Leading mayoral candidate Mike Savage is failing to address the most important issue facing the city he wants to run.
A single tweet from mayoral candidate Mike Savage’s Twitter account (@MikeSavageHRM) has got me immensely worried about Halifax’s future. It reads: “Part of an appreciative crowd at a Tribute to Fred MacGillivray..put on by St. Pauls church. Fred & Joanne..great leaders.”
Fred MacGillivray is a former grocery chain executive who went on to become president of provincial crown corporation Trade Centre Limited, where he worked to grow the TCL empire. MacGillivray retired in 2009 with, in addition to his normal public employee pension, a supplemental pension recently valued at $1,000,821.
MacGillivray’s sins are multiple, but let’s talk about three.
First, the Commonwealth Games fiasco, marshalled by MacGillivray as chair of the Halifax 2014 Bid Committee. The committee burned through $8.5 million of public money (including $3 million from the city) mostly on overseas travel, hosting lavish dinners for foreign dignitaries and making “donations” that look a lot like bribes to Commonwealth Games Associations in the developing world.
Worse, MacGillivray and the bid committee were told to develop plans for a “right-sized Games” costing $785 million, but secretly drew up a Games plan costing over $2 billion. Only when the escalating costs leaked, did then-premier Rodney MacDonald abort the effort.
Second is the concert scandal, which has its roots in MacGillivray’s empire-building at TCL. As a report by city auditor general Larry Munroe explains, in 2006 MacGillivray, with no authority to do so, simply lifted the city-owned Metro Box Office, which sold tickets for Metro Centre events, and made it part of TCL. Munroe goes on to explain that the Metro Box Office bank account, a city-owned asset that was managed by TCL, was the conduit for the improper concert loans, an idea first put forward by MacGillivray’s successor, current TCL president Scott Ferguson, even though, as Munroe documented, Ferguson had been specifically warned by an auditor not to make such loans.
Munroe will soon publish a report looking in detail at the Metro Box Office issue—possibly even this week. I have no idea what the report will contain, but it will be one of the biggest firecracker issues facing the city council and mayor elected in October.
Third, in case no one has noticed, there’s a garbage-strewn, rat-infested pit in the exact centre of downtown Halifax, the supposed home of the new convention centre, which is MacGillivray’s wet dream, and was to be the feather in the cap of his TCL empire. Taxpayers are committed to paying $383.9 million over the next 25 years for the thing, if it ever gets built. My guess is that should developer Joe Ramia eventually move forward with the convention centre, he’ll come back to the three levels of government and ask for more money—probably right after the October city elections. Already, the city’s potential liability is unlimited—besides being obligated to pay $166.25 million towards construction and operation of the convention centre, the city will be responsible for half of its losses, up to infinity—but it’s possible that the city will be asked to be held accountable for infinity plus whatever more money Ramia demands, and Savage is a supporter of the convention centre—“I believe [the convention centre is] good for business & downtown. It’s time to get moving,” Savage recently told me via Twitter.
This is a small town. It doesn’t surprise me that Savage and MacGillivray are in the same social and church circles. I’m told that the MacGillivrays have contributed considerably to the church’s various charitable efforts, but it’s not particularly difficult for MacGillivray to be magnanimous when he’s collecting a $1 million bonus pension. More to the point, the current ethically disgraced mayor, Peter Kelly, is also big in the church circuit—that’s how the cynical get ahead in Nova Scotia.
The city’s troubled relationship with TCL will come front and centre, just after the election. And Savage, the presumptive next mayor, celebrates MacGillivray as a “great leader”—the man responsible for much of the city’s past and potential liability brought by TCL. This doesn’t bode well for the city treasury. Unless Savage strongly demands a new relationship with TCL, or one of his competitors gets traction with the issue, we’re doomed to more of the same-old ol’ boy governance we’ve had for decades. a
This article appears in Jun 21-27, 2012.
I’m not a math scholar, but how can a number be “Infinity plus”?
If you want to see what we’re in for if Michael Savage wins the election, follow him on twitter. One banal platitude after another. He hasn’t said one substantial thing since declaring.
This is what you get when you elect career politicians. why do we keep putting lawyers in office?
