feature

feature — Comments Off on Ford: Pretty quiet for a cycling advocate
14
Mar 11

Ford: Pretty quiet for a cycling advocate

A Smitherman Campaign Ad painting Ford as an opponent of cycling

A ‘postcard’ from the Smitherman campaign painting Ford as anti-cyclist.

Dave Meslin, in the first of what I hope will be a bunch of columns for the Toronto Star, writes about Ford’s sometimes exaggerated views on cycling:

Ford says “cyclists are putting their lives at risk every time they go on the road,” and his solution is both simple and practical: “We have to widen our sidewalks, split them basically in half, pedestrians on one side, closest to the stores, and the cyclists on the other side. It will work in this city.”

This might not be the right solution for every street, but the idea of physically separating cyclists from motor traffic, where possible, is a good one. It encourages more people to try cycling. The concept is not new, nor radical. It’s just common sense, and that’s why separated lanes are being used in cities all across the world, from Berlin to Manhattan to Montreal.

via Rob Ford: Cycling advocate? – thestar.com.

I appreciate the call for a more nuanced perspective on these kinds of things, but my short response to this piece would be simple: just because you’re not advocating AGAINST something doesn’t mean you’re an advocate FOR something.

Case in point: after Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, chair of  the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee, revealed his plan for physically separated bike lanes in the downtown core in January, the response from the Mayor’s Office was swift. This kind of thing, they said, was simply not a priority.

Some advocate.

On a related note: There’s a bizarro world fight simmering over this issue, stemming from the Toronto Cyclists Union enthusiastic support of Minnan-Wong’s plan. They’ve even asked neighbourhood groups to write letters in support of the plan. This has put them at odds with Adam Vaughan, who has written a detailed letter explaing why he’s against Minnan-Wong’s proposals. Needless to say, if you had said last year that the Cyclists Union would be allied with Denzil Minnan-Wong, de facto leader of the “War on Cars” brigade during the Jarvis debates, against lefty man-of-the-people Adam Vaughan you’d probably have been called crazy. But here we are.

I’d echo a call for a more nuanced approach to this issue. There are good reasons to be cautious when looking at Minnan-Wong’s plan, particularly as it may represent the sum total of all the on-street bike lanes this administration wishes to build. (In a 2009 interview with BlogTO, Minnan-Wong said “it’s not practical” for lots of bike lanes downtown: “Let’s determine where there might be one or two of them that they can use and let’s invest in those.”) But it would also be a shame to oppose it out-of-hand, as any new cycling infrastructure would be welcome at this point, particularly a new east-west route on Richmond Street.

Minnan-Wong’s plan could be on the agenda when the Public Works committee meets next week.

feature — Comments Off on How the TCHC vote went down: A City Council Scorecard Update
14
Mar 11

How the TCHC vote went down: A City Council Scorecard Update

Toronto Council Scorecard

The March 13, 2011 City Council Scorecard is available for download (PDF).

After some internal debate, I’ve updated the City Council Scorecard to reflect last week’s council sessions. Only one vote was ultimately added: the final vote on whether to dissolve the TCHC board and appoint Case Ootes as Managing Director in their place. I considered adding other votes — notably Kristyn Wong-Tam’s compromise amendment and Shelley Carroll’s motion for tighter financial controls — but none, in my opinion, could be considered ‘major.’ If you’re curious to see what Rob Ford voted against last week, I’ve compiled a list. I’ve also indicated who from “Team Ford” broke ranks and voted against the “whip.”

Notes & Updates:

  • With their votes against the mayor, Josh Matlow & Ana Bailão saw their “Ford Nation” percentages decrease. Josh Colle, Mary-Margaret McMahon and Chin Lee voted with the mayor. Colle, Matlow and McMahon are all at 60% and represent probably the purest ‘swing vote’ on council.
  • I’ve added colour-coding next to councillor names in the leftmost column to indicate the generally-accepted affiliation of councillors. Light blue for Ford loyalists, orange for the swing vote middle and bike-riding pink for the opposition. I’ve perhaps been premature in my putting Cho in with the opposition, but I feel pretty confident he’ll stay there. Yes, this kind of labelling promotes partisanship and divisiveness. Council would totally work together if not for this kind of damaging rhetoric.
  • I’ve also added vote totals for each item at the bottom, just for the hell of it.

