Would Deputy mayor be double the disagreement?
Yes, here once again, is one of the many blogs where I write about where I disagree with our Mayor
On Today’s interview he was quoted (and I’ll do my best to get the quote right from memory since I can’t get the am800 audio up on my computer)
The mayor said that Councillor Halberstadt was the first one to declare his campaign for re-election and that the Deputy Mayor suggestion was one formed from “electioneering”
I take offense to that as when is the time for putting out ideas other than an election? So yes, I think it could be said that the mayor may be electioneering by maintaining the old adage that “I just want to keep working on the work I’ve been working on” Heck, that will be the mayor’s exact campaign strategy should he decide to decide to run for re-election at the end of april, May, I guess June
Knowing whether you have a mandate for an idea or your policy is not just what gets you elected but can be a referendum of the Electorate.
The overwhelming re-election of the Incumbents in the last election was a stamp of approval from the electorate that they did not protest the arena being built in the East end. It was their chance to make it known whether they approved of this issue or not?
Now, I would distinguish Councillor Lewenza’s promise of a dividend as simply an incomplete fiscal plan or at its worst, promising taxpayers a return of their money if he is re-elected. Unless he states how he plans to pay for the $4 million dollar shortfall to City funds, will it be by a cut to services? Savings from contracting out?
Do I support the position of Deputy Mayor? Dunno, never thought much about it until today. Thats why its important to discuss these ideas during elections
Here’s a link to the deputy mayor of London’s Job description
Other than London Ontario, many of our county members have deputy mayor’s. Is this an argument for the position? of course not. What it says is that many other communities value this position and it may be worth asking why.
I know our mayor travels quite a bit. What if he were to be caught by that volcanic ash in Europe for three weeks? It’s obviously possible
So, if this is electioneering, then lets electioneer. Bring on all the ideas and let the voters sort out whether they’re good or bad
Post Feedback
The concept of a “deputy mayor” is a threat to His fiefdom so of course Francis isn’t going to have anything positive to say about the idea.
For a city of 200,000 we certainly don’t need a “deputy mayor”. We have enough “managers” at city hall, we don’t need more.
A Deputy Mayor will, in all probability, just serve as back-up to the Mayor. Why wouldn’t this be the case?
I don’t think we need more positions, just more effective people in the positions that already exist.
I don’t think it would be an extra position. I’m assuming that Alan wants to point out that WIndsor is too dependent on the Mayor. Maybe that we’re a one horse town and if the Mayor’s unavailable, it appears that the city puts up a “Back in 5 minutes” sign on the door. Would be nice to show outsiders that if the mayor is unavailable that we don’t shut the place down
Halberstadt’s proposal is the wrong solution to our problem of a megalomaniac mayor surrounding himself with hand-picked ‘Yes-People’ from Administration…one that can only be solved at the ballot box in October.
Doesn’t matter who the mayor is, shouldn’t the city present some depth. If the mayor’s unavailable, who else is briefed on files
You are all correct that this isn’t a new position.
As of now this position is in rotation throughout council whenever the mayor is away. Why can’t this continue? The agenda is set not by the mayor but administration. Again I believe this is much ado about nothing.
Deputy mayor is just another person to control.
Alan’s comment was directed at Eddie and I think was not made to establish a new function at city hall.
Since Windsor is a one horse town and the local yokels have to prove themselves worthy, a deputy mayor,(concluding Eddie remains) would be a futile endeavour.
I check my facts to the Integrity Commissioner. Remember him?
Councilor Halberstadt says it is to establish the setting of agenda by the deputy mayor, is it not ridiculous to imply that you simply don’t think that?
Absolutely not.
The mayor sets the agenda and if Eddie gets back in again, do you really think that 1 deputy mayor can make a difference if the other 10 combined have no say?
The deputy mayor would also have to have bylaws put in place.
Nope.
It’s got more holes than a faint hope clause.
As you made mention of the mayor already shot it down before any chance of public debate.
The Mayor sets the agenda because Council lets him set the agenda. Councillor Halberstadt needs to convince five other councillors to change how the agenda is set.
