Today’s Executive Committee agenda is stacked. There’s the capital budget, union station revitalization, increased funding to the lobbyist registry, food vendor cart purchases, Rob Ford’s spending habits, discontinuing the purchase of Blue Jay tickets and a proposal to endorse selling wine and beer at corner stores, among other items to be considered.
Buried beneath all of that is a report from the Integrity Commissioner on sponsorships and donations to community events run by Members of Council. Under the current rules, councillors aren’t allowed to accept money for these events but that wasn’t clear to many (likely most) of them until more recently.
In practice, community festivals, parties and barbeques have received sponsorship from local and not so local businesses forever. Whether it’s a grocery store donating hotdogs and burgers or a gas company providing the fuel for the barbeque, councillors rely on private funds to bring their neighbourhoods together.
This makes the status quo essentially untenable. However, in searching out a new way forward, some very complicated questions arise and there are few clear answers. Commissioner Mullan raises many of these questions but leaves them unanswered in his report to Executive Committee. At the conclusion of his report, the Commissioner also brings forward what I believe is an unsatisfactory recommendation.
Commissioner Mullan recommends that while he and the City Clerk attempt to answer the questions he has posed, Executive Committee should recommend to City Council that the ban on contributions to community events run by Members of Council be lifted. This falls short for two reasons: First, Commissioner Mullan raises several key questions that obviously need an answer before the practice will be sufficiently transparent. Second, if Council is given the green light to suspend this rule, there’s no guarantee that they will implement any of the transparency mechanisms that should be part of a change to this policy.
Here are some of the questions Commissioner Mullan raises. How would you answer?
Should donations and sponsorships be limited to $500, the amount a gift to a councillor must not exceed from a single source over the course of a calendar year? How should donations and sponsorships be reported? Should there be different rules during an election year?
To what degree should sponsorship be acknowledged?
Should councillors run community events or should they be done through outside organizations (such as ratepayer groups)? If yes, what connection should a councillor have to the event?
How should donations or sponsorships be accounted for? Should it go through the Member’s office budget? Should a new account be created? What happens to surpluses?
Family Day adds to financial burden
The Executive Committee agenda also includes a report from Staff that says the cost of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Family Day to the City of Toronto will be $2.3 million. This is mostly caused by services that are offered 24/7 (EMS, fire, homes for the aged, etc.) because statutory holidays are paid at a higher rate than regular days.
As the saying goes…
The Toronto Star’s Royson James went way over the line in a recent column that satirically called for the execution of every member of Toronto City Council. That column provoked the wrath of Mayor David Miller in the form of a harshly worded letter to the editor. As expected, James shot back with another column in response to Mayor Miller’s letter in today’s paper. The lesson here is found in the adage “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”
Photo courtesy Three Triple R.
19 comments
Royson James should simply stay away from satire, as he explains away his frankly stupid and offensive remark at the end of Friday’s column without offering an apology in today’s. (One could also say that he should stay away from writing columns about City Hall, given his tired, hacked rants bashing Miller for things both justifiable and not.)
Royson James’ column on Friday have no hint of satire and ended with the feeling that all of Council should be done away with. Those are extremely strong words, and had he suggested some other method by which they would be despatched (firing squad?), he could have been charged with incitement.
He was wrong, and he’s using Miller’s letter as a figleaf to hide his unwillingness to apologize.
We may all have gripes about the Mayor and various Councillors, but public executions as entertainment are not a subject for “satire”.
Steve
Agreed. There was no satire at all in the inital article. And then he compensates for this in his follow-up column that just drips with sarcasm. What a sorry excuse for a journalist.
If The Star has taken no action so far, as James suggested, they need to do so immediately.
There are bully pulpits and then there are bully pulpits, and James has a doozy. Though The Star has some great, thoughtful columnists to balance out James’ one-sentence-paragraph Toronto Sun style columns. It’s a stretch to say he’s irellevant as he’s read by thousands (that is, I’d like to say he is irrelevant) but it is fair to say that apart from the choir he generally preaches to, his columns are taken with the usual grains of salt by most thoughtful readers, including those critical of the Mayor and co.
I suspect everyone here will disagree with me, but I think the idea of Torontonians coming together and executing officials is sufficiently ludicrous not to be taken seriously, although James was pretty crude about it. Even if he was serious (and who thinks he was?), that’s not the sort of thing you would be able to get a mob together over.
What I don’t like (from either party) is rather than point out how stupid the other person is being, Miller first and then James both play the victim.
I think it was Heinlein (or Twain?) who wrote that all politicians should have a noose around their neck. It keeps them upright.
We should have the budget committee set aside some money for wide scale “sense of humour” transplants.
Outrage is much more politically useful.
Keeping up with *actual* news, rather than manufactured outrage:
I don’t see why businesses shouldn’t be allowed to contribute money to community events. Especially in the case of local businesses, it can be a)a way to give back to the community and b)a way to raise their profile in the community.
I don’t see any real fair way to define how small a business must be to qualify as local, so I would say leave it up to the organizers as to who to take donations from.
Dermanus, the issue isn’t a business’s contribution to any community event, the issue is about financial contributions to events organized by Members of Council. Though I realize this is a rather extreme scenario, consider this possibility: XYZ Developments has their sights set on a controversial project that goes against the Official Plan. They decide to “annonymously” donate $10,000 to a community barbeque that has all the trimmings, hosted by the local councillor. Everyone has a great time and the councillor just got $10,000 of promotion. Next month, when the application goes to Community Council, is there a real or perceived conflict when the councillor votes on the item?
