Mayor’s Taskforce on Governance

[waterloowarrior]

http://governance-ottawa.ca/

Ottawa in a downward spiral, mayor's task force reports


BY JAKE RUPERT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 5, 2009


OTTAWA — Ottawa's city council is ineffective and the city is in a downward spiral that will continue without major changes, says a report from governance experts requested by Mayor Larry O'Brien.

"The mayor's task force on governance found that city council does not operate effectively and cannot provide the strategic leadership the City of Ottawa needs because of systemic problems with governance," says the report from the panel, which includes former Carleton University president Richard Van Loon and is headed by University of Ottawa government expert David Zussman. "Without addressing these governance shortcomings, council will remain ineffective no matter how hard councillors, the mayor and staff work."

The report is one of several due on the way the city government works, part of a regular mid-term self-examination process.

"Without an effective council, guided by good governance, Ottawa risks becoming a dysfunctional city plagued by poor long-term planning and rising costs. Over time, ineffectiveness will create a downward spiral which will leave citizens living in a city where the services and infrastructure they rely on do not work properly," the report says.

The report concludes that narrow thinking on the part of councillors voting in the interest of their geographic wards and political interests is leading to a lack of long-term planning and focus on important city-wide issues.

To combat this, the task force recomends creating an executive level in municipal government, the mayor and city councillors who chair various standing committees, to set a firm agenda.

Zussman said this group would then drive the city-wide policitical agenda at council, making it more likely that other councillors would take a larger view of the issues before deciding how to vote.

At a press conference for the release of the report, Zussman said if things continue as they are, dysfunction and “chaos” will reign.

Several councillors at the conference immediately took umbrage with this suggestion.


More to come...

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Ottawade]

What is this emotion? This feeling of ROFL and victory at the same time?

[harls]

Several councillors at the conference immediately took umbrage with this suggestion.

can't imagine why...

[waterloowarrior]

interesting article...



O'Brien era's problems indicate Chiarelli's strengths: U of O expert


BY JAKE RUPERT , THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 6, 2009 1:17 PM


OTTAWA — During Mayor Larry O’Brien’s time in office, it’s become clear former mayor Bob Chiarelli was a “very, very clever politician” who built consensus on city council under difficult circumstances, says one of Canada’s leading governance experts.

Gilles Paquet made the observation Friday, one day after O’Brien’s task force on governance released a report calling the current municipal government system broken and predicting “chaos” if the status quo continues.

Paquet, a professor at the University of Ottawa, said he agreed with most of the report’s findings, and that things need to change.

The report concludes the current system almost demands narrow thinking on the part of councillors voting in the interest of their geographic wards and political interests, which leads to a lack of long-term planning and focus on important city-wide issues.

To combat this, the task force recommends creating an executive level in municipal government, comprising the mayor and city councillors who chair various standing committees, to set a firm agenda on issues affecting the whole city. The panel said this would bolster the mayor’s influence over city-wide issues, and likely result in more consensus and achievement.

Mr. Paquet would prefer a borough system of government where groups of councillors would have complete say over issues affecting their geographic areas, and full city council meetings only to decide larger issues like tax policy, budget issues, and growth plans.

However, he said he thought an executive level would be helpful and doable under the current system.

He said the “dysfunction” at city hall has become acute because it’s almost impossible to gain a majority on individual issues with 23 councillors and the mayor each holding a vote. Council just too big, he said, with too varied interests on too many minute subjects to gain plurality support on a regular basis.

He said Chiarelli was able to govern effectively because he was able to put forward a clear vision on issues, work one-on-one with councillors to get them to buy into the vision, and was dogged in his pursuits.

He said O’Brien hasn’t been able to do this, but to be fair, it is probably asking too much.

“One thing people have learned in the O’Brien era is how clever Chiarelli was,” Paquet said. “He was faced with the same set of problems and challenges, but he was very good at dealing with people, had great moral authority and respect of other politicians, and worked very hard to achieve things.

“O’Brien is having a difficult time achieving because it is very difficult in the current system to do this. It’s like a bus with 24 steering wheels and 24 sets of pedals. It makes a hell of a racket, but it doesn’t go anywhere.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Richard Eade]

Is anyone going to Clive's Governance Forum?

GOVERNING OTTAWA BETTER

A PUBLIC FORUM

On Monday, March 30th, at 7pm in Council Chambers at City Hall Councillor Clive Doucet will host a Public Forum on Governing Ottawa Better.

