Beyond the details, the mayor's words are very telling and symbolic. Let's first clear the air. There are a lot of things at play. There is the censure and its intended impacts on the mayor. There is a looming investigation result from Earl Basse on the complaint against the Mayor, and there is the notion, real or perceived that the mayor was too cozy with the governing party during the last provincial election. Put that all in the mix, and the mayor's reaction can be seen as the only prudent thing to say.
But being egged on by his council, by encouraging Bratina to fight on against the cuts and possibly a hand bag
of other items, and throwing the legacy of the great Vic Copps in his face (who the mayor sometimes cites himself), while adding the presence of Clr. Partridge and others to such a meeting with the Premier (which on the surface seems acceptable but in the context of a censured mayor, may serve more than one purpose), are elements that are enabled by a weak mayor system and informed by the performance of the mayor himself. (There are alternatives to a weak mayor system, which we will perhaps discuss in the future.)
By a weak mayor system, we don't mean the relative prowess of the Mayor himself, but rather the fact that his position is reduced to one vote, despite being a "councillor at large" who has a greater span of responsibility. Under that systemic deficiency, he is an equal vote and thus is on par with and often times, at the mercy of other councillors. The ability of any mayor in that context, to garner and nurture support and mutual respect is crucial and the Mayor's performance in that regard has been in question while also working against what some would describe as a premeditated plan by some of his colleagues to make the role difficult for him from the onset.
To lead in such an environment is tricky and perilous. Sprinkle in politics, one up man/womanship, the in fighting, and the small p political wins and loses amongst councillors and the mayor, and the consistent losers are Hamiltonians that fall prey to the surrounding politically driven agendas supported by a systemic deficiency and aggravated by individual performances.
To use a common term " it is what it is" but is it what it could be?
Your comments are welcome.
The Hamiltonian
Very enlightening. I would like to hear more about alternatives to the weak mayor system.
ReplyDeleteSev
Plus, each councilor gets to pretend they are Mayor, for a stretch, leading meetings and such. This should be stopped, we need a strong Mayor system of governance going forward. Unfortunately, council is change averse, look at the food truck mess, they are creating? We are not better off, than two years ago.
ReplyDeleteA delightful read. You guys have a knack for cutting through and getting to issues that can really change Hamilton and other municipalities for the better. I could not agree more with your analysis.
ReplyDeleteSorce
I briefly watched council meeting this week, just in time to listen to Sam spout his venom in regards to the present government's cut on social services. Sam does not agree with the cuts so does other councilors and taxpayers, but where Sam looses it and started berating anybody who had supported the liberals and in my view insulted any taxpayers who do support the liberal. These cuts from the province are new and not related to any election promises made by liberals. Sam speech was over the top and totally inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that common phrase so much 'it is what it is'..
ReplyDeleteIn many cases this moot argument/response always made me feel quite hopeless...
NOW I have a comeback.."but is it what it could be!!"
Thank-you Teresa
P.S.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add that one must also have the wisdoom to know 'what is and what can change'
There is much work to do in The Hammer and it already has begun.
My first reaction is "Listen to 'The O Show' from May 15th, specifically at the 24:10 point, where Lorne Leiberman posits one of the most cogent notions as to who should be raising this issue at Queen's Park. The segment can be found here.
ReplyDelete"To lead in such an environment is tricky and perilous. Sprinkle in politics, one up man/womanship, the in fighting, and the small p political wins and loses amongst councillors and the mayor, and the consistent losers are Hamiltonians that fall prey to the surrounding politically driven agendas supported by a systemic deficiency and aggravated by individual performances."
Teresa, it's fascinating that you've entirely left out 'a diminution of capacity' on the part of the mayor. Make no mistake, Mayor Bratina is a very intelligent man. With some real-world experience. But time-and-again, it's clear that 'something's rotten in the state of Denmark.' If we have a 'weak mayor'...reminiscent of a 'lame-duck president'?...then don't go blaming all of his 'adversaries'. Great politicians are not anywhere near as affected by circumstances as our Mayor Bratina has been; frankly, there's no way that anyone he might point to as a hero or role model, either here or any other city anywhere else at any time in history, would never be reacting in the way he has been from the start.
As for "...the consistent losers are Hamiltonians that fall prey to the surrounding politically driven agendas supported by a systemic deficiency and aggravated by individual performances." I disagree most respectfully. Nobody has fallen 'prey' here. And to what 'surrounding politcally driven agendas' are you referring? (There's sufficient energy flowing through Council that there are agendas at play? Whose? Are you speaking of bringing the Mayor down? If so, please see my prior point. If you're talking about agendas referring to development or plans, please elucidate. And I don't understand what the 'systemic deficiency' is. Are you referring to the mayor's single vote? As opposed to every other council in Ontario? (Again, please refer to my previous thrust: politicians made of great stuff are able to inspire, to coerce, to manipulate, to corral fellow Council-mates in the direction of their personal vision. Clearly, this mayor is not. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.) As for the 'aggravated by individual performances'...I'll chalk this up to the general Hamilton cynicism about whether or not their councillors are doing a good job, or behaving: seldom is anyone ever happy in Hamilton with what's going on at City Hall.
