City of Ottawa

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I dislike the current system where the mayor is effectively an at-large supernumerary councillor. Yet, they have no power to implement the agenda they ran on. They are the sole elected official entrusted with the responsibility to care for the city at-large with no power to actually do that.

I don't know enough to have a strong opinion, but this makes sense to me. The mayor has been voted in by the whole city and has a city-wide mandate, yet he/she is the same as any ward councillor with powers are limited to procedural powers. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Practically, I think that a strong mayor system in Ottawa would favour the suburbs, which isn't great, but that is more an issue of amalgamation than the system.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Just imagine how terrible things would be if Watson had had a veto all these years. *shudder*.

Really wouldn't be much different. And it would be a whole more transparent than the problem is the mayor.

A strong mayor system in this sense will force maturity. Both on citizens and politicians. Future mayors won't be able to hide behind council or the bureaucracy as much.

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't know enough to have a strong opinion, but this makes sense to me. The mayor has been voted in by the whole city and has a city-wide mandate, yet he/she is the same as any ward councillor with powers are limited to procedural powers. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Practically, I think that a strong mayor system in Ottawa would favour the suburbs, which isn't great, but that is more an issue of amalgamation than the system.

I don't think the suburban bias changes at all. What will change is the ownership of various issues and the abilities of suburban councillors to really form blocking coalitions.

Ultimately, if we want less suburban oriented mayors, we'll have to vote for them.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I dislike the current system where the mayor is effectively an at-large supernumerary councillor. Yet, they have no power to implement the agenda they ran on. They are the sole elected official entrusted with the responsibility to care for the city at-large with no power to actually do that.

There's two options in my books:

1) Strong mayor system where the mayor is empowered to implement their agenda; or,

2) A parliamentary system where the mayor is the head of the dominant political faction.

Either of these systems will add accountability for governance of the whole city, beyond accountability for servicing the ward.

I'm sick of the status quo where housing doesn't get built because NIMBY councillors trade votes with each other. Transit and bike lanes aren't properly developed because pro-car councillors can fight off transit infrastructure and biking investments with horse trading. This is effectively partisan politics without team jerseys. Either make them wear colours or empower someone who can bypass them.

There are those who will point to Watson and how he got his way with council. I would argue this proves the point. Watson escapes accountability by blaming his failures on Council. And if he gets voted out or leaves, his toadies will carry on. A strong mayor system means they live or die at the polls with their agenda. Nowhere to hide. It also means councillors can't use the mayor to get their way. There will be a separation of local and city-wide interests.

I would agree with a Party system similar to what we've seen emerge in Québec. It would also make it easier for people to vote for local Councillors, knowing what they stand for.

[Truenorth00]

I would have preferred a party/parliamentary system. But a strong mayor isn't all that bad. Seems to me that the only folks complaining about "local democracy" are the NIMBYs who would have a much tougher time with any change. That's why they complain about the change but refuse to provide alternatives.

[caveat.doctor]

All good points, and I agree that if we had a strong mayor who was willing to support all the good ideas we discuss here, that would be great. There is a lot of potential for good with a strong mayor system. As I mentioned, a more urban-minded mayor like a hypothetical Mayor McKenney with these strong mayor powers very well could achieve their agenda, and not end up bogged or watered down with councillor’s objections. I think it’s a bit paradoxical that progressives are opposing the change, as it really is the best chance to get a progressive agenda delivered.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They are the sole elected official entrusted with the responsibility to care for the city at-large with no power to actually do that.

I see your point and agree, but I also think in practice in the Ottawa context that mayors are elected from interest bases along urban/suburban/rural lines, and would use their power to cater accordingly, rather than actually taking a true holistic city-wide responsibility.

Originally Posted by phil235

Practically, I think that a strong mayor system in Ottawa would favour the suburbs, which isn't great, but that is more an issue of amalgamation than the system.

