| |
|
PUBLIC LIAISON COMMITTEE WAS A SHAM |
Committee
credibility and transparency was tainted
by all-pervading
manipulation of Goulbourn's Mayor,
and City Staff.
| |
| |
It’s hard to
claim "transparency" in an evaluation
process, when the Public Liaison
Committee
(PLC), itself,
was devoid of transparency.
|
|
|
|
|
"The Munster,
'Public
Liaison Committee',
more aptly, should have been called:
'The RMOC -
Munster Pipeline/Lagoon Steering Committee'".
(Munster Resident)
PLC
OVERVIEW:
1.)
Closed, (not open) Process:
At the first meeting, it was announced that the meetings
would be closed to public attendance, (perhaps, creating the outward
perception that there was something to hide). One Environmental Student,
doing studies on the Environmental Assessment process was not even allowed
to audit this as a practical assignment. In retrospect, he would have been
able to figure out quite quickly, that things were very wrong with the
set-up and operation of this Committee.
A reporter from the Stittsville Signal was also shown the door by Mayor
Stavinga, the ostensible leader of the Committee.
It
appeared disingenuous to
call the body a ‘Public’ Liaison Committee,
then bar the 'Public' from attending
its proceedings.
This was the first
FIRST "clue", to create the uneasy impression of there being an agenda to
fulfill ---or FIX--- a predetermined solution.
2.) Process
lacked
independence (therefore: transparency):
Several media commentaries point out that, in order to have
‘independence’ in a function such as this, municipal (staff or elected
representative) involvement must not occur. The whole purpose of an
“independent evaluation,” is that it remain “independent”.
Unfortunately, in the case of the Munster PLC, both Janet Stavinga (Mayor)
and Steven Forstell (City Engineer) played very
intrusive and intense
roles
throughout the entire process.
3.)
Pre-destined to cause confusion - (It
was predicted ...and it happen right on cue.):
During the preparation of the first Public Comment Sheet, a
few of the PLC Members suggested that the residents of Munster are
intelligent enough to be asked directly, what they wanted for their
community. Steven Forstell (acting for the Municipality’s interests) jumped
ahead of the Regions hired, (independent) Consultants, insisting that,
“The
Comment Sheet must not specifically ask for public preference of
alternatives (i.e., lagoons, pipeline, etc.)”.
That gave rise to the infamous ‘unintelligible’ Comment Sheet, which
irritated and confused residents.
(To see public
comments:
CLICK HERE).
It is
left to the
reader to determine if this exercise did anything
other
than to skew
the entire selection process, from the very outset.
Some of
the Comments and conclusions heard at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing
(and subsequent Decision) were
a
direct reflection upon the deficiencies of the ‘Comment Sheet’ and the
evaluation methodologies.
A
few of the comments, quoted from the OMB Decision, of June 8, 2000, are
printed below:
| |
|
Dr.
George Nakhla, (CRA’s designer of the Evaluation Methodology used on
Munster):
“Whatever judgement calls had to be
made it was possible
that another engineer might come up with
a different score.”
Mr.
Jeff White P.Eng. (Witness for one Appellant, and proponent of
Snowfluent bid):
“The Matrix (table F-1) can be made to come
out whichever way you
want. You can make black come out red because
it is so subjective.”
Dr. Werner Daechsel
(Appellant Witness for the CRC):
“If the utility values based upon judgement
are in error, the results will be in error.”
Mr. N.M. Katary, P.Eng.
(Chair of the OMB
Hearing):
“If
the methodology used in selecting the pipeline alternative is
found
to be deficient, then the choice of the pipeline alternative
founded
upon such a deficient methodology is inappropriate.”
… “An aspect of evidence by Dr. Nakhla is worthy of note. …“His
approach to defending the methodology used in this instance was
more in the nature of advocacy than forthright professional opinion.”
… “The facts presented as part of the evaluation methodology are
not
perfected enough to make a judgment based upon them.
Simply put, the
best evidence is not before the board.”
… “The Board would like
to request the City to perfect its case.”
… “The Board is of the
view that the public interest
is best served by perfecting the
case.”
|
|
|
4.)
Dubious
practices generated suspicion and lost trust:
At the second meeting of the PLC, (June 4/98), George Godin (of CRA) noted
that:
| |
|
…“The due date for submission of proposals is currently June 19, 1998.
This date may be extended, however, as certain potential proposers have
expressed concern about the narrow time frame involved in submitting
proposals. It is therefore possible that the due date may be extended
two weeks (i.e. July 3, 1998). This issue was put to the PLC for
discussion. It was agree, in the interest of receiving the
most technically competent and thorough submissions,
that a two-week extension on proposal submission was not problematic.”
(Quoted from Minutes of meeting.)
|
|
|
Unknown,
to the PLC members ---at the time--- the delay request was
not
for the widest possible search
for
‘competent technologies’,
(the declared reason for the RFP), but
for the non-compliant pipeline bids to be rounded up.
(To see Taggart letter of June 19/98:
CLICK HERE).
(Related Evidence:
CLICK HERE)
5.)
