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

[kEiThZ]

I'd rather see a strong mayor system. I find most of the councillors are useless now. Put in a strong mayor system and turn the councillors into parliamentarians essentially. This way they can better represent their constituents.

With this kind of a system, I could even see more councillors, with each getting paid a lot less. So you'd get more citizen activists representing their communities.

 

[js97]

I agree that those numbers are far from the full story in terms of evaluating councillors. Voting at city council is actually pretty low on the list of priorities for what I think a good councillor doing. Under the Miller regime, if something makes it to a council vote it's only because the votes have already been assembled to pass it . Rarely are important decisions made on the council floor.

Far more important are the the committee meetings, where most of what affects a ward is decided. A quick look at the numbers shows that councillors seem to have better attendance at community council meetings. Here are the numbers for the councils where the three councillors running for mayor sit, again this is all of 2009:

Etobicoke-York (31 sessions)

Saundercook 11
Ford 9
Lindsay Luby 9
Grimes 5
Milczyn 5
Di Giorgio 4
Mammoliti 4
Holyday 3
Palacio 2
Hall 0
Nunziata 0

Toronto-East York (18 sessions)

Giambrone 6
Fletcher 3
Bussin 2
Pantalone 1
Davis 0
McConnell 0
Mihevc 0
Ootes 0
Perks 0
Rae 0
Vaughan 0
Walker 0

the NDP machine at work!

You can spin it either way.

It's amazing how Jn_12 can excuse a 66% attendance rate.... at any other employment (including unions) it would be hard pressed to justify that.
The only excuseable individual on that list is the Mayor - the rest need to attend these meetings.

That being said, a stronger Mayoral system needs to be implemented. Even if a Mayor has great ideas, when you have to coddle the interests of at least 22 other selfish individuals, it's almost impossible not to be able to accomplish a directive.

 

[nfitz]

When a motion is made each councillor is entitled to a given amount of time (I think it is 5 minutes) to speak to the motion. That amounts to almost 4 hours, sure they all deserve to be heard but how different can their positions be? I think 11 councillors could cover the same ground in an hour, we just saved 3 hours on each motion by eliminating redundancies.

But how often does this happen? Council normally passes many motions within an hour. They'd only pass 2-3 if they all spoke for 5 minutes!

 

[MisterF]

Downsizing to 22 just means merging smaller Wards together for about 100,000 constituents per Ward. That's still a small enough a population for one City Councillor and his/her staff to macromanage and still being able to occasionally address narrow specific interests like the issue of that quadriplegic family in the Beach whom Bussin in her zeal denied them the right to make their home wheelchair accessibility and are now being forced out the neighbourhood.

Tell me, how many cities with 100,000 residents get by with a council of 1? It's not unusual for small towns in Ontario to have a councillor for every 3000 residents - why should Torontonians get so much less representation?

What a lot anti-Fords fail (or refuse) to realize is that a lot of time and money is wasted to keep bureaucrats on the payroll while due to all the red tape nothing actually gets done. How long has it been since the Jarvis St bike lanes been a divisive issue now?

Let me get this straight - you think that by firing a bunch of staff things will somehow get done faster? What the "cut the fat" types fail (or refuse) to realize is that city hall is already shortstaffed. The Planning Department alone has literally dozens of vacancies. Maybe that's a clue about why things take longer to get done.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Most of the problems council faces are due to this weird post-amalgamation reality where Rob Ford from Etobicoke actually gets a vote on whether Jarvis street should have bike lanes. Strong mayor system with most votes happening at the community council level (and then being signed off or vetoed by the mayor) are probably the way to go.

 

[Parkdalian]

Most of the problems council faces are due to this weird post-amalgamation reality where Rob Ford from Etobicoke actually gets a vote on whether Jarvis street should have bike lanes. Strong mayor system with most votes happening at the community council level (and then being signed off or vetoed by the mayor) are probably the way to go.

I agree. If you are going to change council, it should be about increasing the effectiveness and relevance of community involvement, rather than just jamming more work onto fewer people.

 

[jn_12]

I don't think a strong mayor system negates the need for 44 councilors. It just changes the politics involved.

It's amazing how Jn_12 can excuse a 66% attendance rate.... at any other employment (including unions) it would be hard pressed to justify that.
The only excuseable individual on that list is the Mayor - the rest need to attend these meetings.

That being said, a stronger Mayoral system needs to be implemented. Even if a Mayor has great ideas, when you have to coddle the interests of at least 22 other selfish individuals, it's almost impossible not to be able to accomplish a directive.