This is my main concern, in our context. Besides being ripe for abuse by an unscrupulous mayor, the likelihood of having mayors that simply appeal to a suburban base is almost certain. If it was hard enough to get enough councillors to move independently from Mayor Watson with the status quo, I worry that it will be downright impossible with a strong mayor system. Not just in terms of council votes, but also with appointments to committees, that sort of thing.

Maybe if I was more confident in having a range of trustworthy mayoral candidates, I'd be more supportive of having a strong mayor.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I would agree with a Party system similar to what we've seen emerge in Québec. It would also make it easier for people to vote for local Councillors, knowing what they stand for.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would have preferred a party/parliamentary system.

I agree. In a way we ended up with something like parties, with known factions on council: sometimes along urban/suburban/rural lines, sometimes along being in/out with Mayor Watson, etc. But having formal parties would at least be a way to have agendas set out publicly, and city-wide visions on the table for voters to decide on and hold accountable to.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

I see your point and agree, but I also think in practice in the Ottawa context that mayors are elected from interest bases along urban/suburban/rural lines, and would use their power to cater accordingly, rather than actually taking a true holistic city-wide responsibility.

Would that really be different though if the form of government was changed. Those biases are ingrained. I'd prefer they be more transparent.

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

I agree. In a way we ended up with something like parties, with known factions on council: sometimes along urban/suburban/rural lines, sometimes along being in/out with Mayor Watson, etc. But having formal parties would at least be a way to have agendas set out publicly, and city-wide visions on the table for voters to decide on and hold accountable to.

Should be noted that the party system is usually most opposed by the left. The NDP tends to use city government like a farm team. There's no way that many would get elected if councillors had to put on orange jerseys. Support would start approximating party support at the broader provincial and federal levels.

[J.OT13]

The downfall of the NDP is strategic voting; many tend to vote Liberal as they are perceived as the only Party that can beat the Cons, so they vote for Cons, not for Liberals. At a municipal level, I think people would vote for the Party they prefer, and I think we see that in Quebec.

[J.OT13]

This is good in terms of transparency, but will it go any further? Nepotism (which is apparently a big problem within the City, and not just with elected officials, based on hearsay) would seemingly still be allowed. It may, at best, make some people think twice before hiring a family member.

City councillors in Ottawa may soon need to disclose personal relationships with staff

Ted Raymond
CTV News, October 5th, 2022

Ottawa city councillors may soon need to disclose personal relationships with city staff to the city’s integrity commissioner.

A walk-on motion moved by Coun. Eli El-Chantiry and seconded by Coun. Cathy Curry called on the integrity commissioner to review and consider updates to the code of conduct for members of council to “address the issue of personal relationships between members of council and staff.”

The review, the motion says, should include consideration of a requirement for a member of council to disclose any personal relationships with city hall staffers to the integrity commissioner.

A disclosure policy is in place for City of Ottawa employees, who are required to identify any personal relationships with their colleagues to their direct managers.

City clerk Rick O’Connor told councillors that he encouraged the motion be moved at Wednesday’s council meeting—the last one before the Oct. 24 election—because the integrity commissioner is currently reviewing the code of conduct.

“I thought it would be better to have it up front now than wait another few weeks and have her try to squeeze something in towards the end of the term,” he said.

There was an attempt by Couns. Jeff Leiper and Catherine McKenney to defer approval of the motion until the meeting on Nov. 9, but it failed by a vote of seven in favour of deferral and 15 against. The motion was then passed.

Councillors who voted to defer the motion were Matthew Luloff, Catherine Kitts, Riley Brockington, Catherine McKenney, Diane Deans, Jeff Leiper and Shawn Menard. Of these, only Deans is not seeking re-election. McKenney is running for mayor.

In a Twitter thread, Leiper said he wanted to defer the motion to make time to talk to people he trusts but since the deferral motion failed, he and other councillors chose to carry the motion.

"The narrative I’ve seen that any councillor voted against C. El-Chantiry’s motion is simply wrong. I’d have liked to have talked to some folks before voting, but in the end we all supported this and I know every councillor is committed to a safer workplace than we’ve had," he said.

