If slashing 44 Councillors to 22 is a good idea how about 11?

[Fresh Start]

Maybe that's a clue about why things take longer to get done.

You want a clue as to why it takes years upon years for the City to implement anything (often to disasterous end-results)? This is why your’s and I suspect most of socialists posting here’s way of thinking is seriously flawed:

• Each department has its own agenda, and departments don’t cooperate to help other departments get the job done.
• The head of a department feels responsible first for protecting the department, its people and its budget, even before helping to achieve the organization’s mission.
• There is political in-fighting, with executives striving for personal advancement and power.
• Ideas can be killed because they come from the "wrong" person. Ideas will be supported because the are advanced by the "right" person.
• People in their own department spend much of their time protecting their department’s "turf."
• People in other departments spend so much time protecting their "turf" that they don’t have time to do the work they are responsible to do.
• They are treated as though they can’t be trusted.
• They are treated as though they don’t have good judgment.
• They are treated as though they won’t work hard unless pushed.
• Their work environment includes large amounts of unhealthy stress.
• The tendency of the organization is to grow top-heavy, while the operating units of the organization tend to be too lean.
• Promotions are more likely to be made on the basis of politics, rather than actual achievements on the job.
• Top managers are dangerously ill-informed and insulated from what is happening on the front lines or in "the field."
• Information is hoarded or kept secret and used as the basis for power.
• Data is used selectively, or distorted to make performance look better than it really is.
• Internal communications to employees are distorted to reflect what the organization would like to be, rather than what it really is.
• Mistakes and failures are denied, covered up or ignored.
• Responsibility for mistakes and failure tends to be denied, and where possible, blame is shifted to others.
• Decisions are made by larger and larger groups, so no one can be held accountable.
• Decisions are made based on the perceived desires of superiors, rather than concern for mission achievement.
• Policies, practices and procedures tend to grow endlessly and to be followed more and more rigidly.
• Senior managers become so insulated from the realities of the front line that they may use stereotypical thinking and out-of-date experience in making decisions.
• Quantitative measurements are favoured over qualitative measurements, so the concentration is on quantities of output, with less and less concern for quality of output.
• Both employees and customers are treated more as numbers than people. Personal issues and human needs are ignored or discounted.

That is precisely why we ought to vote to slash government bureaucracy NOW!! The fewer the steps and barriers between the planning and executing of an action, the better.

 

[shilly]

You want a clue as to why it takes years upon years for the City to implement anything (often to disasterous end-results)? This is why your’s and I suspect most of socialists posting here’s way of thinking is seriously flawed:

• Each department has its own agenda, and departments don’t cooperate to help other departments get the job done.
• The head of a department feels responsible first for protecting the department, its people and its budget, even before helping to achieve the organization’s mission.
• There is political in-fighting, with executives striving for personal advancement and power.
• Ideas can be killed because they come from the "wrong" person. Ideas will be supported because the are advanced by the "right" person.
• People in their own department spend much of their time protecting their department’s "turf."
• People in other departments spend so much time protecting their "turf" that they don’t have time to do the work they are responsible to do.
• They are treated as though they can’t be trusted.
• They are treated as though they don’t have good judgment.
• They are treated as though they won’t work hard unless pushed.
• Their work environment includes large amounts of unhealthy stress.
• The tendency of the organization is to grow top-heavy, while the operating units of the organization tend to be too lean.
• Promotions are more likely to be made on the basis of politics, rather than actual achievements on the job.
• Top managers are dangerously ill-informed and insulated from what is happening on the front lines or in "the field."
• Information is hoarded or kept secret and used as the basis for power.
• Data is used selectively, or distorted to make performance look better than it really is.
• Internal communications to employees are distorted to reflect what the organization would like to be, rather than what it really is.
• Mistakes and failures are denied, covered up or ignored.
• Responsibility for mistakes and failure tends to be denied, and where possible, blame is shifted to others.
• Decisions are made by larger and larger groups, so no one can be held accountable.
• Decisions are made based on the perceived desires of superiors, rather than concern for mission achievement.
• Policies, practices and procedures tend to grow endlessly and to be followed more and more rigidly.
• Senior managers become so insulated from the realities of the front line that they may use stereotypical thinking and out-of-date experience in making decisions.
• Quantitative measurements are favoured over qualitative measurements, so the concentration is on quantities of output, with less and less concern for quality of output.
• Both employees and customers are treated more as numbers than people. Personal issues and human needs are ignored or discounted.

That is precisely why we ought to vote to slash government bureaucracy NOW!! The fewer the steps and barriers between the planning and executing of an action, the better.