I have to agree. It’s obvious that this mayor has his “Sympathetic Six” on council that he needs to bully and strong arm the agenda to his liking. What makes Alan think that having a Deputy Mayor position (which may just go to one of the Saintly Six, anyways) would make any difference?
This is an exercise in rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. There’s structural issues to repair that will make most of these annoying problems go away.
The bulk of those six councillors need to lose their job in October to neuter the bizarre power this mayor has accumulated.
These responses frustrate me beyond everything as I just thing they’re so illogical
1. Everyone here acknowledges the problem exists
2. The only argument against Councilor halberstadt is “I dont’ think it will work” which is not much of an argument
3. Everyone wants it solved but not the way Councillor Halberstadt wants to solve it.
(Sounded out in the tone of sarcastic frustration)
I think you all are 10 TIMES he micromanager that mayor Francis is accused of being
I think you all want to hamstring and tie the problem solvers hands behind their back.
If there is no negative consequenc of Councilor Halberstadt’s actions then I ask again. WHY WOULD YOU NOT ENACT IT ON A TRIAL BASIS?
No offence, but I think you’re all kinda nuts
Don’t tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.
George S. Patton
Post to Mr. Schnurr’s blog
I do not understand the logic by those who do not support Councillor Halberstadt’s proposal. Its not that I’m necessarily a big deputy mayor position supporter, I just don’t understand the reasoning of those, such as yourself on this issue.
Some points or questions
of those who oppose (or don’t voice support) this idea:
1. none seem to disagree with the assertion that the Mayor is weilding too much control over the agenda
2. none have given any specifics on why they think Councilor Halberstadt’s wouldn’t work (“It may not be effective” is hardly an argument without saying why)
-If I understand you right, you say there’s other ways to achieve his goal, but why would anyone care which way you achieve it as long as it gets achieved
3. Councillor Halberstadt has asserted his position is that the deputy mayor receive no extra pay.
I get the impression that many (not necessarily yourself, but I question) who oppose this are doing it because it came from a councilor they dislike.
I’ve asked to be put on the agenda for an issue and have had that request be denied by the CAO without the request even be presented to councilors according to several of them. My particular request was to present the recommendations of the Panhandling task force that I spent about 50 hours volunteering to lead (containing support from members on Unit 7 and the Salvation Army representatives at the time). I had a letter sent back to me rejecting the request and for reasons of what was possible and not in Ontario. I responded with information regarding why each reason was not valid and how what I was requesting had been done in other Ontario Cities.
So yes, I have reason to support the issue of agenda control independent of my support for any politician, since I have not seen a valid reason as to why Councilor Halberstadt’s proposal wouldn’t work, I assuming and asserting its because of the messenger of the proposal which has far reaching implications for those who oppose it. Especially those (again, not necessarily yourself specifically) who have accused me of simply being a blind supporter of particular politicians
Doesn’t anyone else think that it is very revealing that the Mayor immediately rejected Councilor Halberstadt’s proposal on the radio before Councilor Halberstadt even fully explained why he made the proposal? before even trying to address the underlying reasons for the proposal?
Whether you support the idea or not, doesn’t it seem presumptuous to reject it without debating its merits or addressing the reasons it was made in the first place?
I don’t get it. Everyone dancing around the property taxes being sucked out of residents through WUC & Enwin like it is legal in any imaginable way. It is ILLEGAL. These are public utilities. NOT businesses. WATER & HEAT ARE NECESSITIES OF LIFE.
Anyways, you casually mention that City Hall is saving us all by having these millions of dollars suctioned this way and that City Hall would have to make it up somehow or God-forbid be accountable for those dollars and it just angers me to no end that EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS per year for the past two years has been subsidizing the arena! And unknown fortunes spent in completely wasteful ways. Unaccounted for. To lawyers, consultants, studies, reports, questionable travels, buddy-luncheons, contracts & collusions.
I’ve had it with hearing the veiled threats that we taxpayers will have unknown suffering if City Hall lost this profit coming in from Enwin and all of the other kick-back places (ie, race track, casino, etc) that we as taxpayers are made to feel like City Hall is saving us???? City Hall is RAPING US!!!!!