Speaking to reporters after the council meeting, outgoing Mayor Jim Watson said the motion is about ensuring councillors are held to a high standard.

“I believe that we should be extra cautious about any inappropriate behaviour on the part of any member of city council and to ensure that we have the rules in place that follow industry best standards,” he said.

The motion came on the heels of another walk-on motion moved by Coun. Catherine Kitts and seconded by Coun. Theresa Kavanagh requesting that the mayor write to Premier Doug Ford to fast track a bill that would give a municipality the power to fire councillors who violate the code of conduct. Council approved this motion as well.

Liberal MPP Stephen Blais, a former Ottawa city councillor, raised the bill in question in the provincial legislature following ethics reports about Coun. Rick Chiarelli’s conduct toward female staffers. Chiarelli continues to deny the accusations against him. He is not seeking re-election.

Blais later praised the El-Chantiry-Curry motion on social media, saying Ottawa would have "some of the strictest integrity rules for elected officials" in Ontario.

"Disclosing relationships will protect everyone involved," he said.

A disclosure policy is in place for City of Ottawa employees, who are required to identify any personal relationships with their colleagues to their direct managers.

City clerk Rick O’Connor told councillors that he encouraged the motion be moved at Wednesday’s council meeting—the last one before the Oct. 24 election—because the integrity commissioner is currently reviewing the code of conduct.

“I thought it would be better to have it up front now than wait another few weeks and have her try to squeeze something in towards the end of the term,” he said.

There was an attempt by Couns. Jeff Leiper and Catherine McKenney to defer approval of the motion until the meeting on Nov. 9, but it failed by a vote of seven in favour of deferral and 15 against. The motion was then passed.

Councillors who voted to defer the motion were Matthew Luloff, Catherine Kitts, Riley Brockington, Catherine McKenney, Diane Deans, Jeff Leiper and Shawn Menard. Of these, only Deans is not seeking re-election. McKenney is running for mayor.

In a Twitter thread, Leiper said he wanted to defer the motion to make time to talk to people he trusts but since the deferral motion failed, he and other councillors chose to carry the motion.

"The narrative I’ve seen that any councillor voted against C. El-Chantiry’s motion is simply wrong. I’d have liked to have talked to some folks before voting, but in the end we all supported this and I know every councillor is committed to a safer workplace than we’ve had," he said.

Speaking to reporters after the council meeting, outgoing Mayor Jim Watson said the motion is about ensuring councillors are held to a high standard.

“I believe that we should be extra cautious about any inappropriate behaviour on the part of any member of city council and to ensure that we have the rules in place that follow industry best standards,” he said.

The motion came on the heels of another walk-on motion moved by Coun. Catherine Kitts and seconded by Coun. Theresa Kavanagh requesting that the mayor write to Premier Doug Ford to fast track a bill that would give a municipality the power to fire councillors who violate the code of conduct. Council approved this motion as well.

Liberal MPP Stephen Blais, a former Ottawa city councillor, raised the bill in question in the provincial legislature following ethics reports about Coun. Rick Chiarelli’s conduct toward female staffers. Chiarelli continues to deny the accusations against him. He is not seeking re-election.

Blais later praised the El-Chantiry-Curry motion on social media, saying Ottawa would have "some of the strictest integrity rules for elected officials" in Ontario.

"Disclosing relationships will protect everyone involved," he said.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This is good in terms of transparency, but will it go any further? Nepotism (which is apparently a big problem within the City, and not just with elected officials, based on hearsay) would seemingly still be allowed. It may, at best, make some people think twice before hiring a family member.



"Disclosing relationships will protect everyone involved," he said.

How does this not already exist?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

How does this not already exist?

No kidding. I guess it's easy now that half of Council is leaving.

Would have been a bad look if those who voted to defer (and were defeated), or anyone really, would have voted against the motion.