The next council meeting is April 12 & 13. If you have any questions, comments or requests, let me know.

feature — Comments Off on Compare and Contrast
11
Mar 11

Compare and Contrast

Royson James’ column from Wednesday got a ton of attention from talk radio and the like, as it really worked for the narrative that left-wing councillors voted against the ‘Notion of Motion’ for the TCHC board item because they hate the auditor general and love wasteful spending.

The whole thing was plainly disingenuous. James conflated two separate stories in an over-the-top effort to smear left-wing councillors. In short: on Wednesday morning council did two things. First, they voted against a motion of notice for the item that would see the TCHC board dissolved. Second, they voted for a motion that would see an investigation into the recent leaks of reports prepared by the auditor general.

These items are related in the sense that one of the leaks was the TCHC report, but suggesting that anyone critical of the leaks is against the auditor general’s work on the TCHC report is a leap too far.

Compare and contrast these two accounts. Here’s how James colourfully describes things:

But instead of focusing on the indiscretions of public service workers, the councillors seemed intent on protecting them, even in the face of the auditor’s findings. And instead of condemning staff behaviour, they wanted to focus on media leaks in the public interest.

The dissenting councillors intimated that Griffiths and/or staff may have leaked portions of two auditors’ reports to the media. They all but said Griffiths had come under the “undue influence” of the mayor. They cast aspersions on his integrity, even as they professed not to.

via James: Attacking city’s auditor to get at Ford is wrong – thestar.com.

Note the great use of the “all but said” phrase. That’s a neat way of insinuating someone believes something they didn’t say.

Now here’s an account of the same incident by Jonathan Goldsbie at OpenFile:

10:40 a.m.: On item AU1.3, “The Audit Committee – Roles and Responsibilities,” councillor Janet Davis (Ward 31, Beaches–East York) questions auditor general Jeffrey Griffiths about the leaks of two recent reports: the one about the TCHC (which is actually two reports) and the one about paid-duty police service. In the case of the former, the Toronto Star learned of its contents three days prior to its official release. In the case of the latter, what is apparently an entire draft report was leaked to the Star about a month prior to it being delivered to the Toronto Police Services Board. Davis wants to know what security measures are in place. Griffiths says this is the first time in his twenty years that the contents of his reports have been leaked. And “certainly the leaks don’t come out of my office.” He was “shocked and appalled” to see his police report on the front page of the Star.

via Minutes: How the TCHC was lost and won | OpenFile

The motion to have the Attorney General investigate these media leaks was adopted 22-16 which would seem to indicate, to Royson James at least, that a majority of councillors voting that day were “attacking” the auditor general.

feature — Comments Off on What Rob Ford voted against on Wednesday night
10
Mar 11

What Rob Ford voted against on Wednesday night

A number of confusing amendments were made during Wednesday night’s special council meeting regarding the Toronto Community Housing Corporation board. Most of them failed. Here’s a quick list of everything the mayor and his allies voted against:

