The Customer Service of Governance

In addition to John Lorinc’s excellent Walrus article, there’s another piece of good city writing this week, this time from The Grid’s EdwardKeenan. Keenan’s article offers suggestions for how Team Ford can right their ship, from focusing on customer service to having meaningful dialogue with critical councillors and the general public.

The advice is really good; it plays into ways that Ford has branded himself in the past, fulfills campaign promises and appeals to individuals who want to give the mayor the benefit of the doubt. Above all, it’s just good governance.

Yesterday morning TTC chair Karen Stintz took up Keenan’s advice by coincidence. She and some of the TTC brass (Gary Webster, Chris Upfold) held a press conference at Bathurst Station to make an announcement on improving customer service, including engaging the public through town halls, a customer service liaison panel and extending service centre hours (see more details at Torontoist here). 

As much as I bristle at the term ‘customer service’ when it comes to government (as it reduces citizens to a one-sided business-style relationship), this is the good stuff. The TTC operates very efficiently from a technical standpoint but could stand improvement in how transit riders use it on a day-to-day basis. It’s also a cheap means for the agency to improve; costs (labour, infrastructure support) are rising faster than fare increases can feasibly be passed, and without changes to the operating subsidy any improvements will have to come from within.

This would have been a good platform to frame the next step for Ford to sell his ideas to the public, where he could say things like, ‘one thing that’s not gravy is treating people with respect.’ He could say that good customer service involves going beyond the minimum requirements and seeking ways to make sure everyone is involved in an open and transparent process that reasonably considers their opinions, needs and wants and he's a man of his word out to meet his mandate.

Here’s how his campaign literature spoke of these issues in his Taxpayer Protection Plan Backgrounder:

These three promises are important as they speak to the values of Ford as a candidate and the values he heard Toronto wanted for its governance. Clearly, transparency, access and real consideration were priorities for both.

But then Giorgio Mammoliti spoke last night. In an incident later related by Kristyn Wong-Tam and Janet Davis’ Twitter streams, the two councillors tried to attend a child care task force meeting chaired by Giorgio Mammoliti. Although they are on the Community Development and Recreation committee, they were refused entry. They were not notified of the meeting (although a sign was posted outside of committee room three), and were told by Mammoliti that he didn’t want the meeting to be ‘political’.

Wong-Tam responded with an open letter on Twitter criticizing the lack of inclusion and going so far as to say that the process contravened the City of Toronto Act. It doesn’t, as Goldsbie pointed out in early morning tweets, as the task force is not bound by the rules of committees since it has less than half of its membership from councillors (there was Mammoliti and six child care operators).

Mammoliti and Wong-Tam at July Executive Meeting. Photo by friendlyfeathers.blogspot.com

So Mammoliti was technically able to restrict Davis and Wong-Tam from participating, but that doesn’t mean 1) he did it in the best, most respectful way possible 2) he should have done it at all.

Maybe he could have recognized there was a strong desire for Davis and Wong-Tam to contribute, and, as per Keenan’s suggestion, given them a meaningful role in future sessions or aspects. Or maybe he could have asked the meeting attendees if they would like to have them come in the room for some or all of the meeting. Or maybe he could have said that he would be happy to brief them afterwards.

Just like customer service has to go beyond the bare essentials to be effective and valued, openness and transparency go beyond checking the City of Toronto Act to see if any laws have been broken.

This isn’t an isolated incident either. It’s a hostile attitude that’s been represented at all night executive committee meetings and in how various motions have been passed or brought up from the Jarvis bike lanes to the Fort York Bridge to the Dundas pedestrian scramble to the port lands fiasco or the citizen advisory committees that were supposed to be brought back to council for a vote (twice!) but have been forgotten or deemed unimportant. It’s this track record that sows distrust into the discourse.

Ultimately, this marks a failure of Team Ford. Sure, they haven’t kept their promises to have openness and transparency (real transparency isn’t voting on every speaking extension) but there’s a larger implication.

Good governance involves connecting people- opposition councillors, regular citizens- to the institutions that represent them. It’s not always easy to be respectful, transparent and open, but if there’s any ‘customer service’ that government should provide, it’s that.

My Second Favourite Vote From Yesterday's Council Meeting

The logical thing to write about today would be the landmark Waterfront defeat of Ford’s agenda but since I’ve already written my first thoughts I’ll move on to my second favourite vote of the day. Before getting to what that is, some context is needed.

There are some regular criticisms of City Council’s left that are agreed to by many: they have no solutions, only want to pick fights and revel in opposition. Doug Ford alluded to some of these criticisms when he called in to Josh Matlow’s radio show last Sunday, “I get bullied by Adam Vaughan, Janet Davis and Gord Perks,” he said. “Rob could come out and say he had the cure for cancer and the left would come out criticizing him”. Matlow somewhat agreed, saying there are some individuals that wouldn’t agree with the mayor no matter what he did.