As already mentioned, council meetings are not the most important part of the job. They just happen to be the most public. Much of the work is done behind the scenes and the vast majority of the councilors work is done on a day-to-day basis, not in the council chamber. You seem to be more concerned about ideological agendas than how things actually work. I'm not an NDP supporter whatsoever (have never voted for them in any election), but I have worked in municipal and provincial politics as well being in possession of two degrees in politics related fields along with being taught by from actual politicians, so I'd say I have a fairly good grasp of how politics and governance works. Perhaps you might want to immerse yourself in our system a bit more before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Charrat]

Most of the problems council faces are due to this weird post-amalgamation reality where Rob Ford from Etobicoke actually gets a vote on whether Jarvis street should have bike lanes. Strong mayor system with most votes happening at the community council level (and then being signed off or vetoed by the mayor) are probably the way to go.

I find the idea of putting local issues up for vote on community councils funny. I am not sure that the councillor in Parkdale-High Park (seated on the Toronto-East York council with Toronto Centre) is any more connected to bikes lanes on Jarvis than a councillor in North York is. Or, that the councillors in the western wards of Scarborough are less connected to issues relating to the Don Valley Parkway (for example) than councillors in far western end of the North York council. The boundaries are ultimately arbitrary, after all.

 

[spider]

Thanks to Kyle Rae for financing his recent extravaganza from his expense account, after all he is entitled to his entitlements isn't he?

One more example of the fiscal attitudes the expense account suggestion made in the initial post in this thread is intended to combat.

 

[Parkdalian]

Thanks to Kyle Rae for financing his recent extravaganza from his expense account, after all he is entitled to his entitlements isn't he?

One more example of the fiscal attitudes the expense account suggestion made in the initial post in this thread is intended to combat.

This complaining about councillors' paltry expense accounts is insane when you consider the police are paid nearly a billion dollars a year.

 

[Paleo]

You said it, kiddo

I'm not a fan of tyrants.

 

[alklay]

Here's one.

When a motion is made each councillor is entitled to a given amount of time (I think it is 5 minutes) to speak to the motion. That amounts to almost 4 hours, sure they all deserve to be heard but how different can their positions be? I think 11 councillors could cover the same ground in an hour, we just saved 3 hours on each motion by eliminating redundancies.

That is just a simple motion with no amendments, like that ever happens.

So we should cut down the number of elected representatives, so they can save the time it takes to hear each other? huh? Are you serious? And why should I care?

The 'reasons' to cut councillors are apparently getting sillier.

 

[js97]

Most of the problems council faces are due to this weird post-amalgamation reality where Rob Ford from Etobicoke actually gets a vote on whether Jarvis street should have bike lanes.

I don't know about that.. that's the kind of 'regressive' NIMBY attitude that the city does NOT need.

Bike lanes on Jarvis does affect residents outside of the local community as they have to drive to those areas.

It blows my mind all these small town people moving into the city expect this 'bubble' enclave of pleasantville happening in the heart of the city...It doesn't happen, you live in the biggest city in the country. You reap the financial and cultural opportunities, unfortunately, those come at a cost of moving people.

Even the 'BEACH' that's managed to have the 'pleasantville charm, most of those business are sustained in the summer time, when people from across the city head down there.

It's economics people. Very few neighbourhoods are truly 'self sustaining or have the density to be. You need the traffic flow.

 

[junctionist]

Bike lanes on Jarvis does affect residents outside of the local community as they have to drive to those areas.
...
It's economics people. Very few neighbourhoods are truly 'self sustaining or have the density to be. You need the traffic flow.

If the neighbourhood is to remain livable, its wishes need to be taken into consideration. Let the traffic flow, but if it's going to cause major issues for the neighbourhoods then those on the road will have to compromise as well. And that's precisely the case on Jarvis. The residents get the streetscape improvements and bike lanes; the motorists from around the city can still drive there, albeit slightly slower.

You're right to point out that residents outside the local community will be affected by what happens to Jarvis. Many will now be able to use it when cycling and maybe stop by some of the neighbourhoods along the way. They won't be discouraged by the price of parking downtown.

 

[Fresh Start]

Tell me, how many cities with 100,000 residents get by with a council of 1? It's not unusual for small towns in Ontario to have a councillor for every 3000 residents - why should Torontonians get so much less representation?

Let me get this straight - you think that by firing a bunch of staff things will somehow get done faster? What the "cut the fat" types fail (or refuse) to realize is that city hall is already shortstaffed. The Planning Department alone has literally dozens of vacancies.

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)