There is much hand wringing about the municipal state of affairs in Toronto right now, specifically whether this should the new mayor be appointed by council, or should there be a byelection. It should be a no-brainer at this point, in my opinion, in favour of a byelection, and that's where the momentum needs to be. Although the issue seems to make otherwise sensible and intelligent people temporarily foolish / insane.
I don't feel the need to write a lot about this issue, but I did want to point out something that was underlined in the great exhibit that Dave Meslin put on, "The Fourth Wall." Not long ago, we had 3 year terms municipally, and before that 2, and, up until 1956, elections were held. If we still had 3 year terms, as we did up until 2006, it would make sense to just appoint a caretaker mayor until an election this coming fall, and much of this crisis would have been averted. Part of the reason Ford's removal from office is such a big deal is possibly because our terms are too damn long. Now would be a great time to renew the call for shorter municipal terms. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Gravy, part 1: Corruption & Conflicts
Well, it’s been quite a week here in the big smoke, with the promise and excitement of a new mayor - who may or may not be the same as the old mayor, depending upon how the wind blows through the courts, city council chambers, and potential voting booths. Along the way, and through FordCourts 1 & 2, there’s been much talk of conflicts, corruption, and how to deal with these and other misbehaviours.
When the mayor of Toronto won the election, he was elected on the promise to cut corruption at city hall. I am, of course, talking about David Miller, and the 2003 election. Or, I could be talking about Rob Ford. The only thing for sure is that if you want to get elected as mayor, talk about corruption a lot and shout loudly about how you’ll be rid of it.
Miller was elected on the heels of the MFP scandal, and held a broom aloft when elected to represent how he would clean up the city. Rob Ford, similarly, talked of the gravy train, a key element of which was to suggest that there was secret deals that were costing taxpayers millions of dollars, and once he found them, we’d have lots of money left over to cut taxes, give to the police, and build subways all over the place.
Of course, we can all agree that no one wants corruption at any level of government.
The conversation that we rarely have, and what we’ve been dancing around lately, is a discussion of what legislation and levers should be in place to deal with corruption.
Let’s listen to what our current (for now) mayor has said on the subject:
‘In Aug. 2010, Ford told the Toronto Sun the city contract Foulidis had won smells of civic corruption. He went on to say: “it’s confidential and I wish you guys knew what happened behind closed doors.”
Ford also told a radio station: “I truly believe” someone is getting money under the table in connection to the contract.’
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1267542--boardwalk-pub-libel-lawsuit-case-begins-against-ford
One interesting element of the Foulidis libel case (for those who can remember back through the mists of time to a couple of weeks ago to the previous Ford Court case) is that since the mayoral election, there’s basically nothing Ford’s done to combat the corruption he once railed against so emphatically. If he was so concerned about it during the election, what steps has he taken to root out corruption at city hall? Largely, his attitude has been to just trust him, and he’ll eventually dig up the aforementioned corruption/gravy. Meanwhile, we’re two years into his term, with very little to show for it on that front (or other fronts in the war against gravy, as I’ll get to in later posts). In fact, the in-camera meetings that Ford railed about during the 2010 election have only been repeated by his administration: http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/ford-focus/2011/04/08/ford-is-breaking-all-the-rules%E2%80%94but-is-it-political-swagger-or-a-worrisome-pattern/
What the libel case brought to the fore, and that his removal of office has really reminded us of, was that Ford has basically abandoned this particular gravy ingredient.
About his only achievement on this front is tackling major problems at the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, although its discovery would happened anyway, and his solution of privatizing it is both unrealized and unproven.
