Toronto Star columnist Royson James, who belittled David Miller for almost the entire election campaign (two or three days before election day James decided it was time to start examining the weaknesses of challenger Jane Pitfield), got right back on his horse by laying into the mayor for a weak inaugural speech.
Mayor David Miller should fire his speech writer. And if the mayor is the author of yesterday’s insipid inaugural address, he should fire himself and leave the job to someone who can capture the dual purpose of these ceremonial events. A good inaugural address will assuage and arouse, comfort and challenge.
It speaks to the future and tells, in broad strokes, how to get there. It inspires council and awakens citizens to a civic duty or mission.
And when such an address tackles an issue for our time — Toronto’s broken budget — one that will surely define the landscape for the next political cycle, it requires some force of thought and delivery. Yesterday’s missed the mark.
Check out another article in the Star that offers a non-opininated view of what happened at yesterday’s first council meeting. The Globe and Mail examines the mayor’s choices for the new executive committee, including a feature on Howard Moscoe’s new role as chair of the new licensing and standards committee. The National Post also examines Miller’s executive committee choices, while providing a play-by-play of the swearing-in ceremony. Sue-Anne Levy at the Toronto Sun whines that Miller’s demand for the province and the feds to pay their share of social services is useless and that City Hall needs to get its own house in order first. She refers to Miller’s plan as “beg, borrow, and steal.”
(As an aside, Ms. Levy’s columns conjure up images of an annoying know-it-all aunt that refuses to listen to what anyone else is saying at the dinner table. No matter how many different ways you try to explain something to her, the aunt will just repeat her stated position no matter how many facts you throw in her face.)
Lastly, here’s a list of the new committee heads. I was way off on my original predictions, but I re-jigged them later that day once I found a PDF on the City’s website that listed their preferences (see my second round of predictions in the comment section of that post, which are much closer to the real outcome).
Miller’s new cabinet
Joe Pantalone, deputy mayor
Joe Mihevc, community development and recreation
Paula Fletcher, parks and enviro
Kyle Rae, economic development
Gloria Lindsay Luby, general government
Howard Moscoe, licensing & standards
Brian Ashton, planning and growth management
Glenn De Baeremaeker, public works and infrastructure
At-large appointments:
Pam McConnell (Police Board), Norm Kelly, Shelley Carroll (Budget chair), Giorgio Mammoliti (affordable housing chair).
photo from Toronto Star
9 comments
Can anyone explain the choice of Norm Kelly?
Mammoliti is only there because of affordable housing but Kelly???
I agree with your assessment of Levy. She is beyond useless as a columnist
And your analogy about the annoying aunt isn’t far off because I hear she only got the job because she is the niece of someone influential at either City Hall or the Sun (the connection escapes me at the moment).
He did start the Alternative Budget Committee, which made some good recommendations on opening up the budget process to councillors, city managers, and eventually citizens.
See page 2 of http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/minutes/committees/bud/bud060113.pdf
Seems silly this is not already happening.
Sue-Ann Levy: niece of none other than Jeffrey Lyons.
You only need to think of that name to appreciate the improved atmospher around City Hall.
Niece of Lyons? Bloody hell. How can the Sun keep a straight face with that kind of appointment?
Miller’s appointment of De Baeremaeker to the chairpersonship of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee is a massive “Fuck you!” to all of us in the public space movement.
Need a reminder as to why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoeG3TSIa8s&eurl=
Jonathan > I think it shows that Miller’s team does not see DeBaeremaeker’s weakness on our shared issues as enough of a liability. I talked to DeB briefly at council on Tuesday and the focus of PW&I will be on recycling and waste management. The street furniture stuff is done at Works, I believe, so some of our worries are moot for the time being.
But that didn’t stop me from bitching to Mike Smith at NOW about DeB. It was the one of two appointments that raised my eyebrows. The Norm Kelly appointment was the other one that made me scratch my head. The other weird ones (Mammoliti and Luby had been rumoured as soon as the election was over.
An interim report on the Coordinated Street Furniture Program is, as per a not-unreasonable Council motion by Karen Stintz, to be presented at a joint meeting of Works and P&T in February. Of course, since there’s no longer a P&T, I’m guessing it will be at PW&I and P&GM?
And I’m expecting the final report (including the recommendation) to go before PW&I before it eventually hits Council in June.
I just took a look at the list of the complete lineups for all of the committees. It’s very, very interesting. Instead of six standing committees with eight members each, there are now seven standing committees with six members each… what’s crazy is that Miller has set them all up in such a way as to force compromise. Presuming the councillors fall into their usual patterns of voting, most of the committees will frequently find themselves deadlocked with 3-3 votes (unless the rules have changed, a motion does not carry in the event of a tie).