The question not addressed in the matter of community events funding is this: should this be the province of the councillor AT ALL or should it be devolved to a local ward/community council that can fundraise for and hold these events independently of a single holder of civic office, the majority of the latter being apt to run for multiple terms?
We could use a little granularity below our wards – my ward (29) has about 48,000 people in it and a single civic representative. These community councils could drive small projects like identifying and clearing derelict sites, mural painting and so on.
Royson James may have lost his mind, and the editor that let that one slip by. I might add that this is just one of a few questionable stories I have read in the Star over the past year that make me wonder if there in fact any editorial control at all.
I point to a strange coincidence recently were 2 different writers in 2 different sections wrote glowing reviews about the same new miracle juicer–both stories sounded more like ads than stories. And also there was the peculiar issue of their fix-it writer criticising a community without interviewing anybody who lived in it.
The Star’s editorial staff need some guidance.
In terms of donations to community festivals the last thing needed is to create another level of complication by bringing the Community(-less) Councils into it.
There are so many different permits and things needed to pull these things off as it is; the last thing needed is another level of unresponsive government making decisions for locals. (As you can guess I think CC is useless).
James doesn’t seem to differentiate between sarcasm and poor taste. The mayor dit the right thing by writing to defend all councillors — he didn’t go into the facts he felt were wrong in James column, but instead defended the position of politician against a very poor use of words. I like how James tries to differentiate between public hanging and lynching. C’mon….
The Star has enough money to pay for a better columnist than James. His level of writing belongs in the Sun, as someone mentioned above.
Hooray scott:
“There are so many different permits and things needed to pull these things off as it is; the last thing needed is another level of unresponsive government making decisions for locals. (As you can guess I think CC is useless).”
Conflict of interest is a very valid question, but an even more valid point (I think) is that if we reduced the bureaucratic requirements for these type of events it would be much more community oriented as it wouldn’t take a professional paper-pusher to deal with it.
Adam did raise the question of bribery (my word, not his), and I think that speaks more to the amount of control and influence councilors have over property and the like. Reduce the amount of control they have, and you reduce the incentive to bribe them. No amount of reporting in the world is going to stop these people if they’re the ones who control what rules get passed.
Re. James’ column – when you find yourself saying “hey, it was just a joke,” it’s often a good sign that you’ve crossed a line somewhere.
What’s particularly curious is that his original column calling for city council to be hung at noon was about a hodgepodge of mostly secondary issues. And then he turns around and accuses the mayor’s rhetoric of being disproportionate.
scott – I wasn’t referring to the so-called community councils the City is supposedly running (and now bypassing to get anything done, like bike lanes).
I was thinking more along the lines of a ward council, and not so much a layer of government as a layer of society.
The ending of James’ initial column may have been a tad over the top, bad satire, even mean spirited. One might write such things when one is overcome by a feeling of disgust. It might be better if James’ comments had not been made public, but he no doubt voiced a sentiment that many Torontonians have likely had given the recent string of financial shenanigans at City Hall. Say what you will about James’ now infamous column, he has for a long time offered a critique of Miller and Co. that is thoughtful and distinct from the either the outright boosterism or shrill vendicate that characterizes most of the commentary about local municipal affairs. Yes, Toronto’s budget problems are real (and not entirely of its own making), but the behaviour of the Mayor and his dominant coalition probably does not give many the feeling that things will be changing any time soon. As a former supporter of Miller’s, it pains me to say this. It is hypocritical for our senior levels of government to accuse cities’ of being fiscally irresponsible in dealing with crumbling infrastructure…but darn if the current municipal administation doesn’t seem to go out of its way to act like a teenager with a credit card — and without any sense of priorities.
One more point…it was more than a little suspect on Mayor’s part to accuse James of disrespect for democracy when it has been under Miller’s watch that such things as community consultation and local input (the genuine as opposed to smoke-screen variety) has been considerably eroded.
Sam
Dermanus, the quote was by Heinlein.
Regarding Royson’s columns of 23/11/07 and 26/11/07 the Torontoist (Jonathon Goldsbie) says he can “occasionally be a dick” and that “some have long given up” on finding any logic governing your political attitudes.That would be me for sure.
I learned about his suggestion councillors be murdered in city hall square because I’m a faithful reader of John Barber’s column. Barber’s column made passing references to James’ proposal yesterday and today in the Globe and Mail. I was intriqued enough to do a web search.
I was sure he was referring to someone writing in the Sun. Silly me: I’d forgotten all about RJ’s columns.
Say I hope my version of his idea about murdering elected officials and using the public spectacle of violent death to meet some of Toronto’s fiscal obligations doesn’t seem excessive. Like him – just kidding.
On the other hand the Torontoist say he’s an “interesting” writer. For sure. He’s a master of the mindless political harangue – right up there with Bill (keep the stupid angry) Carroll.
And the Motts when it comes to playing a shell game with taking a position and being straight forward with the facts.
I wonder would Royson ever considered working for CFRB? He’d be comfortable there I think given his politics, his style and his sense of humour.
He could do a show on girls gone wild and breast feeding in public between three second phone calls on what a great representative of this city the public enjoys in Rob Ford. How serious Ford is about championing Toronto.