Inadequate Accountability and Transparency Committee response to Longworth's Seven Deadly Sins Questions

VOTES Chair, Bill Longworth, made a presentation to the Accountability and Transparency Committee on January 17, 2008. As a result the committee made recommendations accessible here. While I supported Recommendations #3 (Agree to Post politician's expense and renumeration records, #5 (Agree to notify delegations of time and date of their presentations to councils and committees), and #6 (publish construction costs and funding details of GM Centre and dispensation details of funds raised from OPUC sale), I did not support the committee failure to accept my requests in #1 (auditor general to investigate city plebiscite strategy), #2(request for links to all staff reports and citizen correspondence on the council agenda where the items are officially dealt with), #4 (that city council severely limit in-camera meetings), and #7 (that auditor general investigate potential ethical and legal questions behind the purchase of the Cullen Miniatures).

I therefore sent the following letter to Oshawa City Council c/o Oshawa City Clerk as well as the Local and Regional Media.


To the Mayor and Council,
c/o Oshawa City Clerk:

I am requesting to address the full council re the Accountability and Transparency Committee recommendations in respect of my recent presentations to them which were considered at the meeting of February 7, 2008

I am satisfied with committee recommendations that addressed my requests:

1) That city politician’s complete and detailed expenses, salaries, honorariums, and allowances for sitting on both City and Regional Councils and Citizen Committees be posted on the city website, and

2) That city clerk’s office give formal notification to delegations of the date and time when they are scheduled to address either city council or committees of council, and

3) That a full public report be prepared regarding the $45 million funding details of GM Centre and of the dispensation of the $30 million that council received as a result of monetizing a portion of the ownership of the OPUC

I would reserve the right to present these items to the full council in the event that any or all of the committee recommendations do not meet approval of City Council.


I am not satisfied with committee recommendations in respect of my following requests and wish to address city council on these items:

1) That Oshawa's Auditor General investigate Oshawa's information campaign and strategy leading up to the plebiscite process in respect of the 18 questions I asked him to review.

A letter stating that the city complied with the the Ontario Municipal Elections Act is insufficient since the law specifically gives city council unlimited spending authority regarding ballot questions which implies a responsibility and expectation to do so while at the same time specifically constrains any 3rd party citizen campaigns in regards to ballot questions.

No law defines every possible potential contingency and no legislator would have ever foreseen that an Ontario City Council would ask their voters a question and then refuse to give them information about it as Oshawa politicians have done. That is the reason why courts interpret the "intent" of the law.

Democracy depends upon an informed public and the Canadian Supreme Court states that information regarding a vote is a basic right in Canadian Society. Yet the Mayor publicly stated that the city had no responsibility to inform citizens about the question and thus the city failed to do so.

The failure to inform looks like part of the city strategy along with the convoluted question in order to get a preconceived answer. This is not democracy. It is manipulation of the people.

2) In the interests of transparency, that Oshawa City Council implement a policy to provide appropriate links to Committee Reports and Citizen Correspondence directly on the agenda and minutes of City Council Meetings where official decisions are made in respect of the reports and correspondence.

The committee has only recommended putting an explanatory note on the agendas. This is not good enough. Interested citizens would still have to leave the agenda to search through a completely unrelated and unlinked file to seek the information.

Links to the staff reports and citizen correspondence directly on the agenda where the decision is being made would simplify citizen’s ability to following pertinent information about the issues and decisions made by Oshawa City Council.

Transparency is putting things together so make them easier to follow and understand rather rather hiding them remote from the city agenda. Politicians are provided this information in their meeting packages…why is it not provided for citizens?

3) That City Council cease the practice of having closed meetings scheduled prior to every city council meeting in the spirit of Provincial Law that severely limits the content of such meetings to personnel and property matters stating that all of the business of council is to be carried on in public and the committee has only recommended that my request be received for information rather than action.

4) That the auditor general be directed to investigate all details leading up to the purchase of the Cullen Gardens Miniatures including any and all ethical questions and potential conflicts of interest and report publicly on his findings.

