Next Mayor of Toronto?

[kEiThZ]

You keep repeating that council voted themselves a pay raise during the recession, but they did not - they voted to give councillors regular cost-of-living increases every year a couple of years back. The Mayor and some councillors have rejected or given this year's scheduled increase to charity.

Some have called for council to hold a vote on eliminating this year's increase, but the mayor rightly refused as that kind of thing is largely symbolic and a waste of council's time.

I firmly believe that politicians should make symbolic decisions sometimes. Voting yourself a cost of living allowance that's higher than what you want to pay the unions under your management is a terrible precedent. Moreover, giving yourself a cost-of-living allowance while many of your constituents are losing their jobs is rather cold hearted behaviour in my books. It says that you don't care about your voters, just your entitlements. Yes, the mayor and some councillors have given away their increases to charity. But that does nothing for the many unemployed who might face a tax increase next year. Far better, would have been for councillors to forego their cost-of-living increase and set the bar for negotiations with the unions down the road.

If there's any truth in the articles posted here, it appears that the Premier probably thinks that symbolic action is just as important as I do. Politicians are not regular day workers. Everything they do falls under public scrutiny. And from time to time, they are required to make decisions which are unpopular and sometimes, gasp....symbolic. These councillors are lucky, there's no party politics to galvanize municipal voters...otherwise, you'd see quite a shift after actions like this. Can you imagine the outcry if federal parliamentarians voted themselves a pay raise in the middle of this recession with such a massive deficit (and at least they are coming out of a string of surpluses...something Toronto does not have)? Posters here would be screaming about the vile Conservatives and how greedy they are, even if they were giving their pay increases to charity. So why the double standard for Miller et al.?

 

[GraphicMatt]

I firmly believe that politicians should make symbolic decisions sometimes. Voting yourself a cost of living allowance that's higher than what you want to pay the unions under your management is a terrible precedent. Moreover, giving yourself a cost-of-living allowance while many of your constituents are losing their jobs is rather cold hearted behaviour in my books. It says that you don't care about your voters, just your entitlements. Yes, the mayor and some councillors have given away their increases to charity. But that does nothing for the many unemployed who might face a tax increase next year. Far better, would have been for councillors to forego their cost-of-living increase and set the bar for negotiations with the unions down the road.

Another correction: The mayor and some councillors rejected this year's scheduled increase wholesale and left that money to the city. Some other councillors instead took the donate-to-charity route. Still others just kept it, as is their right.

Second: Instituting a scheduled small annual pay increase for councillors is a good idea precisely because it avoids the spectre of councillors having to 'vote themselves a pay raise'. Councillor (and MP, and MPP, etc) salaries need to go up regularly, or else no one with managerial experience in the private sector would ever seek office.

If there's any truth in the articles posted here, it appears that the Premier probably thinks that symbolic action is just as important as I do. Politicians are not regular day workers. Everything they do falls under public scrutiny. And from time to time, they are required to make decisions which are unpopular and sometimes, gasp....symbolic. These councillors are lucky, there's no party politics to galvanize municipal voters...otherwise, you'd see quite a shift after actions like this. Can you imagine the outcry if federal parliamentarians voted themselves a pay raise in the middle of this recession with such a massive deficit (and at least they are coming out of a string of surpluses...something Toronto does not have)? Posters here would be screaming about the vile Conservatives and how greedy they are, even if they were giving their pay increases to charity. So why the double standard for Miller et al.?

Serioulsy, no one voted themselves a pay raise in the middle of a recession. That's not what happened. Councillors received a scheduled modest cost-of-living increase in January. There was no vote.

The action taken by the mayor and the councillors who have rejected their pay increase IS the symbolic course. It's a nice show of solidarity that I wish more councillors had followed. If people are mad about it, they can vote out the ones that took their pay raise.

 

[kEiThZ]

Another correction: The mayor and some councillors rejected this year's scheduled increase wholesale and left that money to the city. Some other councillors instead took the donate-to-charity route. Still others just kept it, as is their right.

But they still get the lovely 15% tax deduction don't they. That's a tidy sum when you're giving away a few thousand dollars.

Second: Instituting a scheduled small annual pay increase for councillors is a good idea precisely because it avoids the spectre of councillors having to 'vote themselves a pay raise'. Councillor (and MP, and MPP, etc) salaries need to go up regularly, or else no one with managerial experience in the private sector would ever seek office.

Given the quality of councillors we have, by this rationale we might have to pay millions to get some competency in council. A near six figure salary (last I heard it was 96k a year) and a healthy office budget is pretty decent. I doubt its the pay that's keeping candidates away. It's quite likely the fact that incumbency virtually guarantees re-election that discourages good candidates from trying out (another challenge I think party politics would address at the municipal level). It could also be the mess that Toronto is in, that basically ensure that nobody who's sane might actually want that much work!

Serioulsy, no one voted themselves a pay raise in the middle of a recession. That's not what happened. Councillors received a scheduled modest cost-of-living increase in January. There was no vote.

Maybe I'm old school, but I happen to believe in leading by example. If the voters who put me in office are losing their jobs and the unions are demanding pay increases (and the point about cost of living increases was brought up by the unions this time around) that could bankrupt the city, I would probably hold a vote to cancel the cost-of-living increase. When your in politics, optics matter. It's irrelevant if it was automatic or not. It would not have taken much to cancel the increase.

The action taken by the mayor and the councillors who have rejected their pay increase IS the symbolic course. It's a nice show of solidarity that I wish more councillors had followed.

Agreed.

If people are mad about it, they can vote out the ones that took their pay raise.