City Hall IS CAUSING UNIMAGINABLE DAMAGE TO ALL RESIDENTS & SMALL BUSINESSES & NEIGHBOURHOODS & FAMILIES & CHILDREN & UNEMPLOYED & SENIORS & TAXPAYERS IN THIS COMMUNITY!!!!
It is time for change. BIG change. And deputy mayor is sign of this change that must come from having a corrupt mayor at the helm of this corrupt organization. If your children are old enough you don’t need a babysitter but clearly a babysitter should have been in place for the past 7 years to manage the little prince.
PS To clarify about the arena. My family sacrifices to pay taxes. The sacrifice is NOT made easily and to see our sacrifices be used for items of entertainment and sports while our clean water and heat for our homes is threatened by unsustainable increases in order to pay those secondary, non-life sustaining things and without any accountability of it at all makes me sick. And sicker yet to see my neighbour will it to continue.
And PSS
Did residents authorize sky-rocketing salary payroll for non-union, non-service-providing employees of the sunshine club from $10MIL in 2006 to $27MIL in 2009? I don’t think so. And I don’t think anyone but one little prince did this to us because he lacked character, concern for residents and a babysitter.
Four Million, unfortunately, democracy rules how your tax dollars are spent and if those who spend it disagreeably with you get re elected, they can keep doing what they’re doing. I kinda believe that its up to us to make our case to the public. If we don’t we have to take some of the responsibility.
I.E. I think it would be a critically significant gain to public exposure, efficiency of the Tourism and Development Commissions Downtown
I made my case, got some help from others in the community and started a group and petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?wincore
To date, only 27 signatures. This isn’t helping my case. You want change, you have to act for a change and get others to act for a change.
I kind of think the unimaginable damage is a bit dramatic.
By the way, the baseless corruption accusations are what set me off last time. I’m gonna ask my blog partners what they think about moderating that kinda stuff off this blog as I see no place for it in a thoughtful discussion
Would we even be talking about the position of Deputy Mayor if the sitting mayor was not Eddie Francis?
Sure he was duly elected, as were the sitting members of council.
However, as can be seen in the comments on any Star story or other blogs, Mr. Francis is a polarizing force. A certain portion of the population do not feel he is acting in the citizen’s best interests. The conspiracy and corruption accusations arise as a result of his less than transparent methodology and his aggressive and undiplomatic manner when dealing with those that criticize his actions.
Perhaps what is needed more than another layer of bureaucracy is either a mayoral change or for the 10 councilors to step-up and demand an end to the back-room deals and revoke the “voice of council” title that the mayor has anointed himself with.
On the Enwin dividend matter - I find it difficult to accept that Enwin is actually in a profitable position. Since I still see user fees and surcharges on my bills I can only assume that money is tight there and they need my help to make ends meet. A profit should indicate that ALL infrastructure needs are met and that ALL customers are paying a fair and equitable fee for services. I will accept that Enwin is clearing a profit when the surcharges are removed from my utility bill.
Mark,
My apologies if you might be offended at the words selected this morning. But I am sorry to say that I would say them again tonight too. Think about this and then think about your reference to “baseless corruption” having no place in thoughtful discussion about our present situation and the need for Corporation of the City of Windsor supervision:
“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
Lord Acton’s dictum 1887
This “drama” you remark on in my words comes from my place in the world walking beside people who are experiencing the direct impact of poor decisions by our very own council. Experiencing outcomes in very severe ways that are not necessarily public knowledge as each are one by one tumbling down. And I cannot count my own personal experiences out of the mix either. So dear Mark, maybe drama to you, but real life experiences for myself and many, many, many of your very own neighbours. Fellow Windsorites.
And about your well-intentioned poll, could it be that it is hidden in cyber-world instead of under the noses of people who would sign it - at the riverfront - in the parks - at the chamber meetings - conferences at the big hotels - college & university campuses - downtown businesses - city hall employees? It is one thing to wear out a keyboard and a completely different thing to wear out shoe-leather. Ward petitioners didn’t seem to have this trouble with shoe-leather.