(Oh, and I have to say that if Hamilton didn't want a 'weak mayor', they shouldn't have voted in whom they did.)
MY SC- did you read this part? "The ability of any mayor in that context, to garner and nurture support and mutual respect is crucial and the Mayor's performance in that regard has been in question .."
DeleteSeems to me that noone is protecting the mayor here. In terms of the systemic deficiency, that is pretty clear as well. Systemically, the math doesn't even make sense. You're responsibile for providing leadership to over 500,000 people- but here you go..1 vote.
Respectfully, if we can't see beyond the systemic issues and resign ourselves that it is just the way it is because it is so across the province, then we have missed grand opportunities.
This is a well thought out piece. But we have to keep thinking beyond what is before us.
Sorce
You may have also glossed over this part "are elements that are enabled by a weak mayor system and informed by the performance of the mayor himself.
DeleteSorce
Are you sure you read this carefully?
ReplyDelete"By a weak mayor system, we don't mean the relative prowess of the Mayor himself, but rather the fact that his position is reduced to one vote, despite being a "councillor at large" who has a greater span of responsibility."
You wrote "(Oh, and I have to say that if Hamilton didn't want a 'weak mayor', they shouldn't have voted in whom they did.)"
I am just trying to be fair.
Sorce
Ding ding ding. Round 1 Sorce 1 My SC 0
ReplyDeleteMr. Sarc
They hung Eisenberger out to dry over Pan Am. Stellar performance by council if you prefer cheap cowardly politics. Bring on the alternatives. This one aint working
ReplyDeleteThe man
I think this was a well balanced article.
ReplyDeleteSevern
I watched the council meeting and was quite put off by merulla. As far as having a deputy mayor manage the meetings, I don't understand what mark-allen's point is. What's the big deal of having someone chair the meeting?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone really think Clr. Partridge should be attending a meeting with the Premier?
ReplyDeleteOne 'councillor at large', the Mayor, suffices. Any councillor who voted for censure is not fit to be by the Mayor's side at QP; the City Manager is the appropriate person to attend. (it's all moot now because the Premier won't meet with Bratina)
DeleteI enjoy the writing here. Good message and very well written.
ReplyDeletePart One
ReplyDeleteOn this beautiful Saturday morning looking out on Chesapeake Bay, I muse. And type.
This Opinion piece...the RTH piece with Councillor Morelli...the CBC interview with Mayor Bratina...absorbing local politics here in VA...being reminded by Administrator Diane that TH had recently featured a Perspectives Virtual Panel on term limits...
...all of these have combined to focus my attention on a larger issue than just the one presented in this article. Namely, 'fighting the wrong battle'.
I point out that getting term limits enacted is something Hamilton can't get done by itself, and the response is for a 'petition' given to the Premier, or a referendum, or just plain loud voices raised about this cause. It's like there's this obdurateness, a tendency towards denial, born out of (I'm guessing) the longstanding frustration of being a Hamiltonian. (I often refer to this as part of the city's 'legacy malaise')
And I'm seeing the same thing here, with the notion of a 'weak mayor'. As if we should change the paradigm ourselves, to somehow empower the mayor beyond 'one vote'.
Um... We can't. It doesn't work that way, that a city's populace...if you could even get the consensus mustered at all, and currently, with everything in place, I doubt this is possible for any issue...could unilaterally, arbitrarily change the way things are done at Council... Again, a lack of understanding not only about how things work, but about what we can do about them on the municipal level.
(For the record, as well as witnessing this Council effort to get QP to listen to our social services travails, I'm seeing the same kind of missteps about our 'closing of schools' situation, the hue-and-cry about loss of community, the anger from some -though not the vast majority of parents who didn't attend ARC meetings- in wanting to 'Make them stop!', when, as pointed out by someone much better equipped to understand the bigger picture, 'The province is broke. Like it or not, cuts such as the ones we're seeing are only the beginning.')
I love fervour. I love enthusiasm. And determination. But before you enter into a game, isn't it a good idea to know what the rules are?
So...
(Continued in Part Two)
Part Two
ReplyDelete"In Ontario, council is supreme. Council makes the decisions. The mayor’s role is to demonstrate leadership, demonstrate consensus-building, be able to move with public consensus. The best mayors are ones who can be facilitative in nature, because they do not have the power to do things on their own… That’s the reality. That’s the difficulty and the challenge of being a mayor in Ontario—that you’ve got to build consensus. You’ve got to be able to get the votes at council. That’s your job: to lead by building that consensus and moving forward.
There have been many, many mayors who have been able to change city council. There have been many mayors who’ve had support of city council and lost it. The art of being a mayor in Ontario is the art of building consensus and moving forward with the votes on council."
That's from comments by Ontario Transportation Minister Bob Chiarelli in the Torontoist article 'Ontario to Toronto: Grow up' that can be found by clicking here.
