Striking a balance on councillor expenses

March 25, 2010

It's reasonable to suggest the current uproar over Toronto city councillor expenses would benefit from the teensiest injection of perspective.

More to the point, it's also reasonable to say that this uproar is a symptom of a larger problem.

Last week, in what has become an annual tradition, the posting of Toronto city councillor office expenses for public viewing took place. Taxpayers are able to see just what their councillors are doing with their annual discretionary office budgets of $53,100.

We like that this information is made public. It promotes accountability.

But it's clear that something more needs to be done. Grumbling over this issue may never entirely go away, but it's no secret Toronto council has generally struggled with matters financial. Sadly, some of council's representatives tend to sport some self-inflicted wounds during the battle.

We're in an election year, when these types of things are under more scrutiny than normal. City finances, in a perilous state, are under a microscope. Even among council outsiders, one of the leading candidates for mayor, George Smitherman, oversaw the embarrassing eHealth boondoggle as the provincial minister of health. Taxpayers have reason to be worried.

There appears to be a need for more specific guidelines as to what is and what isn't acceptable for these discretionary budgets - partly to minimize silly debates and partly because elected officials seem to need the help.

Firstly, city policy needs to be clearer. A glaring example of inappropriate usage should be when councillors use funds from this source to donate to charitable organizations within their wards.

Secondly, it would be more sensible to keep advocating for measures like what the budget committee did earlier this month: cutting the budgets. The proposed five per cent chop seems eminently practical, if not grossly overdue. If you don't want irresponsible behaviour, don't enable it.

Really, there's not much point frothing at the mouth over whether Adrian Heaps' expensing of animal costumes for a community skating party is appropriate or not. While it certainly helped promote Heaps, under the current rules it doesn't appear he did anything wrong. For now, friends and foes alike of chipmunks, dalmatians and black bears can render the ultimate verdict in the Oct. 25 municipal election.

There'll always be debate. But it's clear the city needs an updated policy, one that continues to strive for a critical balance - one that permits elected officials to do their jobs and satisfies constituents that the dollars are being spent wisely.