Unfortunately the lack of competitiveness at the municipal level pretty much means that regardless of what you do, once you're in, you're in. My councillor (Raymond Cho) was rated one of the worst on Council by the Toronto Star, for not having done much. Having met him in person, I can certainly say that he's hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer...it's his staff that keeps him on life support (likely to save their jobs). Yet the guy re-elected every election.

 

[EnviroTO]

Certainly it would be nice to replace some of the city councillors but they seem to get re-elected with ease. People seem to only pay attention to the mayoral race.

I don't think the city councillor pay is really an issue. An office budget really isn't a benefit that equates to compensation, although that budget doesn't seem entirely democratic considering many of them are using it to advertise themselves which I think should be prohibited. Back in 2006 they got a 9% raise based on the recommendation of a third party study but for optics they cancelled that raise and chose to set raises based on cost of living increases instead. That cost of living increase has stayed in the 1.8-2.5% range while in the meantime the unions were getting 3%... perhaps both unions and city council should be capped at cost of living amounts. I would bet that CUPE 79 and 416 had better raises over the term of their past contract than city council has. The inflation figure for this year will end up really low I would expect. I think the bigger issue is the number of councillors which should be halved. It is a complete waste of time at every meeting to hear each one of these people drone on about the same old things.

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090707.GEE07ART2252/TPStory/TPComment/

 

[GraphicMatt]

I think the bigger issue is the number of councillors which should be halved. It is a complete waste of time at every meeting to hear each one of these people drone on about the same old things.

Yes. That we have 45 councillors (including the mayor) is a whacked-out structure. If we're stuck with amalgamation - and we are - then at least we should devise some sort of system with larger Wards and fewer councillors. Perhaps each Ward could have a community council within it to ensure we don't lose sight of local issues. There's got to be a more efficient scheme.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Certainly it would be nice to replace some of the city councillors but they seem to get re-elected with ease. People seem to only pay attention to the mayoral race.

Even though i am not to impressed of Adam Vaughan he does work for the people and i think he is going in the right direction, i would keep him and another hand full of councillors and get rid of everyone else, including the mayor. History is in the making with these clowns.

 

[EnviroTO]

Adam Vaughan is passable. I have seen him with protesters in front of the island airport which is a complete waste of time. At least he seems reasonably intelligent. His office budget is high.

 

[kEiThZ]

After the hosing that taxpayers are sure to get because of this council's failure to contain labour costs (barring a last minute bailout by the province next year) I am guessing we'll a higher than usual number of turnovers....One can always hope.

 

[kettal]

Adam Vaughan seems to me like a more articulate version of David Miller.

 

[GraphicMatt]

After the hosing that taxpayers are sure to get because of this council's failure to contain labour costs (barring a last minute bailout by the province next year) I am guessing we'll a higher than usual number of turnovers....One can always hope.

This kind of thing would happen if we had political parties at the municipal level. As it is I bet voter turnout will just be even lower than it normally is.

Here's Miller's electoral strategy, and it might still make him hard to beat: find a wedge issue (like the island airport) to set himself as ideologically different than his opponent. Hammer on this issue during the lead up to the election, rallying his base and splitting people down traditional urban versus suburban lines. Win on the back of the downtown vote.

The strike really will be a distant memory by Fall 2010. He only needs to avoid a major tax increase for one year.

 

[kEiThZ]

He only needs to avoid a major tax increase for one year.

That'll only happen if the province tops up his begging bowl.

 

[GraphicMatt]

That'll only happen if the province tops up his begging bowl.

Yeah, a lot hinges on that. McGuinty knows he has a ton of power in this instance.

I think a lot depends on who emerges at Miller's main opponent. The last thing Miller probably wants is someone associated with the Provincial Conservative party (like his old friend John Tory) taking power in the Liberal stronghold of Toronto. It'd a stupid move that would threaten McGuinty's hold on the province. I could see him bailing out the City just to avoid that scenario.

On the other hand, it would absolutely be the perfect time for Smitherman or a similar centrist candidate with strong ties to the Liberals to come out strong. Dalton could deny Toronto its requested handout, oust Miller, and be left with a mayor he's on very good terms with.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Agreed. I think its time for Smitherman to really start campaigning. But I really don't think McGuinty would mind even if John Tory emerged as a strong candidate. I disagree that this would threaten Toronto's Liberal tendencies for higher level elections. McGuinty might even appreciate having a mayor who will actually try to get Toronto's fiscal affairs in order.

 

[GraphicMatt]

^ Agreed. I think its time for Smitherman to really start campaigning. But I really don't think McGuinty would mind even if John Tory emerged as a strong candidate. I disagree that this would threaten Toronto's Liberal tendencies for higher level elections. McGuinty might even appreciate having a mayor who will actually try to get Toronto's fiscal affairs in order.

Maybe. But I think the greater danger to McGuinty would be having a popular and successful mayor with strong (if lapsed) ties to his opposition party. The last thing any Liberal politician wants is people in their electoral stronghold thinking "hey, maybe those Progressive Conservatives aren't so bad!"

I think Smitherman will run, though. The photo op last week was a huge tell.

 

[unimaginative2]

The reality is that all through the 90s, the federal and provincial governments made major cuts including significant pay freezes and layoffs of civil servants in order to deal with their structural deficits. Many municipal governments have also made significant cuts and implemented double digit tax increases to balance their budgets. Toronto has done neither. For many years it has had a tax freeze, and in most other year increases have barely kept up with inflation. Meanwhile, the number of civil servants and their salaries have ballooned. The budget was balanced for years by raiding reserve funds, and when they ran dry by begging for constant bailouts from other levels of government. The province has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Toronto every year. Eventually Toronto is going to be cut off. I just hope that Miller doesn't attempt the most-painful-cuts-possible approach that he tried during the land transfer tax debate.

I'm not even going to begin to comment on Adam Vaughan.