MR. X: WHEN DID MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BECOME A TEAM SPORT

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE There is something very strange happening in Clarington's municipal election, and I think residents should be paying attention to it. When I was Mayor, there was an unwritten rule of municipal politics that I always thought made a great deal of sense: you stayed out of everybody else's election. You might privately hope that certain councillors were re-elected. You might have developed good working relationships with them. You might even consider some of them friends. But their election belonged to them and, more importantly, it belonged to the voters in their ward. You didn't need to be standing beside them at the doors. You didn't need to campaign as a team. You didn't need to tell residents that electing you meant they should elect your preferred councillors too. Why? Because after election day, you might have to work with whoever the public chose. That is democracy. Yet in Clarington today, we appear to be watching something quite different. Mayor Adrian Foster and a number of incumbent members of Council - with Councillor Corinna Traill notably outside that group - are openly supporting and campaigning alongside one another in a way that increasingly resembles a slate. And I think that raises an important question: When did municipal government become a team sport? YOUR COUNCILLOR SHOULD REPRESENT YOU - NOT THE MAYOR Municipal councillors aren't elected to represent the Mayor. They aren't elected to represent a political party. And they shouldn't be elected because they are part of somebody else's team. A ward councillor has one fundamental political responsibility: represent the people who elected them. Sometimes that means agreeing with the Mayor. Sometimes it means disagreeing with the Mayor. Sometimes it means being the only person at the Council table willing to say, "No." That independence is not a weakness in municipal government. It is one of its greatest strengths. So when incumbents begin campaigning together, endorsing one another, appearing together and effectively asking residents to return the team, voters are entitled to ask what exactly they are being asked to elect. Seven independent representatives? Or a voting bloc? WE DON'T NEED POLITICAL PARTIES WITHOUT THE PARTY NAMES I have written before about why I strongly oppose bringing partisan politics into municipal government. Municipal government works differently from Queen's Park and Parliament. There is no government side of the chamber and opposition side. There shouldn't be a party whip telling councillors how to vote. Each member is individually accountable to the people who elected them. That is precisely why the development of informal slates should concern us. You don't need to print a party name on the ballot to begin creating party-style politics. If candidates campaign together, endorse one another, promote one another and ask voters to elect the group, we are already moving toward the mentality of "our team versus their team." And that is exactly the wrong direction for municipal democracy. LET EVERY CANDIDATE EARN THEIR OWN VOTE If an incumbent councillor has done an outstanding job, they shouldn't need the Mayor standing beside them to get re-elected. Let them knock on the doors. 0Let them defend their record. Let them explain their votes. Let them tell residents what they accomplished during the last term and what they intend to accomplish during the next one. And then let the residents of that ward decide. The same applies to the Mayor.\ Run on your own record. Tell residents what you accomplished. Explain what you didn't accomplish. Defend the tax increases, spending decisions, development decisions and policies adopted during your term. Then ask the public for another mandate. That's how municipal elections should work. AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE ELECTION? There is another reason I always believed elected officials should be careful about interfering in one another's campaigns. You don't know who you're going to have to work with after election day. Suppose a Mayor openly campaigns against a challenger to an incumbent councillor. Then the challenger wins. Congratulations. You now have four years to work together. Municipal government requires cooperation between people who frequently disagree. Poisoning those relationships during an election for the sake of protecting an incumbent colleague may be politically convenient in September, but it can make governing considerably more difficult afterward. That's why the old approach made sense: Run your race. Let them run theirs. And respect the voters' decision. INDEPENDENCE MATTERS This isn't about whether politicians are allowed to have friends. Of course they are. It isn't about whether one candidate is legally permitted to endorse another. It is about something much more fundamental: What kind of municipal government do we want? I want councillors who can look a Mayor in the eye and say no. I want councillors who don't owe their election to somebody else's political machine. I want councillors whose first question is not, "What does the team want?" It should be: "What do the people I represent need?" Clarington residents should examine every candidate individually - incumbent or challenger. Look at their record. Look at their ideas. Look at their attendance. Look at how they voted. Look at whether your taxes went up or down. And most importantly, decide whether that individual deserves your vote. Municipal democracy works best when we elect independent representatives - not slates, factions or unofficial political parties. Because the moment municipal elections become about electing the team, we have taken another step toward the partisan municipal politics that Ontario has wisely avoided for generations. And once that door is opened, it may be very difficult to close.