Things can happen fast in River City.
I wrote a story a couple of days ago lamenting, once again, the granting of Strong Mayor powers to the mayor of Renfrew, Tom Sidney. I further lamented the dearth of a legitimate critical media locally that could offer some oversight and accountability to the whole thing. I mean, if it has to be (SMP or Strong Mayor Power) then we should at least have some form of robust and critically diligent media in place to keep everyone honest. It looked as though we were destined for the SMP, but not so much for the critical media.
Forty-eight hours go by. I go to North Bay, then on to Sudbury. I write a story about bears. I return to Renfrew, go online because it’s Tuesday, and I know Town Council is going to be meeting Tuesday night, so I kind of want to get the skinny on what may be happening by taking a peek at the agenda.
That’s where I found it, page 116 to be exact, right there in the middle of the haystack, as if it were no big deal at all.
It was a letter from the mayor to the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford.
In it, our mayor told the premier “thanks, but no thanks” when it comes to SMP. Evidently, our mayor wants nothing to do with the whole sordid business. The following two paragraphs form the core of that letter:
The Council of the Town of Renfrew is writing to formally express its strong opposition to the Province of Ontario’s decision to designate the Town of Renfrew as a “Strong Mayor” community, with enhanced mayoral powers that came into effect on May 1, 2025.
The Strong Mayor framework significantly alters the balance of governance at the municipal level, undermining the role of Council in decision-making, diminishing collaborative governance, and weakening the principle of majority rule that is foundational to local democracy.
Clearly I’ve fallen at some point and hit my head. I don’t recall any incidents involving any kind of trauma, but when I see this kind of letter, which articulates a 180° shift from what was in the window just two days ago, you have to understand the need for me to question the level and quality of my consciousness.
I agree with the mayor, and I’ll jump on board his statement articulated in the second of the two paragraphs I featured above. No need for me to go into any kind of lengthy arguments about my position, because it appears the mayor now agrees, and it further appears that he’s going to go about what effort may be necessary to get those special powers loaded onto the next Ontario Northland bus out of town.
I congratulate the mayor on the direction indicated by the letter.
But I do have to quibble.
If this is what his thinking is on the subject, if he’s that opposed to being granted SMPs, then why did he go ahead and use his newly-gifted SMPs four times in seven days before coming around to his current thinking? I mean, huzzah for the letter and what the letter conveys. Fewer huzzahs for using the powers before stating that you don’t want them because of the negative impact they have on what is considered to be “foundational” to local democracy.
“I don’t like these new powers, they’re wrong for democracy, but I’ll just take them for a quick spin before I send them back.”
Um no, Tom, not quite as simple as all that.
I have to ask.
If the SMPs are illegitimate in your view, does that make anything they may have been used for also illegitimate?
It’s sort of like buying some snazzy clothes from a store, wearing them to some big event, then bringing them back on Monday. It happens all the time. It also happens to be on the sleazy side of sleazy.
The SMPs gave the mayor the power to hire and fire department heads unilaterally. He did that by elevating the Town Clerk, Carolynn Errett, to full department director with the corresponding pay bump, one of the four instances where he implemented the SMPs before his complete change of heart.
If the SMPs are viewed as illegitimate and to be revoked, should the Errett promotion also be revoked? Or would that kick in a bunch of labour rules which would make such a thing impossible? Because if that’s the case, it gives the whole sorry state of affairs the appearance of pre-meditation.
Give her the promotion and raise, causing labour regulations to kick in, making the move next to impossible to reverse without a major employee/employer dispute or even a lawsuit. Then, once done, pen a letter to the premier disavowing the extended powers, the very ones used to make the promotion in the first place.
You don’t have to travel to the state of Denmark to smell something rotten, if I may steal from Marcellus in Act I of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
If the policy is wrong, if the legislation is wrong, then through the legal concept of “fruit of the poison vine,” the Errett promotion, as it was undertaken and made fact, is also wrong.
Likewise, keeping the McDougall Museum open, in the way that it was kept open, is also wrong. And to be clear, I’m all for an open McDougall Museum. It’s just that I can’t condone it if it comes as a result of a unilateral decision as per SMPs. And getting rid of the SMPs after-the-fact does nothing to mitigate this. Keeping the museum open is a good thing. The way it was done was a bad thing. And so, for me, the decision as to whether it remain open or closed should go right back into the hopper, meaning it should be a Council decision, and not a unilateral and arbitrary mayoral decision.
If this represents a crying shame, then we might want to ask the fellow who did the good thing in the bad way. Had he not, the museum may well have found itself open by now anyways, but only as the result of a decision made by the full forum of a democratically elected council.
I won’t criticize the decision to request the revocation of SMPs as they pertain to Renfrew. I will, however, be critical of how the power was used before seeking that revocation.
It leaves a horrible impression, and a really bad look. Unless the decisions made utilizing SMPs are also revoked.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 