Tim you rock!! I love when you get ahold of stories and the “truth” comes out!! Honestly this doesn’t surprise me at all. They’re all together in my eyes (halifax career politicians). I believe that’s why PK chose not to run in the next election, because they have another career politician “puppet” (Savage) they are hoping to get in the mayor chair. Little do these circles of “politicking elite” realize. We the people, will not stand for it!! Citizens of HRM have their eyes wide open, they will never close again. I support Tom Martin for mayor. Way too many reasons to list, but accountability, honesty, and the fact that he’s NOT a politician are just a couple. It’s time for a change Halifax. Wake up people, let’s have a say in our own city and elect TOM MARTIN.
Why are the 3 party leaders backing Savage ?
I guess Tim, like many others, doesn’t think too much of Freddy and Fanny. Big spenders just like Fanny and Freddie across the border.
Just more old school politicking. I’m not even surprised to hear these things of Savage. But I guess if you want to elect someone who’s somehow both a tool for local developers AND a tool for the provincial gov’t, he’s your guy.
…though I’m not sure why in the world you would want to elect someone like that.
You’re right, we should expect to hear Mike come out demanding a new kind of relationship between HRM and TCL. But using his single tweet — from a community outreach charity event themed around MacGillivray’s work with those same chairty initiatives — as a launching pad to suggest he won’t do this is a little much.
I’d like to point out that the ‘guilty-by-association’ line of reasoning presupposes that it was wrong to try and bring the Commonwealth Games to Halifax, support/promote a new convention center, or for TCL to manage ticket sales for the Metro centre.
We know that there’s a group of people who didn’t support the convention center and the commonwealth games bid all along. Tim’s article is preaching to that group.
But, we also know that there’s another group that believes that pursuing the above initiatives is exactly what Halifax needs and support them enthusiastically. To this group, there’s no wrong-doing in promoting/supporting a convention center or pursuing things like the Commonwealth Games, and a Mayoral candidate who agrees with that will have their support. To this group, there is no ‘guilt’ involved in any of those endeavours, and associating with them is a plus, not a minus.
So, in the end, this is less about the “guilt” of Savage, and more about who you’re already going to support and what issues you believe a Mayoral candidate should support/oppose. The articles that Tim will be writing between now and elections will all have a predictable slant against Savage because we all know where Tim stands on the items that Savage and his supporters in HRM promote.
Apologies. I should disclose that I’m a volunteer on the Savage team, but that my opinions here are my own and don’t necessarily represent/reflect his campaign’s opinion/position on this discussion.
issmat – do you still believe spending money on the Commonwealth games was a good idea ?
The 2012 London Olympics is now in excess of $15,000,000,000,
And Mr Savage is playing peek-a-boo old style politics.
Yup. I did and do support the Commonwealth Games initiative. As the old saying goes: you have to spend money to make money. I don’t think Halifax should sit on its ass and wait for prosperity to come. We need leaders who are not afraid to pursue opportunities because they’re worried the public might bitch about it if they fail.
Of course, failure is part of the game. There is no such thing as a 100% batting average in life, business or sport. The trick is to keep hitting, and eventually your average improves. That’s why a lot of folks in HRM support attempts at “new hits”, and rally behind leaders who advocate them – whether it be new initiatives in sports, business, community development, entertainment, etc.
Having more transparency in government is needed, but that’s not the leadership Halifax needs right now, imo. That’s just a sound bite. Running on a platform of transparency and community engagement is nice, but how’s that going to create the economic improvement we need? How’s that going to bring more people to Halifax (or keep those who are here)? How’s that going to reduce taxes or increase income per capita?
How does reducing the number of in-camera meetings produce a hub for financial services in Halifax? How do we ’empower’ community councils to create Canada’s silicon valley?
It’s not ‘visionary’ to spend four years ‘leading’ HRM into achieving some independence for community councils so they can manage a nominal budget and decide on some district-related issues. One of the reasons Savage has such wide support across party and district lines is because he’s not peddling grassroot micromanagement as his ‘vision’ and platform. He’s more big picture, and that may not appease a lot of folks here, but it resonates strongly with other folks who want a Mayor who sees Halifax as more of a forest than a collection of trees.
We don’t need a mayor who’s going to swing at everything in “hopes” of getting a hit. We need an allstar batter that realizes he’s not swinging for himself. He’s swinging for whole team. And every time he steps up to bat, the bases are always loaded and the whole game is on the line with every swing. It’s our city, it’s our money, it’s our game, and our time to shine.
