Edgewater Hotel Sign Comes Down
The Art of Not Knowing
If You Tweet It, He Will Come
Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
The Daily Photoist: November 20, 2009
Photo by Ayngelina Brogan/Torontoist.
Well, not really. It will live on in political grandstanding and pre-election speeches and in all manner of rhetorical asides for months to come. But, in real, day-to-day terms, it has come to a merciful end. By two 21–17 votes, after a day-long debate, City Council has just approved contracts with CUPE locals 79 and 416.
Today's meeting opened with an impassioned Mayor Miller, voice quivering, thanking Torontonians for their "patience and support" and acknowledging the steady work of non-union staff who made the past few weeks bearable. This was followed in short order by several hours of public scrutiny as councillors combed over the details of the contracts, several more hours of private examination on matters that must remain confidential, and a final round of predictably testy speechifying.
The real political impacts of this debacle (and it is, for almost everyone involved, a debacle) are still unclear. Some have already pronounced Miller's reign over, others think that there are still no viable opposition candidates and that he'll weather the storm. The truth is simply that it's too soon to tell. Sixteen months is a long time in politics, and for all that the election is soon, it isn't soon enough for Miller's opponents to have a lock.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Politics aside, I think we can all agree on this: To the mess and the smell, good riddance!
Remember who voted to prolong the strike when it comes time for re-elections...
Yes. Remember to vote for the 17 Councillors who voted to save money.
By holding out for a more expensive arbitrated settlement?
The Globe has a list of who voted for what (and who was absent), so that you, too, can choose to vote in the next election for either the granola-munching communist sympathizers or the grandstanding Mel Lastman wannabes.
Well said. As always, the important thing is just to get out there and vote. There may not be anyone good enough to vote for, but there is always someone bad enough to vote against.
anyone have a link to the actual contract they are signing? there's been a whole lot of talk about the context of all this, but little actual details. I still can't believe politicians would vote to continue the garbage strike.
Here's the raft of documents the City released this afternoon:
Results of Negotiations with CUPE Local 79 and TCEU [PDF]
Presentation given in Council by Executive Director,
Human Resources [PDF]
Summary of the Memoranda of Agreement with CUPE Local 79 [PDF]
Summary of the Memorandum of Settlement with TCEU Local 416 [PDF]
Memoranda of Agreement with CUPE Local 79 [PDF]
Memorandum of Settlement with TCEU Local 416 [PDF]
Return to Work Protocol between the City of Toronto and CUPE Local 79 [PDF]
Return to Work Protocol between the City of Toronto and TCEU Local 416 [PDF]
What's the deal with Miller being close to tears at the press conference before the vote?
Absent from the vote:
Cesar Palacio (Ward 17, Davenport)
Gloria Lindsay Luby (Ward 4, Etobicoke Centre)
Kyle Rae (Ward 27, Toronto Centre-Rosedale)
Giorgio Mammoliti (Ward 7, York West)
John Filion (Ward 23, Willowdale)
Howard Moscoe (Ward 15, Eglinton-Lawrence)
What the heck? What were these councillors doing that prohibited them from voting on the most pressing item on the municipal agenda this summer? Residents in these wards should be peeved. A month of disrupted services and your councillor doesn't even bother to vote.
Agreed. Rae is my councillor and I really want to know why he wasn't there.
It was a real missed opportunity when crafting the City of Toronto Act that we didn't evaluate and include term limits for city councillors. I'd hazard a guess that incumbency is a major reason why most of them are even still there. Council shouldn't be a life-long career.
Not to call anyone in particular out, by my God, Moscoe's been a councillor since 1978 (when he was on North York council)... and he didn't show up, either.
Ah, according to a comment posted on Now's article about the vote, Rae was "on vacation."
What exactly do you think term limits will achieve?
I guess I can't help but wonder if it'd get some fresh blood onto Council.
I don't mean to suggest all long-serving councillors are ineffective, but I think term limits would have a positive effect on Council. It would increase the political choices available to Torontonians. It may encourage more politically-minded Torontonians, and even some high-quality candidates to consider a run for office, as they would not be running against an incumbent.
There are true upsides to term limits, as you've discussed. The downside is we get a lame duck council (or half council if terms are staggered) and mayor, which could be quite dangerous when there is no executive branch of council. And even if there were an executive branch, look at how productive Bush's final two years in office were. This system would also be much more prone to fraud/deception as councillors attempt to pad their landing outside of politics and take liberties during their final four years since their constituents will likely never pass judgment on them again.
This isn't to say that term limits are a bad idea or that the current system works in any fantastic way. Just that it's not as clear cut and obvious an answer as you may like it to be.
Thanks for the reply. Your points against term limits are good ones.
I should have perhaps avoided saying "and include" in my original post. I suppose I'm much more interested in an evaluation of the pros and cons. Term limits certainly work well in some governments, others, not so much. I'd be curious to see how it might fare here in good ol' TO.
Kyle Rae is abroad. Moscoe had a declared conflict of interest as an family member is also a member of CUPE, and was not allowed to vote; the Mayor read a letter from him, explaining the absence, at the beginning of the meeting. I'm trying to track down details regarding the others, and will post as soon as I learn more.
Further updates, courtesy of the National Post: Councillors Gloria Lindsay Luby and Giorgio Mammoliti were out of the country. Councillor Cesar Palacio was taking some personal time in the aftermath of the murder of his former partner and mother of his child.
After this latest debacle I'd vote for a potted plant or even Mel Lastman over David Miller.
The same Mel Lastman that was incapable of negotiating *any* type of concession from the unions while simultaneously depriving the treasury of the money needed to pay for the arbitrated contracts he gift wrapped for labour?
Re potted plant's candidacy: we have enough Liberals already voting based on the direction of the wind on a given day; don't need another.
Mel was at least incompetent in a colourful way; Miller is boring and useless. Go potted plant!
I don't know what basis people are using for constantly saying Miller is "useless."
He was instrumental in opening up new revenue streams for a city saddled by ancient fiscal rules, and negotiating a provincial upload. He oversaw the first freezing of police spending (outside of wages and benefits, which are linked to arbitrated settlements) in memory. He is helping bring new rapid transit to Toronto. He's prioritized some very promising climate-related initiatives. He's championed an imaginative and concrete (if controversial) housing plan. And he's empowered staff to actually make progress on the Bike Plan. Among other things.
I find the way in which he's done some of these things (specifically rushing through the Streets to Homes plan) problematic. There are things I wish he hadn't done. There are things I wish he would do. There are ways in which he could seriously improve his communications strategy. But I simply don't understand why people say he's a "do nothing" Mayor, unless that's just code for "he does things I don't personally agree with." If that's the case, just say so.
That is exactly the case, but I don't think we need to call in the cryptographers. Simply put, I'll describe an action as "useless" if I find it fundamentally wrong-headed. Where there are multiple examples of such actions I like to extend the adjective to apply to the whole damn responsible individual.
I still think it's irresponsible to use the word "useless," especially when there seems to be a campaign to paint him as the "do-nothing Mayor" among the same media that often refuses to cover the actual details of his administration.
The initiatives I listed are clearly of use to a lot of people, even if not you personally. (I have a hard time imagining how things like rapid transit or more sustainable city finances aren't of use to anyone, but we can agree to disagree on that one, I guess).