  • Motion 1a by Kristyn Wong-Tam — Keep Councillors Augimeri and Cho on the board, along with the elected Tenant Representatives. Appoint Case Ootes as chair.  Failed.
  • Motion 1b by Kristyn Wong-Tam — Don’t pay Case Ootes for his work as Managing Director of the TCHC, as he is still drawing severance pay from the city. Failed.
  • Motion 2b by Josh Colle – A seemingly nonsensical motion from Josh Colle. Can’t fault him for this one. Failed.
  • Motion 3 by Shelley Carroll — Post all expense records of TCHC Board members and staff that make in excess of $100,000 per year. Also any TCHC purchases greater than $1,000 shall require board approval. This one passed, despite the mayor. Passed.
  • Motion 4 by Joe Mihevc — This would have prevented Case Ootes from firing any TCHC senior staff, for example the CEO. Failed.
  • Motion 5 by Gord Perks — Remove all board members, appoint the alternate tenant representatives that were elected in 2007 but have yet to serve on the board. Failed.
  • Motion 6 by Mary Fragedakis — Defer this whole business of dissolving the board; let the audit committee receive the auditor general’s report so that councillors can debate it and ask questions. Failed.
  • Motion 7a by Adam Vaughan — This one passed too, even though the mayor voted against it. Vaughan asked that TCHC disclose any meetings Case Ootes has with lobbyists, and that a report be commissioned as to the ability to implement a Lobbyist Registry at TCHC. Passed.
  • Motion 7b by Adam Vaughan — Put any money set aside for Case Ootes’ salary toward capital repairs at TCHC buildings. Failed.
  • Motion 8 by Janet Davis — Reappoint Councillors Nunziata and Parker, to serve on a new board made up of Augimeri, Cho, the tenant representatives, and chaired by Ootes. Failed.
  • Motion 9a by Paula Fletcher — Call for a review of TCHC buildings currently managed by private companies, compared with publicly-managed buildings. Also would disallow Case Ootes from awarding new contracts during the interim period. Failed.
  • Motion 9b by Paula Fletcher — Ensure that new board is in place by June 14, 2011. (Updated with clarification: Ford did vote for a similar motion by Josh Colle that imposed the same deadline.) Passed.
  • Motion 11 by Maria Augimeri — Ensure that the TCHC board’s by-laws revert to normal after the new board is in place. (By-laws were amended to allow for a minimum of one director last night.) Failed.

It’s surprising how many seemingly sensible motions the mayor voted against. Augimeri’s motion, for example, seemed perfectly innocuous. In his defence, I guess, it was late and he sort of defaults to hitting ‘no.’

You can read more about all the motions and votes if you are, for example, a crazy person.

feature — Comments Off on TCHC board dissolved in expected 25-18 vote
10
Mar 11

TCHC board dissolved in expected 25-18 vote

After a marathon council session, stretching from 5:30 p.m. until midnight, council finally voted 25-18 to dissolve the board of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

Early on, speaker Frances Nunziata ruled that any discussion of the auditor general’s report on the TCHC was out of order, a completely bizarre move that left councillors reaching to make their arguments without directly referencing the content of the report.

The arguments heard boiled down like this:

From the Right:

  • We need a ‘clean slate’ so a whole new board can be appointed.
  • The auditor general did a great job! We should commend him for that.
  • Even though Tenant representatives on the board and the remaining council representatives can’t be held responsible for anything in the auditor’s report, we still want to hold them accountable.
  • If the remaining board members don’t resign, it will make the nine members that have already resigned look bad.
  • The mayor wants it this way.

From the Left:

  • The tenant reps were democratically elected which removing them kind of, you know, contrary to democracy.
  • The council reps are new so why not keep them around?
  • Instituting a one-man board, even on an interim basis, isn’t ideal.
  • Had this not been rushed to council, it would have gone to the audit committee and/or executive committee where councillors could talk about the auditor general’s report in depth and ask staff and the board questions. This might have been a good thing to do.
  • Isn’t this just a sneaky scheme to privatize everything?

It was never really in doubt that this motion would pass. Ford simply has the votes he needs locked up to do anything he wants at the moment.

Two bits of procedural interest:

Shelley Carroll, through a mixture of wizardry and cunning, got Rob Ford, Doug Ford and most of council’s right-wing to vote against her amendment that would see an extra layer of oversight and accountability added to the TCHC. The motion passed 22-21 thanks to defections from Ford loyalists Michelle Beradinetti and Gloria Lindsay Luby.