Thirteen years ago, Ottawa had a Regional Government which provided the core regional urban services, sewer, water, arterial roads, transit, housing and 11 municipalities which delivered local services. All this changed with the Fewer Politicians Act of 1996. The 11 municipalities and the region were reduced to one government and local politicians shrunk from 82 to 22.

Since then it has become clear that in spite of good intentions, the Ottawa amalgamation has created a divisive, under-performing political structure. We see this occurring with transit, at the school board level, the community and recreation level and it’s the same deal on the road level. Amalgamation has created difficulties but with insight and public debate, we should be able to find solutions.

Join moderator Clive Doucet, author of ‘Urban Meltdown, Cities, Climate Change and Politics as Usual’ with Jim McKenzie, a Director of the Carleton Landowners Association, Pam Fitzgerald and Jennifer McKenzie Ottawa-Carleton School Board Trustees, Adam Found a member of a consulting team for two recent de-amalgamation proposals in Ontario and a PhD candidate in economics at the University or Toronto as they discuss the issues surrounding de-amalgamation. Your questions and participation will be welcome.

For more information please contact:
Office of Clive Doucet 613-580-2487

[highdensitysprawl]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Is anyone going to Clive's Governance Forum?

If Clive doesn't hear what he wants to hear will he spit his dummy out of the pram?

The thought of Clive and the Carleton Landowners Association at a forum together is pretty mind boggling....basically neither one of them wants each other but they probably realize that they can achieve their individual visions if the other party is not at the table.

[waterloowarrior]

Public forum airs amalgamation woes

Doucet spearheads move to redivide rural, urban areas

BY TIM SHUFELT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 30, 2009 11:35 PM


OTTAWA — The amalgamation of Ottawa with its neighbouring municipalities is a failed experiment that has paralysed City Hall, according to supporters of a new system of municipal governance.

Detractors of amalgamation say the time has come to undo the changes in governance created in 2001 when 12 municipalities were combined into the new City of Ottawa.

Under the current system, “the decision-making of the city just crumbles,” said Capital Councillor Clive Doucet, who is leading a push for deamalgamation.

Doucet organized a public forum at City Hall on Monday night to discuss possible changes to Ottawa’s political structure.

Amalgamation has infused City Hall with an urban-rural divide that has derailed all sorts of city proposals designed to improve the lives of both urban and rural Ottawans, the councillor said.

He cited the scuttling of the north-west light-rail proposal and the resulting billions of dollars in lost investment, a $200-million lawsuit against the city, and a long-term transit plan in tatters.

Most urban councillors voted in favour of the rail proposal, while most suburban and rural representatives voted to the kill the plan, Doucet said.

“In practice, you can’t govern a township like a city and you can’t govern a city like a township.”

In addition, rural voices are overrepresented in council with the same voting rights as downtown councillors whose wards contain many more people, Doucet said. As a result, spending outside the Greenbelt has greatly outpaced the downtown core on everything from schools to facilities to roads.

Since 1999, $150 million has been spent on new schools and additions to existing facilities outside the Greenbelt, compared to zero investment within the divide, where many schools date back to the turn of the century, said Somerset-Kitchissippi trustee Jennifer McKenzie.

“We have children sitting

in 19th-century classrooms,” McKenzie said.

Despite the differences in investment, however, in Ottawa’s rural expanses, where opposition to amalgamation has historically been seated, residents are far from happy, according to Jim McKenzie, a director with the Carleton Landowners Association.

He said rural residents can govern themselves better than a downtown-based council and proposed that rural areas secede and restore Carleton County.

“This is a win-win situation,” McKenzie said, calling on all council members to start a discussion on deamalgamation.

“Why are you so concerned with something that makes a tremendous amount of sense to many of us?”

Doucet said he favours a referendum on undoing amalgamation.

Adam Found, a University of Toronto doctoral student with expertise in municipal governance, said such a question could be asked of voters as part of the ballot during the next municipal election in 2010.

While Found noted that the city does not seem to have realized any substantial cost savings from amalgamation, convincing the provincial government of the rationale for deamalgamation may prove challenging.

He called the province’s stance on the issue as “extremely cautious,” and particularly sensitive to shifts in the property tax burden that might result from a change in how the city is run.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

some presentations from clive's forum
school board
http://www.clivedoucet.com/de_amalg/...ce%20Amalg.pdf
adam found
http://www.clivedoucet.com/de_amalg/a_found_mar3009.pdf

[eternallyme]

I think it should go back to a county structure, except all municipalities (which can be further broken up), including Ottawa, would be part of the new Carleton County. Regional-level services that are not county-run would be operated by the new municipalities, except for transit, which should be run by a separate transportation agency approved by the federal government for the entire National Capital Region.

