‘Strong mayor’ model works for Winnipeg

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/02/2021 (1862 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Last year the City of Winnipeg hired the consulting firm MNP to conduct what was labelled a “governance review” of the structures and processes of city decision-making, including comparisons to leading practices in other Canadian cities. An interim report from the consultants was released in October, and the city is now staging virtual meetings on possible reforms.

The term “governance” is a popular buzzword used by management consultants to describe the formal structures and processes that promote the efficiency of corporations and, with increasing frequency, public institutions. Debating governance of the City of Winnipeg only in terms of structures and processes is too narrow.

In my discipline, the term governance is used more broadly to describe not only the formal authority, structures and processes of government, but also the informal web of external connections and interactions that constrain and shape, to some not easily measured extent, the policies and administrative actions of governments.

This broader view is concerned with efficiency, but more importantly with political representation in decision-making and public support for policies and administrative actions.

This broader perspective recognizes that the city is an increasingly important but relatively weak policy actor compared to the provincial and federal governments. As a consequence, streamlining managerial reforms will improve only marginally the capacity of the city to address major policy issues such as poverty, affordable housing, sprawl, climate change and matters related to taxing and spending.

The city operates under fundamental constraints. Legally, it is a creature of the provincial government. It relies mainly on property taxes to finance its operations. To undertake any major policy initiatives, it must approach senior levels of government to obtain support, which usually means money.

The mayor and other city officials must also manage a web of external political relationships with a wide range of outside actors, including the business community, the capital regional municipalities, several public-sector unions and numerous civil-society groups. To work effectively in this interconnected world requires strong, facilitative leadership.

There are many parts to the interim review report; the focus here will be on the political relationships between city council, executive policy committee (EPC) and the mayor. How these entities interact reflects both the laws that assign authority and the dynamic forces of politics on multiple levels. Over the past several decades, there has been a shift in thinking about the preferred model for these relationships.

Back in the 1980s, the main problem was seen to be the diffusion of authority on council, parochial behaviour by councillors and a lack of attention to and accountability for citywide problems. The response was to create a set of institutional relationships that are labelled the “strong mayor” model. That model granted the mayor several prerogatives, most significantly the authority to appoint councillors to EPC.

The goal was to create an identifiable, cohesive and accountable executive, headed by the mayor, who is the only member of council elected on a citywide basis.

Fast forward four decades, and critics — such as Couns. Kevin Klein and Janice Lukes — complain about the concentration of excessive power in the mayor’s office supported by a compliant EPC. Centralization of power, it is alleged, means that the non-EPC councillors are denied policy influence and are frustrated in representing their wards.

Many structural and procedural changes to disperse power are possible, but the most drastic would be the elimination of EPC so the mayor would no longer have a majority of councillors beholden to him for their place in the inner circle. This would require an amendment to the City of Winnipeg Charter, which the province controls.

Complaints about one-person rule at city hall are an exaggeration. The mayor is undoubtedly the most influential member of council; however, because he does not lead a disciplined political party, there are no automatic majorities for his legislative and spending proposals. Also, councillors represent diverse local communities, including “have” and “have less” parts of the city, so there are bound to be divisions even within EPC.

In my view, the city needs a strong core executive, led by a mayor who performs the roles of lawmaker, chief political executive, ceremonial head of city government and, perhaps most importantly, a skilled negotiator and collaborator in the joined-up world described above. A council in which power was widely dispersed would weaken the city in other arenas, reduce the coherence and consistency of its policies and result in blurred accountability for results.

The review might clarify roles and responsibilities. It might improve the EPC appointment process, for example by having full-council votes to confirm members. Procedural reforms could be considered to improve the flow of information so that councillors receive reports in a timelier manner.

None of this, however, would change the subordinate constitutional and financial status of the city. As for civic democracy, managerial reforms are not the answer to political problems that arise from social and political inequality.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba. He served as a member of the City of Winnipeg Act Review Committee (1986) and chaired the Capital Region Planning Committee (2003).