility on the part of every single eligible resident.

If the likes of Councillor Frances Nunziata stands unopposed in her umpteenth re-election bid, her atrocious track record as city councillor unchallenged, then our system is clearly broken. It suggests that people, at least those living in Ward 11, really don’t care what goes on at City Hall. An electoral shrug. Oh well. What’s it matter?

In the end, you get the type of representation you deserve, I guess.

— pleadingly submitted by Cityslikr

An Ethical Leave Of Absence

Posted on July 25, 2013 by "Brother" of Cityslikr

Whenever a political dust-up occurs, a contretemps that leads to much partisan Did Not-Did So back and forth, I ask this question: What if the party/politician you don’t support were to do the exact same thing the party/politician you do support did? Would you be cool with that, shrug it off as being all part of the game, yo?

So Conservatives pulling for Doug Holyday in the Etobicoke-Lakeshore provincial by-election, you’d be easy-peasy if the city’s “on unofficial leave of absence” Deputy Mayor’s opponents in the race did the same thing? Just called up the city’s waste collection company and asked for one of their trucks to swing by for a campaign photo-op? Totally fine, yes?

“… when the deputy mayor calls and asks for a truck, we supply it,” said Green For Life’s chief executive, Patrick Dovigi.

I am trying very hard to avoid stinky-garbage language here but that statement alone should set off alarm bells to anyone concerned with political propriety and rule bending. Page 7 of the Integrity Commissioner’s Code of Conduct for City Councillors contains 3 violations the Deputy Mayor may have committed using the garbage truck as part of his campaign. (h/t Jude MacDonald). VI, Use of City Property, Services and Other Resources. VII, Election Campaign Work. VIII, Improper Use of Influence.

But Conservative defenders were quick to point out that since Green For Life is a private company, contracted out by the city to pick up garbage, it’s all good. No harm, no foul. Technically speaking, this isn’t a technical breach of conduct by the technically (maybe) on leave of absence deputy mayor.

From Article VI, “No member of Council should use, or permit the use of City land, facilities, equipment, supplies, services, [bolding ours] staff or other resources (for example, City-owned materials, websites, Council transportation delivery services and member of Council expense budgets) for activities other than the business of the Corporation.”

Waste collection is a service Green For Life provides to the city, isn’t it?

From Article VII, “No member shall use the facilities, equipment, supplies, services [bolding ours] or other resources of the City (including Councillor newsletters and websites linked through the City’s website) for any election campaign or campaign-related activities… No member shall use the services [bolding ours] of persons for election-related purposes during hours in which those persons receive any compensation from the City.”

Again, if Green For Life isn’t delivering a service to the city, what exactly are we paying them for?

From Article VIII, “No member of Council shall use the influence of her or his office for any purpose other than for the exercise of her or his official duties.”

“When the deputy mayor calls and asks for a truck, we supply it.” That seems like a pretty straight forward ‘use of influence’, doesn’t it?

Unless of course you want to argue that Doug Holyday’s campaign staff called Green For Life as representatives of a provincial candidate not the deputy mayor. It’s just unfortunate Mr. Dovigi didn’t say that when a candidate running for provincial office asks for a truck, they’re happy to oblige. But he didn’t. “When the deputy mayor calls and asks for a truck, we supply it.”

But hold on, the deputy mayor PC candidate for Etobicoke-Lakeshore defender’s say, it’s not as if anyone pulled a truck off collection duty for the deputy mayor PC candidate for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It just magically appeared at no cost whatsoever to the company, I guess. Free gas, free of charge for the person driving it.

Let’s chalk it up to a campaign donation from a private company to a provincial candidate who just so happens to also be the city’s deputy mayor. He’s also the politician who helped spearhead waste collection contracting out, first as the former mayor of Etobicoke and then as deputy mayor of Toronto. Contracting out that, ultimately, benefited the company supplying their garbage truck as a campaign prop.

Regardless of your partisan political stripe, it’s something of an ethical quagmire, wouldn’t you say?

We’ve come to expect such lapses in judgement from the mayor but until he decided to enter the by-election race, Doug Holyday had a straight-shooting, no bullshit reputation when it came to using taxpayer money even for legit reasons like office budgets.

“Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday said regardless of whether Ford pays for fuel, city vehicles should be used for city business alone.” This from a Toronto Star article last fall in response to Mayor Ford’s staff using city vehicles to attend Don Bosco football practices. To now defend the deputy mayor’s use of a Green For Life garbage truck during his provincial campaign as different because it’s not a ‘city vehicle’ seems like mendacious hair-splitting.

All this coming less than week after the Integrity Commissioner’s annual report to city council. Never mind the backtracking now in progress to justify the deputy mayor’s actions on this. How could he stand in front of a truck his staff had ordered up, festooned with the City of Toronto logo, to make a campaign speech and not for a moment think to himself, something about the optics here smell? (There. My one garbage reference.)

And how can anyone, beating the drum of ethical bad behaviour on the part of the provincial Liberals, look at this circumstance and shrug? It’s no gas plant boondoggle, costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. As if ethics are simply about the amount of money involved and not the conduct it engenders.

— demandingly submitted by Cityslikr