Matlow’s response is an important distinction. ‘The left’ is not a monolithic voting bloc that thinks the same way (as with the right wing of council). Adam Vaughan is not Shelley Carroll and she is not Mike Layton. Council is filled with very different personalities and one of these that diverge from the Ford caricature of the left is Kristyn Wong-Tam.

Toronto Life/JoeyS4B

Rookie councillor Wong-Tam (read more about her in this excellent Toronto Standard profile ) has acquitted herself as one of the hardest-working councillors and through that has offered workable solutions. She has put together proposals in conjunction with the local BIA to revitalize Yonge and Dundas north to Gerard and was working on a plan to develop Jarvis into a cultural corridor before the bike lanes were unceremoniously cancelled.

It is the latter case where Wong-Tam was first undermined by Denzil Minnan-Wong. The chair of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, Minnan-Wong spearheaded the removal of the Jarvis bike lanes that was done without notice to local councillor Wong-Tam or community consultation.

Two weeks ago it happened again. Minnan-Wong, once again without notice to Wong-Tam, put forward a proposal to study the Yonge-Dundas pedestrian scramble. She stated she was okay with the idea of looking at it (even though it means it’s clearly under threat) but was again frustrated with ulterior motives and the lack of notice to her (giving notice to the local councillor is considered proper etiquette). Minnan-Wong responded in an interview with the Toronto Star that described him as dismissively saying with a smile, “A-gain? Poor Kristyn.” and on Metro Morning argued that Wong-Tam’s objections were disingenuous.

Which brings us to yesterday’s council meeting. As with the Jarvis bike lanes, Minnan-Wong was scheduled to speak last and introduced a last minute amendment (this time to consult with the TTC, but not riders). In his speech, he referred to Dundas St.:      

 “There’s been a lot of discussion about the process and how notice is required and notice has to be given and somehow councillors’ rights have been abridged or sacrificed. I can tell you, they have not. No rule has been broken, no member has raised an objection, I have not received any complaints from the integrity commissioner…. One member of council has been complaining that they were somehow injured or the community not notified, but I can tell you, quite frankly, it is not my job to do the work of other councillors for them.”

Minnan-Wong goes on to argue that accommodations were available if they were asked for. If she- he then stopped himself to say 'they'- had requested to specially speak at committee, he would have allowed it. Until the rules change, everything was proper.

Wong-Tam spoke on a point of privilege to point out that the report at the committee level did not touch her ward and the suggestion that she should have been there out of interest is disingenuous. She objected to Minnan-Wong suggesting that she isn’t doing her job to which Minnan-Wong said that ‘I never said that’. John Parker, acting as speaker, agreed because no particular councillor was mentioned by name.

Which bring us to my second favourite vote of the day. After Wong-Tam lost a challenge to the speaker’s ruling there was a vote to extend Minnan-Wong’s speaking time.

Here’s how it went (apologies for the blurry screencap):

In spite of Minnan-Wong’s personal attack, the procedural shenanigans he has pulled, and the lack of courtesy he has shown, Wong-Tam chose to extend his time. No one would have batted an eye if she chose to vote against it but instead she decided to rise above it.

It’s a really small thing, but that’s why it’s worth mentioning. These acts of courtesy don’t really go noticed but they are what collectively ensure civility and integrity in our discourse. They defy the stereotype that casts aspersions on certain ‘types’ of councillors and they’re things that Denzil Minnan-Wong could hopefully appreciate. 


On a day when Kumbaya was ironically sung by councillors Wong-Tam quietly embraced the spirit. 


It’s not quite the same as beating a monorail-megamall-ferris wheel, but it’s worth celebrating. 

Visions of Toronto in the Ford Administration

The fiddler, he now steps to the road
He writes ev'rything's been returned which was owed
On the back of the fish truck that loads
While my conscience explodes
The harmonicas play the skeleton keys and the rain
And these visions of Johanna Toranna are now all that remain

-Bob Dylan, Visions of Johanna

When David Miller assumed office in 2003, the legacy of Mel Lastman provided a great challenge. Toronto had a crumbling infrastructure from years of deferring maintenance in favour of property tax freezes and the city’s signature cultural achievement in this time was a series of fibre-glass moose, an idea taken from Chicago.

In his inauguration address at City Hall, Miller recognized existing challenges but struck an optimistic, forward looking tone:

“So, my first appeal to you as Mayor is this: Let this Council -- let us -- be guided by that spirit of openness, which is built into the very walls that surround us. Our challenges are great. The opportunities are greater -- let us start today.”

Miller unveiling the City Hall green roof, a symbol of a newly green city.

Although he inherited a city marred by corruption and limited accountability, whose governance was most marked by gaffes and short-sightedness, Miller saw the potential for something larger. He had a vision that Toronto could be a better place, the aspirational world-class city to which he often referred.

His vision was that with civic engagement - active buy-in to dialogue and ideas from citizens and stakeholders- an open and transparent foundation could be laid to provide opportunities to exercise community-building.

The same cannot be said for Team Ford. The Ford inauguration was filled with the blustering divisiveness of Don Cherry criticizing left-wing pinko cyclist kooks, a marginalizing tone that has continued in various forms throughout the administration.

