1. The City (and its consultant) disregarded rock borehole data, that was available at the OMB Hearing. The Chair of the Hearing instructed the engineering consultants (from both sides) to get together to come up with a 'worked-out solution' considering the new evidence from the Hearing. This is the very same rock borehole evidence (from the OMB Hearing) that is now considered by the third consultant as currently rendering the pipeline as being too costly. Had the City and its consultant not stonewalled, at the OMB Hearing when confronted with this evidence, then the third study, and all the intervening waste of time and tax dollars could have been avoided.

2. The Chair of the OMB Hearing let the City 'off-the-hook' regarding a $1,190,000 pipeline oversight contract that it had awarded, while the OMB Hearing was still pending. However, the OMB Order and Decision, did warn the City to avoid any similar activities "while an appeal is pending." The City appears to have disregarded the Board's admonition, in this regard, by proceeding with over $4,500,000 in pipeline-related work, (including the sewage hauling expenses, necessitated by the delays), even before the OMB-ordered "third evaluation" had made public, its findings.

The above events have generated many questions, which, for the moment, are without answers. Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming, so that corrective measures are taken to avoid repeats of such "fiscal carnage", before the whole issue is swept away, and forgotten. Here are a few of the initial questions:

Can City officials who elect to suppress vital information, costing taxpayers millions of wasted dollars, be made accountable, when their job descriptions (or work expectations) call for honesty in public office, openness, transparency, full disclosure, and acting responsibly with limited taxpayers' resources? Is the City responsible, regarding the same issues? Is it not time that the City of Ottawa had an Independent Auditor? What level of government, legislative body, or legal provision is there (if any) that could institute, or prevent obstruction of the institution of a truly Independent City Auditor? When City staff engineers, or engineering consultants, for the City, appear to obstruct the flow of information (that is in their possession), which when withheld, costs taxpayers millions of wasted tax dollars, and severely damages the public interest; what is the remedy for public relief, or legal recourse? How effective is the Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) in policing "one of its own", in such cases where there is clear "public harm" caused by a Professional Engineer of Ontario? When specific elements of an "OMB Decision and Order" (the OMB being a quasi-judicial body) are ignored, is there any possible remedy under the Law, (against a municipality), for cases of non-compliance, (or civic acts of contempt)? If that OMB Decision and Order is further upheld, by the Superior Court of Ontario (as in this case); does it have any more force in Law? In the Case of the Ottawa South Collector (OSC) lawsuit for $200,000,000, some of the same staff engineers, and outside consulting engineers, involved there, are involved in the Munster "boondoggle". With regard to the OSC matter, Chair (now Mayor) Chiarelli stated (in the Ottawa Sun, February 14, 1999), "There's no question that there was negligence. The question is, whose negligence is it?"  Since there has been no public accounting or disclosure of whose negligence it was ---or in fact, if the matter is even settled--- is there not a serious conflict of interest in play here, for the same individuals and companies to be involved in BOTH unresolved issues? How does one suppose that the above appears to a questioning public?