I sent this letter to the Ottawa Citizen, but they didn’t publish:
“The recent finding by the City’s Auditor General that city staff are making excessive use of sick-leave suggests that it is not individual employees who are sick; rather it points to a sickness within the city’s work environment. This suggests that good leadership is seriously lacking within senior management ranks as well as within City Council.
“One reason that people abuse sick-leave is that they are anxious or unhappy, so don’t want to go to work. City Council can help solve this problem by reviewing its own behavior as well as that of its senior managers.”
City management has since made some changes to its communications organization. After firing the head guy, who never really did anything wrong, they hired three local hot shot journalists in the hope that this might help improve the City’s public image. I’m not sure how one can really make bad management and council decisions look good to the public after the event.
What the City really needs are leaders, both councillors and managers, with the wisdom and judgment to make good decisions related to both policy and execution.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Corporate donations to municipal election campaigns
The issue of corporate donations to candidates campaigning for office at municipal and provincial levels has been a concern of mine for a long time. At the federal level Elections Canada took steps to eliminate corporate donation some time ago. Why are the two lower levels of government not introducing similar legislation?
If the province introduced income tax credits at the municipal level, similar to those that already exist at federal and provincial levels, more people would consider donating to municipal candidates’ campaigns. This in turn might result in renewed levels of interest in municipal elections and help increase the number of voters who turn out.
It was disappointing, though not surprising, to learn that Ottawa City councillors have turned down yet another opportunity to speak to the provincial government on this issue (Bid to ban corporate, union donations fails, Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, November 24, 2009). A motion by Councillor Alex Cullen to ask the province to prohibit such donations was defeated by a vote of 4-6 by the audit, budget and finance committee.
Dare’s article notes that only five councillors out of the 24 on council do not accept corporate donation and union donations. However, at least one member of this group of five receives a substantial amount of donations to his campaign from individual owners, executives and senior staff of corporations, primarily developers. Interestingly, this individual voted in favor of Cullen’s motion.
New municipal election rules that are being considered by the province will put a limit on the maximum value of contributions that any individual, corporation or other organization can make. But this does not prevent a large number of individuals with ties to a particular corporation or organization from donating. This defeats the intent of the proposed legislation.
It’s time for this issue to be cleared up once and for all. No matter how much councillors take offence and protest that their votes cannot be bought when challenged on this issue, the perception will always be there. We just need to remove the temptation.
If the province introduced income tax credits at the municipal level, similar to those that already exist at federal and provincial levels, more people would consider donating to municipal candidates’ campaigns. This in turn might result in renewed levels of interest in municipal elections and help increase the number of voters who turn out.
It was disappointing, though not surprising, to learn that Ottawa City councillors have turned down yet another opportunity to speak to the provincial government on this issue (Bid to ban corporate, union donations fails, Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, November 24, 2009). A motion by Councillor Alex Cullen to ask the province to prohibit such donations was defeated by a vote of 4-6 by the audit, budget and finance committee.
Dare’s article notes that only five councillors out of the 24 on council do not accept corporate donation and union donations. However, at least one member of this group of five receives a substantial amount of donations to his campaign from individual owners, executives and senior staff of corporations, primarily developers. Interestingly, this individual voted in favor of Cullen’s motion.
New municipal election rules that are being considered by the province will put a limit on the maximum value of contributions that any individual, corporation or other organization can make. But this does not prevent a large number of individuals with ties to a particular corporation or organization from donating. This defeats the intent of the proposed legislation.
It’s time for this issue to be cleared up once and for all. No matter how much councillors take offence and protest that their votes cannot be bought when challenged on this issue, the perception will always be there. We just need to remove the temptation.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Chair and past chair of Planning and Environment Committee oppose flood relief grant
It is disappointing to read that the present chair (Councillor Hume) and past chair (Councillor Hunter) of the City’s Planning and Environment Committee were the only people to vote in opposition to the motion to pay a small grant to residents in Kanata who have been affected by three flooding occurrences over the past 15 years (Committee passes flood relief grant, Jennifer Burden, Kanata Kourier-Standard, November 18, 2009).
The proposed motion to go before city council is already considered by many affected residents to be too lean and restrictive. Surely being affected by only a single incident of flooding should be sufficient to justify some payment and the amount of compensation should be cumulative, on a per occurrence say? The flooding results from bad development decisions in the first place. It is not the fault of residents. The expenditures involved are peanuts when compared with some of the obscene spending decisions that this city council makes.
Of course, if the Hume/Hunter duo opposed the motion because they think the city should pay more, then I’ll eat my words!
The proposed motion to go before city council is already considered by many affected residents to be too lean and restrictive. Surely being affected by only a single incident of flooding should be sufficient to justify some payment and the amount of compensation should be cumulative, on a per occurrence say? The flooding results from bad development decisions in the first place. It is not the fault of residents. The expenditures involved are peanuts when compared with some of the obscene spending decisions that this city council makes.