If you read anything I've written on my blogs, you'll see that I don't make it a habit of attacking councillors. (As opposed to online commenters everywhere.) It's not my field of interest, it's not where I want to apply my efforts. However, regarding the Mayor, I feel the need to at least be 'critical': I was there at City Hall when he ran away from Emma Reilly and Andrew Dreschel and a couple of others, refusing to 'scrum' with them. I was there when, after Councillor Ferguson and he got into a spat over something, at the very end of the meeting, the Mayor laid into the councillor with EIGHT points of refutation, having spent all the ensuing time getting his notes together. I've read countless articles, watched innumerable broadcasts and interviews...and so I'm still scratching my head at the notion that there's something wrong in our 'weak mayor system', and not with the person himself exclusively.
There's nothing wrong with my reading skills. Nor my comprehension. And I'm not 'naïve'. I just don't see things in the same ways that some here do. That's all.
Having said that, I'm glad The Hamiltonian provides this opportunity for us to engage. It's a nice contribution to the much larger cause.
My SC. I pointed out that you read in to it, things that simply were not there.
DeleteI find it odd that someone like you, who recognizes the power that good engagement can make, at the same time, seems to diminish that if done well and en masse, it can lead to significant change such as electoral reform, weak to strong mayoral models etc.
Noone said it was easy but is possible.
The possible is sometimes hard. The impossible takes longer.
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. Henry Ford
Sorce
Your quotes are from the status quo which are apparent to most. As the article suggests , switch to "what it could be".
DeleteSorce
Footnote- you can be in a strong mayor system and still have a mayor that builds consensus and does all those wonderful things. It's not mutually exclusive.
DeleteThe math needs to be redone. 500,0000 people - 1 vote. Does that REALLY make sense to you or anyone?
Sorce
Teresa et al., excellent opinion piece, and most timely, thank you.
ReplyDeleteAt 7 this morning, Sat., the first thing I read was The Spec piece that McGuinty, personally, would not be meeting Bratina. That was swift; the decline coming from the Premier before our wise council had the opportunity to demand a 3-way pow-wow with Bratina, Partridge and McGuinty. The consolation is Bratina can meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. But, oh-oh, it appears the Minister got wind of council's public war cries and thinks "it's a bit rich, if I might say, for members of the council...to take us to task."
Turns out Ferguson, Merulla et al. forgot to mention that Hamilton will receive "$71.7M in combined municpal supports and benefit uploads."
This council is embarrassing, they should be muzzled. The Mayor imho is the enabler here. Embarrassing all round.
Is it possible for the public to censure a council?
My SC
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your perspective and global vision. Change happens at the grass roots and works it way up the pipe.
I never seen change begin from the top down.
However, it is prudent to expect the bottom line of implementing change, happening at a more national and global level.
I believe this city dosen't need a council. We need representatives from each of the areas coming together to exchange ideas and put forth issues that pertain to their neighborhood. Mini-mayors!!
We would get more done.
We have outgrown a political system that belies smoke and mirrors and a comfy employment position.
I do not mitigate the abuse politicians take in this city, but heck they are quite aware of this when they run.
"But being egged on by his council, by encouraging Bratina to fight on against the cuts and possibly a hand bag of other items, and throwing the legacy of the great Vic Copps in his face (who the mayor sometimes cites himself), while adding the presence of Clr. Partridge and others to such a meeting with the Premier (which on the surface seems acceptable but in the context of a censured mayor, may serve more than one purpose), are elements that are enabled by a weak mayor system and informed by the performance of the mayor himself. "
ReplyDeleteThat is one hell of a sentence.
There are nested thoughts within :-)
DeleteHamiltonian Admin
Turns out Ferguson, Merulla et al. forgot to mention that Hamilton will receive "$71.7M in combined municpal supports and benefit uploads."
ReplyDeleteRight. Don't we know how this game is played? They know our soft spots and our price, and we should shut up, show more gratitude to our masters, and vote Liberal.
If you look at the math, this is a shell game. The taxpayer is paying for the OW benefits and the uploading. We don't owe McGuinty et al anything more than honesty.
If the McGuinty government promised more and failed to deliver on their word, that's worthy of criticism. If they decided on a whim to freeze social assistance rates and then only reversed that position only to placate the NDP and avoid a non-confidence vote, that's also worthy of comment.
As Malcolm X once said, "If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, that's not progress."
It has been obvious from even before Bratina took the office, that some of the councillors were targeting him. they weren't all that clever about their intentions. Think about the drama between Whitehead and Mayor Bratina, for example. Then, a cesnure-ooooo big surprise there. Too bad it had no meaning.
ReplyDeleteThe antics of this council and last, is what is killing Hamilton. This censure thing was so immature. The newcomers aren't helping either. Why didn't Patridge, Farr or Johnson take Bob aside and say "listen- I'm not signing up for nonsense on this council., so let's get beyond this". Instead, the three of them signed this meaningless and embarrassing "censure" Typical Hamilton politics. You wonder noone will meet with us?
ReplyDelete