Hey Trish, I like Tom Martin too. I just like Mike better. If Mike wasn’t running, I’d support Tom.
As for the sports analogies, I’ll stop while I’m ahead. 🙂
I am concerned that the most outspoken supporters of Mr. Savage are communicating a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and powers of a mayor in a CAO- Council form of municipal government such as we have in HRM.
We don’t have a mayor like you see on TV, in the movies, books or comics. The role of mayor in our system is largely ceremonial. The mayor rides floats, cuts ribbons and goes to tea parties. The mayor chairs meetings of council in the same sense that a Speaker of the House chairs the legislature. The mayor does not hire or fire, he is not the boss of council, he is not their – or our – “leader”. The mayor does not set policy, have veto power or write cheques. He cannot decide any municipal matter, make or change any municipal law, policy or decision at any level independently. No one reports to the mayor except the Mayor’s assistant.
As stated in the Municipal Government Act and the mayor’s job description, the mayor may make suggestions to improve the municipality, but so can a girl guide… or any citizen for that matter. This is not a special power of the mayor.
Looking back over Mr. Kelly’s tenure it is clear that within these circumscribed bounds he was an exceptional and well-loved mayor (except for the time he hit me with the candy he was throwing from his parade float); without exception where Mr. Kelly got in trouble was when he stepped outside these circumscribed bounds whether it was with or without the sanction of council or the knowledge of the people.
Now it seems nothing was learned from all that. Mr. Savage’s supporters consistently, openly and in writing propose that he is the kind of “leader” who will work well outside the bounds circumscribed by provincial laws, behind the scenes, and with whatever powerful interests he chooses to further the “initiatives” decided on by some ordained elite who believe the path to economic prosperity for HRM (forget our responsibility toward the rest of Nova Scotia) is through the debt-fueled building of symbols of power like some lost tribe of Pacific Cargo Cultist.
Since Mr. Savage has said nothing at all to counter these claims we all are left in a vacuum and I’m worried that we’re asking for a new culture of political strongmen and headed out of the frying pan and in to the fire that probably looks a lot like the kinds of problems municipal governments around Montreal are facing in crisis proportions.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sto…
issmat – your first 2 paragraphs in that long reply sounds like the usual Chamber of Commerce nonsense.
And you ran out of cliches.
Sad and disturbing to think that you cling to the dream of massive spending, some $2 billion, on sports facilities which require higher taxes to cover operating expenses.
I don’t recall the Liberal party seeing him as a ‘big picture’ guy when he was sitting on the back row in the House of Commons and at the back of the pecking order way behind Regan, Brison and Cuzner.
Somehow you and his supporters seem to think that he is going to achieve what ACOA and previous provincial and federal governments have failed to achieve. He’ll revive the port – fat chance. He’ll lure business – no he won’t.
Ask him how he’ll fix the growing HRM pension plan deficit, if he or you are aware of it.
John Wesley – forget the Municipal Government Act. The HRM Charter is the applicable legislation. Other than that what you write is correct. A mayor is a a baby kissing ribbon cutter who proposes but the council disposes. The power lies in the seats below where the mayor sits.
It now seems like the new Convention Center will be abandoned. This should be formally announced before the October election so the new council and mayor don’t have to deal with this financial catastrophe in waiting. The allocated funds have been tied up for long enough. The developer should have to pay some sort of interest on this money while it is in limbo.
With regard to the role of mayor, the HRM charter repeats word for word in cut and paste style the description of the job of Mayor in amalgamated regions from the NS provincial Municipal Government Act.
… cause it’s the law.
John, your description of a mayor’s role is, of course, exactly accurate. But this is why leadership *is* an important trait in a mayor, not why it isn’t.
Whereas leadership is the ability to work from within as opposed to from on high, that’s exactly what is required to drive strategic results in a ‘weak mayor’ system — the ability to identify shared vision and close fissures, and to concentrate collaborative energies.
Regardless of the restrictions on the Mayor’s position in terms of executive power, can we agree that they apply to all Mayoral candidates? It then follows that within the scope of competition for the Mayor’s position, all candidates are making promises that are beyond the executive powers of the Mayor.
I believe that the candidates are not stupid, and that their articulation of their platforms and vision is a description of what they hope to achieve by utilizing all the tools at their disposal. Some of those tools reside within the Mayor’s office/mandate, and some reside within the individual (character, experience, vision, leadership, etc.).
