Mark Sutcliffe presents collaboration as a defining feature of his governing record. His campaign states that budgets, the housing plan and the LRT upload passed unanimously or almost unanimously and argues that Ottawa has made progress by working across Council rather than through ideological division.

His campaign also emphasizes financial discipline, claimed savings and efficiencies, comparatively low tax increases and action-oriented plans for housing, transit, downtown renewal and public safety. These themes support a governance approach focused on implementation, consensus and value for money.

Ottawa’s existing accountability framework remained in place during his term, including the Integrity Commissioner, Lobbyist Registry, Codes of Conduct, expense and gift disclosure, conflict-of-interest records and Auditor General oversight.

However, Sutcliffe has not released a standalone 2026 governance platform specifying how he would use strong-mayor powers, whether he would publish a weekly schedule or proactively disclose stakeholder meetings, how he would change procurement and budget processes or what new performance-reporting standards he would introduce.

His position is therefore supportive of existing governance and collaborative decision-making, with medium confidence on future reforms.

Jeff Leiper’s ‘City Hall That Works in the Open’ platform is the most detailed governance proposal among the candidates reviewed.

He commits not to use strong-mayor powers to override Council and instead says he would work collaboratively to build consensus on major decisions. This directly addresses the balance between executive authority and Council decision-making.

Leiper also commits to publishing a weekly mayoral schedule and proactively disclosing meetings with lobbyists and major stakeholders. Ottawa already requires qualifying lobbyists to register substantive communications, but his proposal would place an additional disclosure responsibility on the mayor’s office.

He proposes plain-language summaries for major decisions and release of supporting materials before votes, intended to make trade-offs and implications understandable before decisions are finalized.

His platform also states that he refuses donations from developers and promises to replace the existing City budget process with a more open system that shows how funding decisions affect services.

The platform is explicit, but implementation details remain to be developed, including publication formats, timing standards, exceptions for confidential matters and the design of the replacement budget process.

Alex Lawson published a dedicated transparency policy, “Your Money in Plain Sight,” on July 31, 2026. It focuses on procurement and public disclosure of City spending.

Lawson proposes a live, searchable, plain-language list showing who receives City contracts, what the City is paying and when the work is due. He says every contract should be included with no minimum dollar threshold and the list should be updated as work is awarded rather than through periodic reports.

He would also include consultants, studies, reviews and outside advice, including their cost and recipient. His policy calls for more open procurement so more companies can bid. The proposal is a substantive transparency and procurement policy, although it does not address every governance area tracked by Compare Ottawa, such as strong-mayor powers, lobbying disclosure, Council procedure or campaign-finance rules.

Neil Saravanamuttoo argues that Ottawa’s central problem is not a lack of money but weak transparency, accountability and decision-making. He proposes an “Open Books, 100 Days” initiative that would publish and benchmark contracts, procurement data and spending decisions, scrutinize change orders and expose whether Ottawa is paying more than comparable cities.

He also supports zero-based budgeting, stronger accountability for major projects, reduced developer influence, neighbourhood safety councils, citizens’ assemblies and participatory budgeting. His campaign frames these measures as a transfer of power from insiders and centralized City Hall processes toward residents and communities.