Strong Mayor - Strong City?

[hmagazine]

An interesting repeat last night on Steve Paikin's The Agenda...the panel discussion talked about "Strong Mayors - Strong Cities?"

You can watch the video here:

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/

Also - what about the news reported by Nicole MacIntyre about senior advisor Ken Audziss leaving the Mayor's office...

http://hallmarks.thespec.com/2008/07....html#comments

[SteelTown]

We definitely don't have a strong mayor. Unless something major happens Mayor Fred will likely be a one-term mayor like every other mayor since amalgamation.

[oldcoote]

I think Mayor Fred could be stronger, but I do feel sorry for him.

He's had some great idea's but just couldn't strong-arm council for support. Hate to admit it, but a mayor needs to do that on occasion.

Council has deteriorated so badly during his tenure that the process has really been bogged down.

Better than DiIanni though.

[SteelTown]

If Mayor Fred had Di Ianni leadership style and kept his idea's he would then be a good mayor.

[ryan_mcgreal]

People criticize Mayor Eisenberger for not showing more "leadership", but the fact is that in Ontario's Weak Mayor system, the mayor is only one vote on council. Granted, the mayor's office has a few staffers to do background work, but it's nothing like the American or British Strong Mayor systems, in which the mayor has the power to set the agenda.

My understanding from observing Eisenberger is that his style is to work in the background to create bureaucratic 'space' for his initiatives and build institutional support so they have a better chance of taking hold.

A good example of this approach is light rail. He started by changing the city's Bus Rapid Transit Office to a Rapid Transit Office (dropping "Bus" from the title) and getting a budget passed by council for a staffer. He also angled to get on the Metrolinx board and have Hamilton included in the MoveOntario 2020 initiative. Once the province earmarked some capital money for Hamilton, he was able to encourage the public works department to launch a feasibility study on light rail vs. bus rapid transit.

He also made some supportive noises about LRT in public (e.g. as early as September 2007), but he certainly has not forced the issue. Given that he's working in a Weak Mayor system, advocating more forcefully earlier on may well have been counterproductive.

Certainly the public works staff were not that interested in exploring light rail at first. When I met with Scott Stewart last November, PW still saw LRT as a long-term (i.e. 15-20 years) prospect. I'm deeply gratified to see how truly enthusiastic they have become since going through the feasibility study and receiving the tremendous public support (plus I volunteer with Hamilton Light Rail, so it's near and dear to my heart).

Neither were most councillors. Aside from Brian McHattie, Bob Bratina and maybe Sam Merulla, most councillors didn't even know what light rail was, let alone whether it would be a good idea.

Now the empirical, business and popular cases for light rail are much stronger than they were a year ago, and it's much easier for politicians to go out on a limb and get behind it.

When phase 2 of the rapid transit initiative comes up to a vote in September, it will benefit from extensive study, wide recognition, and strong public approval. Councillors inclined to like the idea will be able to support it on a sound basis, and councillors inclined not to like the idea will be under pressure to defend their opposition against the abundant evidence.

Without Eisenberger's background work to foster such a political environment, the light rail initiative would likely not have gained any traction at all. The Mayor's work is not sufficient in itself to bring LRT to fruition, but I think it was a necessary prerequisite to the policy and advocacy that followed.

The limitation to this approach, of course, is that it ultimately requires commitment from a majority of councillors, and our ward system is set up to encourage councillors to put their own ward interests first, regardless of either well-understood urban development principles or staff recommendations. See, for example, the recent council votes on the Downtown Transportation Master Plan and approval of big box developments on land zoned for industrial employment.

That's essentially a limitation of the Weak Mayor system in general. Since you only have one vote, you have to lobby your fellow councillors to support you and hope you can persuade them that a) the initiative benefits their ward; or b) they should set aside their own ward interests for the greater good.

The other approach, of course, is to propose only those initiatives for which you can already cobble together a majority of councillors to support it. The limitation of that approach is that you're limited to initiatives which will appeal to a big enough cross-section of parochial councillors.

