A politician should have to serve for a full term unless death or unlawful activity cuts short the career.

If you run for a four-year term, you serve a four-year term, or until the next election is called.  That’s your obligation as a candidate, what you signed on for when you ‘answered the ad.’  Let’s just say it’s in the fine print in your contract with the voter. 

Politicians like former MPP, now PM Justin Trudeau's patronage appointee, Eric Hoskins, who leave mid-term for their own convenience or opportunism, lay open seats to be filled in costly by-elections.

That’s an expensive exit strategy!  The cost of a provincial by-election must be in the quarter million dollar range.  Under my scenario these elected legislators would continue to serve as MPPs until the next general election, or pay the cost of refilling their seats. 

People living in an area represented by an early-quitter are disadvantaged. They have no one speaking and work for or with them for the six months or longer it could take to fill the seat. Their legislative legs just walked out on them and they have no voice in parliament or on council as the case may be.

Suggesting that candidates pay the cost of a by-election is neither new nor is it unprecedented.

I learned as a municipal candidate that it is possible a government will demand payment for the cost of a by-election.  A story too long to repeat  ended with a letter from the City of Toronto Clerk of the day informing me that if I won the contested seat (a vacancy due to a death in office) the city would come after me for the cost of a new by-election.  “For your information the cost of a by-election is  between $165,000 and $200,000,” said the letter from then-top bureaucrat, Novina Wong.

You see, I had a picture of city hall on my sign. At that time there was no clause in the Toronto sign by-law to say a candidate was prohibited from using the logo.
​
Here I was being asked to pay for a by-election for a silly, nonsensical reason, not because I chose to step down and saddle the public with an expensive election exercise to find my replacement.  

The cost of many a by-election could be avoided altogether if politicians stayed put and lived to the terms of their agreement, as many have.

As the person who ran for the job of Member of Provincial Parliament in the 2005 by-election that elected Bas Balkissoon, I demand to know why he quit mid-term.  I fear it may be related to health issues. Still, it bothers me that nobody’s talking.  “No further comment” is all Premier Kathleen Wynne would say about his sudden resignation. Apparently, no reason for it will ever be given.

That’s unacceptable when the cost to replace a sitting MPP hovers around the $300,000 dollar mark, on top of the mega-million dollars the public forked out to run the general election in 2014.  A scant 16 months later and we have the provincial representative for Scarborough-Rouge River deciding the deal’s off and bearing no penalty for it.  Politicians have a contract with the voters for a set term.  If they break the term they owe voters an explanation.

Why did Balkissoon seek a third term at all?  There were other credible candidates on the roster who I’m sure would have worked very hard for the riding for the full term.   If nothing else there should be an outcry over the excessive cost of replacing Balkissoon so soon into the mandate.

I’m sorry if some crisis has befallen the now-former MPP Balkissoon.  But the government of Kathleen Wynne being so hush-hush makes his quitting seem all the more suspicious.  Did he jump, or was he pushed?   Was a scandal brewing? Was there an argument, a bitter parting? Is he or a family member in serious failing health?

Never intending to stay, did he run knowing he was merely keeping the seat warm until Liberals could line up his replacement and time the by-election opportunistically? That was the strategy they used after the former, former MPP, Alvin Curling, stepped down in ‘05 to become an ambassador and Bas was crowned.

Balkissoon’s logical successor and rival Neethan Shan (NDP),  who nipped his heels in the 2010 and 2014 elections grew tired of waiting and got elected as a Toronto District School Board trustee in November.  Was that part of a larger Liberal trap to sideline the guy from the other party who stood the best chance of winning Bas’s vacant seat?  All Bas had to do was wait quietly until Shan sidelined himself.  It would take real guts for Shan to attempt a provincial run  now so soon after arriving at the board. 

Who walks away from a handsome six-figure salary without a place to go, especially the egocentric politician whose job probably outpaced him long ago?

For a government trumpeting claims of being open, transparent and accountable it is fascinating to see the premier cloaking Balkissoon’s departure in secrecy. 

Public life is exactly that, very public -- as should be the circumstances behind Balkissoon’s resignation.  Speak up, Premier.  We’re all ears.

Down to the final paces in Canada's federal election that crosses the finish line October 19, 2015, how you vote and how you decide are critical.

