Has your city councillor done a good job since the last election? How about Mayor Bob, does he deserve to be re-elected? Are there any folks out there whom you believe could do a better job? These are important questions that voters will need to consider next November. But it's never too soon to start.

If you think this scribe is looking past next week's events, don't despair, they're still important. However, now is the time when many of our friends at city hall are looking at their options and starting to fine-tune their campaign machines. We're halfway through council's current term and most serious politicos on council have probably held at least one or two meetings (or are planning to) with a "core" group of five or six advisors to survey and map out the 2003 municipal election landscape.

To a tee these sessions address the following questions. Should (fill in name here) run for office again? Who can s/he count on for financial support? How will new ward boundaries impact historic (read: Election 2000) vote levels? How do major stakeholders in the ward/city view the councillor's performance? Are there any challengers who are already organizing to knock our incumbent off? Are there key issues where our guy/gal is vulnerable? What will the broader mayoral race themes be and how will they impact the local race?

Most serious candidates for Mayor and council will spend this summer and fall answering these questions and then roll out their plans from January to June, depending on the office that they are pursuing and the perceived strength of their challengers. While ward issues will vary, some key questions have already emerged that will define the debate in terms of citywide issues.

First up, taxes and spending. One of the key ballot questions will revolve around the value of services provided for taxes paid. Will folks remember the 10% tax rate cut? My preliminary guess is no. It was a tax rate cut, not an actual overall 10% tax bill cut. Second, property assessments for 2003 will skyrocket given our solid housing market for the past two years … meaning higher property tax bills.

On the spending side of the ledger, draining down reserves at an unprecedented rate, staffing levels that are higher than pre-amalgamation numbers and O-train cost overruns, are just a few problematic areas where the present crop will be held to account next year.

The second issue will be services. Have citizens received better garbage collection, recreation services, road improvements, transit, etc., since the last election? Are they paying more for ice time, library fines and swimming lessons? What new facilities have been built in their community in the last three years? This is the bread and butter of municipal life and will define not only the mayoral race but several ward tussles as well.

Another theme that may (or should) emerge is more abstract but nonetheless important. Let's use the term du jour and call it ‘governance'. Rest assured that those wishing to re-fight the smoking bylaw will raise this theme.

Opponents will argue that council and the Mayor micromanaged the local economy and put several businesses out to pasture under the guise of public health. They will likely pose the following questions. Was an outright ban necessary? Could a more balanced approach such as separately ventilated rooms with no wait staff presence (ex: MacLaren's on Elgin interim court victory this week) been employed? How much tax revenue was lost due to bar and restaurant closings?

And we shouldn't forget that at the RMOC in the summer of 2000, council voted (including the former chair, now Mayor, Bob Chiarelli) in favour to amend a staff drafted policy from 100% smoke-free to a policy that endorsed separate ventilated rooms.

Now for the record and for the umpteenth time, I don't smoke and am no fan of the merchants of death (read: Big tobacco). But one of the issues in this complex file is counting on elected officials to keep their word and it's clear that they didn't.

Still with this governance idea, enterprising aspirants for office may make the case that fighting with Queen's Park at every turn on almost every issue hurt our short-term and longer-term prospects for provincial funding in crucial areas such as highways, transit, and convention centre expansion.

In fairness, yours truly has noted in this space that some battles like ambulance dispatch were just and necessary. On the other hand, scuffles like the elevation of the language policy for provincial consideration or the vitriolic fight over transition funding were mostly exercises in partisanship rather than a legitimate defence of the city's interests.

Part of governance is also about setting priorities and as famed author Stephen Covey writes, "doing first things first." On this question, most members of council and the Mayor are vulnerable.

>From the OC Transpo luxury shack debacle to corporate welfare funding for the biotech industry to stalling the disposal and sale of surplus city properties to turning the official plan drafting exercise into something resembling a multi-year global sightseeing excursion, Mr. Covey's advice has not been followed.

Then there's kicking the Ex out of the Glebe, abandoning alternate service delivery and turning some downtown access streets into humps and bumps, roller-coasterish obstacle courses. Clearly, a strong argument can be made that council has been more than a touch distracted.
And let's not forget council's more recent forays into pesticides and raves. While many folks rightfully fear a creeping welfare state at the federal level, nanny state Ottawa has quickly blossomed right under our noses. What's next: A by-law to limit the amount of body piercing in which one can engage?

These issues and others will likely define next fall's election debates. But it is never too early for voters to voice their displeasure with (or support of) council's present course. Next November will be here before we know it.