The Villager

Not so, it turns out. Late Tuesday, none other than Mayor David Miller made it known that he'd be seeking some rules clarification on how councillors spend their budgets, to set down some clear and enforceable regulations, something councillors at present notably lack.

This is a pretty major shift on what until this past week has been a pretty marginal issue for Miller and his supporters on Toronto council. It's not that Miller's stopped defending the $53,100-a-year office budgets as he has since he was a councillor at amalgamation. But for the first time, he's recognized that councillors and the staff that oversee their budgets need some rules.

Why now? Well it's been an embarrassing week for some members of Toronto council. In the past, debate's always focused on the generous-seeming upper limit of the office budget. But in the wake of the city's executive committee's shot at sanctioning low-spending Ward 2 (Etobicoke North) Councillor Rob Ford for funding his office out-of-pocket, we all had a closer look at some of the things councillors were spending their office budgets on: cab and limousine rides for outrageous distances, martinis and wine at high-end restaurant meals, a family trip to China.

It's become clear the problem is not how big councillors' office budgets are, but how they use them.

However, no one should hold their breath expecting the city clerk's department to recommend rules that are particularly stringent on the mayor's instruction alone. The plan, when it comes out, will likely deal with the particulars of reporting and being reimbursed for expenses - that being the immediate trouble with the rules for city councillors.

More stringent restrictions are a management decision - and councillors, whether we like it or not, are their own managers, on behalf of their employers: the voting public.

Toward that end, let's modestly propose a set of rules that might help everybody. First, the premise: The $53,100 office budget is intended to help councillors perform their elected duties: pay for stationary and printing and mailings, cellphones and PDAs and computer equipment, rent for community offices and materials to furnish them. It might pay for a reasonable meal over an extra-long shift - perhaps a $20 ceiling - and cab fare between meetings during the workday.

An expense account ought not be covering the cost of travelling between work and home. It's hard to see how a couple of cocktails helps a councillor make better decisions, so alcohol shouldn't be expensed at a meal. The office budget also shouldn't be used as a fund to help out community groups; councillors who want to see a local group get government help should have the courage to advocate for that at the appropriate city committee rather than slide a few hundred dollars from their office budget without any accountability.

And anything purchased through the office account ostensibly for office use - furniture, artwork or espresso machines - shouldn't make its way home with the councillor. It's city money being spent, the goods it purchases should be property of the city and stay that way.

And yes, councillors should be required to submit receipts - and be reimbursed - for any of those reasonable purchases. Because while Rob Ford comes out of this looking better than many of his colleagues, that doesn't make it appropriate for him to use his personal wealth to maintain an appearance of frugality that's just not the case.

It's time that everybody on council had some rules to play with - and everybody starts playing by them.