Staff Got Traffic-Camera Money Wrong: GRAY

“… that all revenue from automated enforcement, including automated speed enforcement, automated license plate recognition devices and school bus cameras, as well as any future new forms of automated enforcement, in addition to revenues from new red-light cameras installed beyond 2020, be allocated to the Road Safety Action Plan Program for implementation of countermeasures identified in the 2020- 2024 Road Safety Action Plan report”

A quote from the bylaw on the allocation of funds from the traffic safety camera campaign

Appears to be quite straight-forward. Revenue from traffic cameras should go into Road Safety Action Plan Program. Done.

Any reasonable person would see that there is one location for that money. It is very clear. Council wants the funds raised from traffic cameras to be allocated to the Road Safety Action Plan Program. Self-evident.

But most of the funds went to fill a hole in the police budget and into general revenues. It doesn’t say that in the quote above.

That’s not what the bylaw says was supposed to happen.

However, that’s not how Kanata North Councillor Cathy Curry sees that phrase. This from her weekly newsletter.

This week’s Audit Committee meeting gave everyone the opportunity to get clarity on how the revenue from Red Light Cameras and Automated Speed Cameras is allocated. There was considerable confusion in media and social media posts that needed to be dealt with right away. I will get to that. But first, of note, our Auditor General releases her reports early so committee members have time to read them. (Not every Auditor General does that.) However, the nine days between when the report was released and when the audit was actually tabled for discussion created so much confusion. The Auditor General is now rethinking whether her early release is actually beneficial.

As for the audit itself, in summary, the AG recommended that revenue allocations from traffic cameras need to be better understood by Council. She was clear that there was no staff wrongdoing or siphoning of money for other uses or purposes without an explainable rationale. Staff followed Council direction and made an assumption based on a 19-year pattern of Red-Light Camera revenue allocation. And, in fact, funding allocated overall to road safety has been in excess of the revenue that was generated by the cameras installed after 2019. It just wasn’t clear to councillors how or why our finance staff maintained the traditional 19-year average allocation of Red-Light Camera revenue to the City’s operating budget when there was a motion in 2019 to use the money from any new Red-Light cameras for the Road Safety Action Plan. Our CFO explained exactly why that was done.

To be fair to staff, all allocations from Red-Light and Speed Camera revenues have been reported to the public numerous times in different ways in a public forum. To be fair to councillors (and the media), the city budget is complex, the Budget binder is hundreds of pages long, so sometimes everyone needs to have specific line items more clearly spelled out. Staff could, in future, review or consult with councillors regarding their thinking about historical allocations to see if their assumptions are correct or still applicable. Motions that were put forward 6 years ago are not fresh in councillors’ minds. However, residents can be assured that there was no wrongdoing. It is just that clarity is required. Staff committed to doing that going forward.

Let’s make some points here:

• There was no confusion in this publication about what happened to the money. It was misallocated to the police and general revenues instead of the road safety program. The extra money could go into a reserve;
• “As for the audit itself, in summary, the AG recommended that revenue allocations from traffic cameras need to be better understood by Council. She was clear that there was no staff wrongdoing or siphoning of money for other uses or purposes without an explainable rationale.” OK, perhaps council should understand better where the money should go but it was very clear about where it wanted the money to go. It didn’t get there and got there without the permission of council. Staff did something council did not want. Case closed;
• There is no problem with the auditor general releasing her reports early. In fact, it is admirable from a democratic point of view … more time to understand what she is saying and to get it. Unfortunately for council members, it leaves a fair amount of time before they can spin the conclusions to their advantage. Perhaps that’s what Curry means;
• Just because not every auditor general releases reports early does not make the city auditor general wrong. Perhaps other auditor generals could learn from the City of Ottawa example. Perhaps the AG here is leading the way into a good practice. A good practice for democracy but maybe not for councillor spin;
• The auditor general is re-thinking releasing reports early. Don’t. Early release is a great idea. Stick to it;
• (the AG)  was clear that there was no staff wrongdoing or siphoning of money for other uses or purposes without an explainable rationale. “Your honour, I threw the stone through the window but I have an explainable rationale for throwing the stone through the window.” “Well what is it?” “The greater good was served by me throwing a stone through the window.” “Did you throw the stone through the window?” “Yes.” “Guilty.” By explanable rationale does Curry mean excuse?
• Staff assumed that council wanted to follow past practice in allocating the funds. Council decided to change that. That is council’s right and it is staff’s duty to follow what council tells them to do. Staff should have come back to council to ask to follow past practice. One wonders if staff just missed the change in policy. Assuming doesn’t make an action right. “Your honour, we here in Salem have been burning witches for many years so we believed that was the right thing to do.” “But council wanted that stopped.” “We assumed that witch-burning would continue into the future. We didn’t see the change in policy.” “Not knowing the law is no excuse for breaking it. Stop burning people at the stake. Guilty.”
• To be fair, it is the responsibility of councillors (and the media) to understand what they are doing. If they are not up to the job and have difficulty understanding the budget, maybe they shouldn’t be councillors (or media):
• To be fair, what does this being discussed in the public have to do with anything. Staff didn’t follow the will of council. What does bowling have to do with the price of tea in China? This is not even remotely part of the issue:
• “However, residents can be assured that there was no wrongdoing. It is just that clarity is required. Staff committed to doing that going forward.” That’s not true. The money was misallocated. The bylaw was clear. The money was to go to the traffic safety fund. That didn’t happen. This is councillor spin. The clarity is not coming from Curry.
• “Staff could, in future, review or consult with councillors regarding their thinking about historical allocations to see if their assumptions are correct or still applicable.” A note to Curry: (a reporter adage) don’t assume anything. Do the right thing. Get it right. If council has recommended something impractical, staff should get council to change its direction. It’s not for staff to make that decision. It is anti-democratic;
• What are the consequences for staff members who got the allocation wrong.

And one more thing. If constituents are relying on Curry’s interpretation of the traffic camera funding allocation, they are badly misinformed.

One other point. Don’t patronize journalists. They don’t like it, particularly when they got it right.

Ken Gray 

Ken Gray was an award-winning journalist at five major Canadian newspapers. He is an educator, broadcaster and at present is the editor and founder of the 16-year-old pioneering internet publication, The Bulldog.

This newsletter excerpt is courtesy of the city-wide community group Your Applewood Acres (And Beyond) Neighbours.

For You:

Poilievre Refused Right To Run In Texas

Easy To Skip The Public: CRERAR

Pay Rent For Stornoway, Pierre Poilievre

City Must Think Big, Not Small: BENN

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here

Support The Bulldog
Real journalism isn’t free — but it’s priceless. Help power The Bulldog’s independent voice with a contribution today. Every bit helps.

Click here to support The Bulldog.

Sponsor The Bulldog
Get your brand in front of thousands of loyal readers who trust us — and care about this city. Sponsor The Bulldog and be part of something that matters.

Email The Bulldog for a sponsorship
kengray20@gmail.com