With this in mind, I believe that the competition for the role of Mayor is focused in what the candidates can do over and above what the role officially allows for. All candidates are competing on this basis and you can see all their platforms promising actions that are beyond the official executive authority of the Mayor.
Given that all candidates are competing on the same basis, I’m not sure why Savage is being singled out here. I suppose it’s because he was/is in favour of the convention center, and we’ve already established that anyone who is against the convention center will oppose candidates who show favor to it, regardless of who the candidate is.
In the end, the vote count will determine the majority’s opinion on this matter.
joeblow – I’m sure you can see that any candidate who runs a campaign based on sentiments that are anti-Chamber, anti-TCL, anti-development, or anti-business… will get their ass handed to them on election day.
Voters in HRM are people who own businesses, work for businesses, shop at businesses and care about businesses. That’s not cliche, it’s reality. People also care about a whole lot of things unrelated to business, but they won’t vote for an anti-business candidate regardless of how much he/she crows about transparency, accountability or community.
Candidates have to play nice with everyone and balance the needs of HRM’s citizens and stakeholders. Businesses (large and small), and everyone in their orbit from the CEO to the janitor to the FedEx delivery truck driver, are a massive stakeholder and voting group in the city.
issmat – I don’t view the Chamber of Commerce as the voice of business in Metro. It is just another lobby group and social organisation. Most serious business people are too busy to attend or participate. If you think building empty office towers is progress I suggest relocation to China.
Metro is a small place and opportunities are limited, it has been that way for well over 100 years. The problem you and likeminded people face can be boiled down to one question – Why would a business choose Halifax or Nova Scotia over other places in N America and why are we so special ?
Hi Brendan,
You say the mayor must “work from within” to “concentrate collaborative energies”, “identify shared vision” and close fissures “to drive strategic results”. I really like you and what you are doing, so please take in the kindest way; that sounds a little jargony. Ismmat says it more simply, he wants to focus on “what the candidates can do over and above what the role officially allows for” (see below).
There is a real tension here. You are both proposing that your preferred candidate for mayor would be even more mischievous than Mr. Kelly at his darkest and that is somehow leadership and the path to a better city.
I’m working to get a discussion going to question that premise.
My position, as originally stated, is that the mayor under HRM’s system of government, is not the leader of anything and all of us who care about such things have got to get this message out there before more and worse damage is done.
If you are right, we would need to go to the Province and lobby to change our form of municipal government so that a strong mayor can do the things you want without being constantly off-side and in conflict with council and the CAO. Organizationally, the CAO would work for, and be a subordinate of the mayor, or the mayor could simply be the CAO. That would be a big change! Strong mayor government just like in the movies.
If you don’t want a strong mayor form of government (an I sincerely hope we don’t go that way) then we have to talk a lot more about the real and proper role of mayor in a Council-CAO run municipality and find candidates to fit that role… and we have to speak out against the supporters of any candidate (and unfortunately Mr. Savage supporters seem the most vociferous in this regard) who openly call on that candidate to subvert our legal system of government.
What we need in the mayor is the best float riding, candy throwing, ribbon-cutting, tea party attending socializer we can find who can chair those council meetings with a cheerful and positive tone that makes them a pleasure to attend. The mayor is the public face of the city, akin to the L.Governor’s role in the province. We need a candidate with charm, grace and character to symbolically reflect what Halifax is all about to the citizens, to Nova Scotia and to the world.
In the end, we’ll get the mayor we wish for. Let’s be careful.
This has been one of the most sensible and interesting threads I’ve read in awhile. Thank-you Issy, Joey, and John for bringing me to a new position on this mayoral matter.
Smee concludes – We don’t need a Mayor at all. What a waste of land owning tax payers hard taken money! All we need is a simple system to thwart a council tie vote.
So when a new Staples store opens – there will be an employee greeter at the door instead. I can live with that. We all save a buck!!
Demosthenes, I agree Mike is a tool. He was absolutely useless as an MP. His biggest claim to fame was seeing how far up the leader’s ass his nose could go. He did nothing for his riding. I know, I live there. I never voted for him and never will. He just wants to get his nose into the taxpayer’s trough again. People of HRM, do not fall for this guy. I thought no one could be worse than Peter but I may be wrong.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that the current official role of the Mayor is restricted in terms of executive powers. However, the ‘official’ role of Mayor is not what the candidates are competing on, and it’s not what people are using as the basis for selecting their candidate.