You know, I'd really like to know where you get all these ideas about how the City's public employees act and how departments don't "work together". I work in your "hero's" riding in a city run long term care facility and I can't tell you (for privacy reasons) how wrong you are.

You assume wrongly that we are all lazy, ignorant and overpaid idiots who just show up to work for the pay cheque. If they were to cut our budgets, residents under our care would die. We are already severely understaffed and I can tell you, our facilities are in dire need of more, not less money. I see Rob Ford there once every couple of weeks or so and he doesn't care about the work we do for people who can't take care of themselves.

You absolutely make no sense and have no facts to back up your claims. Rob Ford will not become mayor and I will be thankful when he is gone from council.

 

[afransen]

I think I'd rather:

-lift the ban on parties in municipal politics
-merge wards to match the 22 federal and provincial ridings, but create multiple council positions per ward and elect through STV. I could even see the number of councilors increase in this way. These positions would be more part-time and paid accordingly. Incumbents would be challenged by challengers who managed better constituency work.
-empower an executive council elected by the full council to run most of the day-to-day operations with the full council voting on the budget and major city policy.
-devolve more power over strictly local matters to local councils comprised of the councilors from the local wards.

 

[Fresh Start]

You know, I'd really like to know where you get all these ideas about how the City's public employees act and how departments don't "work together". I work in your "hero's" riding in a city run long term care facility and I can't tell you (for privacy reasons) how wrong you are.

Don't shoot the messanger. That list was compiled by Kaset International, the internationally-renowned customer relations improvement company after 19 years of interviewing customers and employees of public corporations. Having myself worked for a number of large corporations over the years I personally know a lot of that to be credible and is applicable to many heavily-staffed workplaces.

 

[spider]

Toronto Hydro, a City owned and operated utility, has been replacing the power distribution infrastructure on my neighbourhood streets for several months. I have been told that the poles and wiring are being replaced because or their age (about 60 years) and as the project is not critical timewise it is being worked into the schedule when convenient.

Fair enough except many times I have seen a half dozen line trucks and crews working on Saturdays presumably on overtime. The project was completed recently except for the removal of the old cut off poles which don't present a hazard or inconvenience to anyone. Since a sub contractor dug the holes for the new poles I expected a sub contractor to remove the old poles as well. Today is Sunday and guess what? Toronto Hydro is on my street removing the old poles on overtime, possibly double time or more.

I can't help but think a privately owned utility or contractor would have a less casual concern for the tax payers money than these guys, especially when the money saved by a more efficient operation would be called profit.

 

[alklay]

And what does any of the above have to do with cutting city councillors? (answer: nothing)

 

[GraphicMatt]

What if we cut all elected councillors and instead contracted out the management of the city to the private sector. Think of the efficiencies.

 

[junctionist]

What if we cut all elected councillors and instead contracted out the management of the city to the private sector. Think of the efficiencies.

I already made that joke in this thread...

 

[MisterF]

LOL! With 51,000 City employees including all its agencies, Toronto at a population of 2.6 million - for argument sake - already has one representative for every 51 persons. Why is 98.1% of the working population paying for the salary of the remaining 1.9%? According to the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, in 2009 the City of Toronto employed 2,071 staff who earned a salary of over $100,000. The lowly City filing clerk making $30 grand a year is probably doing far more for your local constituency than their superiors, let alone City Council whom only convenes once a month to discuss frivolous motions like giving the Mayor money for a trip to China (sound familiar?) or filing libel suits on the public’s dime.

These numbers do not even include the tens of thousands of employees who work in the City’s agencies, boards and commissions such as the Toronto Police Service, the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Public Library. Agencies, boards and commissions are responsible for their own budgets and the salaries of their employees. Isn't 85% of Toronto's budget going for public sector wages? Then you wonder why the annual budget’s $9.2 billion, enough to build 37 kilometres of new subways or build 245 affordable new housing building complexes.

I’m for fiscal jurisprudence. Slashing Council should just be the beginning. Cut city employment by 20% and reduce the wages of those left by at least 10%. Investigate the fraud and corruption that is so obvious but ignored. What does this city pay for a pencil? A dollar or 2? Miller and his cronies should be in jail for massive fraud to the people. (continued below)

Well that was quite the rant. That 1.9% is in line with other Ontario municipalities. Your 20% figure is arbitrary and meaningless, your allegations of corruption are unfounded, and your belief that Miller should be in jail is laughable. Keep it up, this is quite entertaining.

You want a clue as to why it takes years upon years for the City to implement anything (often to disasterous end-results)? This is why your’s and I suspect most of socialists posting here’s way of thinking is seriously flawed:

That is precisely why we ought to vote to slash government bureaucracy NOW!! The fewer the steps and barriers between the planning and executing of an action, the better.