The committee recommendation that my request regarding this most controversial decision of Oshawa City Council be received for information rather than action is drastically insufficient.

Bill Longworth,
Founder & Chair of VOTES (Vote to Eliminate Self Serving Politicians)
www.oshawaspeaks.ca

Longworth Asks Council to Account for Seven “Deadly Sins”

Bill Longworth made a Presentation to Oshawa City Council Accountability and Transparency Committee on January 17, 2008 and asked for the following Auditor General Investigations and Reports along with some policy changes by Oshawa City Council to make the process more accountable and transparent.

Bill 130 gave all Ontario Municipal Governments a “free hand” in determining their governance systems not anticipating that any large cities would implement the undemocratic, unaccountable and unworkable “general vote” that Oshawa City Council has voted to implement. Oshawa will now become the largest city in the free world to use the general vote without municipal political parties which are prohibited in Ontario.

By the very definition of the general vote, the council will be less accountable because it excludes any serious challenges by non-incumbents, takes away community representation to ensure that no politician is accountable to represent the interests of your community, and ensures the re-election of incumbents till their death or resignation which in itself reduces accountability since they will not be able to be defeated if they do things unpopular with the people.

It is now up to the people to press council for changes to make their actions more transparent, accountable and easy to follow and thus I have asked for the following changes. In the coming posts, we will expand each of these areas as time permits.


I am here today to request 7 things---otherwise known as….”The Seven Deadly Sins”

ONE

That the Auditor General conduct investigations to answer the 18 questions I posed to the transparency and accountability committee in my correspondence to the Mayor and Council on December 3, 2007 including a rationale of why the question was asked when the general vote is not used in any city the size of Oshawa in Canada or the free world without being paired with municipal political parties which are at present prohibited by Ontario Municipal Elections Law, a rationale for the multiple revisions of the plebiscite question and the degree of “negotiation” of the plebiscite wording “In-Camera”, the adequacy of City Council’s efforts to promote public discourse and discussion on this important issue and to make sure that the public understood the question and its ramifications and the Mayor’s assertions that City Council had no responsibility to communicate these details to the public insisting it was private citizen’s responsibility to do so despite the fact that 3rd party campaigning is prohibited by the Ontario Municipal Elections Act.

TWO

That in the interests of transparency, links to all citizen letters sent to the Mayor and Council be included on the agenda’s and minutes of city council where the official decisions on the issue take place so that interested citizens do not have to search through committee agendas to find the items relating to the city agenda and archives.

Right now, links to some correspondence appear on council agendas and minutes while some appears only on committee agendas and minutes.

City Council should follow policies that make it easier for citizens to follow issues rather than more difficult by hiding the item remote from the place where official council votes are taken.

The citizen correspondence and the specific action taken by council on the issue should appear in one place…the city council agenda which is then republished as the minutes showing distinct council action taken on the specific item of correspondence….by hiding citizen input from the scrutinizing eyes of the interested public, you are neither demonstrating accountability nor transparency.

Many items for discussion and for votes appear only as agenda item numbers making it extremely difficult for ordinary interested citizens to follow and so a system should be devised to refer to issues by name rather than number.

THREE

That links to full, detailed and complete accounting records of council members expenses including all receipts and invoices, itemized expense allowances, entertainment expenses, travel expenses, automobile allowances, advertising budgets, office expenses, blackberry charges, complete listing of all compensations and honorariums including those amounts paid to politicians to chair/vice chair council committees, honorariums for sitting on citizen boards and committees like art gallery, senior citizen centers, CLOCA, total amounts of tax free monies received, etc., be published for each member of city council on the city web site.

That all councillor expenses be subject to an audit.

That an “oversight” committee be established to review and approve all councilor expenses with the power to deny unusual and extraordinary claims.

It is not transparent at all to publish reports on politicians accounts by council/minute items like 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 of the Finance and Admin Committee Report to Nov. 5 City Council Meeting.