The entire race, and what people hope to achieve out of it, is anchored in the notion that Halifax needs to get ‘better’ (whichever way you define that), and that council is the main conduit for that. On the other hand, the only person on council who is elected by the entire city is the Mayor. Therefore, it’s easy to see why people look to the Mayor as someone who shoulders the moral authority to represent the will of the public at council, and not simply be a tea-partying, candy-throwing, gavel-pounding jester for the people.
However, as jwc points out, moral authority doesn’t necessarily translate into executive authority in our system of municipal government, and that’s a shame. But, without a change in the Municipal Charter that awards the Mayor executive powers, the only other thing the Mayor can use to make things ‘better’ is to wield the pulpit and lean on his/her public mandate to lead, inspire, negotiate, communicate and otherwise cajole groups within his sphere of influence.
There’s nothing in the Charter that says a Mayor can’t do the above, just like there’s nothing in the Charter that says a Mayor has to attend tea parties at retirement homes. Every Mayor takes the role definition and finds space within it to work on the agenda he/she believes they’re responsible for. And that agenda is largely informed by the public, given that the Mayor is elected at-large.
If that’s not the case, and the intent of the Charter is to establish a mere ceremonial Mayor, then why even have a Mayoral election, let alone an election at-large for this position? Why is the entire citizenry of HRM asked to vote for this person, when they can simply be appointed (like the Governor General) by the Province, or elected internally within council with just councilors voting to appoint one of their own as Chair?
I contend with the idea that the intent of the Mayoral position is merely ceremonial, despite the limited authority awarded to the position by the charter. That’s mainly where I disagree with jwc. I believe the intent of the role lies more within the mandate for the position to be elected at-large, and less within the description of the role in the charter.
There are two simple questions for him to answer.
1) would he have resigned as an MP to run as Mayor?
2) Will he agree to never resign during an active term as Mayor to seek higher office again?
issmat – you pose the question ‘why elect a mayor with no power’.
Because it is the Canadian answer to not being perceived as the same as a mayor in the USA (powerful) and not being perceived as an ornament as in Britain where party politics is the rule and a new mayor is chosen by her/his colleagues each year. Except that Labour and Tory governments have allowed parts of Britain to have a powerful elected mayor or a not so powerful elected mayor, and the present government has moved to copying the US and will have elections for a civilian Police Commisioner in several districts – http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/06/18/…
A Canadian mayor is a classic Canadian ‘compromise’ because Canada didn’t want to adopt a completely colonial system of municipal government and also didn’t want the Yankee style and so we sit in the middle or in no-mans-land.
The Mayor only has the power of the ‘pulpit’ if councillors allow it. Quite possible for a well spoken and thoughtful councillor to push a different agenda through the use of the committee structure.
The cost of the Mayor’s office should be cut back, his staff are really just a campaign team paid by the taxpayer and always thinking of ways to garner publicity and make the Mayor look good. He ain’t the PM and he ain’t the premier.
I’m actually with you Issmat on the highflying stuff, I just think we need to find it in our council and more importantly in ourselves and not look to a ceremonial mayor to twist the system and save us.
I keep seeing this thread of engaged folks mistaking the symbol for the thing its intended to symbolize.
It’s a confusing situation because some of those calling loudest for change—shouting down and ghettoizing anyone with a dissenting opinion—are the ones most committed to old behaviors, old ideas, and out-of-date business practices. They are either too slow or too self-interested to change. The change they call for is actually more of the same, repeated since the sixties. The quick fix, easy-way solutions: the new malls, commuter suburbs, taller buildings, call centres and hedge funds, convention centres, the low populist leisure economy dream (that somehow more sports facilities will create new wealth), and all their attendant amalgamated agencies, boards and commissions—more politics and more government—are too old-school mediocre to bear. These ideas, and the hawkers, pitchman and persuaders who trade in them, don’t represent real change. Why can’t we see past them?
What does real change look like from the mayor’s office? Look at some places that have changed.
The small city of Palo Alto might be a good start—it went from sleepy town to the capital city of Silicon Valley in a generation. This is where Steve Jobs lived. Great cities attract ambitious people. You can feel change on the street. The city says, “you should try harder, you can do more.”
