By Lisa Kearns and Rory Nisan
The mayor of Burlington’s recent op-ed in response to a Hamilton councillor’s concerns, “Don’t like ‘strong-mayor’ powers? Blame the province,” attempts to deflect the councillor’s legitimate apprehensions about strong-mayor powers over to Queen’s Park.
Rather than picking on a new councillor in a different city, it is time that our mayor be accountable for her own decisions right here in Burlington.
The mayor was asked by all of council to delegate all discretionary strong-mayor powers in 2024, but chose to maintain the most important power of unilaterally hiring and firing the chief administrative officer.
Two Council members nipping at the heels of the Mayor
And she has used that power to hire two CAOs in the last two years. The unnecessary clutching onto this power has consequences, eroding public trust that the councillors they voted into office can effectively carry out their duties.
When it comes to the budget, any mayor would be reticent to use strong-mayor powers, because budgets are almost always bad news. The 4.5 per cent tax increase this year follows previous overall increases of 6.6 per cent and 5.8 per cent since strong-mayor powers were invoked, much larger increases than seen in the first term of the current council.
The mayor is now trying to manufacture more consent for the budget than there really was. In fact, our comments in council chambers made it clear we did not support the budget and, under strong-mayor powers, there is no vote on the budget as a whole.
Voting on council is a privilege, a permanent mark on the present and future of our city, not to be manipulated. To pretend there was more support than existed is gaslighting elected colleagues and disrespectful of the public.
Burlington elects its leaders to lead, not to mislead.
According to provincial documents, less than half of mayors had used strong-mayor powers as of March 2025. In Burlington, a petition signed by 700 residents asked her not to retain the discretionary powers, but she kept them anyway, even after supporting the motion against them that she referenced in her op-ed.
Mayor Meed Ward: That Chain of Office isn’t a piece of jewelry; it denotes the power of the office – something you don’t give away.
She also defended these powers in a letter to residents, stating, “Retaining decision-making regarding the CAO with the mayor, as outlined in the legislation, helps to circumvent the potential for undue pressure behind the scenes …”
We asked, undue pressure by whom? That is already a code of conduct violation, and only the mayor’s status with the CAO is changed due to strong-mayor powers.
She wants the authority without the accountability, but you can’t have it both ways.
Mayor, either give up the rest of your discretionary powers or take accountability for them.
Lisa Kearns and Rory Nisan are councillors for Wards 2 and 3 in Burlington, respectively.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The confusion expressed by some commenters here about this article is understandable, as the context of what this is and where it came from is not clear.
Mayor Meed Ward wrote yet another article in the Spectator complaining about someone being critical of mayors who use strong mayor powers, while leaving out significantly important points. Her original article is here: https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/opinion-strong-mayors/article_4d269163-9eff-540c-9b17-2cec96db0219.html. I realize this may be paywalled, but hopefully people can find a copy.
It is, in the opinion of many, a typically ridiculous piece. Why the mayor is going after a Hamilton city councillor for expressing valid opinions on the completely undemocratic strong mayor powers is a question many are asking. Blair makes a worthy tie to Andrea Horwath — perhaps they’ve both decided they need to come up with a common spin for their upcoming election campaigns. Why she is blaming everyone else for the problem while taking no responsibility for her own acceptance and use of the powers is something which thankfully Councillors Kearns and Nisan asked and answered in their rebuttal piece, which appears here (and which the Gazette has pasted in this article): https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/opinion-burlington-strong-mayor/article_e72271ac-2f75-5f6a-9699-3b8632add178.html
It is interesting to note the comment from Blair (Straight Shooter) Smith regarding severe climate change events such as flooding in 2014 and 2024. Perhaps the City, the Region, Conservation Halton and the Province would like to bury the news of the Oakville Class Action lawsuit damages that they paid regarding the flooding impacts of overdevelopment. The residents of Burlington are well aware of the flood risk potential to the Appleby Creek watershed of the Argo development on the Millcroft Golf Course but the City has not yet confirmed that it will stop the development on this engineered stormwater management system with a facade of a golf course. Of course, the costs (to the City and Province) of future damages will just be added to our property and provincial tax bills:(
B Smith ….
Well done.
Your articulation of the “Meed Ward Ricochet” is both precise and devastatingly accurate. It manages the rare feat of being analytical, readable, and darkly amusing all at once.
Naming the technique gives residents a vocabulary for something many have experienced but struggled to describe. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
Your piece doesn’t just critique a mayor. It explains why so many conversations with City Hall end exactly where they began — only longer.
All this bickering. City Councillors were elected to represent their Constituents. I wish Lisa Kearns would stand up and start representing her Constituents in Ward 2. She has turned her back and voted in favour of the Developer of 2072 Old Lakeshore. Wake up Lisa Developers are making All the decisions in Ward 2.
