We would like to present you with this particular proposal on creating possible adjustments in the governance system that Toronto operates and functions with. In relation to this matter, we see the need to create particular adjustments that might be needed to specifically handle the growing number of residents in the city and making sure impact on how their needs and demands for good governance is properly served. We would like to call such proposal as the Local Reform Project: A Focus on Improved Public Participation and Community Councils.
The aspect of control is a strongly determining factor in many different forms of governance. Relatively, such aspect creates a distinct pattern in relation to noting from whom the command should come from and how the subordinates should react accordingly to the said demand for recognition of authority (Furniss,, 1974). In organizations, knowing who is in control would determine the overall foundation of the organization especially in dealing with matters that are often hard to deal with. In governments, knowing who is in control is highly important in determining what specific matters should be followed and who should be recognized in the procedures of making critical decisions along the way.
Toronto, the provincial capital of Ontario Canada is considered to be one of the most populous areas in the country. Considerably, administering this particular city requires hard work and specifically defined procedure that constitutes the proper structure of command. At present, Toronto functions under a single-tier municipality whereas the governance is highly centralized. It is seen that perhaps a new approach of governance would be able to determine a better process of development for the city in the coming years. Given the condition of the highly defined increase in population in the area, it is aimed in this presentation to provide a distinct indication on how to redefine the pattern for governance that Toronto is thriving under. Focusing on the benefits of a more defined path for the community to get involved in the process of social development, this discussion shall try to make a distinct difference on how the city is being governed at present.
There had been a reported 4% increase in population in the city between the years 1996 and 2001. As of 2011, the population of residents in the city could be accounted to at least 2,615, 060. This account on population increase through the year is expected to progress in the years to come. With this huge population in concern, there is a single-tiered government dedicated to the process of directing the people and the services that are expected to provide the people with what they need especially in relation to the distribution of the resources that the city has to make sure living in the city would be satisfying enough for the residents.
Mayor Rob Ford is set to handle the primary organizational operations in the city as the main authority in the area. Being the primary manager, he is assisted by Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly and the Toronto City Council. The Toronto City Council comprises of 45 primary members whereas 44 among them are the ward councilors while the Mayor is also added in the council. Although there are 44 members enjoined into the council, when it comes to determining the decision to particularly critical issues, only the executive committee is allowed to make distinct final contentions on the matter. The executive committee includes the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, seven members of the council and other four members who have been appointed by the higher authorities.
Somehow, it is assumed by the government that such involvement of the 44 members into the government system is enough to represent the community as a whole. Nevertheless, it is deemed that the hierarchy of governance directed to the centralized power of the mayor still has its weak points even with the involvement of the 44 members of the council as practical representation of the people living in the city. With members of the community coming in a much diversified population, the focus on how to determine the services and programs that are supposed to give attention to the needs and demands of the people could be a bit hard to contemplate with especially considering the diversity of these points.
Relatively, these councils are also called as wards specifically pointing out the locations that they handle. They practically need to oversee the situation of these areas and create reports for the mayor to get him involved in the situation and have his attention pointed out to particular problems that particular parts of the city may be experiencing. Considerably though, beyond reporting and putting requests for the mayor to give attention to the matter, the councils are not expected to do anything more. They have no power to make particular decisions to specifically react on the problems that the regions they attend to may be involved in. While they may make proposals for resolution, these considerations would only be recognized under the decision and acceptance of the Executive Committee.
Decentralization of Governance
Because of the centralization of the government’s operation in the city, the prioritization of problems that need attention may be weak in approach especially when issues of governance and system of development are presented all at once. In this case, not all problems are responded to accordingly. Assigning individuals to respond to each problem may not be that easy to contend with. This is the reason why decentralization of the main government is being proposed. The decentralization approach do not mean to set the government system at a relatively jeopardizing condition, instead it aims to give the government a much better approach to dealing with all the different issues that the communities in the city need to deal with (Grindle,, 2007).
Governance decentralization suggests the process by which the hierarchy of the government would be involved in a more practical manner by which chosen [or elected] leaders are to give attention to the specific needs of the communities and its members. Considerably, the process of governance under this pattern of hierarchy includes the distinct manner by which every leader assigned to attend to a particular community would have a better chance of resolving problems immediately thus leaving the central government to attend to more critical problems the city might be facing. This way, the different situations that the communities are facing would be easier to attend to.
The system would of course follow a distinct manner by which the executive government would still have the greater power of control. The community leaders are expected to report matters they have resolved and other matters that may be outside their capacity to respond to. Understandably, such approach makes it easier for the executive community to give attention to the primary issues that the city has to deal with.