We need to become a place where individuals come to reinvent themselves and create new ideas, new products, new wealth and prosperity. Ambition comes unassembled. It’s about new ideas and constant change. It can’t be bought prepackaged. And it can’t be generated by government.
It has to be ambitious vision that animates this community through work and creativity. Not in the mayor, but in ourselves. Creativity is a start-up that leaves the luxuries and leisure facilities for later. Great cities send ambitious messages. It seems a simple matter to consider what they look and sound like from Palo Alto to Paris and adopt their good attributes.
Great cities’ messages are clear: live better (Seattle), be beautiful (L.A.), be smarter (Boston), have more class (London), be more powerful (Toronto), creative (Paris) or wealthy (New York). The city is like an encouraging audience—it should inspire great performance—it should inspire ambition. We need to do that. We need to inspire. The city needs to inspire. Not the government. We need to work out our message and a new mayor can help share the message once we’ve decided, but the mayor is not the leader—the mayor is not the message. The mayor represents the message of the city. The government is not the city. The citizens are the city incarnate. We can’t wait for government, mayors or developers to lead. We have to send them the message and tell them what to do.
In his own way, I think this is what Mr. Kelly was telling us all along. He was who he was because he reflected us. The mayor is emblematic of the city in all its monstrous glory.
Amalgamation systematized the old ways and turned Halifax into an ungovernable unambitious city, serving neither the suburbs, the outlying towns and villages, nor the downtown core, all of which once had ambitions greater than now. Over many years it turned the mayor into what he became.
I think that you are on the right track – we are wasting time voting on a mayor… and maybe we’re messing things up.
In Palo Alto, home of many smarty-pants folks, the mayor and deputy mayor terms are for one year and expire at the first meeting in January. At that time the council will elect one of its members mayor and one deputy mayor to preside for the following year. Councilors are elected for four-year terms and they use a council – manager form of government, just like us. This would be a good place to start to change and each spring the new mayor could host a State of The City conference about where we are—and who we are—soliciting ideas to shape the city’s future in an Idea Bank and learning how to communicate our message.
Will Bedford or Elmsdale become the next Palo Alto? Maybe. It starts with grasping the current opportunity for change in the mayor’s seat and using it to improve ourselves.
This piece by Tim Bousquet consists mostly of “guilt by association”. The fact that Savage and MacGillvray travel in some of the same social and church circles is next to meaningless.
As for Mike Savage supporting the Convention Centre (see http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publicati… for my analysis of this proposed development), this is hardly surprising. Most federal, provincial, and municipal politicians (with a few conspicuous exceptions) either do or else carefully hedge their bets.
Either way, in my view there is increasing doubt as to whether Joe Ramia will be able to find the financing for the Nova Centre (recall that the financial terms are such that he has to build the whole project together, not just the Convention Center and other bits piecemeal). The project is based around Ramia’s fantasy financial tower, always a dubious proposition in my estimation, but with financial uncertainty sweeping the globe, and this apt to get substantially worse before it gets better, the chances of being able pulling this off in Halifax are (in my view) miniscule and getting smaller.
Bousquet is correct in pointing that a new relationship between city hall and Trade Centre Limited is required if we are to avoid “ol’ boy governance” in the future. MacGillivray, however, is (as Bousquet points out) now retired from TCL, so the relevance of Bousquet’s article is this regard is tenuous at best, and more probably non-existent.
Thanks Chris,
Your report on the Convention Centre was an amazing piece of work. Really solid.
It’s been a couple years now. Has any level of government hoisted it in? Are there any signs that the governments might place any conditions on their support of the CC scheme?
In spite of a little chatter in the last week, it does look more and more like the CC scheme is dead, but will the three levels of government ever formally announce some sort of end date to put it to rest? Or is there some price beyond which they will not pay?
We really did Haywood Saunders a disservice. He was handing us solid gold advice and people in government were just awful to him.
“… a large volume of related research suggest that the future of a city rests on its investment in education and human capital, as well as basic city services, rather than in the sole development of a tourist wonderland.”
With regard to the connections Tim B. suggests, I understand that you’re staying above drawing such lines. It presupposes that there could possibly be a kind of systemic corruption and influence pedaling in our community. No one wants to think that. But we need look no further than the nearest major city – Montreal and its attendant boroughs – to see that municipal politics, bureaucracy and the construction industry is a dangerous cocktail that must be monitored very closely. There is a lot of room and incentive for things to go astray.
