Should Toronto Have A Set Of Standards for Potential Mayors?

[CanadianNational]

Seeing a how few people are enjoying the Ford mayoralty, I was wondering if it wouldn't be a bad thing to have some kind of minimum standards in place for those seeking the office. These standards might be education or work-related.

I think a kind of basic educational level wouldn't be a bad thing. Anyone seeking the office would need at minimum a three-year university degree - along with a completed basic course in economics.

By work, it would mean their grading on previous political work in-house. Ford was great at returning phone calls and knocking on doors, but displayed no talent at all for attendance, getting along with other councillors, argument and conversation, his grasp of the facts or memory of voting.

Other things could come into play. Perhaps a psychiatric review? If not for sociopathic and/or crippling depressive or addictive tendencies, then maybe at least a prompt to improvement in areas that are lacking?

It seems to me that in North America we're seeing a lot of people in power, simply because they have accumulated money. I think this is pretty hideous.
If criteria were in place that would negate the influence of money, and instead put emphasis on intellect and leadership capability - that might be a helpful thing.

A friend of mine joked that a "Sim City" game could be easily be made to roughly approximate Toronto (or whatever city wanted it). The candidate would have to play this game over a month before getting elected, and their test scores would be made public. If the city keeps ending up a weed-infested flyhole...it could be a fringe indicator!

Any suggestions on basic standards that could be universally accepted? Or, is there such a thing - would they end up being a block to good candidates?

 

[toraerach]

While I'm no fan of Ford, he was democratically elected by the people of this city to serve as Mayor even after his record on council and his private life antics were well publicized by the media. There is always a danger in a democracy that a poor candidate will be elected, but that is a risk I believe is worth taking. If Ford remains unpopular, he will not be re-elected during the next election. Hopefully the people of this city will learn from his term in office to better screen the candidates they plan on voting for before they cast a ballot.

It may seem like a good idea to limit who can run for mayor now, but I'd be hesitant to put restrictions on anyone running for office (aside from, obviously, children, non-citizens, and people convicted of electoral fraud). It is ultimately in the best interests of democracy to leave the final say to the people and just hope they choose wisely.

I am, however, in favour of strict campaign financing laws and harsher punishments for those who violate them.

 

[jje1000]

If [X politician] remains unpopular, he will not be re-elected during the next election.

Depends on the press. The way they spin it makes defeating an incumbent so much easier or harder.

Silvio Berlusconi is a prime example- the fact that he owns three of the seven national news channels makes coming out and opposing him considerably harder. A similar case lies in Quebec, where Quebecor controls most media outlets in the province. That means they can control public discourse, and do so often times to their benefit (and just recently to the PQ's detriment). There was a recent set of articles by Kai Nagata outlining this issue.

That being said, while the Sun usually blindly supports Ford, the fact that National Post refuses to directly endorse him (too dirty for its class) and the Star and Globe oppose him to some degree (dead-set and mildly, respectively) is mildly comforting. The municipal level of politics also is the most easily influenced by individuals and groups, so that's also a benefit.

 

[CanadianNational]

I guess my point is that, with the stakes being so incredibly high - shouldn't it be mandatory that those looking to run for a Mayor's position have a basic grasp of a wide range of topics - and be graded as such? Before they get into office.
These would be topics aside from any corporate, business or money-making experience someone might have.

We don't allow just anyone to become a doctor, a judge, a welder or a teacher. They are marked and graded to see if they are competent and knowledgeable.

Yet someone with no educated knowledge of history, sociology, urban studies, architecture, math, science or language can get into power. Isn't this taking a needless risk with valuable assets - one that would not be allowed in any other professional position?

 

[Register123]

Not only should a politician, at any level of government have minimum educational requirements, it should also be understood that their position is a full-time position and not just a hobby. I also firmly believe that anyone who chooses to run for certain key government posts that influence legislation should sign an agreement that once they leave office they are not allowed to profit in the industry that they formerly had influence over.

 

[ceaz40]

I don't like the idea of limiting the job for Mayor to only those who have university degrees. 1) I have 3 of them and I would never vote for me as mayor....I just don't think I have what it takes 2) I've known a lot of people with degrees who are as dumb as stumps...couldn't think their way out of a brown paper bag 3) University has really "dumbed" itself down over the years...I don't believe the standards are high enough....almost anyone can get in without basic literacy skills 4) I've known many highly intelligent people who never had the opportunity to attend university 5) I've always thought, if you want to balance the city's/province's/country's books, elect a housewife who has had to make ends meet in her household for 30-40 years.....she would have exactly the expertise/common sense/and "NO! You can't have it!" attitude that would get things done/paid for.....and have a nice little "rainy day" money surprise at the end! LOL

 

[spider]

I don't think a degree necessarily prepares a person for most things that a mayor may have to deal with, everyone knows a Doctor of whatever who can't tie their shoe laces. We don't need Superman we need a mayor who can recognise talent, delegate that talent to solve problems and supervise it.