Because city council is so weighted to the suburbs (i.e. the number of suburban councillors is grossly disproportionate to the suburban population), that makes it difficult to get progress on initiatives that benefit the majority of citizens living in the urban area. The suburban skew was a political compromise to sweeten the forced amalgamation deal for suburban townships, but it has effectively produced political gridlock for amalgamated cities like Hamilton and Toronto.

That amalgamation gridlock may ultimately be a bigger problem then the Weak Mayor system. Under it, council is intrinsically divided on itself.

[FairHamilton]

It's important to distinguish we are talking about a stong system, not an individual strong or weak mayor.

It is against common sense that a councillor who is voted into position only by people in a ward, has the same vote as a mayor who is voted on by all citizens. I took the time to watch this last night, and it was very interesting.

While I can see the benefits of a stronger mayor system, I also have concerns if it's not done without checks & balances. There would be nothing worse than a strong, bad mayor........ Perhaps a party system similar to provincial and federal politics would work? It's certainly how Toronto council has shaped up along right/left (party) lines.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

People criticize Mayor Eisenberger for not showing more "leadership", but the fact is that in Ontario's Weak Mayor system, the mayor is only one vote on council. Granted, the mayor's office has a few staffers to do background work, but it's nothing like the American or British Strong Mayor systems, in which the mayor has the power to set the agenda.

My understanding from observing Eisenberger is that his style is to work in the background to create bureaucratic 'space' for his initiatives and build institutional support so they have a better chance of taking hold.

A good example of this approach is light rail. He started by changing the city's Bus Rapid Transit Office to a Rapid Transit Office (dropping "Bus" from the title) and getting a budget passed by council for a staffer. He also angled to get on the Metrolinx board and have Hamilton included in the MoveOntario 2020 initiative. Once the province earmarked some capital money for Hamilton, he was able to encourage the public works department to launch a feasibility study on light rail vs. bus rapid transit.

He also made some supportive noises about LRT in public (e.g. as early as September 2007), but he certainly has not forced the issue. Given that he's working in a Weak Mayor system, advocating more forcefully earlier on may well have been counterproductive.

Certainly the public works staff were not that interested in exploring light rail at first. When I met with Scott Stewart last November, PW still saw LRT as a long-term (i.e. 15-20 years) prospect. I'm deeply gratified to see how truly enthusiastic they have become since going through the feasibility study and receiving the tremendous public support (plus I volunteer with Hamilton Light Rail, so it's near and dear to my heart).

Neither were most councillors. Aside from Brian McHattie, Bob Bratina and maybe Sam Merulla, most councillors didn't even know what light rail was, let alone whether it would be a good idea.

Now the empirical, business and popular cases for light rail are much stronger than they were a year ago, and it's much easier for politicians to go out on a limb and get behind it.

When phase 2 of the rapid transit initiative comes up to a vote in September, it will benefit from extensive study, wide recognition, and strong public approval. Councillors inclined to like the idea will be able to support it on a sound basis, and councillors inclined not to like the idea will be under pressure to defend their opposition against the abundant evidence.

Without Eisenberger's background work to foster such a political environment, the light rail initiative would likely not have gained any traction at all. The Mayor's work is not sufficient in itself to bring LRT to fruition, but I think it was a necessary prerequisite to the policy and advocacy that followed.

None of this would have been possible if former Mayor Di Ianni didn't have the leadership to have Hamilton included the GTTA. He took a lot of slack for advocating Hamilton to be included into Toronto's transit agency.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

None of this would have been possible if former Mayor Di Ianni didn't have the leadership to have Hamilton included the GTTA. He took a lot of slack for advocating Hamilton to be included into Toronto's transit agency.

I assume you mean "flak", not "slack" (er, thanks, highwater!).

