Council Snack (sized news)- Photoshop Edition

Reddit had lots of fun with its Ford photoshop challenge. 

City Hall may have banned council snacks for its elected officials, but that doesn't mean us plebians should suffer. So here are your City Hall (news) snacks for Day 2 of the November session:


The big news of the day is the information coming out on the previously announced layoffs. Sue-Ann Levy feels the elimination of 2,338 positions including 1,190 firings is overdue, citing the struggles in the auto sector and media over the past few years as a parallel. If you follow that logic, you probably don't read this blog anyway. For bonus fun, see if you can find the glaring error/typo in her article (which has been part of the article for far too long). 


These layoffs and vacancies will have a direct impact on service and that's particularly bad for a mayor who has promised to improve 'customer service' so much. When they change the dispatch target times for emergency personnel and have a looming crisis with a firefighter shortage you're prioritizing your numbers over reality (more on this later).


Now also might be a useful time to remind Rob Ford of his campaign promise for no layoffs. 


In response, Adam Vaughan said these cuts are entirely avoidable and represent voodoo economics being driven not by reality but ideology. 


The other big news of the day was the proposal for a private-public partnership on the Eglinton crosstown LRT. There would be no problem for that on the construction side, but this includes looking at the operational side too. That is, that a private company would run the Eglinton line while the TTC would be publicly run. This sounds like it would have a lot of problems (Same pricing? Tickets? How to transfer? What about standards for employees?) It might also be worth mentioning that Ford's top strategist and policy adviser argued on his personal blog during the campaign to sell the TTC entirely.


Late last night the Toronto Star's chairman announced via an editorial that the paper intends to lodge a complaint with the integrity commissioner for the mayor's refusal to include them on press briefings and notifications of conferences. As they should. The administration's Star freezeout is juvenile, embarrassing and wrong. In spite of this, the Star provides the best coverage of City Hall of the four dailies and good on them for it. 


At council there were some key items. Most notable was a late-night vote to sell Enwave, which passed handily. It's a profitable city-owned enterprise but it makes sense to sell it. It's well positioned for growth but is under-capitalized, making it a good opportunity for an outside investor. Additionally, further expansion could help with providing strong environmental options for downtown tower energy use. The debate for Toronto Hydro is a different story and that will come up in January. 


There was debate on the city's naming rights policy and there are significant changes to it. Most importantly, city staff have discretion for naming rights on contracts up to $500,000 whereas previously it was a tenth of that, $50,000. Little to no naming rights go for more than $500,000 so it looked like it was intended to be a way for the Mayor's office to take power from council by having 'staff' make all the decisions. 


But a motion from Paul Ainslie nixed that and likely unintentionally. His motion expands the policy to city agencies, boards and committees, meaning that they will eventually go to Council. We all know from Ainslie's Twitter account how much he loves corporate ads, so this has to be unintentional. But there were some bad items too. Adam Vaughan motions to not sell sponsorship targeted towards children (a position Public Health supports) and not selling naming rights on heritage properties both failed. 


Mary Margaret McMahon's motion to allow backyard hens was referred to the Licensing and Standards Committee meeting on January 25, where I'm guessing it will be voted down. Twitter produced many successful puns on the subject though.


Council also voted to support sideguards on trucks in principle. I say in principle because they have no authority on this. Rob Ford was one of three votes against. Ford was also one of three votes against another Lawrence Heights project vote. 


My vote for worst vote of the day goes to Denzil Minnan-Wong, who was the sole vote against receiving a petition from 20,000 people in support of arts funding. Voting against receiving a petition? What the fuck is that? 


I don't really give many hat tips to Speakers Frances Nunziata and John Parker because they have been aggressively partisan in their rulings and the former consistently loses control and or track of the meeting. But both rightly admonished Ford ally Giorgio Mammoliti for abusing points of order and unfairly berating staff for not producing a document on short notice (Layton was criticized for this yesterday). So good on them. 


And good on Giorgio Mammoliti (weird sentence is weird). After a couple councillors, particularly Gloria Lindsay Luby, worried that some street names might be 'too ethnic' for people to pronounce, Mammoliti hammered this argument. To paraphrase, he argued: This is who we are and if these people are part of our history then they deserve to be represented. Have trouble pronouncing their names? Then learn them. Failing that is a slap in the face to immigrants. 


I don't get to write this much so I will- right on, Giorgio.  


I don't follow the theatre community, but I'm told a big-name producer was in attendance this morning and is looking at doing a production based on City Hall, which is great theatre in and of itself. It sounds good if this is better than the reportedly lousy fringe plays produced on Ford this past summer. Goldsbie, Nicholas Hune-Brown and Cityslikr are all much bigger theatre buffs than myself and seemed excited.


Over at Reddit, the hivemind went to work on photoshopping our Worship in a thread that has more than 500 comments and the results are pretty great. I posted my favourites on Twitter, but here they are again. 