Chris – you write in your CCPA analysis ‘ ..Here is an illustration of what could be considered to bolster the business case for a new convention centre. Projects such as the Legacy Centre for the performing arts, a home venue for the Atlantic Film Festival,and proposals for a large symphony / ballet / music / performing arts venue could be combined under a single roof to create a full-featured provincial centre for the performing arts. Based on estimates and unpublished information, this would entail an investment of about $32 million..’
Looks like a typo to me.
The new Neptune Theatre cost $12 million in the mid 1990s. A large centre for a symphony and ballet would require 2 seperate spaces, the two are not compatible and the new Library is budgeted at $55 million. I estimate an arts centre at least $300 million or an orchestral hall at least $75 million.
The Ramia proposal is in limbo and one of his potential tenants, Admiral Insurance, has taken space in the renovated space previously occupied by The Bay.
I suggest the hotels build and operate the convention centre and an annual subsidy from the public sector. The hotels jack up room rates during large events and in Halifax the hotels are very profitable compared with other cities.
Are you still talking about the convention centre…time to move on to more important matters…
here’s a news tip…your readership has declined 23%…maybe it’s your juvenile attempt at a story line…time to move on to more important matters…the convention centre has gone through….time to bitch about something else…to paint Savage as the same is sweeping and
somewhat unfair….if you or anyone can do better,please run in the next election and aspouse us with your brilliant knowledge.
Hi John,
Many thanks. In terms of the CCPA study on the economics of the convention center: a large number of people read the study (2,143 when I last looked at the URL hits) and I know there was lots of chatter about it in the municipal and provincial governments, but in terms of anything formal from any level of government, the silence has been deafening.
The ball is in Ramia’s court. If he’s not able to put together the financing for the Nova Centre in total, then the Convention Center proposal is a dead duck. I’m not sure if there is a “best before” date in any of the agreements with any level of government, but enough time has now gone by that most people agree that even if Ramia decides he can proceed, it’s likely that he would have to go back to at least the city (and maybe the province too) with revised cost estimates.
Bill Estabrooks (the lead provincial cheerleader on this file) is no longer the Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether Maurice Smith (the new Minister) would look at this project any differently. Also, after October 20th there will be a new mayor and HRM council, so lots depends on who is at the table at that point.
Cheers!
Chris
Thanks jwc, I don’t take the discussion as offensive, surely. If I’ve come across as jargony or as reciting “spin”, I appreciate being called on it — I abhor it as much as the next guy.
The discussion around the role of the mayor is a worthy one.
In Peter Kelly’s darkest times, he acted illegally — that is, he pursued actions that were literally against policy, procedure, and in some cases, possibly law.
What I am looking for is a mayor who can understand the aspirations of the community, articulate them, and work with the necessary groups and Council to pass the bylaws, form the partnerships, and meet the deadlines to make those aspirations reality. Because the mayor does not have specific regional interests (that is, “my potholes versus your potholes” in a district versus district sort of way), he or she is best suited to work with the various stakeholders to pick away at some coherent collective objectives.
When I talk about leadership, this is what I’m talking about — not brokering deals outside of the mayor’s authority, but getting the people and groups onside who need to be onside so that we can at least be pointing in one direction.
I think the position of Mayor is an important one. Yes, it is mostly ceremonial, but it is also the public face of the city. The mayor represents the city to the world, and to itself. A bad mayor can make the city look like a joke (I’m looking at you Rob Ford), and a good mayor can inspire council and the residents of the city to want better, and to do better.
A few posters here have suggested switching to a system where the mayor is elected by hir peers. That system exists in many NS municipalities. Instead of “Mayor”, you get “Warden”. I’ve had some experience with it, and I’m not convinced it’s a good system. As I said, the mayor has a huge role to play as the face of the city. Wardens end up also playing that role, except they weren’t elected by all residents so they don’t necessarily present a collective face to the world. There are potential benefits in that councillors could in theory elect a warden who they believe would lead them well in meetings, but in my experience you just get one clique of councillors electing a warden who marginalizes other councillors. At least a mayor isn’t beholden to hir peers.