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/11/05/the-privatization-of-social-housing/
As is frequently mentioned, Ford wasn’t removed from office this past week for corruption, but for a conflict of interest, and a minor one at that, some say. But the reason for having rules about conflict of interest is that they can quickly degrade into corruption, not to mention embody a world of bad governance along the way.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Rob Ford’s controversies is that not only does he deflect criticism as being politically motivated, he and other members of the media seem to focus on the particulars of the situation rather than the larger issues. Ford “only” raised $3000 for his football foundation. If he’s blameless in this particular instance, what if he’d raised $300,000 or $3 million? What if it wasn’t for charity, but for his own enrichment? Then, he uses his staff to help with his football team - would this also be okay if his staff was working at his label factory instead of for his office? Would it have been okay if Miller had solicited for donations for an environmental organization on his city letterhead? I guess, according to the logic of the Sun and other Ford villagers this would have been just fine (but we all know they’d be screaming their heads off about it.)
If we’re really serious about corruption, we should probably have some hard and fast rules about it. And yes, there’s probably going to be some grey areas, and areas in which we should forgive mistakes, especially when well-intentioned or out of honest ignorance. The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act seems to be doing not such a bad job of this. Perhaps it’s somewhat inflexible, but flexibility when it comes to the rich and powerful tends towards toothlessness. Such rules are there for a reason: so they don’t turn into larger, more serious transgressions.
Running roughshod over the checks and balances in place seems to be increasing at all levels of government, with prorogations and pushing at the edges of electoral laws, just for starters. Even if you believe Rob Ford when he says to trust him (or other politicians), what about the rest of council (or parliament)? Or future mayors (or Premiers or Prime Ministers)?
David Miller’s regime produced the appointment of a municipal ethics commissioner, and a lobbyist registry. It's worth assessing the effectiveness of these measures, but at least they're actual, concrete actions to discourage corruption, and the slippery slope of impropriety that leads there.
So, what are some other solutions we can all agree on? I mentioned the in-camera meetings - repeated recently with the reversal of the plastic bag ban. We could also do more about about sole-source contracts, a practice that continues on Ford’s watch: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1035856--city-improperly-approved-millions-in-sole-source-purchases.
Another possibility is to ensure city staff, particularly police, are paid well enough to ensure they’re less tempted by bribes and corruption - but of course, that costs money (although maybe sometimes you have to make gravy to save gravy).
If we want to see just how far things can go wrong, we only need to turn to Montreal, and the revelations at the inquiry there. Or look at Joe Fontana in London - do Rob Ford supporters think what he’s done is fine, and he should serve out his term?
I’m not an insider, and I have no idea if Toronto is nearly corruption free, or if there are some giant skeletons hiding in the closet of council chambers. But if there are, I’d like to hear some real solutions to head in the right direction, and now would be a good time to start looking.
Further reading:
http://www.fasken.com/en/leasing-lives-on-torontos-mfp-scandal-provides-lessons-01-01-2006/
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2012/11/26/lorinc-the-last-stand-of-rob-ford/
http://www.nowtoronto.com/mobile/story.cfm?c=190104
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1296099--james-rob-ford-refused-to-protect-himself-from-himself
UPDATE: Actually an older piece, but an excellent look at a variety of conflict of interest / corruption allegations by Paula Simons in the Edmonton Journal: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=7636405
Also, Democracy Watch is doing some good work on this at other levels of Government: http://democracywatch.ca/20121203-penalty-for-ford-too-high/
When the mayor of Toronto won the election, he was elected on the promise to cut corruption at city hall. I am, of course, talking about David Miller, and the 2003 election. Or, I could be talking about Rob Ford. The only thing for sure is that if you want to get elected as mayor, talk about corruption a lot and shout loudly about how you’ll be rid of it.
Miller was elected on the heels of the MFP scandal, and held a broom aloft when elected to represent how he would clean up the city. Rob Ford, similarly, talked of the gravy train, a key element of which was to suggest that there was secret deals that were costing taxpayers millions of dollars, and once he found them, we’d have lots of money left over to cut taxes, give to the police, and build subways all over the place.
Of course, we can all agree that no one wants corruption at any level of government.
The conversation that we rarely have, and what we’ve been dancing around lately, is a discussion of what legislation and levers should be in place to deal with corruption.
