Mayor is Not an Entry-Level Job

Although politics is not the most popular topic on this blog (if I can believe the web stats) I'll go out on a limb and a make a second consecutive post on politics (but there won't be a third). This time it's Ottawa municipal politics, but my chosen topic is relevant to other locales: that is, qualifications for the job of mayor.

Elections are a bit like job interviews where there are many hiring managers and a few applicants. After perusing the resume of a well-dressed candidate seated across from us we would quite understandably want to ask why someone with either no job experience at all or none that is relevant to the advertised position would take the trouble to even show up. This is especially true for a position where those candidates with ample and relevant experience are so unlikely to have a chance at winning the position, a position that is high profile and requires a great breadth of inter-personal, management and public relations skills.

It is of course possible for someone with minimal experience to make a good mayor (or CEO or any top-level position) but there is a terrible lack of evidence to believe it; while some people do have natural talent that can surprise, voting should not be an outright gamble on the unknown. Out of the 20 candidates for mayor there are just 4 with a notable profile. Of the remaining 16 -- none of whom has any conceivable chance of winning the election -- few appear to have much experience relevant to someone aspiring to become mayor.

This is not to say they have nothing of value to say, and indeed some have made good points. In a way I wish some of them were more electable since the 4 front-runners do not appeal to me at all. O'Brien invents his platform seeming at random based on whatever pops into his head -- such as his proposal to write the city budget himself -- while Watson has a glib tongue with no notable accomplishments to his favour, and a previous tenure of mayor that is mostly forgettable. Doucet seems to have a mix of reasonable and bizarre points in his platform, and Haydon is an angry man with good reason to be angry, but no clear platform that makes any sense. Of course the choice will in actuality be between O'Brien and Watson which only saddens me since they are the only two that appear to resonate with the entire population, in both positive and negative senses. Of the two, Watson has an unfortunate advantage in that all he has to do is call attention to O'Brien's peculiar policy proposals.

As to the other 16, I suggest they aim for a lower office where they can demonstrate their grasp of municipal issues and an ability to get things done. They should focus so much on working but rather on leading; a mayor, or any corporate manager for that matter, succeeds by effectively directing the efforts of others and by wise allocation of capital and time. There are lots of positions in community associations, special events, charitable organizations, and even on council, where they can publicly put themselves out there and demonstrate they have what it takes to be mayor.

I know that some of them are only running because they see the election coverage as a platform to promote specific issues that they feel strongly about. That's their right, but it is also my right to ignore them.

For myself, all I can say is how annoyed I am that Alex Cullen is off the ticket. He would have lost, which is what I wanted, and also not returned as my representative in Bay ward. I can now only hope that by flip-flopping between running for mayor, council and (allegedly) MLA next year, he has suitably tarnished his credibility with his base that we get some new blood in council. With a few years experience, perhaps that person will even become a future mayoral candidate.