The problem with “strategic voting” is that it creates a cast of ‘voter strategists’ presuming to tell us who to vote for.  Like a visit to a bookie, there is a wellspring of websites now to tell you who has “the best chance of winning.”  Too bad this isn’t a lottery game show, where the object is to guess who’s going to win. But an election is a contest of minds, not soothsayers.

Those in love with new concepts like so-called strategic voting will positively adore this one: Vote for what you believe in. Vote for the person you like.
If everyone did that, we would not see lopsided majorities where no one walks away happy except the top prize holder.

What’s old is made new again.  For there was a time, before pollsters and media hype, that making one’s voting choice according to one’s principles was the way it was done.  Whether for the candidate or the party, the choice made indicated a set of ideals to which the voter most closely subscribed.
We learned very quickly from the flawed concept of strategic voting that when you vote for what you don’t want, that exactly what you will get – someone you didn’t really want. 

What good is a construct without the proper underpinnings of decent logic?  Strategic voting reeks of manipulation that serves to prop up the status quo.  All the elements are there, someone else telling you who to vote for based only on past results and current incumbencies and always with an eye to the polls, which presumably lead us to know what everyone’s thinking in advance of the ballots being cast  – a fait d’accomplis. 

Why even bother with elections?  Just hand the decision to a bunch of strategic voters and they will help tilt the victory toward the last person on earth you’d want to elect.

What else would one expect from voting for that which one does not want?
In my opinion, sufficient critical thought would conclude strategic voting is an unfortunate fad, not to mention a complete and utter farce.

A welcome release of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s mandate letters to her cabinet ministers heralded a new dawn of openness and transparency.

Nothing in the past prevented premiers from making their marching orders to ministers known to the public.  But Wynne has demonstrated a willingness to be open with the directions she as premier gives to the chieftains of her newly minted majority Liberal government.

Unheralded in the flurry of publicity over the mandate letters was any hint of a downside to all this.  But let me tell you, having worked inside the grand legislative palace, it’s not what the mandate letters say, but what they do not say.

The truth for activists and lobbyists is their causes will be ignored if the matters are not part of the minister’s mandated bundle.  I know this too well.  While at Queen’s Park, I saw the former premier Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals drag their heels on introducing legislation that automatically enabled workers’ compensation for fire fighters who developed diseases as a result of fighting fires.  

The issue of “presumptive legislation” had not made it into the Minister of Labour’s mandate letter.  Only after considerable pressure over the course of years did that important legislation come to pass.  And I take great heart in knowing that the final three life-threatening illnesses that the Liberals chose not to include the first time around will, in fact, be part of the mandate going forward.

If an issue found its way into Wynne’s election platform in June, then there will be a directive about it tucked into a ministerial mandate letter somewhere.  

The trouble with mandate letters rests in what they do not include and how a government will use them to justify ignoring other important issues, ideas and points of view.

I nearly leapt from my seat when I saw that the city ethics commission in Los Angeles is pushing the idea of a contest to increase municipal voter turnout.

“Los Angeles considers cash-prize drawing as incentive to vote,” screams the Toronto Star headline above the story.

I have long advocated a voter lottery as a surefire way to raise voter turnout tallies.  A musician, I even wrote a song about it.*  Now before my eyes, validating my belief -  a jurisdiction willing to give it a whirl south of the border.  With a few tweaks the current proposal from L.A. Commissioner Nathan Hochman could muster an odds-on chance of succeeding.  Frustratingly, though, here in the face of dismal numbers – fewer than 5 in 10 voters actually vote – Toronto, Canada has fallen victim to new national laws that make it more difficult to vote. 

In my scenario, the voter registration card doubles as a lucky draw ticket after the election.  Why not a televised draw about one week after Election Day using pre-existing government gaming infrastructure? 

Unlike the LA scenario, which proposes a single incentive - a cash prize in the range of $25,000 to $50,000, my voter lottery spreads the wealth around and corrals a bigger budget by redirecting millions of misspent voter awareness advertising dollars into meaningful prizes.

A year’s mortgage payments made. Your annual hydro or gasoline bill paid. Transit passes, super “staycations”, your rent paid for a year.  The voter lottery would offer a grand prize, but also many smaller rewards that would contribute to an individual’s quality of life and entice people to the polls for a change.  Who wouldn’t vote for that?