Of course, if the Hume/Hunter duo opposed the motion because they think the city should pay more, then I’ll eat my words!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
A Riddle
Question: Who would vote to make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse?
Answer: Ottawa City Council!
Yes, that is what Ottawa City Council did yesterday when it voted to conditionally approve the OSEG’s Lansdowne Plan. Make no mistake, the motion amendments that apparently made the deal sweet enough for a majority of council to approve are pure window dressing. Proposed changes to the deal might even make the matter worse.
Watch out for scope change negotiations as any resulting contract proceeds. With less incremental money coming to OSEG as the city attempts to recover it’s share OSEG will be hot to recover the cash elsewhere.
Also, Councillor Hume’s amendment has no real substance. Design decisions on planned retail areas of Lansdowne will do little to influence the type of retailers who elect to set up shop there. No design competition is going to control OSEG’s right to lease the retail space to whomever they choose, notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary by Councillor Hume.
And don’t expect ongoing transportation/transit planning to produce any significant improvements. Lansdowne is still a landlocked site on Bank Street with serious traffic congestion and only limited access to public transit. Nothing can change this.
It is unlikely that significant changes will result from these studies to be undertaken by city staff and consultants. And it is unlikely that council’s decision will be any different in May 2010. The high point of any contract award is typically the day the contract is signed; from that point forward it’s usually downhill. It’s as if they have signed the contract already. And remember, it’s still an unethical sole-source deal!
Over the past few months many people have commented that the public consultation process was simply window dressing. This observation is clearly correct. A large body of negative feedback from citizens during the consultation process and from public delegations last week has been largely ignored. Is this what democracy means in the City of Ottawa? Citizens of Ottawa, at the next municipal election, vote with your feet!
Answer: Ottawa City Council!
Yes, that is what Ottawa City Council did yesterday when it voted to conditionally approve the OSEG’s Lansdowne Plan. Make no mistake, the motion amendments that apparently made the deal sweet enough for a majority of council to approve are pure window dressing. Proposed changes to the deal might even make the matter worse.
Watch out for scope change negotiations as any resulting contract proceeds. With less incremental money coming to OSEG as the city attempts to recover it’s share OSEG will be hot to recover the cash elsewhere.
Also, Councillor Hume’s amendment has no real substance. Design decisions on planned retail areas of Lansdowne will do little to influence the type of retailers who elect to set up shop there. No design competition is going to control OSEG’s right to lease the retail space to whomever they choose, notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary by Councillor Hume.
And don’t expect ongoing transportation/transit planning to produce any significant improvements. Lansdowne is still a landlocked site on Bank Street with serious traffic congestion and only limited access to public transit. Nothing can change this.
It is unlikely that significant changes will result from these studies to be undertaken by city staff and consultants. And it is unlikely that council’s decision will be any different in May 2010. The high point of any contract award is typically the day the contract is signed; from that point forward it’s usually downhill. It’s as if they have signed the contract already. And remember, it’s still an unethical sole-source deal!
Over the past few months many people have commented that the public consultation process was simply window dressing. This observation is clearly correct. A large body of negative feedback from citizens during the consultation process and from public delegations last week has been largely ignored. Is this what democracy means in the City of Ottawa? Citizens of Ottawa, at the next municipal election, vote with your feet!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Green box fee or tax
This updated post reflects the Tuesday November 11, 2009 vote by the city’s planning and Development committee to recommend a “fee for service” approach for the Green-bin, Blue box and Black box collection programs. This decision was taken despite the fact that many members of the public are very concerned about introduction of the fee for services approach (Green-bin approach has many seeing red, Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 10, 2009).
Following the vote Councillor Peter Hume, chair of the committee, said the program, and why it's needed, had not been well explained. And he said the city should have had the debate about how to pay for it long before budget time. Hume said it was too late to make significant changes to the program. He said contracts have been signed and bins are being distributed, so it's not possible for the city to retreat from the $17-million program now.
This leaves me confused as to where Councillor Hume really stands on this issue. His response to a recent message I sent him, and other members of council gave me the impression that he was not in favor of the Green-bin user fee, but preferred an approach that would apply user fees to the garbage disposal process, thus making people pay for bad behavior and rewarding people who make effective use of the Green-bin, Blue Box and Black Box programs, as has been done in other Ontario municipalities.
Apparently Hume did agree to study a true user-fee program for regular garbage disposal, a tag-a-bag program that would see residents only pay for the trash they put out. But this would not come into effect before 2011 at the earliest. Why are these issues not being debated now, and where are the incentives rewarding the public for using the recycling programs? Following is a copy of my original message, along with Councillor Hume’s response.
