My, What a Big Slate You Have

In an Ontario municipal election, the most overlooked contests are arguably those for school trustee, who form the local school boards. Media coverage is usually minimal, the voters have trouble knowing who the candidates are and where they stand, and turnout is abysmally low. This was even the case before 1997, when school boards had the power to levy an education portion of property taxes at the municipal level. Fully half of one's property taxes went to education. And no one seemed to care. I remember a candidates' meeting where only the ones running for councillor showed up. "Where are the trustees," I asked. "They weren't invited," replied the chairman. "Not enough interest."

In 1997, the province took away the power of taxation from the school boards and it funded schools exclusively. The public involvement in school board elections waned even further. But there's been a flurry of interest in the Toronto race following an accusation of undue influence by unions.

I came across a letter addressed to "Parents and Voters in Toronto" that suggests the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and unnamed "teacher unions" are fielding a "slate" of candidates in 21 wards with a view to gaining "union control" over the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). The letter's authors accuse the unions of hiding behind an organization called Campaign for Public Education (CPE). The letter is signed by outgoing trustee Peter Rutledge and parents Jane Steele Moore and Donna Wright.

I looked at the CUPE Web site and saw that labour is endorsing candidates not only for the TDSB but virtually every contested municipal seat across the province of Ontario. Now if endorsing candidates is equivalent to fielding a "slate" then this is a very impressive feat indeed.

I'm having a time understanding why a labour union endorsing candidates for office should raise an "alarm." Unions aren't in any public position of authority. In past municipal and provincial elections the Toronto Police Association openly backed certain candidates. This is a completely different matter and it didn't bring about nearly the public outcry it should have. I wonder if the writers of this letter were "alarmed" by the police endosements? To its credit, the police union isn't doing it this time.

The communique, long on innuendo and short on facts, recalls the union-bashing rhetoric from the days of former Premier Mike Harris. In fact, about the only thing missing from it is Mike himself denouncing "union bosses."

Having read this, I'm thinking maybe the schools ought to be run differently than they have until now, and status quo trustees replaced. These authors need to go back to school and bone up on their math. If only twelve of the labour-endorsed candidates win election, "control" of the board will be lost, they caution. They offer up their own "slate" of nine (incumbent) candidates. Just how is a bloc of nine supposed to maintain "control" in a field of twenty-two?