In submitting my proposal to Ontario’s select committee on electoral reform back in 2005, I had a hunch no one would take it seriously.  And now, a decade later, someone has.  I must be a futurist.

* The Voter Lottery (Original Song) 
by Sheila White   © 2003

No one cares about elections.
There’s a bad case of voter apathy.
Until they invent a clinic to cure the cynic,
We need a gimmick to get people voting again.
If you take a minute
to examine it,
A lottery can.

Let’s go in a new direction
and do our part to boost democracy
We can offer prizes
And cool surprises
The turnout rises because
Everyone’s playing to win.
If we advertise it,
I’ve analyzed it,
And I say, “We’re in!”

A voter lottery
will push the numbers up
to where they ought to be.  Whoa!
The media will love it.
We’ve already won.
Voter turnout will go up,
But most of all, it will be fun.

We may face the odd objection
To how we solve this electoral ennui
We had to be inventive,
Provide incentive
They’ll be attentive and voting like never before.
This is not expensive
We must attempt it
They’ll come back for more.

A year’s free gasoline,
who wouldn’t vote for that?
A trip to the Caribbean,
Luxury hybrids, tuition fees,
Voter turnout will go up.
Most of all, it will be fun.

I see today the Ontario Health Coalition has copied an idea I dreamed up for the Ontario NDP as Communications Director under Howard Hampton in around 2000: The Rocking Chair Protest.

I had all NDP MPPs involved – Marilyn Churley, Frances Lankin in Toronto, Shelley Martel in Sudbury, David Christopherson in Hamilton, and so on. Our crack NDP health researcher, Marit Stiles, now a director with ACTRA, did her trademark networking to draw the broader community to our event.

The mid-morning kickoff took place at Bay and Wellesley in Toronto and at seven other Ontario centres. Martel’s event, artfully planned, regrettably in a flash was wiped out by a mini-hurricane that ripped her tent apart and sent the chair flying across the road.

Other than that, fantastic press – a front page for Christopherson in The Hamilton Spectator sitting in his rocking chair, and generous coverage province-wide. To his credit, Christopherson spent a full 24 hours camping out in his protest chair (or so the story goes).

Tony Clement was Conservative Premier Mike Harris’s health minister back then, proposing to hike nursing home fees by 15 per cent. 

My vision for the Rocking Chair Protest played out perfectly. Politicians, concerned citizens and people involved in the field, assembled by Marit, took turns sitting in an oversized rocking chair on the sidewalk, commenting for the media scribes, television cameras and microphones.

On a public sidewalk, I kicked the whole thing off playing “We Will Rock You” on my trombone, interspersed with a rally cry of “Stop the Fee Increase!”  Meanwhile, eager NDP staffers gathered signatures for petitions from sidewalk passersby. Although the Conservatives didn’t stop the fee hike altogether, the Ontario-wide exposure for the issue caused them to reduce it enough for this particular media stunt to be considered an absolute win. A significant reversal within 24 hours.

The greatest compliment a media strategist can receive is when people replicate her ideas and run with them, not just a year later, but 10 or 15!  About five years ago, CUPE Ontario staged a similar rocking chair protest, which a friend drew to my attention. And now the health coalition is trotting out the giant rocker once again.

Good ideas withstand the test of time.  Unfortunately, the high cost of long-term care continues to make this type of creative advocacy ever necessary.

The tragic story of drugging and dementia that’s playing out in Ontario nursing homes is a shuddering tale that has been exposed by The Toronto Star. 

I hearken back to my days working at Queen’s Park and it feels like ‘déjà vu all over again’, as the cliché goes.

Before Frances Lankin stepped down as MPP to become head of Greater Toronto’s United Way agency in 2001, her private member’s bill outlawing patient restraints received rare and hasty unanimous passage on her way out the door. 

Public Hospitals Amendment Act (Patient Restraints), Bill 135, sought to end the use of restraints of any kind, physical or chemical, without consent.  An emotional Lankin recalled the bill’s passage as a highlight of her career in her goodbye speech to the House.  It was personal for Lankin. She had discovered her mother restrained and in great distress in a nursing home and made it her personal campaign to stop the practice.