By the way, last post here. So, set off away!
Alan, I’m sorry regardless of Lord Actum’s words I won’t assume people are corrupt unless proven innocent. I don’t even have a standard of beyond reasonable doubt, only that someone makes somewhat of a case. I don’t believe in co-incidences and often where you see smoke there is fire, but there’s no smoke here.
“So dear Mark, maybe drama to you, but real life experiences for myself and many, many, many of your very own neighbours. Fellow Windsorites.”
My main point is that when you talk about “unimaginable damage” I think perspective is needed. Haiti is “Unimaginable Damage”, Congo, Zimbabwe is “Unimaginable damage”, even the recent oil spill could be called that. What happens in Windsor is minor inconveniences that are faced by most cities and we will survive better than many of them.
I hope that it was not myself who made you end your posts here, as I did apologize for lumping you in with others. However, I wont become part of a conspiracty blog like the Uniblogger. Arguments need to have some basis in fact rather than innuendo.
discussing this on Chris Schnurr’s blog but can’t comment anymore.
Mr. Schnurr thinks I’m being political because I’m seeing ulterior motives in the opponents to Councillor Halberstadt
However, and I’m not trying to be a jerk here, the most reasoning I can see from Mr. Schnurr about why this won’t work was this one line:
“I do have a problem with the issue of agenda setting – however, I do not see the position changing anything.”
Well, for myself, that’s never been enough of an argument, and when it comes to Mr. Schnurr, frankly its the briefest argument I think he’s ever reported.
I guess I countered with “But Councillor Halberstadt does, he has a better view point than anyone of us”
My issue is that without further explanation, my problem is that I do assert that there is something else. If it doesn’t cost, it doesn’t hurt. Why would you not create the position for a probationary period of time and vote on it’s permanency after say 1 yr
Again, I have not seen any reasoning against this
What Mark wrote:
“I see this as Councilor Halberstadt try9ing to throw open the doors of transparancy and those who oppose him as obstacles
I repeat again, if Councilor Halberstadt is telling you that the reality of the situation does not reflect the theory you provide, and that this is what is needed to achieve exactly the transparency and demand accountability you view as their job. What reason would you have to doubt him and why would you not want to give him and councilors the tools and support they need to do the job you want them to do?
Wouldn’t that put you as guilty of the same micromanagement the mayor is accused of to tell Councilor Halberstadt exactly how he’s supposed to get done what you want to get done? If he gets it done his way, it doesn’t cost us anything, why the hell would anyone care, other than political reasons
When I say implications, I mean the implications of those opposing Halberstadt being guilty of many of the things I get accused of. I think anyone opposing this for purely political reasons is gonna look foolish.”
My response:
“Who is politiking again, Mark – just checking because I wrote:
“but on the other, the councillor’s proposal draws attention to an issue that Mayor Francis has created ”
As you wrote on your own blog:
“Do I support the position of Deputy Mayor? Dunno, never thought much about it until today. Thats why its important to discuss these ideas during elections”
And here I thought I was discussing an issue – but I suppose because you have deemed it invalid; it is not worthy of discussion.
I sense from your responses you are more interested in painting “opponents” of said proposal with the brush of politicking, agendas and creating obstacles, which is not unexpected.
The only politiking Mark, I honestly see going on, is you attempting to show to your own readers that yes you can disagree with Mayor Francis too, as the lead of your story indicated:
“Yes, here once again, is one of the many blogs where I write about where I disagree with our Mayor”
I do have a problem with the issue of agenda setting – however, I do not see the position changing anything.
Is this a problem for council in general, or is it a problem for only Councillor Halberstadt?
What he has done, is expose an issue he has and it will be enlightening to hear the responses of the other councillors and any solutions they may present (or not).”
Signing off from Scaledown.
Looking forward to a return to the posts that actually deal with issues of urban planning and sustainable development as I thought was the mission.
Instead, people are labelled “nuts,” creating “obstacles”, and are “foolish.”
So why bother?