| Bottom line: "When it comes to mayors of Toronto, a lack of power has never been a problem. A lack of accountability and consultation has been." Toronto Doesn't Need A Stronger Mayor |
A great debate is raging at City Hall as to whether the Mayor's Office needs more power.
Proponents of this plan have pointed to the "strong mayor system" in place in many U.S. cities as something worth emulating. Many councillors, including myself, disagree.
A lack of power has seldom been an issue for Toronto mayors. With the majority support of like-minded councillors, the mayor has had carte blanche at City Hall since amalgamation. To suggest the mayor needs the power to unilaterally hire and fire the city's top bureaucrat, for example, and his lack of ability to do so is somehow impeding progress is ridiculous.
The mayor has always had that power for all intents and purposes. Only someone with an extremely short memory could forget how former mayor Mel Lastman organized the council votes to remove former chief administrative officer Michael Garrett or how Mayor David Miller himself arranged the summary execution of senior commissioners Paula Dill, Joan Anderton, Joe Halstead and a host of others. Or how I believe he orchestrated the removal of police chief Julian Fantino and TTC General Manager Rick Ducharme.
Anyone who suggests the mayor does not already have complete control over senior level hiring and firing at City Hall has not spent a week in the building. The only thing officially giving the mayor this power would accomplish would be to squelch any public discussion, knowledge or debate.
It would also overtly politicize the bureaucracy. One of the successes of municipal government is it is has always been grassroots, pragmatic and community-driven. To advocate for a strong-mayor system completely misunderstands that local government is different from senior levels of government.
Municipal government is at its finest when people are consulted and decisions are based on broad consensus. It is at its worst when secret meetings are held to push through dogmatic agendas that do not have the support of the communities who have to live with them.
It is understandable that prime ministers need secret caucus meetings to make important foreign policy and constitutional decisions, but speed humps, road repairs and stop signs should not be approved this way.
Centralized power also has to come with strong accountability, which the city of Toronto is seriously lacking.
When crime goes up in New York City, the mayor is held accountable for it. If transit fares rise or a tax increase is passed, the mayor is held accountable.
Not so in Toronto. Here, council is unjustly used as the scapegoat for these things. It is called a "collective decision" and no individual takes responsibility for tax hikes, fare increases and problems like crime or pollution. Centralized power can only come with Toronto mayors taking ownership not just of the easy and positive decisions the city makes, like big funding announcements, but difficult ones too.
In this regard the current proposal increases the mayor's power in exactly the wrong ways.
David Miller famously said during his first campaign for mayor, "Toronto doesn't need a strong mayor system, it needs a strong mayor."
When it comes to mayors of Toronto, a lack of power has never been a problem. A lack of accountability and consultation has been.
No comments:
Post a Comment