Second, council actually voted down a motion from Kristyn Wong-Tam that would have prevented Case Ootes from drawing a salary as TCHC Managing Director on top of the severance he is already getting as a former city councillor.

feature — Comments Off on Getting all messed up on TCHC: a ten-point guide
08
Mar 11

Getting all messed up on TCHC: a ten-point guide

Okay. Let’s start with the easy stuff. There’s a local scandal gripping the news at the moment involving the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. You’ve heard about it. I wrote a bunch of things related to it. In sum: you should be mad about it. A lot of bad things happened. We need to make this better.

Today at Council, a series of things happened spinning out of this. Many of them involve some of the more esoteric rules of council. All of them involve weird political gamesmanship that only sort of make sense. The major claim is that this is about accountability. The accusation is that it’s about privatizing public housing. The truth? It’s lost somewhere in there.

Let’s walk through it together.

  1. Soon after starting for the day, council opts to consider MM5.7, a motion that would dissolve the TCHC Board of Directors and replace them indefinitely with a Managing Director, widely expected to be former councillor Case Ootes. Ootes has, in the past, shown some interest in exploring selling off TCHC properties.
  2. Before anything can happen, council needs to vote, with a two-thirds majority of present councillors, to consider the motion.
  3. Councillors vote, and a two-thirds majority is not achieved. With right-leaning councillors Michelle Beradinetti, Mark Grimes and Ron Moeser absent, 28 votes were required. They got 26. (Even if the three absentee councillors had been there to vote, it’s unlikely they would have achieved the two-thirds majority. Of the dissenting councillors, their best hope was Raymond Cho. And he broke ranks with Team Ford very publicly during the budget debates.)
  4. Everyone assumes the thing they just voted for was a motion to ‘Waive Referral,’ which would send the item to the Executive Committee. It wasn’t. It’s a motion to ‘Waive Notice.’ This becomes important later.
  5. People opposed to the mayor are happy. The Star describes the vote as the mayor’s “first significant defeat.” Which is a bit sad, because, pre-election, who would have thought Rob Ford coming close to commanding two-thirds of city council was even a remote possibility? The mayor is less happy. The person who controls his Twitter accounts sends out this: “It’s unfortunate some councillors don’t want to discuss accountability at the TCHC.” (One could point out that they do want to discuss it — in the framework of the established process. Immediately dissolving the board and replacing them with Case Ootes is kind of the opposite of discussion.)
  6. Because everyone assumes they’ve just voted to refer the motion to the Executive Committee, that committee opts to hold a special meeting at lunchtime tomorrow, during which they will quickly approve the item, then put it on the agenda for another meeting.
  7. As meetings of the executive committee allow deputations — something that doesn’t happen at council meetings — many people sign up to speak at tomorrow’s meetings. There is speculation that the left-leaning councillors might filibuster the meeting, delaying things further.
  8. But wait! Some digging causes someone to realize that the item they voted on earlier was, in fact, a Notice of Motion. All this does is delay the item to a future council meeting. And with that, the executive committee meeting — along with all the deputations, which presumably would have come from TCHC residents in large part — was cancelled. In its place, there will be a “special” Council Meeting immediately following the scheduled meeting tomorrow, in which this item will be discussed.
  9. Left-leaning councillors think this is ridiculous. Pam McConnell calls it “reprehensible.” Gord Perks, apparently, storms off in a huff. Council’s right plays innocent, asking why their counterparts wouldn’t want to discuss the issue now? It’s a scandal! We need accountability! Accountability that can only be realized, I guess, by kicking off two members of the board who were elected by tenants and two councillors who have only been in their positions since December.
  10. Speaking at the end of council today, Mayor Ford rises and asks if it might be possible to move the “special” council meeting, currently set for 5:30 p.m., up a few hours.

