There's no doubt that the future of Vancouver will figure prominently in the campaign rhetoric of mayoral candidates in this fall's civic election. Coun. Peter Ladner of the Non-Partisan Association and Vision Vancouver's Gregor Robertson will each make the case that the city needs strong leadership, at least for the next three years.

However, it remains to be seen whether or not the two candidates will articulate any wish for greater mayoral powers. Just like any member of council, the mayor has only one vote in the chamber. The mayor also inherits a bureaucracy that wields considerable clout in running the affairs of the city.

A 2005 comparison of selected urban governance models—prepared principally by Lionel D. Feldman Consulting Ltd. for the City of Toronto—showed that Canadian cities do not have a strong-mayor system. In contrast, according to the report, the mayors of Chicago, London, and New York are, effectively, the chief executive officers of their respective cities. They have independent powers to appoint senior city staff, and have responsibility for the budget.

In Chicago and London, the mayors can veto council decisions, and such vetoes can be overturned only by a two-thirds vote by council. The Greater London Assembly can review the mayor's performance "but not change the mayor's course of action". In comparison, the mayors of Vancouver and Toronto have "no independent authorities". In the case of Vancouver, according to the report, the mayor "leads by moral authority and often by virtue of being a member of the dominant party on council".

Vision Vancouver councillor Tim Stevenson noted that a weak-mayor system is good because it ensures that no one person in City Hall wields too much power.

"On the other hand, I think our system does leave a mayor very vulnerable and not able to bring in a lot of things that they might want to do," Stevenson told the Georgia Straight.

Without a majority in council, or at least a working coalition, a mayor would find it extremely difficult to push through his agenda for the city, Stevenson added.

Although he stressed that a review of Vancouver's mayoral system is not an immediate goal of his party, Stevenson said that this issue has to be addressed sooner or later.

"I think that it would be worthwhile sitting down and having a hard, good look at both systems and lining up the pros and cons of both, and seeing if we want to stay with what we've got…or whether in fact there's a middle ground," he said. "It's not really an easy question to answer."

Stevenson pointed out that Vancouver has grown from a very small West Coast city into a major city that has to evaluate whether or not its existing governance system remains relevant to its needs.

There's little agreement among experts interviewed by the Straight on whether a strong-mayor or a weak-mayor system serves citizens better in terms of making politicians account for their performance in office.

UVic political scientist Dennis Pilon explained that under a weak-mayor system, the mayor as well as individual members of council are equally responsible for policies by virtue of their votes.

"In our system, the public can make the politicians accountable by saying: how did you vote on these various things?" Pilon said by phone.

James Milway, executive director of the Toronto-based think tank Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, noted that there is an argument to be made for a strong-mayor system.

"If people are worried about gridlock, about council standing in the way of the mayor or of never getting any decisions done, one of the advantages of the strong-mayor system is that the mayor can decide, ‘I'm gonna do this,' " Milway said. "But you have to put checks and balances so you don't have a dictator."

Vancouver lawyer and municipal-law expert Donald Lidstone said he thought there is a greater preference for the current system, where most civic processes are transparent and open to the public. For example, city council, chaired by the mayor, holds public hearings on major city policy initiatives.

"Sometimes the efficacy of the legislation depends on the character and personality of the mayor," Lidstone observed, adding that a mayor's personal ability to lead is all that it takes to become a strong mayor.