[J.OT13]

Oh, so according to CTV, Councillors would need to disclose a romantic relationship, not family relationship. Seems far weaker than I had initially thought. I guess this is on the back of the who Rick Chiarelli thing, but he was never in a "relationship" with these women. He was just being a creep.

Yeah sure, it's something that should be implemented, but of course this won't resolve issues like Harder's nepotism or the whole Brian Guest/Chris Swail connection with former City Manager Kirkpatrick.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/jan-harder-resigns-planning-committee-city-council-1.6076668

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/brian-guest-lrt-inquiry-witness-testimony-ottawa-1.6503165

[J.OT13]

On Blais' bill to fire Councillors with disgraceful conduct; I wonder if Doug is dragging on that because he knows his brother Rob would probably have fallen victim to that bill, had it existed back then.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Should be noted that the party system is usually most opposed by the left. The NDP tends to use city government like a farm team.

So do the Tories. (The Libs tend to be behind the curve on that front.)

[J.OT13]

Exciting planning committee today. Last one of the Watson era 2.0, I believe.

• Video Link

[J.OT13]

25 minutes in, Katherine Kitts argues we have to limit development in South Orleans because of road capacity issues, because we can't invest in the Cumberland BRT and Brian Coburn because NCC won't approve City's desire to plow through the Greenbelt. South Orleans is a car dependent nightmare because of the NCC.

This is B.S. There are no road capacity issues in South Orleans. Transit, cycling and walkability could be improved without the Transitway.

In regards to this application, approved with that note from Kitts:

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-21-0224/details

Can anyone explain why the City can zone for office or residential, but can't zone for mixed-use? Like, force developers to include retail?

[J.OT13]

Just realized today that since Moffatt and Gower were named co-chairs, I don't remember Moffatt ever chairing the meeting or really participating in any way beyond voting.

It's like Watson picked them as co-chairs as an F.U. to Leiper but never actually intended for Scott to actually act as so since he already has so many other responsibilities.

[Fading Isle]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

25 minutes in, Katherine Kitts argues we have to limit development in South Orleans because of road capacity issues, because we can't invest in the Cumberland BRT and Brian Coburn because NCC won't approve City's desire to plow through the Greenbelt. South Orleans is a car dependent nightmare because of the NCC.

This is B.S. There are no road capacity issues in South Orleans. Transit, cycling and walkability could be improved without the Transitway.

In regards to this application, approved with that note from Kitts:

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-21-0224/details

Can anyone explain why the City can zone for office or residential, but can't zone for mixed-use? Like, force developers to include retail?

I really don't understand her obsession with Option 7. It's incredibly weird. If there are road capacity issues, build the option that is cheaper, already approved, and doesn't plow through the greenbelt. For the life of me I can't understand why this is even a debate. But as you've said, there are no road capacity issues in South Orleans right now. Even if there were, the best option is almost never to increase road capacity due to induced demand. As a city councilor I would hope she knows this, but it seems like there's a group of community members that really dictate her agenda to the detriment of the city (and the community itself).

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

There are no road capacity issues in South Orleans. Transit, cycling and walkability could be improved without the Transitway.

Maybe not a road capacity issue but there is certainly a network redundancy issue. One incident on either the 174, St. Joseph/Montreal Rd, or on Innes and it's a total mess. Agree that a transitway isn't needed if local transit frequencies are improved.

[J.OT13]

One proposal was for a parking lot at 1111 Prince of Whales Drive, needed in case Ashcroft redevelops the parking lot next door at 1107 PoW Drive. New tree plantings will "contribute to the entry route along PoW Drive"

From what I understand, they want approval now in case, but will only build if. It's a contingency plan.

I think it was approved.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

One proposal was for a parking lot at 1111 Prince of Whales Drive, needed in case Ashcroft redevelops the parking lot next door at 1107 PoW Drive. New tree plantings will "contribute to the entry route along PoW Drive"

From what I understand, they want approval now in case, but will only build if. It's a contingency plan.

I think it was approved.

Interesting timing. Were they expecting a new council might not approve this?