A bit of patronage would go a long way at City Hall
John Barber. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Sep 22, 2007. pg. M2
Abstract (Summary)
Those are the rules, regardless of who's supposedly in charge. Error piled on folly, blended with compromise and convenience, have produced a perfect recipe for political paralysis.
2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
What a depressing sight to see a supposedly strong mayor of a proud city stumbling so clumsily in his first big test since a resounding re-election triumph, like Gulliver in Lilliput, tied up by pipsqueaks. Or imagine if Perdita Felicien had not only booted the first hurdle in her Olympic debut but was then forced by some perverse rule to crawl the rest of the course on her elbows while the flashes popped and vulgarians jeered. It's ugly, it's stupid and so unnecessary.
But those are the rules, regardless of who's supposedly in charge. Error piled on folly, blended with compromise and convenience, have produced a perfect recipe for political paralysis. Miller Agonistes is a cruel reminder of the monumental failure that began with amalgamation and knocks on remorselessly through the years, despite the promise of the golden-haired hero and all those mealy-mouthed boasts about "Canada's sixth-largest government." The former "city that works" has become ungovernable.
To understand the dilemma, imagine if Mayor Miller enjoyed power and influence equivalent to that of either a provincial premier or the mayor of a major American city.
If he were premier of Toronto, he wouldn't have to cajole reluctant supporters to take a risk on an unpopular tax bill. He would declare the vote a matter of confidence, meaning that councillors who voted against it would be risking their jobs. The minute the mayor fell on a confidence vote, they'd be back on the streets, re-applying to angry voters to get their old jobs back.
But in Canada's sixth-largest government, there are no consequences for such behaviour. No councillor risks anything by opposing a government measure, especially when the next scheduled election is more than three years off. So they take advantage of the opportunity by voting to keep their jobs whenever possible. No party can kick them out.
That's why the mayor, after receiving a strong endorsement from the electorate, struggles to achieve anything. In our system, an election becomes irrelevant the moment it is decided. Every question that should be settled is fought and re-fought in an incessant round of skirmishes. The system ensures that the mayor never has a majority and, at the same time, that he lacks the one tool essential to the success of a parliamentary minority: the ability to call the snipers into the open and make them face the electorate.
Now imagine if Torontonians were able to elect a true strong mayor, Ã la Daley or Bloomberg, rather than the "stronger mayor" that our folly and compromise have delivered. Apart from having total control of the bureaucracy, such a mayor would also enjoy ample supplies of patronage, an ingredient essential to the successful operation of any government, like oil in an engine, but almost bizarrely lacking in Canada's sixth-largest government.
Some idealists might naively suppose this scarcity to be a good thing, and New Democrats in particular are susceptible to the Boy Scout theory of public service. But staying above patronage is a lousy way to accomplish anything long-lasting and worthwhile.
Consider the revealing case of Brian Ashton, a veteran councillor who clearly yearns for a remunerative sinecure outside politics. But what did Mayor Miller have to offer when he asked the old hack to take a risk in a crucial vote? He had nothing. So Mr. Ashton, along with 22 others, voted to keep his own job.
U.S. mayors control dozens of appointments, including the top jobs in the civil service, and always delve for more. Chicago's Mayor Daley has been mired for years in an epic scandal involving rigged hiring at the lowest levels.
"There's a huge patronage element built into the American strong-mayor system," says Andrew Sancton, a local government expert at the University of Toronto. But not enough of a good thing is worse than too much. "I do think that the mayor here is short of political resources," Prof. Sancton adds.
For all his failures, former mayor Mel Lastman seemed to understand patronage and to use it skillfully. But that illusion was shattered by the Bellamy inquiry, which showed that the true spoils of the Lastman regime were delivered under the table. What the current mayor needs is an open, above-board apparatus for meting out both punishment and rewards.
Instead, Canada's sixth-largest government exists in the worst of all possible worlds, bloated and ineffective, dangerously susceptible to the most inane and irresponsible attacks. Having discarded a system that worked well for more than a century, brilliantly so in the postwar decades, we have painstakingly and expensively adopted one that doesn't work at all.
It's the Weakling Mayor system, unique to Toronto.
jbarber@globeandmail.com