[Dado]

(Note: the following map will help in understanding my post:
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Asset1607.aspx )

I don't think the former municipalities, at least not the suburban and urban ones, should be resurrected with their former boundaries. Nepean and Gloucester made absolutely no geographic sense once the Greenbelt was created. Nepean and Gloucester in particular were badly fragmented by the Greenbelt. To resurrect them would be a big mistake.

If we were to do something like recreating the RMOC, then some regigging is in order. Generally everything inside the Greenbelt (including the Greenbelt itself) should be Ottawa, although smaller boroughs like Vanier could be created throughout as well. Nepean (as a borough) would only make sense if it was limited to being Barrhaven (south of the Greenbelt, east of the 416, west of the Rideau River). Kanata should be everything suburban west of the Greenbelt, including Stittsville (which is in Goulbourn). Gloucester is a bit of a mess - those parts of it outside the Greenbelt are split in two by Mer Bleue, so it includes both Riverside South and Orleans. The Orleans portion should be split off and Gloucester limited to Riverside South and Leitrim (which would finally give "Riverside South" a real name as well). The rural townships would be whatever remains of the former townships that is not within the urban boundary.


Frankly though, I don't think any of the former suburban municipalities should be resurrected in any form, nor Carleton County. If any restructuring occurs, Ottawa should include everything within the urban boundary and be done with it. Carleton County makes very little geographic sense today since it has been emasculated by urban growth from Ottawa. What remains of the eastern townships are very disconnected from the western ones. Culturally, the western townships are solidly anglophone whereas the eastern townships have heavy concentrations of francophones, especially in the area around Navan. This would certainly lead to Carleton County being declared bilingual by the province and setting off all number of internal squables, and this within an entity with no real corporate memory or history since county governance has not existed for four decades. It would be a recipe for a high-cost administration desperately looking for cash - and we know what that would mean. Furthermore, Cumberland township was never even part of Carleton County - it was annexed into the RMOC from neighbouring Russell County. The County as a whole would also be very anti-Ottawa from its very founding, which would hardly be conducive to good neighbourly relations in the future given the inevitability of future dealings with Ottawa.

In my mind, what would make a lot more sense is to annex the rural remnants of West Carleton, Goulbourn and Rideau (i.e. what's west of the Rideau) to Lanark County and the rural remnants of Osgoode, Gloucester and Cumberland (what's east of the Rideau) to the County of Prescott and Russell. The townships themselves would be resurrected within the neighbouring counties, though Gloucester still makes no sense as a rural township (it should be split between Cumberland and Osgoode along the 417/VIA/Mer Bleue) and Goulbourn (having lost much territory around Stittsville) might best be merged with Rideau (or perhaps Goulbourn with Beckwith and Rideau with Montague). It would be far less complicated to assign the neighbouring counties extra contiguous lands than to create a new entity with no real logic to it. Administration costs, especially for "starting up", would be far less, for example, and since they're existing counties there's a body of knowledge with respect to upper-tier rural governance already built-in that can easily take over. Moreover, people in West Carleton and Rideau have far more in common with people in Lanark than they do with people in Cumberland, who in turn have more in common with people in Russell, including linguistically. Finally, Lanark and Russell Counties overall won't have anything like the anti-Ottawa attitude of a Carleton County.

After all that though, I still think the best scheme is to make the current set-up work better.

[adam-machiavelli]

I think if the rural areas want more autonomy over services, that's fine with me. Just as long as the City of Ottawa maintains a veto over regional planning within the current City of Ottawa borders.

[eternallyme]

I agree that the previous boundaries should not be resurrected as they make little sense today.

It should begin with setting aside the areas as urban (inside the Greenbelt), suburban (Kanata, Barrhaven, Orleans, Blackburn Hamlet, Leitrim, Riverside South, Stittsville, other future development areas) and rural (outside all those areas).

The urban area (including Nepean and Gloucester within the Greenbelt) should default as the City of Ottawa. However, if they so desire, the former city of Vanier, village of Rockcliffe Park and any other communities inside the Greenbelt could form their own separate municipality (city if the population is at least 5,000 and village if less than 5,000 - town makes little sense if located in the urban area).