So here we are. After all the confusion and maneuvering, we’re left with essentially, the original motion to replace the remaining members of the TCHC board — the tenant reps, Raymond Cho and Maria Augimeri — with Managing Director Case Ootes. It will probably pass.

The question, of course, is what the hell is the big rush? What’s so wrong with letting the city’s audit committee deal with this? With working with the remaining board members to determine a path going forward that makes sense for tenants?

The smell coming off of this is that the mayor sees an opportunity to use the auditor general’s report as a smokescreen to usher in structural changes to TCHC governance that will open the door to privatization. Some will call that a conspiracy theory, but given the haste with which Team Ford is acting on this and the mayor’s public admission that he would “absolutely” privatize TCHC, is it really that crazy a thought?

feature — Comments Off on Is your councillor part of Ford Nation? Introducing the City Council Scorecard
07
Mar 11

Is your councillor part of Ford Nation? Introducing the City Council Scorecard

Toronto Council ScorecardI’ve launched a new section here at FordForToronto: the City Council Scorecard. This PDF file compiles the results of all major votes taken so far this council session, then provides a “Ford Nation” percentage indicating how often councillors have sided with the mayor on key issues.

You can read more about it here, or download the newest edition of the City Council Scorecard (PDF).

Currently the scorecard covers nine votes. On those items, 18 councillors have voted with the mayor 100% of the time. Only one councillor, Pam McConnell, has voted against the mayor 100% of the time on major issues.

I will update the Scorecard with any major items that occur during this week’s session. Stay tuned.

Update: At Toronto Life, John Michael McGrath has taken the Scorecard and mapped the percentages. Interesting to compare with the election results map.

Updated 2: Torontoist was nice enough to let me contribute a piece for them about the Scorecard. It includes a few different views of the data and a bit of commentary.

feature — Comments Off on TCHC: What happens after everyone gets fired?
06
Mar 11

TCHC: What happens after everyone gets fired?

Royson James:

Mitchell accepts responsibility for the corporation’s failure to follow tendering and procurement policies. A decentralized system allowed managers to use “poor judgment, no judgment, and not do things the right way. I realize the stuff happened on my watch and I have to take responsibility,” though he says some decisions resulted in savings and social good.

The relationship with the new regime at city hall was non-existent. Ford never asked to meet with him, Mitchell says, even though Toronto Housing has $6 billion in assets.

While he had the cellphone number of ex-mayor David Miller and spoke with him three times a month, Ford has never called. “This gentleman,” he said, “is more interested in looking for gravy.”

via James: What’s behind the TCHC resignations – thestar.com.

It’s kind of interesting that our cellphone-addict mayor didn’t bother to keep the lines of communication open with the TCHC Chair like Miller apparently did.

Ultimately, though, I think Mitchell and the board played this badly. They seemed to realize too late that resigning was the only move that made sense given the way the story was being played in the media. The couple of days where they dragged their feet have likely done a lot to advance the public appetite for TCHC privatization.  That’s not a good thing.

The question I’m asking now: what happens after you fire everyone? It’s not going to magically fix things. Those that sat on the TCHC Board and the managers within the corporation were not simply evil people, contaminating all that’s good and pure. Removing them and starting the process over again isn’t guaranteed to do anything but cost the city and TCHC a lot of money.

And how far do you take it? People from both the left and the right have been calling for audits on every city agency, board and committee. And here’s the thing: I have no doubt every single one of those agencies, boards and committees has, to varying degrees, examples of waste, abuse and mismanagement. Whether it be an incorrectly expensed meal, an ill-advised ‘business trip’ or ‘retreat’, or a botched procurement contract. They’re there. We’d find them.

And that sucks.

But I think about the possibility that the city could end up in a giant circle of audits, investigations and firings for the next three years and it concerns me. How far do you push it? This isn’t city building — it’s a quixotic quest to save money that’s already been lost. To create some sort of ultra-perfect bureaucracy that can’t ever exist.

