As I pointed out the other day, we're in some weird terrain at the moment. We have a mayor who's admitted to smoking crack, who's lied to us numerous times, who may just be involved in some more serious crimes, who has lost all credibility and the ability to properly carry out his job as spokesperson for the city, and who, despite pressure from just about everyone, refuses to step down or even take a leave of absence. Nobody wants him, but no one can get rid of him, and he's too pig headed and selfish to see the damage he's causing by remaining. It would be funny if it wasn't happening to us (and is, I suppose, if the late night talk shows are any indication).
But wait. There are some people who want him. Those patriotic denizens of the so-called Ford Nation are as gung-ho as I've ever seen anyone to forgive and forget even the most egregious transgressions from their droog and leader. We can all sit around bitching about how stupid these people are, but they still make up a sizeable percentage of the population. Even, dare I say it, another plurality--especially if Ford manages to hunker down and emerge after the 11 months until the next election relatively unscathed (unlikely, I know, but possible). As a band that ran afoul of another Toronto mayor once said: memory is a strange thing. By next October enough of his casual supporters might have forgotten enough of this situation's urgency so as to put him back over the edge into another term.
Then there are those wrongheaded but sincere city leaders who would wait for the next election on ideological grounds. As beside the point as that argument is, it's still motivation for some of the people with the power to do something, or at least to try.
Beyond that, there's our provincial government. They won't do shit without being asked. Partially they won't act because of the traditional reluctance of senior levels of government to wade into junior levels' bailiwicks. Partially it's because they want to have Ford to kick around during the next provincial election. There is also a fear of the province being seen to "take over Toronto," thus rendering an already hamstrung municipal governing apparatus even more ineffectual. As well, there is the idea that allowing the province to remove Ford would create an inconsistency across the province where there are other mayors facing their own scandals (i.e. Joe Fontana in London).
So how do we make all of these people happy? The answer is simple enough that I'm surprised it hasn't already been proposed, agreed upon, and enacted. We simply look to those senior levels of government and ask the province to grant the city of Toronto (and municipalities in Ontario in general) one of the basic powers already held by both the provincial and federal governments--the power for councillors to vote on their confidence in the chief magistrate, and, in the event of a vote of no confidence, to call an immediate citywide mayoral election.
Now for all of you screaming right now about how unwieldy and costly such a move would be, let's look at the merits of it first before we address its shortcomings.
First of all, it solves the province's issues. The Ontario government would not be imposing a unilateral decision on the city, it would be granting the city an option the province and the feds already enjoy, one that is a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy, one that allows the city to act on its own behalf. It also solves the problem of consistency - if the power to hold a confidence vote is added to the Municipal Act as opposed to the City of Toronto Act, it would apply province wide. All municipalities would have the power to act on their own behalf to solve the type of crisis Toronto is now facing. There's no reason London couldn't use this to fix their own house.
It also solves the "anti-democracy" ideological issue brought up by Councillor Gord Perks. How would it be anti-democratic for a legislative body to use a granted legislative power already entwined in the fabric of our nation's democratic legislative principles? All we'd be asking of our elected officials is to vote on whether they have confidence in the leader of their house. If they don't, nothing is stopping Ford from running in a snap election, and we suddenly have democracy in full action - the people deciding in what would basically be a referendum on Ford's conduct whether they want him to remain in office.
Would it be a hassle? You're damned right it would be. Elections are a pain in the ass and with all of our different levels of government, especially in the last few years where we've seen several minority governments and had to vote a number of times, we have far too many of them for some people. But I think in this case people would be willing to overlook the inconvenience. Those who support Ford are rabidly waiting for the chance to affirm their love for and confidence in him. Those who oppose him just as vehemently want the opportunity to turf him ASAP. I could be wrong, and I haven't done any polling on this obviously, but my gut (and the online reaction from both sides on the crisis) tells me that most people would be pleased to go to the polls with only a year until they'd have to go again.
This all leaves two major objections that I can see. One is procedure--where do we set the bar for what constitutes a situation worthy of a confidence motion? Could they be brought whenever? How do we decide what's important enough to trigger one? It would have to work differently than on the other levels of government because of the inherent difference in the systems. Municipal politics in Toronto of course doesn't include formal parties. As well, processes like creating the budget work differently than they do at the provincial or federal level.
Personally, I would propose a two-motion process. One motion to vote on whether to introduce the confidence motion, and then the confidence motion itself. I would set the bar for the first motion higher than the second. Say you'd need a supermajority of 60% (27 councillors) or even 70% (32 councillors) just to hear a confidence motion. That would effectively cut off groups of left- or right-leaning councillors from bringing confidence votes against ideologically opposed mayors on any old thing. If a large enough percentage (that would necessarily include councillors of all political stripes) were needed just to get to the confidence vote, we could be quite certain to only have major crises like the one at hand reach that threshold. The second motion, the confidence vote itself, could then be a straight majority.
The other, and arguably biggest objection to holding a confidence vote is the cost of a citywide mayoral election only 11 months before the scheduled municipal election of October 2014. Last year, when it looked like Ford would maybe lose his seat over the conflict-of-interest scandal, various sources put the cost of a citywide mayoral byelection at anywhere from $7 million (the most widely cited dollar amount) to a disputed but still suggested $15 million. That's a lot of money for a cash strapped city to toss around when we're just going to be spending a hell of a lot more next October anyway. The question then becomes: is it worth it?
The House of Commons tends to think so. They throw general elections at the drop of a writ. The feds' rainy day fund is a little bigger than Toronto's, though. So we still have to look at whether the cost of a snap election is a net benefit for the city.
There's no way to accurately measure how much money we're losing as a result of what's happening. A huge part of Ford's job is luring corporate investment to Toronto, which creates revenue and jobs. He's about as poisonous a salesman as it's possible to be at the moment. He can't go sit in a room with a CEO and convince him that we're to be taken seriously as an investment site when we can't even get rid of the crackhead making the pitch. There are other factors--tourism dollars, city morale, etc.--that also affect the city's bottom line. As communications strategist John Crean told Hannah Sung in this Globe and Mail video report, "at worst [the city's economy] becomes completely imperiled and has significant business challenges going forward."
Money aside, there are also the public relations, credibility, and even psychological issues inherent in having a mayor so obviously unqualified and even dangerous in that position without having a single option to do something about it. As has been pointed out several times, the Jon Stewarts and the Jimmy Kimmels of the world aren't just laughing at Ford, they're laughing at all of us too. They love to point out how Ford's approval actually went up after Bill Blair confirmed the existence of the crack video. Maybe a lot of people don't care about what the rest of the world thinks of us. But we're spending millions upon millions on things like the Pan Am Games to better sell ourselves as a world class city. It's tough to do that when the only time the world hears about us these days is when an opportunity arises for them to laugh at us and our ridiculous mayor. Whether that's worth $7 million dollars or not is open to debate, I suppose. For myself, I would say it is. I think a lot of people (the same people I brought up before, from both sides of the spectrum, who'd love to have their electoral say on Ford as quickly as they can) would agree.
Ford has prioritized the debate at tomorrow's council meeting on Denzil Minnan-Wong's motion to ask the province to step in and do something about the mayor if he won't leave voluntarily. This option should be on the table should the motion pass. It's not a perfect solution, but it goes a long way toward satisfying a number of the concerns of all interested parties. It's the best I can come up with, anyway. Bring on the confidence motion.
Dirtybird supports your solution; agreed: "councillors to vote on their confidence in the chief magistrate, and, in the event of a vote of no confidence, to call an immediate citywide mayoral election."
ReplyDelete