The suburban areas outside the Greenbelt should each become their own municipalities along the lines of projected 2030 development, irrespective of pre-2001 boundaries. (Kanata and Stittsville could either be one city or separate municipalities.) They would all get city status, regardless of current population.

The rural areas should revert to their historic boundaries (minus suburban development areas), with these exceptions:

*Rural Gloucester and rural Cumberland become a single township
*Rural Nepean and North Gower Township (eastern Rideau) become a single township
*Rural Kanata and Torbolton Township (northeast West Carleton) become a single township

The county/regional government would be much smaller than the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, with only some services such as land use planning, major roads and social services run by the mayors of each of the municipalities. Policing would revert to the OPP and local municipalities, and transit would be run by a separate transit authority responsible for the entire National Capital Region.

[adam-machiavelli]

I don't want the region to do regional planning. I want the CITY to plan for the region. Metro Toronto planned for York, Durham and Peel and those counties were very grateful for the reduced costs due to this external responsibility.

[waterloowarrior]

Ottawa - City Council will be holding a facilitated session as part of the Mid-term Governance Review to discuss a wide-range of options to improve the current governance model and discuss Committee structure, delegation of powers and new ways of increasing public engagement in the decision-making process at City Hall.
The discussion will be based on material presented in a series of draft White Papers as well as the report from the Mayor's Taskforce on Governance.
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009
Time: 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Location: Pineview Municipal Golf Course, 1471 Blair Road
The public can get involved by participating in an online discussion forum based on the Governance White Papers and the Taskforce's report. The forum will be accessible through ottawa.ca once the White Papers are finalized.
Following the facilitated discussion, staff will prepare a report for Council which will be considered by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee for the purpose of hearing public delegations.

[waterloowarrior]

Chiarelli talks control issues
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ch...471/story.html
Separate board elected city-wide would end ward-driven politics at City Hall, ex-mayor says

BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 28, 2009 11:02 PM

OTTAWA — The city needs to return some kind of board of control to City Hall to end the ward-driven parochialism of current city politics, former mayor Bob Chiarelli said Monday.

Addressing a seniors group at Abbotsford House in the Glebe Monday morning, Chiarelli said Ottawa has grown dramatically in the last 15 years, but only the mayor has a city-wide perspective because the rest of council is only elected to represent specific wards.

He said having several councillors elected across Ottawa would support strong decisions on projects such as transit that benefit the whole city, not just some wards.

Chiarelli, who was regional chair and then mayor of the new City of Ottawa until the end of 2006, said he was amazed at how citizens and councillors lacked knowledge of different communities.

He said he made it his mission when mayor to visit all parts of the newly amalgamated city, which gave him a unique perspective that was not shared by his fellow councillors.

“I felt very isolated sometimes that I was the only person speaking to city-wide issues from a city-wide perspective,” said Chiarelli.

He said an example of how ward politics can shape city decisions is the debate over commuter rail in the 2006 election, when politicians, especially on the west side, argued for scrapping the former north-south rail-service plan and going with east-west service instead.

Chiarelli lost the mayoralty and the new council killed the north-south project, but Chiarelli points out that it will still be many years before Ottawa sees east-west service.

He said in addition to a city-wide perspective, a board of control structure would also be a good way to groom prospective mayors.

The former City of Ottawa used to have several councillors on a board of control, who were elected by all city residents.

Also, the former municipalities of Gloucester, Nepean and Kanata elected councillors to sit on regional council.

The old Ottawa board of control had its critics, some

of whom said it created two classes of council member. The structure, abolished in 1978, was designed to allow several councillors to have a more in-depth understanding of city issues. The member with the highest vote support became deputy mayor.

Clarence Dungey, a long-time observer of council and other Canadian city governments in his work with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, says a board of control structure would only work if the rest of council accepted a diminished role.

“That’s not going to happen anymore,” said Dungey.

Chiarelli, speaking with a substantial corps of reporters in the audience for the first time since his defeat as mayor in 2006, also said the city isn’t doing a strong job of communicating what it does.

He said Ottawa has countless good stories about what it’s doing — from sophisticated water and sewer systems to the improved efficiency of the power system on the

Ottawa River and state-of-the-art emergency services — but the city’s reputation is dragged down by “public mauling” in media stories about a small number of mistakes and plans that are picked apart.

Chiarelli says the city’s leaders don’t fix that because they don’t want to be criticized for spending money on communications. Instead, that’s exactly what the city should do, he said, perhaps through its own television station, or at the least through posting information on its website.