Dear Councillor Hume,
Today's Ottawa Citizen editorial on your proposed Green box user fees helped gel my concerns over this issue (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Trash+this+idea/2185830/story.html).
The proposed Green Bin user fee is being applied against a service that will significantly reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. In the long-term this will save the city oodles of money. It also brings long-term profits to the commercial enterprise that is composting the green waste. Why else would they be doing it?
It would be better to apply the user fee to the garbage disposal process, thus making people pay for bad behavior and rewarding people who make effective use of the Green Bin, Blue Box and Black Box programs, as has been done in other Ontario municipalities.
One town (Saugeen Shores) went to a User Pay system for garbage last year, and has shown very positive results. Starting bag tags took waste disposal entirely off the property tax base and avoided a 4.9% budget increase. Garbage drops offs on roadsides went up a bit, but the revenue from the bag tags allows the town to send out staff to pick up the garbage as needed. People will continue to throw garbage on roadsides, no matter whether there is a cost for bags or not.
There has been a significant drop in the amount of landfill tonnage. The additional savings from this system is going into environmental projects the town's committee has identified as priorities next year. The waste diversion rate increase has been only good for everyone in giving more years to landfill, and helping people see the connection between how much garbage they are producing and the cost.
This way as well, people who compost their own yard/kitchen waste will receive the same benefits as people using the Green Box. Sure there is a short term deficit as the program is introduced. The City needs to find a more equitable means of dealing with this, because eventually the expense should be recovered.
Sincerely,
Colin Hine
“Dear Mr. Hine,
“We may not agree on many things but on this issue we agree on this issue. The City moved to identify the costs of waste management so that we could move to system that would do exactly as you indicate. Given the response to the green bin program and most has been I don't want the program I would be willing to move to pay per bag system - using tags or stickers -- as soon as possible. Yesterday I met with the Environment Minister to push for full product stewardship for blue and black box materials and I expect him to make the producers 100% responsible for the cost of recycling these materials and I also expect that in moving to full product stewardship disposal costs will have to rise so a per bag fee is the proper way to go.
“Sincerely,
“Peter Hume”
Following the vote Councillor Peter Hume, chair of the committee, said the program, and why it's needed, had not been well explained. And he said the city should have had the debate about how to pay for it long before budget time. Hume said it was too late to make significant changes to the program. He said contracts have been signed and bins are being distributed, so it's not possible for the city to retreat from the $17-million program now.
This leaves me confused as to where Councillor Hume really stands on this issue. His response to a recent message I sent him, and other members of council gave me the impression that he was not in favor of the Green-bin user fee, but preferred an approach that would apply user fees to the garbage disposal process, thus making people pay for bad behavior and rewarding people who make effective use of the Green-bin, Blue Box and Black Box programs, as has been done in other Ontario municipalities.
Apparently Hume did agree to study a true user-fee program for regular garbage disposal, a tag-a-bag program that would see residents only pay for the trash they put out. But this would not come into effect before 2011 at the earliest. Why are these issues not being debated now, and where are the incentives rewarding the public for using the recycling programs? Following is a copy of my original message, along with Councillor Hume’s response.
Dear Councillor Hume,
Today's Ottawa Citizen editorial on your proposed Green box user fees helped gel my concerns over this issue (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Trash+this+idea/2185830/story.html).
The proposed Green Bin user fee is being applied against a service that will significantly reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. In the long-term this will save the city oodles of money. It also brings long-term profits to the commercial enterprise that is composting the green waste. Why else would they be doing it?
It would be better to apply the user fee to the garbage disposal process, thus making people pay for bad behavior and rewarding people who make effective use of the Green Bin, Blue Box and Black Box programs, as has been done in other Ontario municipalities.
One town (Saugeen Shores) went to a User Pay system for garbage last year, and has shown very positive results. Starting bag tags took waste disposal entirely off the property tax base and avoided a 4.9% budget increase. Garbage drops offs on roadsides went up a bit, but the revenue from the bag tags allows the town to send out staff to pick up the garbage as needed. People will continue to throw garbage on roadsides, no matter whether there is a cost for bags or not.
There has been a significant drop in the amount of landfill tonnage. The additional savings from this system is going into environmental projects the town's committee has identified as priorities next year. The waste diversion rate increase has been only good for everyone in giving more years to landfill, and helping people see the connection between how much garbage they are producing and the cost.
This way as well, people who compost their own yard/kitchen waste will receive the same benefits as people using the Green Box. Sure there is a short term deficit as the program is introduced. The City needs to find a more equitable means of dealing with this, because eventually the expense should be recovered.