Such postings as requested above have been suggested by the City of Toronto Auditor General and are now being posted in detail by the City of Toronto. Similar suggestions have been made by Toronto Star City Hall beat reporters in order to cut wastage from city budgets.

If politicians are unwilling to release their expense records, are they trying to hide excesses from the taxpaying public.

Publicly posted expense records like these will ensure politicians spend taxpayer's money as carefully as their own.

FOUR

That City Council discontinue the practice of preceding every City Council Meeting with “In Camera” Council Meetings. Provincial Law clearly limits the content of closed meetings and such issues would not arise prior to every council meeting. All council business must be conducted in public and in such a way that citizens can follow what is being discussed and what decisions are being taken.

FIVE

That Formal notice should be given to delegations when they are scheduled to speak to council or committees. Politicians get such notice…surely it is not too much to ask that the same courtesy be extended to those who have expressed an interest in presenting to committee. (I missed this committee last month because I was not notified I was on the agenda…didn’t hear until phoned by a politician after supper that night). I have at times received notice but request that it always be done as a matter of policy rather than haphazardly.

SIX

That the city publicly release all construction costs and funding details of the GM Centre beyond operating losses to include interest costs/dividend losses of “monetizing” city ownership of Oshawa PUC Networks Inc.

SEVEN

That the auditor general investigate all details leading up to the purchase of the Cullen Garden Miniatures including any and all ethical questions and potential conflicts of interest and report publicly on his findings including the city plans for the disposition of the properties and the revenues received for their disposition.

So what did the committee do with these requests? They tabled them to come up again at the next committee meeting at which I will again be present. I have asked them to make recommendations to council on each of the items individually so that the whole package of requests cannot be turned down because they do not like one suggestion such as publicly posting detailed expense records. As taxpayers, we do pay the bills…and it is important we know what we are getting for our tax dollars.

So the Mayor Wants Me to Eat His Words

OPEN LETTER TO THE MAYOR

Mayor John Gray
City of Oshawa
emailed to: jgray@oshawa.ca
January 17, 2007


Hello John:

Because of your protestations at the Accountability and Transparency Committee Meeting this morning about the accuracy of the film clip on www.oshawaspeaks, I reviewed the clip and can find no inaccuracies about my comments that you publicly insisted that the City had no responsibility to inform and educate the public about the plebiscite question to insure that they understood the question and its ramifications.

If council was unwilling to inform the public about the plebiscite question, I can't understand why it was asked. Not insuring the public understood the question, I have difficulty comprehending why you and six other members of council insist on upholding its results as "democratic" saying, "The people have spoken!"

I find council's action in this whole issue extremely undemocratic as the basic requirement in a democracy is an informed voter. How can it be democratic when council took concrete and deliberate action to deny information to the voter.

While I fully understand, in retrospect, that you may not like your ill-founded comments being publicized on the video that is at present approaching 1500 viewers, no one put these words into your mouth and so you have to take full responsibility for them.

Your words certainly help explain why the citizens were not adequately informed and why public discussion and debate were not promoted. Your words also help to explain why council repeatedly voted to deny public information. Like you, the majority felt it was not Council's responsibility to insure that the public was aware of and understood the question council itself was asking. Obviously, like you, they didn't think it was important to inform the public to insure that the vote reflected a valid measure of public sentiment on the issue.

I do not believe, however, that council failed to adequately inform the public because they believed it was not their responsibility...but that they contrived to deliberately keep the public in the dark to catch them "cold" for the first time in the voting booth to confront a difficult and convoluted question worded in a way to solicit a specific response by unaware voters.

Council's lack of interest in insuring the public understood the question, along with the convoluted way it was worded, and the fact that the question did not arise from any concern expressed by the public, all work to prove beyond a doubt that council manipulated the public to get a result they favoured...democracy be damned!

Surely as a long-time politician who should be very familiar with the Ontario Municipal Elections Act, you, Mayor Gray, knew that your public statements about the interested public itself being responsible to organize and run information campaigns regarding YOUR question was against the law and that the Act gives cities themselves unfettered spending ability to inform the public about questions they are being asked on the ballot.