Taking on Mike Del Grande's Message

Photo by Christopher Drost/Torontoist

In today's Sun, Mike Del Grande guest-writes a column that's very critical of the CBC and Toronto Star. He essentially accuses them of agenda-based character assassination against the mayor. Those are strong accusations to print, so they deserve a close and thorough look. In that vein, I'll look at some key passages in Del Grande's article:

“If you cannot derail the message, derail the messenger.” That is the essence of the continuing harassment of Mayor Rob Ford by certain journalists and media outlets in this city.

 Del Grande begins his article with an ironic argument. After all, he's attacking the messengers in the media, the CBC and Toronto Star, that he deems are unfairly critical. Presumably this is because members of the CBC and Star  cannot adequately and fairly criticize the policies of the Ford administration, but this hardly seems to be the case. It is true that these outlets have gone after Ford, but they have gone after him for inconsistency in statements or genuine concerns over the direction of the city. 

Ford said he was alarmed and concerned for his young child, whom he was taking to school, so he called 911.Many in the media ignored the fact someone showed up at the mayor’s home, uninvited, invading his personal space.  

Del Grande has a fair point here, that This Hour Has 22 Minutes showing up on Ford's driveway was crossing a line most people would deem unacceptable. Initially, this was in fact the story, with political science professor Nelson Wiseman saying that Ford should get (and deserves) a lot of sympathy for the incident. 


However, when more details about the incident emerged it became not about THH22M going after Ford, but the honesty and judgment Ford used in dealing with the situation. As the Star pointed out on its front page, Ford's statements about his daughter 'retreating into the house,' it being 'dark outside,' and the number of 911 calls placed were all either inconsistent or wrong. To be fair, THH22M's claim that they were at the edge of Ford's driveway was also incorrect. 


As Edward Keenan points out, Ford's false initial claim, and subsequent pseudo-apology and re-positioning are part of a pattern for him, and that's a problem that deserves investigation, including from the CBC and Star.  

The media have a responsibility to act with integrity and professionalism, which some media tend to forget.Let me remind them: They’re supposed to have standards for factual, accurate reporting.

Del Grande is also correct that media must act with integrity and professionalism as it's fair and not doing so could erode the public trust placed in the important institution. That statement goes equally for politicians, including Rob Ford. He and his administration have not shown a good track record for the truth. Politicians deserve to be called on this; it's part of the job and strengthens our discourse. 


As for acting with integrity and professionalism, I would suggest that Giorgio Mammoliti setting up a Facebook page and filtering out 'communist' voices is unprofessional and the administration's cavalier attitude with the truth lacks integrity. 

Often, when I’m interviewed by the media — and here I would single out papers like the Toronto Star — there is an obvious “agenda” indicated in the questions.  

I can think of another newspaper which would be an excellent candidate for this statement.

Many people believe if something is reported in the media, it must be true. Many continue to believe it even when it is shown to be false.What people often don’t realize is, even when proved wrong, the media are reluctant to say, “We made a mistake”.  

Del Grande is right here, and it certainly is a problem. For both the media and politicians, what gets repeated most often becomes the truth regardless of whether or not it is true. 

The media should take more responsibility and admit its mistakes, in particular the CBC who really, really goofed on this story. But don't single out critics for that standard. The Sun, publishing this article, should be held to that standard too. But they just dropped out of the Ontario Press Council which ensures members adhere to proper standards and procedures. 

Politicians should apply this standard to themselves too. That means when a phony, fear-mongering 34% property tax number floats that you know won't apply, you say so. 

After citing waste as the electorate's motivation for choosing Ford, Del Grande writes:

Apparently they [the Star and CBC] cannot stand to think changes in the way City Hall operates are imminent, and they will do all they can, not to offer any alternative, but to derail them, simply for the pleasure of saying, “I told you so”.

Here Del Grande connects the motivation for critical attention from the CBC and Star as them wanting the 'waste' at City Hall to continue. He doesn't provide any supporting evidence for this rather important claim, instead letting it sit as an essentially personal broadside that runs counter to his article's stated intent. 


The CBC doesn't have as much a presence at City Hall (although Metro Morning does a great job), but the Star does. Between David Rider, Daniel Dale, Paul Moloney, Robyn Doolittle and Royson James (although I have my quibbles with the latter) they do a great job. Regardless of the Star's editorial bent, they are thorough and follow-up, even on the smallest stories. 


Yet the response from the Ford camp hasn't been to address their questions, but to freeze out the Star, as Goldsbie provides the context here. Just yesterday at Executive, a motion came forward to ensure fairness to all media outlets at City Hall. The motion was ostensibly designed to ensure the Star is treated with the same standards and fairness as all other outlets. Not in terms of tips and leaks, mind you- that's fair game to give preferences- but in terms of informing the media on basic facts. 


The motion was unanimously deferred, ensuring that we will not hear from it again. 


There are many genuine, substantive reasons to have disagreements with the Ford administration. People are going to disagree on arguments, and they're going to disagree on which facts are most appropriate. Criticism of this sort is good. 


If there are problems with their facts and arguments, then get into that. Simply dismissing something as, 'oh, it's the CBC or Star' is tantamount to saying, 'oh, it's Rob Ford and he's an oaf'. Both arguments are reductionist and unfair. 


If you want to discuss the message, then show leadership, own up to your flaws as the CBC should to theirs. Standards and principles apply to everyone, not just critics.