In this case, the following diagram of hierarchy of command shall be followed:
As suggested in the diagram presented herein, the assembly members and the unit community chairmen are considered in the same position to be the ones to serve as the bridge towards the unit committee from the part of the village representatives. Through this approach, the village representatives are able to see more directly on what the people need, what problems a particular community faces and how such issues could be specifically given attention to. Being directly involved with the people and the way they live makes the village representatives more familiar with the situation and the resources available in the community to respond to such matter that could specifically address the conditions of development that the people have to specifically deal with. With such familiarity, the village representatives will have the right capacity to determine the immediate resolution the people would actually expect from the government.
Why the Need for Government Decentralization
Considering the situation of the city, Toronto is currently facing the need to immediately respond to massive demands from members of the community coming from highly diversified backgrounds. Understandably, it could be realized that somehow, with such diversity comes the high demand for specified attention from leaders. Like in an organization, a supervisor would be able to know much better how particular employees work at their best depending on the environment they are involved with. The same thing is true in the process of governance, knowing the people [the residents of the villages], the dedicated leaders [village representatives] would be able to create a better community where all the people would be able to better perform in thus creating a much better system that could give birth to higher chances of develop for the people allowing them to feel the satisfaction that they expect from the provisions and assistance of the government.
Application of Changes
Embracing change is never an easy process; nevertheless, it could be one of the most important adjustments that the city of Toronto might just need at present. Relatively, such aspect of development is expected to create better ways for the government to respond to what the people need and expect from the government. Following the pattern of authoritarian hierarchy suggested in this proposal, it is expected that the city would need a relative time to undergo transition of governance. People need to know that these changes are for the sake of responding to their specific needs in a more effective manner (Burton, et al, 1995). Relatively, through getting the cooperation of the people into the new system of governance, applying its basic entities of operation would best define the evident source of competence on how a new hierarchy of development in the administrative operation could provide best benefits to the overall society thriving in Toronto (Bennet, et al, 1990).
With the hope of helping the new society embrace the new system of governance, the current administrators ought to give attention to how the specific needs of the people could actually be responded to with full recognition of each individual’s capacity to be the source of competence for the city’s development once their needs are satisfied accordingly. Manifesting a good sense of dedication to serving the needs of the locals would boost the points of development that the city embraces in a much effective manner especially in relation to how the people are willingly able to get involved in the process by which the community takes into account the different options of becoming more progressive as individuals working as part of a primary community become more involved in the social systems that the people are expected to specifically respond to.
Finding out that the government specifically wants to be involved on how they specifically realize the basic points of their satisfaction helps people become more effective on the way they utilize their skills and talents towards determining what particular help they could give the government with especially in making sure that the progress they desire would be fulfilled accordingly.
Final Note
We do expect that you would give ample consideration to the real value that this proposal serves the city with. With full expectation towards creating a more developed pattern for progress, applying the option of decentralizing the government system used in Toronto is expected to help all members of the community to join in the campaign towards social development. Our desire to help the city government in becoming more competent in handling its responsibilities is nothing but sincere. We sincerely hope you would hear our reasons and act on the matter as necessity suggests.
Sincerely Yours,
_____________________________________
References:
Furniss, Norman (1974). "The Practical Significance of Decentralization". The Journal of Politics 36 (4): 958–82. doi:10.2307/2129402.
Grindle, Merilee Serrill. Going Local: Decentralization, Democratization, And The Promise of Good Governance, Princeton University Press, 2007.
Treisman, Daniel. The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Burton, Richard M. Børge Obel, Design Models for Hierarchical Organizations: Computation, Information, and Decentralization, Springer, 1995.
Dubois, H.F.W. & Fattore, G. (2009), Definitions and typologies in public administration research: the case of decentralization', International Journal of Public Administration, 32(8): pp. 704–727.
Kauffman, Bill (2008). "Decentralism". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 111–3. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
Miller, Michelle Ann & Tim Bunnell. (2012), guest editors. 'Asian Cities in an Era of Decentralisation', Space and Polity, Vol.16, No.1.
Sharma, Chanchal Kumar (2006), Decentralization Dilemma: Measuring the Degree and Evaluating the Outcomes, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol.67, No.1, pp. 49–64.
Sharma, Chanchal Kumar (2008), Emerging Dimensions of Decentralization Debate in the Age of Glocalization, MPRA Paper 6734, University Library of Munich, Germany; revised version Published as "Emerging Dimensions of Decentralization Debate in the Age of Globalization" in Indian Journal of Federal Studies Vol. 19 No.1 pp 47–65( year 2009).
Bennett, Robert J. ed., Decentralization, Intergovernmental Relations and Markets: Towards a Post-Welfare Agenda, Clarendon, 1990, p. 1-26.