Sincerely,
Colin Hine
“Dear Mr. Hine,
“We may not agree on many things but on this issue we agree on this issue. The City moved to identify the costs of waste management so that we could move to system that would do exactly as you indicate. Given the response to the green bin program and most has been I don't want the program I would be willing to move to pay per bag system - using tags or stickers -- as soon as possible. Yesterday I met with the Environment Minister to push for full product stewardship for blue and black box materials and I expect him to make the producers 100% responsible for the cost of recycling these materials and I also expect that in moving to full product stewardship disposal costs will have to rise so a per bag fee is the proper way to go.
“Sincerely,
“Peter Hume”
Friday, November 6, 2009
Mayor’s comments suggest that council intends to proceed with Lansdowne Live whatever the public has to say
Listening to Mayor Larry O’Brien speak on CBC Radio this morning suggested to me what many have believed all along; that the city intends to proceed with the OSEG proposed plan in some form whatever the public have to say about it. Mayor O'Brien was commenting on the results of the Nanos Research survey on the Lansdowne Live proposal - see this morning’s article in the Ottawa Citizen (Stadium survey results tell council to “just do it").
This conclusion is reached by 23% of respondents in a poll of 1,000 residents conducted by Nanos Research on October 17 though 19, 2009. This means that 73% of respondents believe that the city should be doing something else, though exactly what is unclear.
This doesn’t sound like a strong mandate to proceed to me!
The article also summarizes a report by Nanos Research on a survey of 3,000 residents gathered from survey forms filled out at public meetings and on-line. Interestingly respondents were least favorably disposed to inclusion of the only elements of the plan that will likely make the project profitable to OSEG members (retail space, residential development, office space, movie theatres and a hotel).
Again, this doesn’t sound like a favorable public response to me!
This conclusion is reached by 23% of respondents in a poll of 1,000 residents conducted by Nanos Research on October 17 though 19, 2009. This means that 73% of respondents believe that the city should be doing something else, though exactly what is unclear.
This doesn’t sound like a strong mandate to proceed to me!
The article also summarizes a report by Nanos Research on a survey of 3,000 residents gathered from survey forms filled out at public meetings and on-line. Interestingly respondents were least favorably disposed to inclusion of the only elements of the plan that will likely make the project profitable to OSEG members (retail space, residential development, office space, movie theatres and a hotel).
Again, this doesn’t sound like a favorable public response to me!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Municipal Election Campaign Donations
Concern over municipal election campaign donations from corporations and unions appears to be building (Councillor calls for corporate donations ban, CBC Ottawa web site, November 2, 2009). Whether or not proposed changes to the Province of Ontario’s Municipal election Act are passed, remains to be seen. But ethical dilemmas will persist for Councillors who receive contributions from prominent individuals who’s firms or employers could benefit from later decisions and actions taken by city council.
The phrase “my vote cannot be bought” has been heard quite often recently, particularly in connection with OSCG’s Lansdowne Live proposal. Nonetheless there were significant donations from corporations and prominent individuals to elected Councillor’s campaigns in 2006 (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen, Political donations and Lansdowne Live, David Reveley, September 30, 2009).
Reveley concludes he is comfortable “...that none of the winning candidates owes his or her seat on council to money from the Lansdowne Live proponents. Any connection is sure to be more subtle….” However, the article also notes that “…When a candidate got money from these guys, chances are he or she also got money from other developers and builders and consultants, for instance, who might get pieces of Lansdowne work if Lansdowne Live goes ahead…”
While the total amount of contributions is small in relative terms, it is difficult to believe that such contributions do not influence collective decision making in some way. Only nine elected Councillors did not accept donations from OSEG members in 2006.
I have posted previously on the issue of corporate campaign contributions. My concerns will not be satisfied by proposed amendments to the Act now being considered by the Province. It is disturbing that provincial law continues to allow contributions of this nature when strict measures to limit implications of inappropriate election contributions have been enacted at the federal level.
The phrase “my vote cannot be bought” has been heard quite often recently, particularly in connection with OSCG’s Lansdowne Live proposal. Nonetheless there were significant donations from corporations and prominent individuals to elected Councillor’s campaigns in 2006 (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen, Political donations and Lansdowne Live, David Reveley, September 30, 2009).
Reveley concludes he is comfortable “...that none of the winning candidates owes his or her seat on council to money from the Lansdowne Live proponents. Any connection is sure to be more subtle….” However, the article also notes that “…When a candidate got money from these guys, chances are he or she also got money from other developers and builders and consultants, for instance, who might get pieces of Lansdowne work if Lansdowne Live goes ahead…”
While the total amount of contributions is small in relative terms, it is difficult to believe that such contributions do not influence collective decision making in some way. Only nine elected Councillors did not accept donations from OSEG members in 2006.
I have posted previously on the issue of corporate campaign contributions. My concerns will not be satisfied by proposed amendments to the Act now being considered by the Province. It is disturbing that provincial law continues to allow contributions of this nature when strict measures to limit implications of inappropriate election contributions have been enacted at the federal level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