As for what HRM needs: we need to get out of this adversarial mindset between Districts. And that “we” includes the Mayor, Councillors, and the residents who elect them. HRM will fail to realize its full potential until we stop squabbling over the little stuff and start looking at the big picture. We need to stop electing our councillors because they got the pothole on our street fixed and start electing them because they improved the quality of life for all of HRM. We need to stop obstructing things like a Bedford fast ferry on the grounds that, “it will only benefit the rich Bedfordites”, and realize that efficient movement of people benefits us all through reduced traffic, reduced demand for parking, and a more efficient economy. This is just one example.
And JWC: ever think about running for Council? Seriously. Just don’t do it in the South End so that voters aren’t forced to choose between you and Waye Mason.
On the HRM website you can find the mayor’s job description:
Role of the Mayor
Section 15 of the Municipal Government Act reads:
The mayor or warden may
(a) monitor the administration and government of the municipality; and
(b) communicate such information and recommend such measures to the council as will improve the finances, administration and government of the municipality.
Now, when I first saw this, I thought it was like a summary. A brief. It’s not. That’s the whole thing. Well not quite. Notice the reference to the Municipal Government Act. That’s the Act of the Provincial Government that empowers mayors to work in Nova Scotia. Our MGA was substantially reformed in 1996 to be effectively an amalgamation-making machine. It makes law that all regional municipalities will hire a CAO. It goes on to say that:
“15 (1) The mayor or warden shall preside at all meetings of the council.
(2) During the temporary absence of the mayor or warden, the deputy mayor or deputy warden shall preside and, if neither is present, the council may appoint a person to preside from among the council members present.”
I don’t know why that’s not on the mayor’s website, because that seems to be the core of it. Maybe it’s left out because it makes the whole thing seem totally trivial, but surely there’s other stuff missing, too.
The MGA also outlines How to get rid of a Mayor. That’s sounds like a heading from a spell book, but it doesn’t require any witchcraft. It’s shockingly simple and reveals who really butters the corn.
The process to get rid of a mayor is simply that a majority of council pass a resolution to ask the Minister to declare the Mayor’s position vacant.
It can be left vacant until such a time that municipal election is held to fill the seat.
Some of the most rancorous discussions I’ve had about politics in HRM are talking to engaged citizens, even candidates, about the job of mayor. After I offer the facts, as above, they insist that there is another type of power at play in the city. Conspiracy buffs take note. The mayor, they say, can influence public opinion, get new issues on the table, control the agenda and generally use his position to broker power behind the scenes. The mayor, they believe, really does run the city, and whether it’s in the job description or not, he is responsible, or…at least, in control. Put another way; whoever controls the mayor, controls the city.
Is everything under control?
There, I think, is the biggest organizational problem the city has faced since amalgamation. There really does have to be a job description that captures the whole of the mayor’s job. If the council sets policy and we’ve hired a very expensive CAO to ensure that the civil servants carry out that policy in a business-like way, and the citizens expect accountability, it is very difficult to see a place for a mayoral gremlin in the works, empowered only by informal backroom dealings and misunderstanding. And that will be true no matter who gets to sit in the chair.
The word that I’m looking for in the Mayor’s job description is RESPONSIBLE. Everybody who has had a job has likely been responsible for something, but as it currently stands, the word responsible is not in the mayor’s job description.
Doesn’t that seem strange?
Our expectations are messed up. But every citizen needs to deeply understand what the job is before they vote for mayor. And that understanding has to be shared across the community.
If we think we may be expecting a new kind of mayor, we better get that checked out.
Thanks for the note hipp5.
What I’m trying to do is improve myself and be a better citizen. I’ve got a long way to go but I think being a good citizen starts with working to be more informed and having the courage to speak out where conscience compels.
Where some folks are seeing a crisis of leadership, I’m seeing a crisis of citizenship. Yes, we need a few good leaders, but if voter turn out is an indication, what we’re really short on is a lot of good followers.
So I’m not running for office or joining a political party or advocacy group or Occupy or working on any boards or commissions or anything. I’m just having a go at standing alone, getting up to speed on issues where I don’t have a pecuniary interest and saying what I think as a disinterested citizen. Speaking out without freaking out.
I can tell you that so far (I’ve been at it consciously for about 5 years) it is feeling very rewarding. Frustrating and lonely at turns, and it does take a certain amount of courage to put one’s name to things (like these comment sections) but it’s very rewarding. Particularly getting to meet and talk with smart interesting people like Tim, Issmat, Brenden and Chris.