You make quite the leap in logic here - if, for the sake of the argument, City Hall has organizational problems that affect efficiency, cutting staff is somehow going to solve it? Firing people doesn't remove steps and barriers.

So let me guess, to you anybody who doesn't support your crazy ideas is a socialist?

Don't shoot the messanger. That list was compiled by Kaset International, the internationally-renowned customer relations improvement company after 19 years of interviewing customers and employees of public corporations. Having myself worked for a number of large corporations over the years I personally know a lot of that to be credible and is applicable to many heavily-staffed workplaces.

Hold on, so that list you compiled isn't even specific to the City of Toronto? Wow, it's even more meaningless that I thought.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That is precisely why we ought to vote to slash government bureaucracy NOW!!

Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what is said here - from the same book by Kenneth Johnston from which you've quoted the findings:
http://www.busting-bureaucracy.com/excerpts/reduce.htm

• Be aware that your goal has to be more than just to de-bureaucratize. Your goal is to replace bureaucracy with a more desirable state. So, the change process will be to move "toward" something better, rather than to "get rid of" the existing state. You de-bureaucratize as a by-product of achieving "quality" or "extraordinary service" or some other customer-focused goal.

• You fool yourself if you think you can reduce bureaucracy by substituting one in-focused set of goals for another in-focused set of goals. In other words, you don’t de-bureaucratize by mounting a campaign for better profits, or lower costs, or higher dividends. These are examples of the kinds of goals that led your organization to becoming bureaucratic in the first place.

And note how government doesn't really fit in necessarily with the four models propounded by the author either, from the same book:
http://www.busting-bureaucracy.com/excerpts/alternatives.html

The Four Possibilities

The mission-driven organization will have a customer focused mission.

Mission-driven organizations, will choose a mission that is focused on the customer. The specific mission will depend on the nature of the products or services that the organization intends to provide to its customers.

Product-based organizations might define their mission in terms of customer satisfying, product quality.

For manufacturers, whose customer loyalty will be most deeply influenced by the customer’s perception of product quality, the mission of the organization might be to produce the highest possible product quality.

Service-based organizations will aim for extraordinary customer service.

For organizations like banks and insurance companies, whose customer satisfaction depends on the organization’s policies, practices and procedures—in combination with the human interactions of its people—the mission could be to deliver service that pleases, delights or dazzles customers.

Hybrid organizations will make it their mission to achieve customer dazzling service and satisfying product or service quality.

Hybrid organizations, whose customer’s loyalty depends not only on the quality of the product or service that they offer, but also the customer service, must choose a mission that combines quality and service—always with the focus on achieving customer satisfaction.

As you see, government isn't just about mission, product, services to "customers" or even combinations of the said 3 points. That's the benefit of the private sector with one sole goal - profit - that they can see it with 100% clarity. And oh, for the record, if you wanted to quote something, at least provide the link where you found it from, otherwise your practices might just resemble this point:

• Information is hoarded or kept secret and used as the basis for power.

which can lead to or stem from this:

• Data is used selectively, or distorted to make performance look better than it really is.

AoD

 

[GraphicMatt]

I already made that joke in this thread...

Maybe we should contract out your message board postings and bring in someone from the private sector who will efficiently recognize that my jokes are the best.

 

[Fresh Start]

You assume wrongly that we are all lazy, ignorant and overpaid idiots who just show up to work for the pay cheque. If they were to cut our budgets, residents under our care would die. We are already severely understaffed and I can tell you, our facilities are in dire need of more, not less money.

This is not an example of "one bad apple spoiling the bunch". This is one lousy experience after another with City employees. Terrible customer service, inadequate technical support, misinformation and incompetence at every turn. If your problem is that I've lumped all who work with the City into one category, my advice to you (since you’re the exception that proves the rule) is simple, you’ll never soar like an eagle if you’re surrounded by turkeys (monkeys, morons, weenies and idiots).

Maybe you are someone who really does care. Maybe you are the reason the City still has customers. There are tons of people out there that don’t hate the way City Hall/Council/TTC et al. is operating (yet). I can admit that. I am only conveying my experiences and allowing others to do the same. There can be no consensus amongst the various agencies/organizations of the City if conversing through a dozen middlemen. I don't think laying off one or two staff members (in an overstaffed work environment) in any way would jeopardize monies being allocated for the upkeep of City hospices.

Well that was quite the rant. That 1.9% is in line with other Ontario municipalities. Your 20% figure is arbitrary and meaningless, your allegations of corruption are unfounded, and your belief that Miller should be in jail is laughable. Keep it up, this is quite entertaining.