Lack of openness, and poor
communication:
"Gag Orders" were placed on PLC member, at all of the Public
Meetings, less they voice anything but the 'party line'. At PLC Meetings,
(and in written correspondence), numerous critical technical questions
asked, were inadequately answered, or totally ignored. Suspicions within the
Community, and with some of the Members of the PLC, began to mount, that
some sort of
‘FIX’
had
been pre-determined, and that the PLC members were little more than pawns,
in a big chess game. An example of this is a ‘Letter to the Editor’, dated
July 22/98, from a Munster resident who was unable to obtain satisfactory
answers from the PLC members, and was becoming increasingly suspicious and
frustrated with the whole process:
| |
|
Ottawa Citizen, July 22/98:
“Munster
wastewater solution obvious
Conestoga-Rovers Associates (CRA) have had more than two weeks now to
gather a good impression of which process is best for Munster’s
wastewater treatment. The Ottawa newspapers are starting to publish some
details of the bidders that have come forward. And yet, the Regional
Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has not released the proposal
information to the
Munster Liaison Committee, the
very group that was set up to act as a bridge to inform the residents
and keep the process transparent and above-board.
Concerns are building that
Munster is about to suffer a “political solution.
It is abundantly clear to
students of the problem that the only option that can be chosen by CRA
is one of the ‘new treatment technologies’ …These
treatment technologies digest wastes and clean the wastewater on site,
then release better-than-Jock-River-quality water back to the
environment. It’s odourless, and doesn’t use up valuable farmland or
invade the environment. The Jock River needs the additional clean water.
…The treatment technology is so advanced
at present that any civilized, self-respecting municipality that takes
an honest look at this technology will quickly go this route. It keeps
the water in the environment in which it was produced, and it treats it
to a level of water quality that is over-and-above that of local streams
and rivers.
Jack Leith,
Munster”
|
|
|
Empty platitudes
and failed promises:
Within the
PLC, Mayor Stavinga felt that a newspaper response from her was necessary.
In her draft letter, (dated July 22, 1998), she stated:
| |
From the Office of Mayor Janet Stavinga
DRAFT
July 22, 1998
The Editor
The Ottawa Citizen
Baxter Road
Ottawa, ON
On behalf of the
Township of Goulbourn and the Munster Hamlet Public Liaison Committee, I
am writing this letter in response to recent letters within The Ottawa
Citizen that have raised concerns as to the credibility of the review
process being undertaken to upgrade our Munster Hamlet Wastewater
Treatment System.
Although the previous
Regional Council endorsed the repair and expansion of the lagoons and
spray irrigation field, new information on performance standards, and
capital and operating costs for other technologies was received in late
1997 and early 1998. With this additional knowledge, Goulbourn Township
strongly encouraged the Region to seek amendments to the Environmental
Assessment process that would allow for full disclosure and
consideration of these options, as well as any others.
Given these other
alternatives Goulbourn Township was not satisfied with the recommended
solution of reparing and expanding the existing lagoons and spray
irrigation. We argued that the recommended solution must be based upon
sound scientific and current technical knowledge. We asked
that
any
alternatives to be evaluated should improve the overall level of
treatment,
meet the compliance schedule,
and
result in lower capital and operating cost
than the previously recommended solution.
“We strongly supported a
process in which any proposed engineered solutions would be subject to
an independent review by a third party. This independent reviewer would
have the ability to bring a fresh approach to the project and offer
innovative solutions that had not been fully assessed due to previous
biases or direction on the project.
An independent reviewer
would help to re-establish
credibility and
communications between all parties involved. We also applauded
the inclusion of mechanisms such as the Public Liaison Committee (PLC)
to ensure the evaluation process would be
fair,
objective and
transparent.
To date, two meetings of
the PLC, one Public Open House, and two newsletters circulated to
residents of Munster Hamlet and surrounding rural areas, have served to
update residents on the status of the project, as well as encourage
meaningful and informed participation. Information on the status of the
project can also be found on our Township home page at
http://twp.goulbourn.on.ca/.
Conestoga-Rovers and Associates (CRA) is currently
completing an independent technical review of six proposals received
from firms interested in designing and implementing various waste water
treatment systems for Munster Hamlet. This technical review is expected
to be completed by the end of July, and a preferred alternative will be
identified. A meeting of the PLC is scheduled within the first two weeks
of August, followed by a community forum during the week of August 19th
to be advertised in our community newspapers.
In summary, the process that is being undertaken includes
a Public Liaison Committee, Open Houses, newsletters, and an independent
technical review, by a competent and reputable engineering firm, of a
wide spectrum of waste water treatment options. It is through these
undertakings that
we are developing an open, transparent and inclusive
public process that will ensure public trust and confidence.
As this process continues, Goulbourn Township, as the
closest link to the residents of Munster, will continue to be actively
involved through our participation in the Public Liaison Committee. We
are looking forward to working in partnership with the Region to
determine and implement the best solution to a long standing problem in
our community.
Yours truly,
Janet
Stavinga
Mayor
Member of Public Liaison Committee
c.c.: Goulbourn
Council
Public Liaison Committee (PLC)
members
|
|
The
draft letter was circulated amongst the PLC members for review.