Real positive change goes beyond audits and resignation letters. It requires a permanent cultural shift.

feature — Comments Off on Ford enjoys a 60% approval rating, says terribly misleading poll
02
Mar 11

Ford enjoys a 60% approval rating, says terribly misleading poll

Kelly Grant with the Globe & Mail:

Rob Ford enjoys a 60-per-cent approval rating, according to the first public poll released since he took office Dec. 1.

However, Toronto-based Forum Research, Inc. found that urban and suburban Torontonians remain deeply divided about Mr. Ford: His approval rating was highest in Scarborough (71 per cent) and North York (65 per cent) and lowest in the old cities of Toronto and East York (46 per cent.)

“That puts him higher than his vote, so somehow he’s got the approval of some of his opponents’ supporters, which I think is quite a task, especially given how polarizing the election was,” said Lorne Bozinoff, the president of Forum Research. “My gut feel is that’s a good rating.”

via Rob Ford more popular now than at election – The Globe and Mail.

Always fun to see pollsters going by their “gut feel.”

Grant points out that while a 60% approval rating isn’t bad by any means, David Miller’s approval rating was 82% six months into his first term. Quick googling reveals that Miller’s approval ratings stayed very high until the garbage strike in 2009. In 2005, well into his first term, Miller sat at 69%.

More troubling is the nature of the poll questions. Forum Research asked respondents 11 questions about various policies. Of those, several of the questions are incredibly misleading, generally skewed toward pushing support for the mayor’s initiatives.

Here’s a quick breakdown, I’m assuming all questions began with “Do you agree with…” or “Do you support…” but that’s been omitted in the report.

  • “The privatization of garbage collection for parts of the city” – A fine question. Notable that only 54% of people agree with this. I’d have pegged popular support at a higher level.
  • “The mandatory 5 cent plastic shopping bag fee” – Another appropriate question. It’s hilarious how much older people hate this fee.
  • “Declaring the TTC an essential service that would ban strikes and lockouts” – I don’t have a huge problem with this question, but I’d guess that rephrasing it as “Declaring the TTC an essential service, increasing labour costs related to transit” would see very different results.
  • “Tearing down the eastern end of the Gardiner expressway” – Why even ask this? Has it come up at all? Was there more context given? A weird question.
  • “Providing jobs for life for city employees” – This is where these questions go off the rails completely. They might as well have phrased as this “Do you support fatcat union members?”
  • “Using private sector financing to pay for the Sheppard subway so it can be built sooner” – What the hell is this one? No one is proposing that private sector funds will get transit built on Sheppard faster than originally planned. The Sheppard East LRT would have been open in less than three years.
  • “Spending $3 million to hire an outside consultant to look at ways to make the City more efficient?” – If there’s bad news for Ford in this poll, it’s this question. Only 38% of people support the move to hire an outside consultant. A fair question. (Interesting, too, that the $3 million dollars only become public knowledge at council on Thursday, February 24  – this poll went into the wild on Friday, February 25.)
  • “Relaxing liquor regulations so that you can walk around with a drink at licensed events instead of having to stay in a beer tent?” – This is a provincial issue that doesn’t have anything to do with the City’s government.
  • “Licensing bicyclists so that traffic laws can be enforced with them?” – Oh, screw off. I love the implication that traffic laws can’t be enforced with cyclists currently because of the lack of some kind of licensing program. Cyclists already are subject to the rules of the road. A municipal licensing program wouldn’t do anything to change that and would cost a ton of money.
  • “In order to improve public transit, do you think more below ground subways or more above ground light rail streetcars should be built?” – No one is proposing more streetcar lines as Toronto knows them. A ridiculous question in the sense that even diehard Transit City supporters would probably be forced to answer for below ground subways. In an ideal world we’d have below ground subways everywhere.
  • “Should the City build more City owned social housing units or should the City provide rent subsidies so those needing social housing can rent privately owned units instead?” – Not as egregious as some of the other questions but, again, there’s a clear skew here. The subtext is “Should the city keep spending YOUR TAX DOLLARS on public housing or should we just let the awesome private sector deal with it?” As I noted yesterday, Section Eight housing subsidies exist across the United States and still lead to the same issues we see with our public housing system — slumlords eagerly accept the subsidies while “nicer” market rental buildings refuse them.