Because Municipal Elections Law gives cities that unfettered and uncontrolled spending ability to inform the public about ballot questions, but does not give the same right to the public, surely implies to any reasonable person that the city itself had a responsibility to adequately inform the public.

Mayor Gray---I should also express my personal displeasure at your public comment to me at committee this morning that, "I knew of the plebiscite but didn't get off my ass to do anything about it until it was too late".

While I don't appreciate your choice of words as Chairman of the committee, as it isn't the way that I communicate, I also want to correct your perceptions of the action (or as you say---inaction) that I took.

Just weeks before the election, I found out "by accident" that the plebiscite question was to be asked. Not believing this from my source, records in the clerk's office will show that I communicated with that office to confirm the accuracy of my information. Upon confirmation from the clerk, I wrote to the Mayor and Council asking that an information brochure be sent to all homes in Oshawa. This letter was never acknowledged nor did city hall ever take any action on my request.

I am extremely careful about the accuracy of everything I write on www.oshawaspeaks.ca and would appreciate you identifying specific factual inaccuracies that you find in the video documenting your comments on this issue at the April 30, 2007 council meeting. As far as I can see, the video itself reflects with 100% accuracy what you said. I do not have the ability to edit the video to put words in your mouth!

I can assure you that I will correct any inaccuracies in the explanatory notes inserted in the video clip but will not change content just because you do not agree with it or like it but at this moment stand behind everything that is said and implied in the video.

Here's A Postage Stamp Oshawa...Politician's want you to write down all you know!

Oshawa politicians along with all Ontario Municipal Governments have been compelled by recent Bill 130 amendments to Provincial Legislation to appoint various officers by January 2008 to ensure the Accountability and Transparency of Municipal Councils.

You can request your own survey from city hall by clicking the highlighted text and requesting one. Due to the shortness of time, you can request the form be sent to your email and you can return it electronically.

Below is the city survey sent out to randomly selected citizens with some format changes to the form to facilitate this blog medium.

Accountability and Transparency Survey

Accountability and transparency are the cornerstones of good government.

The City wants to hear how well it is doing.

Please return this survey in the postage-paid envelope by November 30, 2007.

Oshawa City Council has created an Accountability and Transparency Subcommittee to respond to the Provincial Municipal Act requirements to establish an Accountability and Transparency Policy. The Accountability and Transparency Subcommittee is seeking your input.

Being accountable means that Oshawa City Council is clear in its actions, that its decision-making processes are understandable, that it is accessible to the citizens it represents and, finally, it is responsible for its decisions.

Being transparent requires that the City actively encourages and fosters public participation, ensures adequate communication on issues and that the City’s decision making process is accessible and understandable by you.

By providing your opinions on the City’s level of accountability and transparency, you will help to support a process that seeks to continuously improve the way our City responds to your needs.

The form following is my submission to the questions asked!

A. For each question below, please indicate your level of agreement in the brackets following the statement. Strongly Agree=1, Agree=2, Neither Agree or Disagree=3, Disagree=4, Strongly Disagree=5, No Opinion=6.

1. I am knowledgeable about city processes used to make decisions. (1)

2. I understand the processes used by the City to make decisions. (1)

3. I feel the City’s decision-making processes are transparent. (5)

4. I am able to contact City Council to express my opinions. (2)

5. I am able to contact City administrators for information. (2)

6. I feel City Council accepts responsibility for its decisions. (4)

7. I feel City administrators accept responsibility for their actions. (2)

8. I feel the City adequately communicates information to its residents through:

a) City Page in Oshawa This Week ---(5)

I feel that Oshawa's $10,000 monthly advertisng bill to Oshawa This Week strongly influences their news coverage of city hall activities. Instead, city hall should advertise in the Canadian Tire Advertising supplement that accompanies the Friday paper. Further the minimal news of perhaps 2 or 3 major and 10-12 minor stories is lost in the reams of paid advertising flyers all of which have to be collected up and disposed of at taxpayer expense. This pickup cost should be borne by the paper itself.

b) Inside Oshawa (annual report to citizens)---(5)

I feel this is ill spent taxpayer money. Why should city council expend significant monies this way to prepare and distribute these huge flyers, and others similar to them, complete with politician's messages and mugshots when they constantly refused to distribute information about the plebiscite question on the recent municipal election ballot.

