Mayor’s clean-up falling short

Two years of maddening contradictions — that’s Toronto under Mayor David Miller.

Neither a reign of error, nor, as yet, a time of terror, despite heightened gunplay, the Miller years have been more a time of half- steps than missteps. The head- scratching police labour dispute, about to end, is a perfect example of life in the new order.

Miller takes his time getting on the police services board, avoiding direct responsibility for the bloody beheading of former police chief Julian Fantino. But he doesn’t escape the labour dispute. He unleashes his pit bull Pam McConnell to stand up to the police association, absorbs criticism he’s tough on cops and soft on crime, and then meekly surrenders to the union contract demands he could have accepted without the political damage. As such, the police contract dispute is a metaphor for civic life under Miller, two years today since he scored a thrilling election victory over the most accomplished field of candidates in memory. So much was anticipated; so much remains to be done. So often a spark is lit; so often it is extinguished. For example: ‰ Miller insists on chairing the waterfront revitalization corporation so he can get “ shovels in the ground” before the end of the year. Instead, he had to settle for just a seat. And instead of clearing a path for waterfront revitalization he has muddied the water and delayed the projects even further. ‰ He has introduced noteworthy long-term crime-fighting

strategies, built around jobs for disadvantaged neighbourhoods. But he hasn’t sold them adequately to the business sector. ‰ He’s calm and measured on the crime file, but doesn’t seem to grasp the need for tough, immediate measures to clean up situations that are out of control and create a culture of fear in some neighbourhoods. ‰ He stopped the bridge to the island airport. Now, the port authority is looking at improving ferry service to the airport, a move that is intended to accomplish the same goal: a viable airport on Toronto islands. ‰ The master plan to renovate Union Station could crumble soon, following years of sniping and furor over the awarding of the contract to a private firm. Miller has said he thinks the deal is clean, but has done little to promote that idea or move the project along. Now, the private business partners could walk away, leaving the valuable asset at risk and open to another lengthy study and talks, even as the backlog of repairs grows. Whenever something is accomplished — see the soccer stadium deal at Exhibition Place — it stumbles out in haphazard fashion, as if by mistake. The above paints the picture of a leadfooted politician, not suitably briefed, not on top of the file, unprepared and poorly advised. The picture is at odds with the man because he is bright, articulate, focused and capable.

Miller allies like to ask, “ What could he have done differently? He’s faced with circumstances out of his control.”

Yes. And that won’t change. It’s how you manage them. At the best of times, the mayor’s job encompasses issues that come in rapid- fire succession. You need a high- powered office and a crackerjack chief of staff to stretch the mayor’s mind and drive policy through the bureaucracy. The collegial, ward- office mentality that seems to dominate Miller’s modus operandi is damaging, short- sighted and severely hampers his ability to function as a big- city mayor. One example: When a powerful alliance of business, education and political leaders launched an ambitious plan to make the Toronto region a leading scientific research centre, not only was Miller absent, no one represented the city — though the premier and MPs made it.

In fact, discussions droned on for more than a year on whether Miller would sit on the board with bank, hospital and university presidents in the Golden Horseshoe. First the city balked at the $50,000 fee, though Markham managed to find it. And when the fee was waived, the mayor’s office still failed to respond in time for the city to be included in the launch brochure as a participant.

Probably the most disappointing and potentially disrupting element of Miller’s two- year reign is the devastation of the civil service, in the wake of constant revelation of corruption and scandals.

At the most senior levels of the city’s bureaucracy, there are serious concerns about staff morale. City manager Shirley Hoy, buffeted on every side, is a picture of dejection — befuddled and distressed over what to do to stem the flow of bad news, despite scores of policy changes over the past four years. Some blame Hoy and she has said she will leave if she has lost the confidence of her senior staff.

Miller sticks by Hoy. But city hall sources say he has been casting about, worried about the poor morale — in the wake of the scandals in the licensing department and the firing of executive director Pam Coburn and her “soul mate” and second- in- command married father of three, Joe Carnevale. On election night, Miller held high his broom and said he would padlock the back doors of city hall and, in effect, clean out the rot. The image he and his supporters painted — leading to and during the campaign — was a city hall dominated by Mel Lastman and his North York mafia.

Voters expected that with Lastman gone and Miller in place, troubles would be over. Not so.

For one, the characterization was political and overstated. The culture of cronyism is well- grounded in all former municipalities, not just North York. Secondly, any “ clean- up” is bound to sweep out good and honourable workers, adding to the disruption and despair. Finally, once you say a system is corrupt, the fallout can be ugly.

Then, his reaction to two issues has raised eyebrows. First, he endorsed councillors writing letters of support for their relatives, a clear support of nepotism. Then, stunningly, he’s fallen into bed with Conservative bagman Ralph Lean. No fundraiser more symbolizes the old guard crony than lawyer Lean. He is so tied in to the past that mayoral candidate John Tory, now leader of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party, wouldn’t accept his considerable fundraising help in the 2003 municipal election, won by Miller. We know why Lean is backing Miller. He wants access to the big man in the big house on Queen St. He’s been on the outs for three years. He needs to be able to name drop to his clients.

Miller? Instead of rejecting the old politics and personalities he excoriated not long ago, Miller embraces them for political expedience.

All the above are details, the nitty gritty of everyday city hall life, the reason why you have this unease about the mayor most of you want to love.

“ I’d give him a C,” says Councillor Brian Ashton, a Miller ally on city council, but one outside the NDP, sycophant camp. “ To get to a “ B” he would have to handle the police file better and get our fiscal house in order. And to get an A, I have to be inspired. He hasn’t captured our imagination with something different, something new, something arresting.” And with 2006 being an election year, history tells us to expect 12 months of campaign palaver, not inspiration. It adds up to a wasted term. Royson James usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email: rjames@thestar.