You asked me for an exprapolation to clarify my prior statements and I've provided one. I try to inject humour in my posts whenever I can, so glad to see that it's working. 20% is arbitrary I agree but nonetheless a target, somehting we could aspire towards to achieve. To answer your's and Alvin's points I realize that the downsizing model employed by businesses isn't exactly alike to government lay-offs but it's the most accessible model that I could find on short notice to stretgthen my argument. You’ve inspired me to do some further research though. I’ll get back with you because I respect that we can discuss this using facts. I find you reasonable (normally, at least as often as myself) and would like to figure this out.

You make quite the leap in logic here - if, for the sake of the argument, City Hall has organizational problems that affect efficiency, cutting staff is somehow going to solve it? Firing people doesn't remove steps and barriers.

The primary reason lessen staff is to make the daily operations of a business more efficient. Downsizing increases profits by reducing the overall overhead of a business. And many City offices could be heavily bloated with support staff and redundant departments for all I know. I would probably need to see a listing of every department and every position to see where to trim the fat. As a civilian though I'm unlikely to be granted such access, due in part to some of the reasonings given in Kenneth Johnston's list. If every City Council has under them a staff of 10, you can start to figure out how merging Wards would eliminate some of the redundancy. If an intern earns $15/hr hypothetically and you increase their workload via amalgamation, subsequentially paying that intern a higher hourly rate is still more affordable than hiring another staffer at $15/hr to do the same duties. In many workplaces, out of an 8 hr shift, only 3-5 hours of it is actual work. There's a lot of down time that goes unnoticed. Again, my points are only anecdotal but I can see where the downsizing argument is useful especially in a time when a 80% of a $9.2 billion budget is going towards City/City-run agencies employees' salaries paid for through raised taxes and user fees.

So let me guess, to you anybody who doesn't support your crazy ideas is a socialist?

They're not my crazy ideas. Surely people smarter than myself have been informing the public on the failings of government bureaucracy for decades now. That we're effectively turning into a police state is something you must not be aware of yet. You don't have to support my views, I just would appreciate it if for once people could debate on those views without implying that somehow I'm crazy or ignorant for merely suggesting greater accountability and responsible governance from our democratically elected officials.

Hold on, so that list you compiled isn't even specific to the City of Toronto? Wow, it's even more meaningless that I thought.

Like I said above, I probably won't win an investigative journalism award of the year for my amateur sluthing efforts, but I'll try to get back to you with a more narrowly-focused study (although I doubt that if I post the accounts of any former City employees-turned- whistleblowers on here that you'll take their credibility seriously either). But c'mon guys, anyone of working age has properly encountered several of those behaviours exhibited in the workplace. To deny that it's also going on within municipal gov't is the biggest obfuscation of the truth I'll have heard yet.

 

[kettal]

Freshy is right. All the problems with Toronto today were prophesied in a book written 5 years before the City of Toronto was even amalgamated!

Shilly, don't bother us with any of your details! If it wasn't written by Ken Johnson back in 1992, then it's simply not happening in Toronto in 2010!!

 

[TrickyRicky]

I always smile at how much "number of politicians" and "politician pay" resonates with people. These are fairly irrelevent issues. As was previously stated I don't really think people recognize what city councillors and their offices do. The number of BIA's and resident associations and "friends of" organizations popping up around the city is probably a natural reaction to a city that is actually too large to be effective. I don't claim to understand the ins and outs of how the city functions but clearly if there is not something wrong with the electoral architecture, something is probably less than effective in how the system generates decisions and responds to issues that effect citizens.

 

[Fresh Start]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...poll-that-gives-him-tiny-lead/article1604148/

"Reducing the number of city councillors

67.4 per cent

Support/somewhat support

20.8 per cent

Oppose/somewhat oppose

You know voters are upset when they want to get rid of their politicians altogether. Councillor Rob Ford has long said he would slice council in half, axing 22 of the 44 councillors in time for the 2014 election. This wouldn’t reduce representation for residents, he insists, but would make City Hall more efficient."
--

I'll be dutifully awaiting for apologies from my detractors.

In 1992, Metro was smaller; instances of one-on-one, face-to-face interaction and rapport between and among citizens and civic workers occured more often; people weren't made to feel like they're just a statistic; colleagues had no greater ambition than performing their duties and feeling pride in satisfying one's customer. If only more of us were interested in aspiring to get back to that level of competency, maybe there'd be less strife and annomosity between one sector of the City municipal gov't/agencies and another, less stroking egos in trying to prevent work-to-rule situations.