This was truly an important issue for taxpayers and yet the mayor said it was not council's responsibility to inform the people. He said it was up to taxpayers themselves to fundraise, produce, and distribute any such information even though The Municipal Elections Act erects significant roadblocks to such third party campaigning.

If plebiscite information was not important to get out to the public to insure voters understood the question and knew the consequences of their votes...no information is.

The Supreme Court says citizens have a basic right to know such information but council refused to provide it....SHAME!

c) Bill inserts---(5)

If bills are going to be sent out anyway, this is the time to include information for ratepayers. The Mayor's mugshot and message along with those of city council members should be sent out with the municipal tax bills.

And while I'm at it, why should taxpayers fund expensive ads for politicians at special days like Remembrance Day, Christmas, etc., and every possible opportunity known to man. (Check pg. 6 & 10 at link) I was sickened to see the number of such taxpayer funded political advertising appearing in every publication conceivable around Oshawa this past Nov. 11. If politicians feel this kind of advertising is necessary, let them pay for it out of their own pocket.

d) Public meetings---(5)

These are suspect in terms of influencing political decisions. In terms of the Sikorski Hall public meeting to hear citizen concerns, city council voted not to produce and deliver information about the topic to Oshawa households and the flyer sent informing of the meeting was of such low quality that it looked like a typed and mimeographed flyer...hardly the quality that Oshawa City Hall produces on such topics as "Downtown Ethnic Restaurants", "Oshawa's Walking Paths", "Pesticide Use in Oshawa," 60 page Infosource, and a myriad of other high quality, professionally designed and printed, and colourful brochures they waste taxpayer money on.

At the public meeting cited, politician's minds were already made up on the topic. They subsequently made a decision to adopt the general vote even though they had no access to letters solicited from the public or indeed the minutes of the Sikorski Hall Meeting. Indeed, Councillor Nester Pidwerbecki gloated to me that the general vote was a "done deal" in mid January long before the public meeting. Councillor's minds were made up on this issue when the last council framed the plebiscite question and designed the "KEEP EM IN THE DARK" strategy....Democracy--Be damned!

There also is no way to objectively measure public sentiments at these meetings if the Sikorski Hall Meeting was representative of these. While speakers favouring ward elections slightly outnumbered those favouring the general vote, the quality of input was not even close. The weight of reasoned opinion was clearly on the side of ward voting. Many speakers favouring ward elections gave well thought out, learned, thoughtful, and academic presentations while those favoring the general vote, all of whom seemed to be politically ambitious CAW retirees, simply argued that the plebiscite result should be upheld without acknowledging how flawed the process was when voters were denied the necessary information to inform them of the meaning and consequences of the question.

Then and now, the public meeting seemed to be all about "OPTICS" and not about genuinely seeking public input or opinion.

e) Other, please specify (5)

The Mayor has also tried to explain the convoluted and difficult plebiscite question in terms of a requirement to “be worded in the affirmative”. This is absolutely wrong. Either the Mayor is unaware of election law or he is deliberately misleading the people. Section 8.1(2.4) of the Municipal Elections Act clearly states that the question shall be capable of being answered in the affirmative or the negative and the only permitted answers to the question are “yes” or “no”.

There is a profound disconnect between the "pretty words" that council uses to describe its communication, transparency, and accountability objectives to the public and its actual practice.

City Council is being profoundly hypocritical to show any concern for good communication, transparency, and accountable in light of their refusal to inform citizens about the plebiscite details as well as many other issues affecting our city.

In summary, good communications starts with honest and forthright attempts to do so. City politicians have failed miserably at the task and no public optics exercise like this one is going to change their practice.