Online Town Hall

We have an alignment of the stars above Guelph when it comes to public transit.

1. This City council is one of the most transit friendly councils we have seen in a great many years.
2. Both the federal and provincial governments see public transit as a top priority.
3. The general population is beginning to see alternative transportation as one possible solution to the problem of global warming
4. The City of Guelph has reached a critical point where old transit solutions are not serving the needs of our community.

It was under these conditions that the transit ad-hoc committee was formed “To provide input on neighbourhood and community transit issues, improving system capacity, ridership growth, service quality and customer satisfaction” As an outspoken critic in support of improving our current transit services I was asked to chair the committee.

At the first meeting, we identified transit drivers as one of the most valuable sources of information on current transit issues and potential solutions and the committee unanimously decided to offer an open invitation to any transit driver willing to come out and share their experience, opinions and suggestions with the Committee. City staff was asked to contact the appropriate labour representatives to get the ball rolling.

Unfortunately for the committee, and indeed the City of Guelph, the executive of the local Amalgamated Transit Union wanted nothing to do with allowing their drivers to freely communicate with the committee.

Surely there must have been some kind of misunderstanding, I thought. Empowering the workforce to take an active role in improving service delivery should be in the best interests of EVERYBODY, wouldn’t you think?

And so… naively, I contacted Steve McNeil, president of local 1189 ATU to ask why the union would forbid their drivers from participating in the process.

Apparently, I have much to learn about the politics of power when it comes to dealing with labour.

I was told that the reason the executive decided not to allow transit drivers to participate in the discussions was to “protect” the City.

Protect the City?
From what?

I was told that apparently not all drivers are happy with the way transit operates and that some might try to sabotage the process. The ATU decision was made to save us from that fate.

Honourable intensions… I guess. However, “wouldn’t those who feel that improvements are necessary be precisely those who we should try to engage?” I asked.

Apparently not.

As a compromise it was suggested that the president of the union would hand pick a number of drivers to participate in the discussions. Certainly this is much better than not allowing ANY driver to participate I thought, however, “wouldn’t this approach politicize the issue by promoting only one perspective” I asked.

The meeting ended.

Apparently, I have much to learn about the politics of power when it comes to dealing with labour.

And so, the ad-hoc committee would just have to get by without input from the drivers; certainly a loss, but not the end of the world.

The next day I received a call from the Mayors office.

Apparently, the Mayor had been contacted by the president of the ATU expressing concern that because my wife drives for transit, there was in a conflict of interest with my chairing the transit ad-hoc committee.

Unless I stepped down from the position of chair, he threatened to file a formal conflict of interest charge!

There was only one choice; if my participation in the committee would in any way impede its effectiveness then I would step down. The goal of the committee in improving transit capacity, ridership growth, service quality and customer satisfaction is far more important than my position as chair.

I do not feel that my participation in championing transit in our City is in any way a pecuniary conflict of interest (other than engaging in collective bargaining issues). However, under the circumstances I am compelled by the Act to declare a conflict of interest or face significant personal financial burden in defending myself against such charges.

It is unfortunate; some might say it borders on political extortion – however it is the world we live in and life isn’t always fair. Thank goodness there are far more people working towards making our City a better place than those working against us.

Posted Below - Legal Opinion on Ad-Hoc Transit Committee Conflict of Interest
MILLER THOMPSON - Municipal Conflict of Interest Review

This entry was posted on Friday, March 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am and is filed under City Council. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.