09/29/2026
Strong-Mayor Powers Part 2: Two Different Approaches to Leadership
Strong-mayor legislation allows for two distinctly different approaches to municipal leadership.
One approach is for the mayor to lead through council. The mayor sets priorities, introduces ideas, encourages debate and listens to the perspectives of every elected member. Decisions are reached collectively, and once the majority has spoken, the decision of council is respected.
This is the collaborative approach I experienced during my past term on council.
The second approach places greater emphasis on the individual authority of the mayor’s office. A mayor may choose to make certain staffing and organizational decisions independently, issue written directions to staff, exercise greater control over the budget process or use available veto powers.
Both approaches may operate within the law, but they can produce very different forms of municipal government.
An individualized approach concerns me because it can gradually reduce council’s role from that of a decision-making body to one that increasingly reacts to decisions already made or directions already given.
It can weaken the checks and balances created when several elected representatives examine an issue from different perspectives.
When significant authority is exercised through one office, decisions can become overly dependent upon the priorities, judgment and temperament of one individual. Even with good intentions, this can reduce the value of collective debate and increase the risk that important financial, legal or operational considerations will not receive sufficient scrutiny.
This approach can also create uncertainty for municipal staff. Professional staff should be able to provide objective advice and implement the lawful decisions of council without being caught between the direction of one elected official and the position of council as a whole.
This is particularly important when considering the CAO. Although strong-mayor legislation may give a mayor authority to appoint or dismiss the CAO, using that authority is a choice. Any such decision should consider performance information, legal and contractual obligations, severance and recruitment costs, succession planning and the continuity of municipal services.
Strong leadership should never be confused with acting alone.
A mayor can provide vision, establish priorities and move important matters forward while still respecting councillors, professional staff and majority decisions.
The important distinction is whether a mayor sees council as a group of elected partners or places greater reliance on the individual authority of the mayor’s office.
We do not need the divisive, personality-driven politics we too often witness south of the border. That style of politics focuses on individuals, conflict and winning at any cost. It weakens respectful debate and divides communities rather than bringing them together.
Goderich must maintain the civility, cooperation and community appeal that make our town special.
Our next mayor and council do not have to agree on every issue, but they must be able to disagree respectfully, listen to one another and continue working together after difficult decisions are made.
A four-year term is a long time when the wrong governing approach is chosen.
That is why leadership style matters as much as campaign promises. The decisions made during the next term will affect our finances, municipal staff, community relationships and future direction long after the election is over.
Tomorrow, I will conclude this series by discussing council’s role, my commitment as Deputy Mayor and the collective purpose I hope will guide the next term.
