The original public commitment and the date attached to it — as it was announced, not as it was later described.
How this platform works · BISSON13
When the deadline passes, the explanation is automatic.
Every campaign promises accountability, and almost every one of them means reporting — quarterly updates, annual reviews, a status page. Reports have one fatal flaw: somebody has to read them, notice the problem, and care enough to raise it. Usually nobody does. That’s how a project slips two years while everybody follows the process correctly.
So don’t schedule the accountability. Trigger it. The missed date does the work — no councillor has to file anything, and no resident has to complain. The delay reports itself.
The four questions
Four questions.The same four, every time.
In plain language, not process language. You shouldn’t need a glossary to understand why your street is still closed.
Not just a new date. What changed, so this one holds when the last one didn’t.
Dollars, disruption, or both — including the cost carried by residents and businesses, not only the cost on the City ledger.
The standing motion
The motion I would bring.
Be it resolved that where a City project, program or service commitment passes a publicly announced completion or delivery date without being met, Civic Administration provide a public explanation report to the next regular meeting of the appropriate standing committee, identifying the original commitment and date, the reason the date was not met, the responsible department or authority, a revised date with the basis for confidence in it, and the cost or service impact of the delay; and that such reports be published in a single public location so residents may follow any commitment from announcement through to result.
Costs nothing
No new staff and no new system. It uses completion dates the City already publishes.
Inside Council authority
Council already sets reporting requirements. This is one with a trigger condition instead of a calendar.
Blames nobody in advance
The limits, stated honestlySometimes the honest answer is that a ministry approval took eleven months. That answer is useful.
Council cannot compel a provincial ministry, the police services board, London Transit Commission or an outside contractor to appear. It can require Civic Administration to report what the City asked for, when it asked, and what answer it received — which makes the bottleneck visible even when it sits outside municipal control.
One mechanism, every issue
Where this applies.
This is the part that makes the issue pages read as one campaign rather than a collection of separate opinions. The same accountability principle applies across the platform.
Roads and Construction →
A project passes its published completion date.
Housing and Homelessness →
A supportive housing target date passes unmet.
Downtown Accountability →
An announced downtown initiative misses its delivery date.
Transit and Mobility →
A service or reliability commitment is not delivered.
Public Safety →
A response or enforcement commitment is missed.
Taxes and Spending →
A budgeted project is not delivered in its budget year.
City Hall Accountability →
Any published departmental commitment passes unmet.
Heritage That Works →
A heritage permit or reuse decision passes its service standard.
Living Futures Campus →
A requested feasibility report is not delivered on time.
I’m not asking anyone to be perfect. I’m asking that when something goes wrong, somebody comes and says so — out loud, at Council, where you can hear it. That’s not a lot to ask. Right now it doesn’t happen at all.
Where would you like to go next?
Keep moving through what matters to you.
BISSON13 · Ward 13