Let’s listen to what our current (for now) mayor has said on the subject:
‘In Aug. 2010, Ford told the Toronto Sun the city contract Foulidis had won smells of civic corruption. He went on to say: “it’s confidential and I wish you guys knew what happened behind closed doors.”
Ford also told a radio station: “I truly believe” someone is getting money under the table in connection to the contract.’
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1267542--boardwalk-pub-libel-lawsuit-case-begins-against-ford
One interesting element of the Foulidis libel case (for those who can remember back through the mists of time to a couple of weeks ago to the previous Ford Court case) is that since the mayoral election, there’s basically nothing Ford’s done to combat the corruption he once railed against so emphatically. If he was so concerned about it during the election, what steps has he taken to root out corruption at city hall? Largely, his attitude has been to just trust him, and he’ll eventually dig up the aforementioned corruption/gravy. Meanwhile, we’re two years into his term, with very little to show for it on that front (or other fronts in the war against gravy, as I’ll get to in later posts). In fact, the in-camera meetings that Ford railed about during the 2010 election have only been repeated by his administration: http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/ford-focus/2011/04/08/ford-is-breaking-all-the-rules%E2%80%94but-is-it-political-swagger-or-a-worrisome-pattern/
What the libel case brought to the fore, and that his removal of office has really reminded us of, was that Ford has basically abandoned this particular gravy ingredient.
About his only achievement on this front is tackling major problems at the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, although its discovery would happened anyway, and his solution of privatizing it is both unrealized and unproven.
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/11/05/the-privatization-of-social-housing/
As is frequently mentioned, Ford wasn’t removed from office this past week for corruption, but for a conflict of interest, and a minor one at that, some say. But the reason for having rules about conflict of interest is that they can quickly degrade into corruption, not to mention embody a world of bad governance along the way.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Rob Ford’s controversies is that not only does he deflect criticism as being politically motivated, he and other members of the media seem to focus on the particulars of the situation rather than the larger issues. Ford “only” raised $3000 for his football foundation. If he’s blameless in this particular instance, what if he’d raised $300,000 or $3 million? What if it wasn’t for charity, but for his own enrichment? Then, he uses his staff to help with his football team - would this also be okay if his staff was working at his label factory instead of for his office? Would it have been okay if Miller had solicited for donations for an environmental organization on his city letterhead? I guess, according to the logic of the Sun and other Ford villagers this would have been just fine (but we all know they’d be screaming their heads off about it.)
If we’re really serious about corruption, we should probably have some hard and fast rules about it. And yes, there’s probably going to be some grey areas, and areas in which we should forgive mistakes, especially when well-intentioned or out of honest ignorance. The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act seems to be doing not such a bad job of this. Perhaps it’s somewhat inflexible, but flexibility when it comes to the rich and powerful tends towards toothlessness. Such rules are there for a reason: so they don’t turn into larger, more serious transgressions.
Running roughshod over the checks and balances in place seems to be increasing at all levels of government, with prorogations and pushing at the edges of electoral laws, just for starters. Even if you believe Rob Ford when he says to trust him (or other politicians), what about the rest of council (or parliament)? Or future mayors (or Premiers or Prime Ministers)?
David Miller’s regime produced the appointment of a municipal ethics commissioner, and a lobbyist registry. It's worth assessing the effectiveness of these measures, but at least they're actual, concrete actions to discourage corruption, and the slippery slope of impropriety that leads there.
So, what are some other solutions we can all agree on? I mentioned the in-camera meetings - repeated recently with the reversal of the plastic bag ban. We could also do more about about sole-source contracts, a practice that continues on Ford’s watch: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1035856--city-improperly-approved-millions-in-sole-source-purchases.
Another possibility is to ensure city staff, particularly police, are paid well enough to ensure they’re less tempted by bribes and corruption - but of course, that costs money (although maybe sometimes you have to make gravy to save gravy).
