Your City Council at Work

Spending time at City Hall over the past months has provided me the opportunity to watch the behavior (antics) of councillors during committee and council meetings. One pervading issue is the amount of time many members spend away from the committee/council table speaking on the side with other committee members, staff, consultants and members of the public or glad-handing with VIPs.

This occurs when public delegations are presenting to committees, when staff are answering questions on reports and also during debate. First of all it is insulting to members of public delegations presenting issues and concerns to committees that their presentations are ignored. Secondly, it means that committee/council members are not fully informed on matters under debate. It makes the work of committees and council irrelevant. Clearly, minds are made up already and no amount of public input, clarification or debate will influence their decisions.

Some individual do business this ay more frequently than others. His Worship the Mayor is one of the worst offenders followed closely by Councillors Maria McRae, Jan Harder, Rainer Bloess, Bob Monette and Marianne Wilkinson. But most councillors stray off from time-to-time.

One-on-one strategizing, consultation and discussion between councillors, staff, consultants and others should occur before meeting or during intermissions, not at the committee/council table. At least lets see a perception that council really cares what the taxpayer and other committee members think.

Ethical Issues at Play in the TMP Debate

Yesterday’s City of Ottawa Council meeting saw the start of debate on the draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as recommended by the joint Transport/Transit Committees last week. Motions to open up the scope of the debate presented by opponents of the plan in its present form were defeated and strict time limits were placed on councillors’ questions to staff about details of the plan. Even with this limitation in place questions to staff took up several hours.

It was evident from staff responses to questions on the Carling Avenue LRT options the Leadman/Doucet proposal has not been reviewed seriously. Staff presented deliberately misleading details of technical assessments of the various options that have been analyzed.

There was also evidence of collusion between TMP supporters on council and members of staff. Questions to staff from some plan supporters were phrased to elicit copy book answers. It looked rehearsed. The more difficult questions asked by plan opponents could not be fully explored because of imposed time limits. Consequently, many important issues remain unexplored.

The debate is not yet done. Many motions remain to be debated before the plan is voted on. I can’t imagine the TMP being approved in its present form, given uncertainties in funding from provincial and federal government funding, as well as the City’s fragile financial position. It’s time to take a step back and to reexamine the many options that are on the table.

At best I believe that there are ethical issues that need to be addressed. I’ll have more to say about this later.

Democracy at Work – Not

Here is the text from a letter I wrote to the Ottawa Citizen today:

At yesterday’s joint Transport/Transit meeting to review and approve the updated City of Ottawa draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP), some 25 delegations presented comments and in some cases alternative visions for elements of the plan. Several things became evident as the day progressed. Firstly the nature of many of the delegate presentations revealed significant inconsistencies in the draft TMP, suggesting that it is not yet ready for presentation to council. Secondly, it was clear from questions and comments from councillors that many of them already have their minds made up notwithstanding the validity of delegates’ input. Thirdly, an alternative vision of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system offered by Councillors Doucet and Leadman was rejected without providing time for the serious consideration it clearly deserves.

Significant effort made by individual delegates is largely unappreciated and valuable suggestions go ignored. Council decisions regarding the direction the TMP will take are formed even before staff effort is completed. City staff clearly worked hard to develop the draft plan presented to the committee. Unfortunately, the work they do is based on direction from councillors some of whom have unbending political agendas and allegiances.

Council members are not experts in the complex fields of transportation and transit, so are not qualified to take a final decision on the TMP without independent expert overview. A plan of this complexity should be subject to arm’s length review by a panel of experts before being presented for approval. Why the hurry to approve this important plan without taking the time to get it right?

RPCA Elects a New President

At the RPCA annual general meeting on October 15 nobody appeared willing to stand for nomination as president. So the matter was put to the board to select a president from within its ranks at the next board meeting. In the meantime one person, Brant Scott, came forward indicating he was willing to stand. The board voted to accept Brant as president. RPCA now has an official point of contact for communications with our city ward representative, Councillor Peter Hume.

The elephant in the room is conflict of interest resulting from accepting Brant Scott as president of RPCA. Susan Scott, Brant’s wife, is Councillor Peter Hume’s assistant at City Hall. This is unfortunate, particularly given some of the development, transportation and transit issues that are of concern in the Riverview Park community right now. It will be interesting to learn how Brant Scott and Councillor Peter Hume propose to avoid potential conflicts when these and other issues arise. For too long RPCA leadership has cooperated with their Ward representative and has failed to effectively reflect the concerns of the community.

Councillor Hume has stated that he will produce letters from RPCA, and other community associations in his ward, in support of the Hospital Lands Plan. Formal support by the board is premature. Individual members of RPCA have expressed opposition, the membership as a whole needs to be consulted. Not only must opinions of the entire membership be reflected in any letter but it should be noted that the RPCA does not and cannot reflect the majority view of Riverside Park.

It should be remembered that RPCA membership is small relative to the size of the Riverview Park community. RPCA has some fence mending, and dare I say “bridge building,” to do so its membership can grow to a level where it can effectively represent the community.