I remember it clearly because as NDP media director I was putting together a press event to hammer home the need for Lankin’s bill, complete with a variety of confining devices, belts, tethers, ties and a giant syringe as props. Turns out we didn’t need to go the media conference route.  Consensus among all parties that her bill should pass won the day.

Now I wonder whether it ever received Royal Assent or had regulations attached to it?  Legislation passing third reading is only a piece of paper until these last steps happen.  Did they? 

Toronto Councillor Paul Ainslie is halfway onto something when he heads to the CRTC to complain about Mayor Ford’s ROBocalls into the councillor’s ward for reasons that matter not in the grand scheme of things.

I posit that Ainslie should file a companion complaint about the Mayor of Toronto having a dedicated program on radio to the exclusion of other City of Toronto councillors, who deserve the same opportunity and equal time.

For 30 years Rogers Communications produced a call-in Cable 10 television program called “Straight Talk” hosted by the mayor of the day in what was then the City of North York.  I was Mel Lastman’s story producer on the show for twelve seasons as his communications director. For its time “Straight Talk” was a pioneering effort and proved to be a very popular format, providing unfiltered, unbridled and exclusive time for the politician to voice opinions and hear directly from the voters.

At some point during the show’s long run, in the 1980s, another North York Council member, rival Barbara Greene, filed a complaint to the CRTC, arguing that it was unfair that only the mayor should have airtime on the Rogers Community 10 station.  Eventually, whether as a result of CRTC intervention or Rogers’ acquiescence, the station made programming adjustments so that all council members, in rotation, had access to airtime in a format similar to the mayor’s.  Thus the Rogers program City Views was born.

Radio and television stations commit to fairness and objectivity and, therefore, hold an obligation to accommodate the voices and opinions of all members of Toronto Council using a fair and even formula. 

This not only provides a balance to the views expressed on air by the Mayor of Toronto, it gives each member of council an opportunity to showcase his or her opinions in an equal manner.  Audiences are better served by the delivery of a broader range of views and vantage points.  Media outlets are mandated to achieve that equilibrium.

One must observe that there are rules governing campaigns and elections, political advertisements and the timing of such activities.  Providing equal access to all duly elected politicians will address the criticism that a mayor’s talk show constitutes pre-election campaigning and advertising during a blackout period.

Let’s have the CRTC consider the matter of political call-in programming as it applies to its licensees.  That, for Ainslie, could be the more cogent argument.

With visions of music festivals dancing in his head the Mayor of Toronto twerked his way to the hot sun of Austin, Texas on a civic mission.  He had one great reason for going that he likely missed even though it was right under his perspiring nose.

I’m talking about the Austin music festival’s attention to making people not cause litter. 

Founded in 1985, the iconic Don’t Mess With Texas anti-litter campaign is a culture within the State.  Images of the Mayor at the Austin festival site illustrated what that kind of cultural shift looks like.  The fairgrounds are immaculate.  Bins are prominent red, white and blue, branded with eye-catching slogans, good signage and a palpable stigma about littering.  Litter reduction needs all these elements.

In many jurisdictions the litter-free festival has become part of the planning mandate.  Compare that to Toronto where the litter aftermath from any big event is typically profuse and disgusting.

I appreciate that the mayor’s dream of a Toronto music festival may have been manufactured with the aid of a few pen scratches on a napkin.  Now, if only we could get him in on a plan that focuses on not littering that napkin.

David Soknacki for Mayor?  The earnest former city councillor and one-time Toronto budget chief is readying himself for prime time as a contestant for mayor in the game show-like election that will be Toronto’s in October 2014.

A garden party at Soknacki’s house on Sunday, Sept. 22 drew guests from well-connected Liberal circles, conservatives, such as Councillor Paul Ainslie and, surprisingly, left-winger Adam Giambrone assembling for Toronto mayoral wannabe Soknacki’s toe-in-the-water reception.

Some guests came and went, unsure of why they were there in the first place.
For the remaining fifty this was a building block event for the prospect of Soknacki as the next mayor.

His long-time buddy MP John McKay was there as were provincial Liberal operatives Do they believe this is the man who can unseat Rob Ford?

Boy Scout Businessman v Quasimodo Mayor: one of the many possible mayoral matches in a Toronto election contest that is still more than a year away.