In the quest for original non-aligned or prejudiced ideas let me suggest 2 rules.

A candidate for mayor may not have ever been an NDP member.
A candidate for mayor may not have ever held municipal office or been employed by a municipality or any government body.

There just may be individuals out there who are not motivated by power or beholden to anyone but will not step up because of the sleaze factor often attached to municipal politics. Think of the councillors who have been coasting along for years waiting their turn to be mayor and exhibit all the bad habits they have learned while waiting.

 

[adma]

A candidate for mayor may not have ever been an NDP member.

Huh?!? Why NDP? Why not Liberal, Tory, etc as well? Fair's fair...

 

[adma]

Yet someone with no educated knowledge of history, sociology, urban studies, architecture, math, science or language can get into power. Isn't this taking a needless risk with valuable assets - one that would not be allowed in any other professional position?

Well, it depends on what one deems "educated knowledge", too--in which case, it isn't just a matter of competent individuals, it's also a matter of an individual with a sense of his/her own "incompetence", and with a capacity to recognize/appoint/defer to those who can fill those critical gaps. A competent mayor is one who can assemble and motivate a competent team IOW--and competent at more than just ideological sword-waving.

For better or worse, Mel Lastman did have something of that gift. (Computer-leasing scandals notwithstanding.)

 

[jje1000]

A candidate for mayor may not have ever held municipal office or been employed by a municipality or any government body.

That's a disaster waiting to happen. If you don't know how a government actually works from the inside (rather than your romanticized view of the public sector), how do you expect to lead it?

Huh?!? Why NDP? Why not Liberal, Tory, etc as well? Fair's fair...

Because Liberals and Tories are inherently godly and would never dream of boarding the gravy train.

 

[spider]

That's a disaster waiting to happen. If you don't know how a government actually works from the inside (rather than your romanticized view of the public sector), how do you expect to lead it?

You don't have to know how to make sausage in order to enjoy and sell it. My new mayor would set goals and targets, those incumbent hacks who whine that it can't be done for all the time honoured wrong reasons would be encouraged to seek alternate careers, the exits are clearly marked. Please remember that my new mayor, having never been in government, owes no allegiance to anyone elected or otherwise but the citizens who elected him on his platform.

 

[jje1000]

You don't have to know how to make sausage in order to enjoy and sell it. My new mayor would set goals and targets, those incumbent hacks who whine that it can't be done for all the time honoured wrong reasons would be encouraged to seek alternate careers, the exits are clearly marked. Please remember that my new mayor, having never been in government, owes no allegiance to anyone elected or otherwise but the citizens who elected him on his platform.

What a delightfully rosy image you picture! Anyone can set goals and targets, but not everyone can meet them (a la Ford)! An understanding of municipal politics is crucial, as there are many negative consequences that can balloon out of poorly managed issues. Say for example, Ford's idea to blindly cut down on civic employment- if it results in a loss of experienced staff, won't that negatively affect the workings of the city later on?

And do remember that the way that your new mayor can be elected through the help of groups other than the average citizenry. If your new mayor's campaign was funded by, say, the real estate industry, won't they want something in return?

I think that a bare minimum would be the requirement that anyone running should have some experience with non-profit organizations or with citizen's groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naheed_Nenshi

 

[spider]

Say for example, Ford's idea to blindly cut down on civic employment- if it results in a loss of experienced staff, won't that negatively affect the workings of the city later on?

Would the corollary be true, the City would be run better if we simply hired more people to do it?

I agree with most of Ford's goals and targets (not all) but alas, the execution has been been quite clumsy. I think my mayor probably would have some experience with non-profit organizations and/or citizens groups, he would be that kind of person.

 

[EnviroTO]

A candidate for mayor may not have ever been an NDP member.

Or a conservative. We must assume that the NDP will naturally take on too many social programs for us to afford and that the Conservatives will naturally believe that government has no purpose. We must assume that we can't possibly get fiscally responsible NDP candidates nor socially responsible Conservative candidates, and that Liberals will always get it just right.

 

[southofbloor]

If you want to change the system, make candidates file their budgets when they submit their name for mayor. During the last election, the candidates were able to get media coverage for 6 months talking about gravy and walking the length of the city without any intelligence. By the time the budget schemes were released, people's ideas were already cemented.

The media also plays a role. They basically became cheerleaders and failed to provide the public with any critical analysis. As a final word, while some politicians are underqaulified, so are a lot of voters.