The transit strike is now into its fifth week and, given the rejection of the city’s latest offer by the driver’s union, will likely continue on for some time. We mostly have strong opinions on the strikers, the city or both and I do not intend to comment further on this, other than to suggest that reason has to return on both sides.
What concern me more are possible long term consequences of the dispute once it is settled? One of my concerns is that proponents of ongoing road development (on city council and elsewhere) will see this as an opportunity to promote and accelerate the city’s road building agenda.
Development of the transit plan must address long term staffing and labour issues as well as infrastructure and route planning. Provisions that will ensure continuity of transit services while labour negotiations are in process are essential. It is unclear to me that this can be accomplished through the current organization. City should remove itself from day-to-day issues and once again consider establishment of an arms length transit authority.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Next Mayoralty Campaign
Its early days yet but according to Ken Gray in the Citizen on Dec 26 (Handicapping the next mayor) things are warming up. Gray attempts to handicap those he sees as lead contenders in the next mayoralty race. I was particularly interested reading his comments on one of the favourites.
“Peter Hume: The early favourite. A red Tory, the Alta Vista councillor would be able to mobilize much of the Conservative machine in Ottawa. And he counts Munter, so he has wide appeal. A great conciliator and deal-maker on council, he will need to be a superb fundraiser because he is not a wealthy man. Mr. Hume is so eager to run you expect see him covered in green paint around city hall after making election signs in the basement all night.”
In a recent post I commented on sources local councilors receive funding from to support their campaigns and the potential for serious conflict of interest. Peter Hume is one of several candidates identified in the 2003 and 2006 campaigns whose funding sources include a high percentage of contributions from firms and individuals that have business interests that might benefit from future council decisions.
Hume did particularly well in this area. In the 2003 campaign at least 71% of $26,999 in contributions came from corporations or individuals with direct interests in future developments within his ward and within the city as a whole. In the 2006 campaign there were no direct corporate campaign contributions but at least 62% of $27,062 came from individuals whose firms/employers might benefit similarly.
So, if Peter Hume decides to run for mayor, as most believe he will, he should have little difficulty raising funds. Many of the sources he has used in previous campaigns will be more than pleased to help out and maximize their contributions.
The sad fact is that this is all perfectly legal according to current provincial/municipal laws. It is disturbing that provincial laws allow contributions of this nature when strict measures to prevent implications of inappropriate election contributions are in place at the federal level. The time has come for the Province of Ontario to act on this issue too.
“Peter Hume: The early favourite. A red Tory, the Alta Vista councillor would be able to mobilize much of the Conservative machine in Ottawa. And he counts Munter, so he has wide appeal. A great conciliator and deal-maker on council, he will need to be a superb fundraiser because he is not a wealthy man. Mr. Hume is so eager to run you expect see him covered in green paint around city hall after making election signs in the basement all night.”
In a recent post I commented on sources local councilors receive funding from to support their campaigns and the potential for serious conflict of interest. Peter Hume is one of several candidates identified in the 2003 and 2006 campaigns whose funding sources include a high percentage of contributions from firms and individuals that have business interests that might benefit from future council decisions.
Hume did particularly well in this area. In the 2003 campaign at least 71% of $26,999 in contributions came from corporations or individuals with direct interests in future developments within his ward and within the city as a whole. In the 2006 campaign there were no direct corporate campaign contributions but at least 62% of $27,062 came from individuals whose firms/employers might benefit similarly.
So, if Peter Hume decides to run for mayor, as most believe he will, he should have little difficulty raising funds. Many of the sources he has used in previous campaigns will be more than pleased to help out and maximize their contributions.
The sad fact is that this is all perfectly legal according to current provincial/municipal laws. It is disturbing that provincial laws allow contributions of this nature when strict measures to prevent implications of inappropriate election contributions are in place at the federal level. The time has come for the Province of Ontario to act on this issue too.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Municipal Election Contributions Ethics - 101
Government of Ontario’s municipal election law currently permits contributions by corporations and unions provided they are registered within the province. Contributions from individuals are also allowed, provided that they reside in the province and that recovery of contributions is not being made from a company or employer.
Firms and individuals that have business interests that might benefit from future decisions (e.g. votes in council) by persons standing for election are therefore permitted by current election law. Accepting contributions from these firms and individuals puts councilors in a conflict-of-interest situation and at worst might lead to accusations of bribery and corruption.
In recent elections a large percentage of contributions to several councillor’s campaigns came from corporations or from individuals with direct interests in future developments within the ward or within the city as a whole. This includes individuals who are owners, executives or senior managers in these firms.
Some councillor’s election campaign contributions show no direct corporate donations to their campaign. But indicate a large percentage of contributions from individuals whose firms/employers might benefit in the manner identified above.
It is unfortunate that individual councillors are not considering the ethical dilemma they place themselves in when accepting contributions from prominent individuals whose firms or employers might benefit from later decisions and action taken by city council. This is especially the case when one considers that policies regarding gifts and entertainment to city staff by firms/people doing business with the City have been tightened up in order to avoid appearance of conflict of interest.
It is very disturbing that provincial law allows contributions of this nature at both provincial and municipal levels. Stricter measures that reduce implications of inappropriate election contributions are already in place at the federal level.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2005/06-08/ACS2005-CCS-CSE-0006-DOC-1.htm
Firms and individuals that have business interests that might benefit from future decisions (e.g. votes in council) by persons standing for election are therefore permitted by current election law. Accepting contributions from these firms and individuals puts councilors in a conflict-of-interest situation and at worst might lead to accusations of bribery and corruption.
In recent elections a large percentage of contributions to several councillor’s campaigns came from corporations or from individuals with direct interests in future developments within the ward or within the city as a whole. This includes individuals who are owners, executives or senior managers in these firms.
Some councillor’s election campaign contributions show no direct corporate donations to their campaign. But indicate a large percentage of contributions from individuals whose firms/employers might benefit in the manner identified above.
It is unfortunate that individual councillors are not considering the ethical dilemma they place themselves in when accepting contributions from prominent individuals whose firms or employers might benefit from later decisions and action taken by city council. This is especially the case when one considers that policies regarding gifts and entertainment to city staff by firms/people doing business with the City have been tightened up in order to avoid appearance of conflict of interest.
It is very disturbing that provincial law allows contributions of this nature at both provincial and municipal levels. Stricter measures that reduce implications of inappropriate election contributions are already in place at the federal level.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2005/06-08/ACS2005-CCS-CSE-0006-DOC-1.htm
Friday, November 28, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
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?
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?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