To clarify, I wasn't comparing Eisenberger's achievements to Di Ianni's. Rather, I was using his approach as a case study in the structural limitations of the Weak Mayor system. As FairHamilton points out, the term "Weak Mayor" in this context refers to the legal role and powers of the elected position of Mayor in municipal law, not to a given mayor's style or level of effectiveness.

Certainly there are differences in how the two Mayors worked to achieve their objectives, and it may be instructive to study whether Di Ianni's approach was a more effective way of working within the Weak Mayor system than Eisenberger's. However, I'm not sure how useful such a comparison would be in considering the Weak Mayor system per se.

[SteelTown]

The problem I have with Mayor Fred is that he doesn't bring anything new to council and when he does council shoots it down.

Metrolinx, Lister Block, waterfront, City Hall renovation all something Di Ianni started and Mayor Fred is just continuing on. He tried something different for getting council to support building a new City Hall, but nope he didn't have the leadership to convince enough councilors.

Lately majority of council's vote are either extremely tight or tied. Total lack of leadership from the Mayor to guide these councilors. Mayor Di Ianni was known to summit each councilor to his office before an important vote. It was no secret Bratina or Braden and Di Ianni would have a brawl in the Mayor's office.

With Mayor Fred it seems none of that happens and Mayor Fred just lets councilors vote on their own.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

I assume you mean "flack", not "slack"

Actually, it's "flak".

[markbarbera]

There is no doubt now that the role of Mayor in civic politics is a weak role. Not only is he but one vote on the council floor, his role as chair of council strips him of that vote as well, for the most part. As chair, the Mayor cannot place a vote on any motion unless it is to break a tie. So he really has no influence within the realm of council meetings. All his influence is offline in backroom dealing. I am certainly not in favour of a system that promotes backroom deals.

I would like to see council vote for a chair much in the same manner as Parliament votes for a speaker. Alternatively, the mayor could nominate a citizen outside of council for the position of chair, then have council vote to confirm the appointment. That would allow the mayor to more actively participate in council, during both debates and votes.

Another item that I think would strengthen the mayoral role is to reintroduce an executive council. The mayor should be permitted to select three councillors to act as a kind of mini-cabinet. This would definitely increase the realm of influence a mayor would have to ensure a productive council is in place.

I am not really in favour of a party-based political system in municipal politics. Historically this has not worked well. There is a certain quality to having a councillor that does not feel obliged to tow the party line simply because it is the party line, especially when dealing with bread-and-butter municipal issues that are more pragmatic and less dogmatic.

As far as criticism of Mayor Fred goes, IMO it has been overly harsh of late, and manifested mainly by DiIanni loyalists still smarting from his humbling defeat in 2006. After all, Mayor Fred has some impressive achievements less than halfway through his mandate. First off, the integrity commissioner is well on its way to becoming a reality. Secondly, he finally closed the deal to renovate the Lister building, somwething several of his predecessors were not able to do (Mancinelli himself said it was Eisenberger that saved the deal last month). In addition, he managed to make council shift its train of thought on transit so LRT is now the focus, and not BRT. Also, the Gore park pedestrianization was not being given serious consideration before he focussed the discussion and included its feasibility in the five-year review of Hamilton's transportation plan.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Setting aside the differences in approach between Di Ianni and Eisenberger, I think it's interesting to look at the differences in how their defeats are covered by the pundits.

When Di Ianni lost an initiative (e.g. the Maple Leaf deal), it was reported that he was obstructed by special interest groups and malconents from moving the city forward. When Eisenberger loses an initiative (e.g. when it looked like LIUNA was going to turn down the Lister deal), it is reported that he lacks the leadership to "guide" council to vote for his initiatives.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

The problem I have with Mayor Fred is that he doesn't bring anything new to council and when he does council shoots it down.

Metrolinx, Lister Block, waterfront, City Hall renovation all something Di Ianni started and Mayor Fred is just continuing on. He tried something different for getting council to support building a new City Hall, but nope he didn't have the leadership to convince enough councilors.