If we want to see just how far things can go wrong, we only need to turn to Montreal, and the revelations at the inquiry there. Or look at Joe Fontana in London - do Rob Ford supporters think what he’s done is fine, and he should serve out his term?
I’m not an insider, and I have no idea if Toronto is nearly corruption free, or if there are some giant skeletons hiding in the closet of council chambers. But if there are, I’d like to hear some real solutions to head in the right direction, and now would be a good time to start looking.
Further reading:
http://www.fasken.com/en/leasing-lives-on-torontos-mfp-scandal-provides-lessons-01-01-2006/
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2012/11/26/lorinc-the-last-stand-of-rob-ford/
http://www.nowtoronto.com/mobile/story.cfm?c=190104
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1296099--james-rob-ford-refused-to-protect-himself-from-himself
UPDATE: Actually an older piece, but an excellent look at a variety of conflict of interest / corruption allegations by Paula Simons in the Edmonton Journal: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=7636405
Also, Democracy Watch is doing some good work on this at other levels of Government: http://democracywatch.ca/20121203-penalty-for-ford-too-high/
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Just a touch of filth and danger.
 |
| Geez, if only Toronto had a fountain in front of City Hall, like in Edmonton. |
But last week, things seemed especially distressing to me, especially in Toronto, the city where I live. I was particularly dismayed by the vote on the Jarvis bike lanes, which may not be a world-changing decision, but just seemed to be particularly sloppy, wasteful policy, removing perfectly good city-building infrastructure and re-installing a myopically car-focused plan. As a cyclist (or should I say citizen that happens to cycle) that uses them regularly, I usually feel like a second class citizen, as cars park within the painted lines that pass for bike lanes, and cars cut me off like I don't matter. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that I'm belittled once again, along with all the other non-fossil-fueled travelers.
This was just one short chapter in the ongoing saga of a mayor and councillors who thumb their nose at accountability, dismissing an ombudsman's report that dares critique the administration's bungling and bullying of board appointments... but wait, there I am getting really negative. Of course, it's easy to do, and I could go on, as this and other issues are enough to make me pretty angry.
In short, a little ranting may be called for from time to time, because, dammit, things like accountability are pretty important, and I don't think that's a particularly one-sided or political position to take.
The main purpose of this page is to propose and share others positive, creative ideas and solutions to some of these and other problems. Hopefully, I'll be able to go a bit beyond the day to day personality-focused, short-term view that so dominates political discourse. The kind of thing that seems to be hallmark of the Rob Ford era in Toronto. But at the same time, positive creative ideas and solutions also seem to be bursting forth with semi-regularity in this city. During the deputations about the budget cuts last year, people came together and spoke passionately about what this city meant to them. Imagine provincial or federal deputations about budgets, and what we might unearth if we actually had more meaningful consultations at other levels of government.
There's been some of the best municipal writing around coming from sources like Torontoist, Edward Keenan, and Matt Elliott, just to name a few. There a handful of dedicated and patient city councillors who have been doing a nearly herculean job in trying times.
My original plan for this blog was to call it "Toronto Mayor 2014," and introduce and discuss potential platform planks I (and others) would like to see from our next mayor - or even the current one if he cares to take them on, not to mention council on its own initiative. Then, this past week I found out there's already a very similar project called #1000mayors. So I'll definitely be joining in on that.
Oh, and a note on the name of this blog - it borrows (or maybe steals, but wait while I give credit where credit is due) from a nice little piece in Torontoist by John Michael McGrath in which Rob Ford extols the virtue of a city that's safe and not filthy. So, I thought I'd embrace that absurdity, in the face of an absurd city, and an absurd world. Because of course, no one wants filth and danger... well, maybe just a little; just enough to make things sexier and more punk
So, to leave you on a positive note, I'll draw your attention to a great series on the Spacing blog by Dylan Reid, looking at funding options of transit in the GTA, about which I'll likely write more later:
http://spacingtoronto.ca/author/dylan/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)