Pissin' In The Wind

* Term Limits
* Recall Legislation

James: Let's set some limits on councillors

January 07, 2010

Royson James

Kyle Rae's packing it in after 19 years, blowing out of city hall with typical bluster. Too many of his colleagues are calcified in their roles as pothole fixers and ward heelers, eschewing the larger city, he said.

Was he calling out the likes of Case Ootes – 21 years as East York rep?

Is it time for councillors such as Michael Walker (28 years in North Toronto) and Mike Feldman (18 years in North York) and Howard Moscoe (wash your mouth out, he registered this week) to ride off into the sunset?

Well, Ootes called it quits this week. The guy who did so much to hold the city together after the botched 1998 amalgamation won't be on the next council to deliver his fiscally conservative message with humour and passion, even as others choose vitriol.

"It's time to move on and give someone else a chance," Ootes said Wednesday.

Can Doug Holyday (28 years) and Maria Augimeri (25 years) be far behind? Well, yes, far, far behind. Neither is showing signs of bowing out, which means citizens looking to bring new ideas to city government as a councillor for Etobicoke Centre or York Centre will be waiting more than three decades before having a real shot at the job.

Now, how can that possibly be healthy?

To the uninitiated, yes, we do have elections every four years. But this is what a challenger is up against:

The incumbent has a $53,100 taxpayer-supplied slush fund account to spend on his or her office. From that they can send out fridge magnets and newsletters, all the way up to the end of the summer, just months before the election, patting themselves on the back. They can also outfit sport teams, buy raffle tickets and shuffle money to other fundraisers in what is only thinly disguised vote-buying.

While the challenger may have to take a leave of absence from work to run a credible campaign, the incumbent continues to be paid as a councillor every day, whether on the campaign trail, sitting at home or attending to constituents' needs. And, as we are seeing, if the incumbent gets into a legal joust with a challenger, councillors will use taxpayers' money to pick up the tab for the colleague's legal fees. Sweet.

Incumbents have access to phone lists, calls for help, ward issues and many policy details that place them at the heart of solutions for which they gladly take credit. The name-recognition advantage is almost insurmountable.

The least we can do to upset this "jobs for life" sinecure is limit councillors to two or three consecutive terms.

Now, if you are like Jane Pitfield and you take a term off council (voluntarily or because of electoral defeat; she lost to David Miller in the 2006 election) you can return. Pitfield, in what seems like a cozy affair, will run in Ootes's ward as the local councillor, not mayor.

Ootes, 68, admitted Wednesday it is time for a council debate on limiting city councillors' terms.

His views would carry more weight if he'd shared them before, since they'll no longer apply to him. Still, the current system is of greatest service to the incumbents, the entrenched men and women who have to prove themselves incredibly inept or corrupt to lose at the polls.

A good starting point with this debate is the mayoral campaign that's now taking shape.

What's needed is for the mayoral candidates to present a platform that challenges the right of councillors to serve forever. Just contact Dave Meslin of www.betterballots.to. He's bursting with ideas.