Lately majority of council's vote are either extremely tight or tied. Total lack of leadership from the Mayor to guide these councilors. Mayor Di Ianni was known to summit each councilor to his office before an important vote. It was no secret Bratina or Braden and Di Ianni would have a brawl in the Mayor's office.

With Mayor Fred it seems none of that happens and Mayor Fred just lets councilors vote on their own.

other than city hall, you can't credit DiIanni for any of those things.
He's the one who pulled off the backroom deals that led to this Lister mess in the first place.
Metrolinx was NOT his idea, and NO WAY in heck would he be pushing for LRT like Mayor Fred is.
Waterfront is going on for years. had nothing to do with DiIanni.
He was useless unless you love suburban sprawl.

[adam]

Wow... and we just built the redhill expressway. In 50 years I wonder how much money our children will spend to bury the redhill?

[SteelTown]

I like Mayor Fred and I think he's a good person but I just think his leadership style absolutely stinks. I believe I even mentioned his lack of leadership within like 6 months into his new role as Mayor.

His first major piece of work was the anti idling bylaw. He couldn't even get councillors to support it the first year. Second year comes and only gets an approval but no money to have an officer patrolling the anti idling bylaw. I believe there's still isn't an anti idling bylaw officer.

Next up the pesticide ban. Couldn't get council to support that. Lucky the province came in and banned it. Yet our neighbour Burlington got it banned at the same time Hamilton council was reviewing it.

Next up is the most confusing council session I have ever witnessed. The plastic bag debate. That session dragged on past midnight. Had over 4 different votes. When the Spec asked Mayor Fred what council just approved he couldn't give an answer. I didn't even know what council had approved. Still to this day I still don't know when the city will ban plastic bags.

Building a new City Hall was an completely embarrassment as I believe Mayor Fred only got perhaps 2 votes of approval to build a new City Hall instead.

The integrity office is another classic case of Mayor Fred's leadership. He is halfway through his mandate and finally we have an integrity commissioner. Even though this was one of the very first pieces of issue addressed in council.

Last month with the Lister Block deal Mayor Fred couldn't even get council to support a deal that LIUNA agreed with. It was something like $50,000 difference than the original agreement that currently all side has agreed on.

When council voted for the original agreement that LIUNA threaten to abandon the Lister Block and the entire block Mayor Fred takes off for a vacation. HUH?! Couldn't he book his vacation AFTER June 30th and stayed in Hamilton to sweet talk with LIUNA instead of being on the phone?

[raisethehammer]

geez, so now we're criticizing him for getting the deal done with LIUNA?? which is it? good leadership or not??

[SteelTown]

I'm just stressing the fact that Mayor Fred took off on a vacation after council just approved a deal that LIUNA threaten to walk away from. So it was obvious the deal would be dead yet he took off for a vacation. That’s poor leadership in my opinion.

That's something I wouldn't want a Mayor to do when there's still a few days to try and smooth things over before the deadline is over. If this deal was truly dead and Mayor Fred was out of town on vacation I imagine there would be a lot of complaints.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

When council voted for the original agreement that LIUNA threaten to abandon the Lister Block and the entire block Mayor Fred takes off for a vacation. HUH?! Couldn't he book his vacation AFTER June 30th and stayed in Hamilton to sweet talk with LIUNA instead of being on the phone?

I don't begrudge him for that, he got the job done and ultimately that's what he set out to do no matter where he conducted the business. After all Mancinelli was in Florida, so the discussion would have been on the phone no matter where the mayor was sitting.

[raisethehammer]

yea, they voted and that was it.
the guy can't cancel all his vacations and chase around these idiots who are just trying to screw the city.

[Boomtown_Hamilton]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

yea, they voted and that was it.
the guy can't cancel all his vacations and chase around these idiots who are just trying to screw the city.

Well this thread was moving along just fine until we hit July and then the Eisenberger supporters just clammed up.