The properties on Old Lakeshore were handed to developers back when the Mayor, early in her first term, omitted that entire area from the “downtown precinct study.” Many of us delegated urging that this area be protected and questioning why it wasn’t. Surprise! We were met with silence.
It was obvious then that the developers had/would buy up the properties and build towers there. Lisa Kearns has articulated in detail in her newsletter and at council why she voted as she did. I suggest you take a look at her statements or better yet, call her to discuss. I for one would rather have my elected representatives tell us the truth of what can and cannot be successfully “fought” and vote with fiscal prudence in mind, rather than know the fight will be lost (and that they are in large part to blame for the mess) but vote for it anyway, hoping to confuse people who aren’t following things closely into thinking they are on the “anti-development” side (despite their many actions in the past eight years which demonstrate that this is a fallacy).
This is editorial in nature and should be framed as such
Editor’s note: It was a Letter to the Editors of the Hamilton Spectator. We printed it to ensure that Burlington citizens were informed.
Although the article identified the authors of the article, it was not until the comments that I realized it was a letter to the editor. Without knowing the contents of MWR’s original comments I could not make much sense of the article.
With all due respect, I think that it was our mayor who went to Hamilton to air her laundry (red and retro) – but this time the Empress had no clothes. Councillors Kearns and Nisan have thankfully corrected Meed Ward’s misleading statements.
Meed Ward decided to take on a Hamilton Councillor who criticized the adoption and use of strong mayor powers (SMP). The Mayor of Hamilton, the venerable (that’s a synonym for long-time at the public trough) Andrea Horwath. a colleague of the Burlington mayor, has, like Meed Ward, found the SMP to be much to her liking. Meed Ward came out with the rather interesting claim that it is not the mayors who should be blamed for accepting the SMP but the Province that bestowed the powers in the first place. Hmmmmm. Would seem to be another example of the “Meed Ward Ricochet”.
Kearns and Nisan responded to correct the record. I thank them. And for the record, Kearns and Nisan opposed the SMP when they were first introduced and attempted later to have the powers returned to Council.
After I posted the above comment, I realized that I had introduced a term, “the Meed Ward Ricochet” (MWR) without any form of clarification. Although the basic definition of the MWR can be fairly easily understood by just seeing the term itself, there are complexities.
We all realize that speaking to some politicians can be a risky business. It can lead to a wasteland of confusion or a never Neverland of conflicted and conflicting messages. It is not for the faint of heart. But sometimes, one just has to recognize and applaud true excellence, regardless of how questionable the field of endeavour.
Marianne Meed Ward is one worthy of such recognition. She has so refined the craft of artful political discourse that a particular tangential arabesque now bears her name. It is the “Meed Ward Ricochet” (MWR).
The MWR is a practiced communications technique (both oral and written) whereby direct challenges and questions are deflected away from the key issue to a related but less detrimental subject which then becomes the primary focus.
An effective ricochet borrows from the context of the original issue but repositions it so that a generally affirmative and favourable response is made and then featured as a positive outlook or scenario.
The “ricochet” is a subset of the common practice of “spin”. However, the “ricochet” not only puts the most favourable face on a given event or issue, it is used to change and shape the narrative entirely.
If one had both the time and the energy, one could compile a very rich list of MWR’s. However, the following examples are a good, initial sampling:
• Meed Ward is asked how she can accept and defend the autocratic Strong Mayor powers. She responds that Burlington Council is completely aligned and that she confers with each councillor before exercising a decision under the Act. She then focuses on how harmonious Burlington Council has become.
• Meed Ward is asked whether she had an opportunity to reject Strong Mayor powers. She says “no” then focuses on the housing challenges that Burlington faces and the need for the provincial incentives. She does not address the fact that other mayors have rejected the powers.
• Meed Ward is asked about the renovation project for Civic square – why it wasn’t initiated when originally approved and why it has grown so substantially in projected cost. She responds that it will proceed now in order to take advantage of federal and provincial funding. The actual need for the reconstruction and its extent becomes an argument over losing funding from other sources.
• When challenged about the degree to which the city has prepared for and addressed the impacts of severe climate change events such as the flooding of August 2014 and July 2024, Meed Ward focuses on the responsibilities of individual homeowners (drain clearing and backvalve use) and the components of future remediation efforts such as enhanced culvert, creek bed and drain inspections. She also emphasizes the unique aspects of the July event such as the 407 berm washouts. Focus is deflected to the Hwy 407 Corporation and the Region.
Indeed, the MWR is so effective that when Marianne speaks to a particularly contentious issue, it is best to duck. Of course, this is just my opinion. However, it is based on observation, a begrudging admiration and several years of taking cover.
·