“It’s very easy to develop a sense of discouragement about your city. The substance and significance of what is working in the city every day gets lost,” said Chiarelli. “We need perspective. That perspective has to come from political leadership. We need to re-establish community pride in our city.”

Chiarelli’s possible return to Ottawa politics has been talked about extensively in area political circles. Chiarelli said he has not categorically ruled out a return: “You never say never in politics.”

But the former mayor said he is happy with what he is doing now — such as working on the expansion of Algonquin College — and his family is telling him not to try a political comeback.

Mayor Larry O’Brien said he agrees about the need to get council looking at problems with a wider perspective. O’Brien said he supports a change on council that would see the mayor and four councillors elected city-wide and 14 or 15 councillors elected with wards.

Currently, the councillors for 23 wards and the mayor sit on council.

Separate board elected city-wide would end ward-driven politics at City Hall, ex-mayor says

By Patrick Dare

OTTAWA — The city needs to return some kind of board of control to City Hall to end the ward-driven parochialism of current city politics, former mayor Bob Chiarelli said Monday.

Addressing a seniors group at Abbotsford House in the Glebe Monday morning, Chiarelli said Ottawa has grown dramatically in the last 15 years, but only the mayor has a city-wide perspective because the rest of council is only elected to represent specific wards.

He said having several councillors elected across Ottawa would support strong decisions on projects such as transit that benefit the whole city, not just some wards.

Chiarelli, who was regional chair and then mayor of the new City of Ottawa until the end of 2006, said he was amazed at how citizens and councillors lacked knowledge of different communities.

He said he made it his mission when mayor to visit all parts of the newly amalgamated city, which gave him a unique perspective that was not shared by his fellow councillors.

“I felt very isolated sometimes that I was the only person speaking to city-wide issues from a city-wide perspective,” said Chiarelli.

He said an example of how ward politics can shape city decisions is the debate over commuter rail in the 2006 election, when politicians, especially on the west side, argued for scrapping the former north-south rail-service plan and going with east-west service instead.

Chiarelli lost the mayoralty and the new council killed the north-south project, but Chiarelli points out that it will still be many years before Ottawa sees east-west service.

He said in addition to a city-wide perspective, a board of control structure would also be a good way to groom prospective mayors.

The former City of Ottawa used to have several councillors on a board of control, who were elected by all city residents.

Also, the former municipalities of Gloucester, Nepean and Kanata elected councillors to sit on regional council.

The old Ottawa board of control had its critics, some

of whom said it created two classes of council member. The structure, abolished in 1978, was designed to allow several councillors to have a more in-depth understanding of city issues. The member with the highest vote support became deputy mayor.

Clarence Dungey, a long-time observer of council and other Canadian city governments in his work with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, says a board of control structure would only work if the rest of council accepted a diminished role.

“That’s not going to happen anymore,” said Dungey.

Chiarelli, speaking with a substantial corps of reporters in the audience for the first time since his defeat as mayor in 2006, also said the city isn’t doing a strong job of communicating what it does.

He said Ottawa has countless good stories about what it’s doing — from sophisticated water and sewer systems to the improved efficiency of the power system on the

Ottawa River and state-of-the-art emergency services — but the city’s reputation is dragged down by “public mauling” in media stories about a small number of mistakes and plans that are picked apart.

Chiarelli says the city’s leaders don’t fix that because they don’t want to be criticized for spending money on communications. Instead, that’s exactly what the city should do, he said, perhaps through its own television station, or at the least through posting information on its website.

“It’s very easy to develop a sense of discouragement about your city. The substance and significance of what is working in the city every day gets lost,” said Chiarelli. “We need perspective. That perspective has to come from political leadership. We need to re-establish community pride in our city.”

Chiarelli’s possible return to Ottawa politics has been talked about extensively in area political circles. Chiarelli said he has not categorically ruled out a return: “You never say never in politics.”

But the former mayor said he is happy with what he is doing now — such as working on the expansion of Algonquin College — and his family is telling him not to try a political comeback.

Mayor Larry O’Brien said he agrees about the need to get council looking at problems with a wider perspective. O’Brien said he supports a change on council that would see the mayor and four councillors elected city-wide and 14 or 15 councillors elected with wards.

Currently, the councillors for 23 wards and the mayor sit on council.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[adam-machiavelli]

I disagree with councillors being elected at-large as this would become an entry barrier for new politicians. Typically, the bigger the constituency, the harder it is to elect new politicians. A better option would be to maintain the same number of wards but create a type of cabinet. This 6-person executive body would consist of the mayor and his/her managers. The entire cabinet would sit on city council as full voting members and be elected as an entire slate. Since they'd be a minority on council, they'd still need to convince at least 9 councillors (50%+1 of 28) to support their policies.

