LRT: A Vital Issue Of Open Government

The Bulldog asked for the value of outstanding claims concerning the light rail project on March 29.

—

This publication received the answer below on April 14.

Good afternoon, Ken,

Please see the response below from staff.

“Any disputes between the City and the Project Companies on the LRT Projects are governed by the terms of the applicable Project Agreement and any related agreements. In keeping with the City’s practices, any resolutions of such disputes are confidential and cannot be publicly disclosed, including because of confidentiality provisions contained in any applicable settlement agreement.

Courts recognize that settlements serve the public interest by saving time and money, reducing the need for trials, and allowing parties to work together to resolve disputes. They also recognize that settlements are an essential part of the legal system, and that confidentiality is often necessary to reach a settlement. The City respects the importance of the settlement process in relation to any disputes in which it is involved.”

Attribution: Stuart Huxley, Interim City Solicitor

—

In fact, very little research is done into the question of whether confidentiality agreements tend to lower pecuniary settlements. Very little to no precedents in Ontario.

That confidentiality agreements can be enforced is apparent from case law such as the prominent dispute between Jan Wong and the Globe and Mail.

Odd Weather Alters City Spring Operations

But whether such agreements result in reduced damages overall is unlikely and the statement above saying confidentiality agreements speed conclusions to disputes is very questionable.

Confidentiality can be agreed on before negotiations begin because at least one party to the agreement doesn’t want to be embarrassed in public.

However, the city needs to be reminded that it represents the wishes and needs of the residents and taxpayers of this community. And that city government is democratic. Democracy does not just occur on election day or once every four years.

The public has a right to know how its money, not the City of Ottawa’s money, is being spent. The City of Ottawa has a responsibility to keep the public informed of how its tax money and other revenues are being used. Already in the LRT situation, there have been claims and settlements (some confidential) worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The public and the use of its money has been kept in the dark on some of these settlements by staff members and politicians whose duty is to represent the wishes of the public.

The public’s need to know how its money is being used overrides the need for confidentiality in a public institution. The city cannot be spending hundreds of millions of dollars without telling taxpayers how their money is being spent. The need for reporting in a democracy overrides unusual and special needs for confidentiality.

In other words, confidentiality is a nice to have in private dealings. However, open government in a democracy is a must-have.

It is in the interest of the public to know how its money and budgets for that money are being treated … well or poorly or somewhere in between. The first responsibility for staff and politicians is to the people, not creating confidentiality clauses to keep information away from residents. That’s part of democracy every day. Democracy over all.

And frankly, while it is in the interest of the public to know how its money is being spent, it can be argued that it is in the self-serving interest of the people who are charged with representing the public to keep those settlements private. Staff and politicians can be embarrassed by the news of surrendering millions of dollars due to misdeeds by public officials … if any occurred.

Confidentiality agreements are entered into voluntarily and part of that decision must be predicated on concern for keeping the public informed about how public officials are treating their tax money. In other words, the city does not have a good enough reason for a confidentiality clause except in very exceptional circumstances. And it must explain to the public why a rare confidentiality clause is needed, not hide behind it.

Public servants and elected politicians need to fight for open government on behalf of the public they serve, not cover up real or imagined mistakes.

Efficacy does not override the vital need in a democracy to keep the public informed about how its money is being spent. There are much more important issues at stake in public policy than efficacy. This is not a deal between private parties.

Perhaps the city, in its response above, is asking us to trust its better judgment. In different circumstances, where the city staff and politicians have a long history of trust and good decisions, that might (only might) be taken into account.

We call on the city staffers and politicians involved in this withholding of information to re-read the conclusions of the provincial judicial inquiry into Ottawa’s light-rail project. As a result of those conclusions, it would be impossible for a reasonable person to trust the word of city staff and municipal politicians. It would be irresponsible.

Troster Missed The Lessons Of Trump: THE VOTER

Trust is easily lost but almost impossible to regain.

And furthermore, how seriously does staff and politicians take the need to keep the public informed?

City staff took two weeks to produce two paragraphs in response to The Bulldog’s inquiry. Urgency was not high on city hall’s agenda in this instance of keeping the public informed. Staff and politicians should be fighting to keep information in the public realm, not fighting to keep it private.

Given what we learned from the LRT inquiry, under no circumstances should the public take City of Ottawa staff and politicians at their word.

And that applies in this instance of lawsuit claims. Don’t expect the public to trust city hall that it is doing its best. That trust was lost long ago.

Give us the facts, not an implicit request for trust. City hall must be held into an accurate account its actions due to its previous misdeeds on the LRT file.

As the LRT inquiry made abundantly clear, this city hall cannot be trusted. Facts, not non-existent trust.

City politicians of good will should be urgently fighting to get the information on LRT lawsuits into the public forum.

Ken Gray

For You:

SHELTERS: A Little Knowledge Goes A Short Way

SHELTERS: What Was Troster Thinking?

Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here