One
member. Mr. Gordon Sample observed in his scratch notes that:
“The hoped-for open, transparent and
inclusive process has been
lost. The committee is now the subject of divisive
comment.”
Here is
Mr. Sample’s letter to Mayor Stavinga, dated July 22/98:
| |
|
“Janet Stavinga,
I have received the draft of your letter and I cannot support this
letter.
It
does not help me respond to my neighbours who ask what is happening.
It
is not up to you or the committee to reply to the Leith letter in the
Citizen.
…If you want to clarify the situation demand that CRA and
the Region update the Committee in a meaningful manner.
Yours truly,
Gordon Sample”
|
|
|
Mr.
Sample sent a second letter to Ms. Stavinga, (also dated July 22/98), as
follows:
| |
|
“Janet Stavinga,
Further to my previous memo I suggest that you poll all committee
members as follows:
1.)
Do you feel that the PLC is making
any meaningful contribution?
2.)
Are you satisfied with the
information being released to the PLC?
3.)
Are you sufficiently informed so that you
can respond to questions from your neighbours?
4.)
How do you feel about the media
getting information before the PLC
Gordon Sample
|
|
|
If the
Stavinga letter was sent, it was not printed in the Citizen.
| |
|
Sad commentary on state of
communication, described in...
The Stittsville Weekend Signal
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
6.)
City-organized ‘public involvement committees’ have a
history of being shams:
One savvy Citizen, Yves
Potvin, observes:
| |
"Stop pretending public has a say. ...Public consultations that
have no, or a minimal, effect on the decision-making process are
nothing more than window-dressing and an attempt by politicians and
bureaucrats to fool the public into believing that they have a real say
in decisions that significantly affect their lives.
We see that kind of thing more these days
in all sorts of public decisions.
...Let's stop pretending that the public has any say in these sorts of
decisions." |
|
Environment Probe states:
| |
"The environmental assessment process has become expensive and
unaccountable.
Environment Probe is working to reform
our system of environmental regulation to give local communities
decision-making power, to minimize the number of environmental
assessments,
and to make public hearings work fairly
and efficiently." |
|
7.) When
empty platitudes, take on the
appearance of
outright lies:
The public was told that
the whole, costly, exercise was designed to achieve the
following:
|
|
-
Improve the
level of treatment:
The RFP had very
specific criteria that had to be met (See RFP 'Compliance Objectives'
-
CLICK HERE).
These were not met by the pipeline selection.
-
Meet the (MOE)
compliance schedule:
The MOE provided the Region approximately one year (until March 1999)
to have a long term solution in progress. It is now four years past
the deadline. A 'Time to Complete' component was not even included in
the Evaluation Matrix (F1). It was a generally known fact that the
pipeline work, with all the design work that still had to be
completed, would have taken at least a year longer to complete.
- Guarantee to
reduce the cost (Capital and O&M):
The on-site treatment bidders submitted fixed costs. The pipeline
costs were not guaranteed, and the best estimates from Totten-Simms
Hukicki (hired by the Region), were approximately four times higher.
- Conduct
an "Open" process: The
process was closed and secretive. (See #1, above.)
- Evaluation
was to be "Independent" and "Transparent":
The whole exercise from the PLC
to the Evaluation Methodology, to the final selection process ...was
neither independent nor transparent. (See #2, above.)
- Provide a
clearly understandable selection process, that would restore public
trust and confidence:
The City and its Consultant
failed profoundly, with respect to the set-up of the evaluation
criteria, in the selection process itself, and in rationalizing their
selections to the public. (See #3, above.)
- Conduct fair
dealings, by acting in good faith:
The public trust is the 'highest good' in this issue, and the
City has betrayed this trust, by pressing its "pre-determined solution
(the pipeline-lagoon selection) to the top of the agenda, regardless
of the facts (relating to cost, environmental risks, public health
risks, etc., ...which place it at the bottom of the list). Item #4,
(above), is one of many questionable practices, suggestive of
the appearance of RFP irregularities, which has led to litigation.)
- Re-establish
credibility and communications:
(See #5, above.). Lack of CLEAR verbal and written communication, at
all levels, between CRA and the PLC, between CRA and the compliant
Bidders, and between CRA and the Public, has brought complaints from
these quarters. The Comment Sheets were confusing, CRA's
rationalizations (for its subjective choices) were inadequate (See OMB
Evidence), and the compliant bidders complained bitterly that their
technologies were misrepresented.
| |
The "Wastewater Treatment
Alternatives Evaluation" for Munster Hamlet, has employed the Public
Liaison Committee, the engineering staff of the Regional Government,
and the Mayor of Goulbourn Township, to embark upon a process which
has failed to meet ---even one--- of its above-stated objectives.
(That any-or-all unstated objectives may have been achieved,
is not disputed here.)
________________________________
Given that the OMB Decision
ordered the City to re-evaluate the evidence ---to properly serve
the public interest--- it is profoundly disappointing that both the
recommendations of that re-evaluation, and service to the public
interest, have been completely ignored. The net result is that, six
years later, over $20,000,000 more has been spent, and the final
solution has been found to be risky to public health and
comprehensively deficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