[blackjagger]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

I disagree with councillors being elected at-large as this would become an entry barrier for new politicians. Typically, the bigger the constituency, the harder it is to elect new politicians. A better option would be to maintain the same number of wards but create a type of cabinet. This 6-person executive body would consist of the mayor and his/her managers. The entire cabinet would sit on city council as full voting members and be elected as an entire slate. Since they'd be a minority on council, they'd still need to convince at least 9 councillors (50%+1 of 28) to support their policies.

Adam I don't disagree with your recommendation, but question the additional expense of a larger council. I'm always surprised that in Canadian politics we seem to continually add more seats, counselors, or positions to our systems. Compared to Toronto we have much more representation per person, meaning more overhead cost per capita to essential do the same thing (argue and get limited results…had to say it). Though I agree that some form of voting member that is responsible to the city as a whole rather than just their ward may add some long term perspective to the council.

Maybe, and I don't know if this is possible or realistic, if we voted in a transit head, planning head, municipal affairs, and say parks and rec .head to the council to represent on a city wide basic if it would allow more freedom for those individuals to make decisions or vote with their conscience.

Cheers,
Josh

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

I disagree with councillors being elected at-large as this would become an entry barrier for new politicians. Typically, the bigger the constituency, the harder it is to elect new politicians. A better option would be to maintain the same number of wards but create a type of cabinet. This 6-person executive body would consist of the mayor and his/her managers. The entire cabinet would sit on city council as full voting members and be elected as an entire slate. Since they'd be a minority on council, they'd still need to convince at least 9 councillors (50%+1 of 28) to support their policies.

I think it is a big mistake to politicize management of the city. Management provides continuity for operating the city at present, they should be professional positions and making these elected positions effectively will make for ideological shifts on how the city operates with each election. This will clearly shift the power away from councillors, more than by the vote count, as the mayor will have much more control over the bureaucracy. Can you imagine what would have happened if Larry O'Brien had even more power than he has? Draconian measures would have been implemented whether we liked them or not. Staff would have been cut substantially regardless of the impact on city services. Transit service would have slashed in most parts of the city. Would the transit strike have ever been resolved? Let's also remember what happened with Larry O'Brien's staff. Constant resignations and controversy. Can you imagine if that kind of thing had extended to city management? The city would be in total upheaval. A ship without a rudder, even more so than has already been expressed by many people since the last election.

No, Larry O'Brien's tenure as mayor is perfect illustration of why we should not give more power to the mayor's office. We don't need a potential dictatorship. The idea of Councillors at large or municipal political parties are far more palatable than mayor elected with a voting cabinet or management team who are more likely to be political hacks than professional managers.

[Dado]

I think before embarking on anything like this we would have to figure out the role of the board and how they're elected (I dislike the idea of slate-voting - there'll always be someone you'd sooner not have to vote for), the role of the ward councillors/Council, the role of the Council committees (which are only ever going to have one board member on them, at most), the role of advisory committees and things like the Police and Library boards and how it all fits together.

A sticky issue would be whether to keep the same total number of representatives - 24 - and reduce the number of ward councillors, or keep the same number of wards and augment by the number of board members.


P.S. Calling these new board members "councillors" when there are already ward councillors is not quite right... they'd have to be running for a specific position in a board of control because otherwise you'd end up with, effectively, half a dozen mayors. I know - call the current ward councillors "wardens" (since that's pretty much what they do - look out for/guard their wards (guardiens in French, though something based on "quartier" might work in French as well)) and call the city-wide ones "councillors"

[adam-machiavelli]

Ok so maybe "manager" was not the right term but slates are important because it means the mayor and his/her others will (hopefully) work together.

As for the at-large councillors, I've done many case studies on the matter and this is what I've found as to why it's a bad idea:
- same constituency as the mayor so lots of infighting between mayor and at-large councillors
- less likely to represent interests of small, concentrated groups such as visible minorites
- huge campaign costs mean they'll be beholden to 1 and ONLY 1 constituency: big business!
- all councillors may end up being downtown lawyers who went to a given university (not to disparage any of these) which reduces the variety of opinions discussed.

I actually think we should have a 50-member council of part-time councillors (in the style of New Hampshire's house of assembly) so that power is diffused and a broad range of opinions are heard.