Here’s the story of two wading pools. One in Ward 19 and the other in Ward 25.
At the beginning of the City’s budget process, both pools were slated to close. The councillor in Ward 19, Joe Pantalone, noticed this and took action to save his pool before the budget came to Council for approval. But the councillor in Ward 25, Cliff Jenkins, only raised the issue about his pool for the first time at Council.
Deputy Mayor Pantalone didn’t need to move any motions on the floor of Council while Councillor Jenkins was up on his feet dancing around the fact that he was trying to cut the City’s funding to Nuit Blanche to off-set the cost of the pool in a ritzy part of his ward. Chastised first by Councillor Kyle Rae for daring to question the funding to Nuit Blanche, Councillor Jenkins was then ridiculed by Councillor Maria Augimeri, who represents the Jane and Sheppard community, for asking Council to save a pool at “Millionaire Street and Billionaire Boulevard.â€
Councillor Jenkins’s motion lost and now one of his neighbourhoods is less a wading pool.
This is a classic example of the right way and the wrong way to get things done at City Hall. Chances are, if Councillor Jenkins had worked with Budget Chief Shelley Carroll before Budget Committee had signed off, he could have found a bit of money somewhere to save the pool in Ward 25 or at least cushion the blow to the community. Instead, Councillor Jenkins tried to play Superman at the last minute and it was just too late for anyone to help him.
Photo by Sean Dreilinger.
18 comments
How is this a classic example of anything? Why should a public forum not be to correct one in which to do this?
If anything this in an example of backroom deals.
The decisions were all made in public. The difference is that Pantalone did his work at committee and Jenkins at Council without ever having gone to Budget or Executive Committee.
Did councillor Jenkins only protest upon discovering the exemption for councillor Pantalone ward?
Maybe he thought that when the announcement was made it was to be applied equally across the city.
That brings up another issue. If every councillor whose ward had a wading pool, went to committee they could have prevented their pools from being closed? Why did the city city make such an announcement if the closings were conditional?
Councillor Jenkins initially moved that both his pool and Pantalone’s pool be added back into the budget. Then it was pointed out to him that Pantalone’s pool was already back in the budget.
No announcements had been made about anything. These were measures recommended by staff to meet the budget target provided to them by the Budget Committee. It was then up to Commitee to yay or nay the recommendations of staff.
I hope this wasn’t the nice wading pool in Sherwood Park near Blythwood – I loved that pool when I was 8 yrs old, lovely spot.
If Cliff Jenkins was on Executive and Deputy Mayor and Joe Pantalone was a backbencher is there a possibility Joe mightn’t have been as quick off the mark either?
I’m not familiar with the budget committee process but do councillors get briefings on issues specific to their wards (as a wading pool would be) or are they obligated to comb through all 44 wards looking for anything pertinent to them?
Councillors have to pay attention to what is happening in their ward. jenkins didn’t and Joey Pants did. This seems like a good example of lazy councillor vs. an engaged councillor, and not about political stripes.
You see folks like Vaughan and Davis and Filion show up to other committee meetings to get their ward’s into the mix. You often hear of similar complaints as Jenkins from the likes of Stintz, Del Grande, and Ford et al., who do not have an active staff or are fixated on a specific issue that they end up ignoring or missing out on certain topics. That’s not to say good councillors don’t miss out too.
What would be good is to see other examples of oversight by councillors. I think it would show a pattern on who is an active councillor and who isn’t. Its not too hard to figure out who would fall into each category, but substantive examples would only solidify my assumptions.
To be honest, I don’t think it’s fair to call Cliff Jenkins lazy. I’m not really a huge fan of his, but he’s never struck me as anything other than hard-working and sincere.
“He’s never struck me as anything other than hard-working and sincere.”
I second that. He’s one of my very favourite councillors.
I’d like Mr. Jenkins instead of Mr. Pantalone for Ward 19; then maybe we could consider selling off some bits of land instead of spending $12M in camera ahead of any actual approvals and okays for certain road follies.
Generally I agree with the sentiment that Jenkins is a competent councillor who isn’t afraid of a little work. I think this could probably be chalked up to inexperience defending local assets at budget time and/or a late recognition of the pool closure.
In any event, I don’t think Pantalone’s position on EC was particularly relevant here as Jenkins, who normally comes across as thoughtful and prepared, was clearly flying by the seat of his pants on this one. If Jenkins’s case was that he requested money for the pool at Budget Committee and Executive Committee but they would only support the Ward 19 pool, that would be a different story. But it was nothing of the sort.
To answer Mark’s question: Councillors are generally informed as a courtesy about changes to services in their ward. However, if they ask for a briefing from finance staff about ward-specific changes in the budget, they would almost certainly be briefed. However, councillors and their staff are paid to read reports and analyze them for content relevant to their constituents so blame should never be on staff for not holding a councillor’s hand.
I heard that pool is made completely of gold.
Moral of this story is not about public forum … it’s about doing your homework.
C
This whole story about Jenkins not doing his homework sounds like it’s based on speculation.
“Chances are, if Councillor Jenkins had worked with Budget Chief Shelley Carroll before Budget Committee had signed off, he could have found a bit of money somewhere to save the pool in Ward 25 or at least cushion the blow to the community.”
We’re talking about city council here. Couldn’t there be a good chance that he didn’t have enough points with the right people, leading to Pantalone keeping his pool instead? My impression of Cliff Jenkins is that he has a sincere interest in improving the city, and he works hard at it.
I don’t know where this pool was, but many parts of ward 25 have expensive homes mixed with affordable rentals. Before anyone gets too excited about sticking it to the rich, consider the importance of public space in integrating families with different income levels. Or should everyone just try to get invited to the rich kid’s pool?
The Star has an article on this — make sure to hit the “Pool Costs” link in the sidebar.
I have to agree with those who think that the process is nothing to be proud of. We’re not talking huge amounts, but staff made a city-wide recommendation for city-wide reasons. Any rethinking of that recommendation should have been looked at city-wide. Unless Pantalone traded something else in his ward — i.e. “we really want our pool but we could give up this outdoor rink” — the outcome seems good for Ward 19, bad for the city. Maybe we should expect slightly broader thinking of the “Deputy Mayor”?
I am impressed that Jenkins had considered keeping pools in other wards open. It is nice to see councillors looking out for the interest of the entire city, not just there wards.
I am still uncomfortable with the notion that he should have done this ‘in committee’. If everything had to be done as such, and therefor all councillors attended, it defeats the whole concept of having a committee in the first place. I think that the whole purpose of having a committee in the first place is to have some councillors represent the interest of the entire city. It should not be a means to do lobbying solely on behalf of your ward.
Jenkins doesn’t deserve to have his pool open. The guy voted against the new taxes because he thought that’s what his constituents want. Now he says his constituents want good city services? Ha! Can’t have it both ways Cliff!
Do I understand this right? The City of Toronto gives money which Rae jealously guards, but the event is called “Scotiabank’s Nuit Blanc.” Could someone tell me why my tax dollars are funding a corporate event such as this, which from past reports seems to be all about marketing anyway?
Alex: Its not a corporate event — its a sponsorship. I don’t like these kind of sponsorships either, but this is an arts event with a big sponsor. I don’t think the 500,000 people only went and saw Scotiabank stuff. Though they seemed to have alarge presence, the public generally ignores this and looks at the art.
Your outrage, I believe, is misguided and off-target. Let’s keep the discussion whether councillors are doing their homework, as suggested above, or if there is a flaw in the Process of how issues like this are decided/funded.