In contrast to Miller, Ford’s vision is not about building of any sorts, but cuts. As David Rider persuasively writes in a column for the Toronto Star, these cuts are more representative of an animus towards government than the fear of structural deficit. After all, why freeze property taxes and cancel the vehicle registration tax before balancing that deficit?

Rob and Don give the thumbs up at inauguration. National Post.

Granted, Rob and Doug have revealed glimpses of vision here and there. However, the projects they mention include a monorail leading to an NFL stadium, a triple decker Gardiner and compounding Lastman’s Shepperd subway to nowhere.

These proposals, all of which have claims that the private sector will love to pay for them, are laughable enough that satire seems unneeded. Actionable, forward-looking projects like the Fort York bridge or the Jarvis redevelopment have been spitefully killed (the latter due to bike lanes) while Team Ford has mused about selling off Waterfront assets. 

But earnest, realistic city-building can still be found at City Hall. Three councillors, Adam Vaughan, Kristyn Wong-Tam and Josh Colle, currently have projects underway at different stages of development. These projects are each private-public-partnerships (P3s), a favoured form of engagement by the Fordites. While the structure of each deal is appealing to the administration and provide strong value for development money, there are shallow reasons that Team Ford could find to oppose each proposal.

Adam Vaughan and the John Street Cultural Corridor

Artist's rendition of proposed John Street corridor.

Adam Vaughan has been working on the John St. development for some time now in an effort to capitalize on an identified cultural corridor. The street has a lot going for it in terms of different cultural landmarks. It runs from Queen’s Quay and the Rogers Centre Skydome in the south, touching on: MuchMusic, the National Film Board, the Bell Lightbox, Scotiabank Theatre, Princess of Wales and Royal Alex theatres, Roy Thomson Hall and CBC headquarters before ending at Grange Park in front of the Art Gallery of Ontario. The idea is to link Toronto’s cultural institutions together in a way that encourages people to make the connections as they engage with the street. John is currently broken up by stretches with narrow sidewalk, a disengaging streetscape and little infrastructure.

Partnering up with the local BIA for the $50 million project ($10 million to be paid by the city) the proposed plan seeks to preserve historic buildings, promote business and tourism. More controversially, it would also ‘pedestrianize’ the street (although with removable bollards to allow necessary traffic through) while lining the street with trees and stylized benches.

It’s a pretty good plan that has local business and institutional support and would be a good goal to have complete for the 2015 Pan Am games. It’s not perfect either; Dave Meslin rightly took issue with the cycling stats compiled by consultants in the environmental assessment for instance. The biggest challenge though will be passing the perception test that the project is not ‘gravy’ and doesn’t represent a ‘war on the car’.

Kristyn Wong-Tam and Downtown Yonge's Public Space

Kristyn Wong-Tam’s nascent project will face similar challenges. Working closely and remarkably quickly with the Downtown Yonge BIA, Wong-Tam co-ordinated with local business owners and hired urban planner Ken Greenberg (all money paid by the BIA). The idea is to decrease traffic lanes between Dundas and Gerrard in order to increase room for pedestrians which their study shows is the dominant user of the area. It would also give potential to block off the road for festivals or events and aims to re-vitalize the declining stretch of businesses from Dundas to Gerrard. As with Vaughan’s plan, it uses the P3 structure encouraged by the administration but likewise would limit car use. Also, there’s the fear that as Wong-Tam is another left-leaning councillor the project could be spitefully nixed.

Rendition of Yonge closure by KPMB Architects. 

It’s a fear that would be nice to dismiss as misplaced paranoia but the record on the Jarvis bike lanes and Fort York Bridge shows otherwise. It’s something that Mushy Middle councillor Josh Colle has most certainly noticed. The newly elected councillor for Eglinton-Lawrence had a hold placed by Rob Ford on the Lawrence Heights Revitalization project in advance of the Jarvis Bike Lane vote. (The project aims to renew the neighbourhood through strategically placed mixed housing). The hold was somehow lifted after Colle voted in favour of the bike lane removal, an idea he previously opposed. The message was sent: approve our vision of cutting this part of the city down or we will cut your ward down.

Josh Colle and Cynical Games with Lawrence Heights

Having a vision is difficult. It requires nuanced planning, forethought and engagement. This is not how Team Ford rolls. They operate on divide and conquer strategies as they did with Colle, not collaborative stakeholder buy-in. They operate on slogans like ‘gravy train’ and ‘the war on the car’, ephemeral taglines designed to dismiss actionable, forward-thinking project like John St. and Yonge St. They threaten or axe projects not for policy but for political gamesmanship. 

******

But most of all, they operate without a vision. Miller wasn’t perfect, but unlike Ford he exhibited this quality. If Toronto is to have a vision during the Ford years, it will be led from the darkness by the wisdom of councillors and citizens who see the shortcomings in the administration’s outlook. Politicians are expected to be leaders, and the hallmark of leadership is the ability to see beyond.