In summary, this poll reveals primarily that Ford is currently a semi-popular mayor and little else. Anyone who can read some of the questions contained within this poll and feel like they’re an accurate representation of anything is kidding themselves.

feature — Comments Off on TCHC spending scandal distracts from important issues
01
Mar 11

TCHC spending scandal distracts from important issues

Just as people were starting to ask the tough questions about the city’s finances going into 2012, the mayor’s office received a gift in the form of a well-publicized Auditor General’s report detailing mismanagement, including abuse of funds, at the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

Ford doesn’t really seem to enjoy being the mayor most days, but he clearly enjoys dealing with things like this. He gets to hold press conferences and get angry. But it’s a good kind of angry. The kind people like. (Not the kind of angry he gets when people keep asking him questions in council.)

Daniel Dale, Robyn Doolitte & Donovan Vincent surely bonded while writing this story together for the Toronto Star:

Mayor Rob Ford called for the resignation of members of the Toronto Community Housing Corp. board on Monday, hours after the city’s auditor-general blasted the housing agency for wasting millions in untendered contracts and lavish employee expenses.

via Ford to clean house at TCHC after spending spree exposed – thestar.com.

Since this broke, most city councillors have made a big show of demonstrating just how outraged they are. Councillor Josh Matlow actually did a good job getting in front of the story, appearing on Metro Morning Monday and calling for TCHC to be put under “direct city supervision.”

Matlow’s move was a good one because, as a councillor who generally supports public housing, he kept the story from drifting too far toward calls for the elimination of TCHC.

Ford moved during the election that perhaps housing services could be more effectively delivered with rent subsidies. (Google “Section Eight Housing” for more information on this kind of program — my quick read is that it sure isn’t any kind of silver bullet.)

Okay. So. Let’s get it out there: TCHC made a ton of mistakes. A boatload of mistakes. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Yes, these kinds of abuses happen in the private sector — don’t let anyone tell you they don’t happen in the private sector; they’re lying — but the reality is that organizations that do the kind of work that TCHC does should be held to a higher standard. They must be held to a higher standard.

The other thing to note here is that, ultimately, this is an example of the system working as it should. The auditor uncovered these abuses, has made recommendations and now action will be taken, both by management at TCHC and by the Mayor and Council.

Quick aside: The auditor’s report is actually quite good, though there’s some odd design choices. Give it a read. It even includes a bit of humour on page four:

We have been advised by certain staff that some of the expenses were necessary and contributed to “team building” and to an improvement in employee morale. While this may be the case, it is inconceivable that staff would view the expenditure of public funds, for example, on a visit to a spa as appropriate no matter the justification. In this context, a more appropriate use of public funds would be a training program on ethics so that staff are more able to recognize inappropriate expenses.

Oh snap.

The point I’m trying to make is this: it’s unlikely any policies will change as a result of this scandal. There is no systemic failure here. Nor can this be chalked up, really, to some epidemic of fat public sector employees with a culture of entitlement or whatever. It’s just a shitty situation that, thankfully, was caught and will be addressed thanks to the kinds of checks and redundancies that must be part of any giant, bureaucratic organization.

The best that can happen going forward is that this is resolved quickly. Fire the people that need to be fired. Make things better for the people served by TCHC. And move the hell on.

The civilian members of the TCHC board made a show today of announcing that they would not step down, as the mayor sort of requested they should on Monday. (He requested it to the media, apparently, but his office made no attempt to contact the board members.) I don’t necessarily agree that the board members have any kind of obligation to step down, but they probably should just do so. This story is bigger than any of them, and it would likely be better for TCHC if they would step out of the way.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →