Who’s Really Running Pickering? The CAO’s Growing Influence Overshadows Elected Officials

Who’s Really Running Pickering? The CAO’s Growing Influence Overshadows Elected Officials By Lisa Robinson In a democracy, elected officials represent the will of the people, shaping policies that reflect the community's priorities. But in Pickering, the real power seems to rest not with your elected representatives, but with the unelected Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and staff. This troubling shift raises serious concerns about who truly governs our city and whether the democratic process is being subverted. The CAO’s role is supposed to be administrative, not political—tasked with implementing the policies set by council. Yet in Pickering, the CAO appears to wield outsized influence, acting less like a public servant and more like the CEO of a private corporation, unaccountable to residents. Take the renovation of council chambers, for example. This multimillion-dollar project was driven almost entirely by staff, with the CAO steering the process. Out of three proposed designs, only one—the staff-preferred option—was presented to council for approval. This wasn’t a collaborative process; it was a blatant rubber-stamping exercise, designed to sideline elected officials while staff pushed their agenda unchecked. But the CAO’s influence extends far beyond renovations. Staff have increasingly dictated how council meetings are conducted, with an alarming number of discussions moved into “in-camera” sessions. These closed-door meetings are justified under the pretense of confidentiality but ultimately erode public trust. When councillors question these practices, they're met with dismissive excuses about "efficiency" or "privacy," leaving both council and residents in the dark. Now, the CAO and staff are pushing a new restructuring of council chambers that is as symbolic as it is concerning. The proposed schematic positions the mayor, the CAO, and the city clerk as the central figures the public directly faces during meetings, relegating elected councillors to the periphery. This setup mimics a courtroom rather than a welcoming community space, exuding an authoritarian “we’re in charge; you must obey” vibe. This change sends a chilling message: elected officials and residents alike are secondary to the unelected power players at City Hall. It doesn’t stop there. Staff appear to resent being challenged or questioned. They prefer motions to be run by them first—essentially seeking their blessing before council can even discuss them. If a councillor dares to question staff’s capabilities, catches them in a lie, or exposes their partial truths, the retaliation is swift and calculated: a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner, thinly veiled as a Code of Conduct breach. These complaints aren’t about maintaining decorum—they’re about silencing dissent and shielding staff from accountability. This growing pattern of staff overreach sends a clear message: it’s the CAO and their team—not elected officials—who are running Pickering. This subversion of roles reduces councillors to figureheads, there only for photo ops, while the bureaucracy tightens its grip on decision-making. It wasn’t long ago, shortly after being elected, that I encountered a moment that opened my eyes to just how tightly controlled and untransparent the leadership of Pickering can be. I had requested a report, paid for with taxpayers’ money, that focused on Durham’s nuclear power plant. This was a report commissioned by consultants—information that I believed should be accessible to both council and the public. The response to my request? A private meeting with the CAO. But when I arrived at her office, it wasn’t just the CAO waiting for me—it was also the city solicitor I believe. They informed me that the report had all of a sudden been “pink-papered,” a term I use that essentially means it was deemed so confidential that even discussing it openly was off the table. When I asked why, I was told because a new study was underway, and they didn’t want the results of this report released to the public. Asking why again, I was told that If the public saw the findings, they might disagree with them and use the information from that report to challenge the conclusions of the new study. Let that sink in. Taxpayer money was used to produce a report, and instead of transparency, they chose to bury it—specifically to control public perception and shield themselves from potential criticism. Need I say more? This is corruption in its purest form: secrecy, manipulation, and a lack of accountability to the people they are supposed to serve. It starts at the top, and I assure you, this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is not just frustrating; it’s undemocratic. Staff are meant to support council, not dictate terms. They are public servants, not policymakers. Yet in Pickering, the balance of power has shifted, leaving residents without the representation they deserve. “It has become nothing more than a game of follow the leader” but I refuse to be a follower. I will stand up for what’s right, even when others blindly go along with the agenda. At the end of the day, Pickering doesn’t belong to the bureaucrats in City Hall—it belongs to its residents. It’s time to stand up and remind everyone who works for whom.