The Context

Municipal governments in Ontario have experienced a seismic shift. Effective May 1^st this year, the Better Municipal Governance Act amended the Municipal Act, expanding strong mayor powers to the heads of council for 169 single and lower-tier municipalities with councils of six or members or more.

This is a big deal.

In his April 9^th news release, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Rob Flack explained the rationale behind this move:

“Heads of Council are key partners in our efforts to build homes and infrastructure across the province. By extending strong mayor powers to these additional municipalities, we are providing mayors every tool at our disposal to empower them to get homes and infrastructure built faster. Mayors know their municipalities best, and we support them in taking bold actions for their communities.”

In other words, local councils are to blame for our housing affordability crisis and strong mayors can save the day! While there’s little evidence supporting this assertion, that is not the focus of this piece.

My primary issue with this legislation is that it provides mayors with executive powers authorizing them to restructure their municipalities and impact operations.

The Problem

Strong mayor legislation provides local heads of council with executive authority in several critical areas, including appointing the municipality’s chief administrative officer (CAO), creating Council committees, proposing certain bylaws, and vetoing certain bylaws. The one new power that I think is especially concerning is granting mayors the authority to hire/fire department heads and establish and organize their municipal departments.

This blurs the line between governance and management.

Strong mayor legislation is at odds with the fundamental governance principles embedded in Ontario’s Municipal Act. Neither the mayor nor Council should manage the business of government. This has always been the responsibility of the CAO.

Two reputable organizations, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO) share this concern. AMO stated that enabling the head of Council to hire and fire the heads of departments and reorganize municipal administration was inconsistent with “good corporate governance practice”. (Municipal Governance Backgrounder. AMO. 2023.) AMCTO went a step further by stating that “strong mayor powers have blurred the political-administrative authority between the roles of head of council and chief administrative officers, threatening the neutrality of the public service and politicizing local government leadership”. (Advocacy Update: Expansion of Strong Mayor Powers. AMCTO. 2025.)

What’s the Big Deal?

An organizational structure is not just a neat chart with boxes and lines. It represents the foundation of an organization. Roles, responsibilities, lines of reporting, and functional accountability are all imbedded within an organizational structure. The entire business of municipal government rests upon this foundation. If there are “cracks” in a municipality’s foundation, things go wrong in a hurry. Inefficient processes, duplication of effort, skill and capacity gaps, ineffective internal collaboration/communication, poor customer service, and low staff morale are often symptoms of flawed organizational design. And municipal leaders must be held accountable to use tax dollars effectively and efficiently.   

For the past 25 years as a government change specialist, I have helped municipalities across Canada rebuild and strengthen their organizational foundations. While there is no one-size-fits-all model for all municipalities, there are many wrong ways to do organizational design. For example, one wrong way is when a municipality configures their entire organizational chart around the skillsets and/or personal interests of individuals. When those people leave the organization, things fall apart. Another wrong way is merging disparate functions and activities together into a single department without a sound operational reason to do so. And there are many other examples of poor organizational design leading to ineffective/inefficient operations.

Effective organizational change requires a collaborative approach; a solid understanding of the current state strengths and weaknesses; an awareness of best design practices; and a rigorous change management/implementation plan.

Mayor-triggered organizational restructuring is a high-risk proposition.

So, Now What?

The Ford Government is unlikely to reverse course and remove the strong mayor powers. So, the right question for municipalities is: “How can we avoid potential organizational disruption that would occur if mayors started to unilaterally restructure their departments and hire/fire CAOs and senior managers?”.

It is well within the sphere of authority for the head of council to identify organizational weaknesses and problems. Mayors have a responsibility to lead a team committed to providing cost-effective and customer-focused services. Sometimes, an organizational review is 100% required.

Using the new strong mayor legislation in a more responsible way, a mayor could trigger a comprehensive organizational review rather than unilaterally reconfiguring departments and hiring/firing senior managers. This preferred approach would include a detailed project plan with a clear scope, approach, timelines, and deliverables. Whether you engage a consultant or make this a DIY project depends on your in-house capacity and skillsets. Either way, there are several design principles that will help build an organizational foundation that will stand the test of time:

1. Contribute to achieving strategic priorities. Organizational change must provide a solid foundation to ensure the municipality is positioned to deliver results based on strategic priorities.
2. Cluster functions based on their strongest synergies. Organizational change must cluster functions based on the strongest synergies contributing to effective and efficient operations.
3. Contribute to citizen-focused service delivery. Organizational changes must enhance the capacity of the municipality to provide services in an accessible, responsive, and timely manner.
4. Demonstrate that people are valued. Organizational change must contribute to positive employee engagement and healthy organizational culture.
5. Realistic & affordable. Organizational change must be achievable. Conceptual models may look good on paper, but if implementation success is improbable, the changes should not be attempted.

Bottom Line: Do not underestimate the level of operational dysfunction that would be caused by a botched organizational restructuring effort. If your municipality needs to change, take your time and do it right. If you need help, reach out to someone with some experience.