The MFP scandal is Exhibit A in the case for a lobbyist registry at the City of Toronto. Exhibit B was presented yesterday by Councillor Norm Kelly, who shilled for lobbyist Arthur Potts on behalf of a German streetcar manufacturer in a letter to TTC chairman Adam Giambrone.
According to the Globe and Mail’s John Barber, Councillor Kelly sent the letter, co-signed by his colleagues Councillor Karen Stintz and Councillor Frank Di Giorgio, and edited by Potts, seeking a re-opening and amendment of the terms of the TTC’s request for proposals issued for streetcar purchases. Amending the terms of the RFP to Potts’ specifications would allow Vossloh Kiepe, the German company that retained Potts to lobby on their behalf, to bid. Vossloh Kiepe needs the new terms because that firm doesn’t build entirely low floor streetcars, as the RFP demands. Vossloh Kiepe’s model has a series of stairs and ramps.
While Councillor Stintz tried to stick to her story that more competition is better, she admitted to Barber that she hadn’t read the engineer’s report that cited significant problems with models built by Vossloh Kiepe. Among those problems are that the Vossloh Kiepe model was more likely to de-rail and would have insufficient power to climb the hills of Toronto.
It’s hard to believe that anyone thinking in the public interest would actually propose that the TTC consider purchasing a model of streetcar more likely to de-rail and unable to climb Toronto’s hills. That leads me to believe that maybe Kelly and Stintz weren’t thinking in the public interest when they signed the letter to Giambrone. And the City’s database listing election campaign donors doesn’t make me think differently. According to the City’s web site, Potts, who was also mayoral candidate Stephen LeDrew’s campaign manager, was a donor to both Kelly and Stintz in the 2006 election. Although the donations were fairly small ($150 and $200 respectively), if this isn’t an example of bought influence trumping the public interest, it certainly looks like it.
Fortunately Giambrone wouldn’t have any of it and backed his more than competent engineer. End of story. Vossloh Kiepe is fertig.
However, this reinforces the importance of a lobbyist registry. Most decisions that lobbyists are retained to influence at City Hall are nowhere near the scale of the streetcar contract and will never make the news — just look at how long it took for people to realize that MFP had become the albatross it was. To ensure those contracts that aren’t attention-grabbing in and of themselves have the proper scrutiny, it’s important to know who is influencing them. The only way to do that is through an open and transparent lobbyist registry. The good, honest and hard-working lobbyists (which is most of them) agree.
But, you ask, Toronto has a lobbyist registry, doesn’t it? Not exactly. Right now it’s a lobbyist registrar who doesn’t have the money for a registry. On a Councillor Mike Del Grande motion, Council approved barely one third the budget the registrar requested to get the registry up and running (talk about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.) Now, although every component of the registry is prepared to launch, the registrar doesn’t have the money to make it operational.
Thankfully, the Budget Committee saw the error of Council’s way and recommended to Council earlier this week that the lobbyist registrar’s budget be almost doubled to the $710,000 needed to make the registry run.
Now it’s up to Council to not drop this ball…again.
Photograph courtesy Sheep Chaser.
14 comments
Great post. And Stintz wants to be the leader of council’s opposition? Bonehead moves like this will come back to haunt her.
this posting would be just too easy.I find it amazing that anybody who thinks the MFP fiasco wasn’t a disaster should then oppose a comptroller general for the city.It is clear that taxpayers funds are not being protected.The whole scheme to purchase vehicles for the TTC just doesn’t seem transparent.
I cannot believe that these two councillors aren’t being brought up on charges for fraud.
This is exactly why people don’t turn out to vote any more.
It’s not like the people who get into power are looking out for anyone else’s good except their own.
Thank goodness Adam Giambrone was on the ball for this one.
Oh George. The article is about how transparent and obvious Karen and her cronies were in trying to lobby for their pal Arther and his client. That’s good. Catching them in the act is good. And the politicos doing the right thing before the press and the public had to tell them to is good.
Adam Giambrone telling Karen and the gang to take a hike is an example of protecting taxpayer’s funds. Cry wolf somewhere else.
Be careful drawing conclusions from what you read in the paper. The fact is the report that Barber references has never been made public so that Karen Stintz could not have read it. Why the media has a copy that has not been shared with the decision makers at City Hall and the proponents who want to build new streetcars is still a mystery.
We now have a copy of the report, unofficially obtained from the media, and it is riddled with inaccuracies. All of the technical problems they associate with 70% low-floor streetcars do not apply to our design, because they relate to an unpowered centre boogie (wheel system) and ours would be powered. There is no truth to the notion that our vehicles are more likely to derail or will be unable to get up Toronto’s steep grades.
The only relevant concern is an aesthetic one, that to accommodate our powered centre boogie, a slight ramp within the car will likely be necessary. Every car will be assessable, but throughout only 70% of the car, which we believe meets the test for “reasonable accommodation” for the moblity impaired.
Finally, I was not requesting that the Commission change the specifications, but rather that they not change them. The last meeting of the TTC confirmed that our 70% low-floor cars would be eligible to be in the mix. Then mysteriously, two-weeks later a change was directed by “senior management” to only include 100% low-floors. No reasons were given, we were not allowed to meet with staff to discus their concerns and were asked to submit our views in writing without the benefit of the report that Barber mentions to justify the proposed change.
All I was requesting of the Commission was the chance to respond to the proposed change in public before the RFP was released. Contrary to Barber’s article, the decision has not yet been taken by the TTC, but we believe will now be before the Commission at its next meeting in December.
Lets hope they do the right thing and keep the RFP process open, fair and flexible enough that the best vehicles for the City of Toronto can be obtained. Otherwise we end up with another sole-sourced deal that puts politics ahead of transit riders, the handicapped and taxpayers.
By the way, I fully support a Lobbyist registry so that we all can know who is speaking to senior staff at the TTC and politicos like Giambrone who was the only TTC Commissioner aware of the proposed change in advance. The fact the Barber and this blog can take easy pot shots at me and how I do business at City Hall is because I am very open about who I meet with, and what I do. I certainly wish all dealings at City Hall were as transparent.
I guess the other side of the coin is that Giambrone is protecting his interests as well. If your pockets are being influenced by another manufacturer you protect that position. Seems to me that the corruption happens everywhere at different levels. Thats just part of business. Its a matter of gettin caught!
Red Rocket’s claim seems libellous.
While I support the lobbying registry, the TTC should not limit itself to only 100% low floor streetcars. Low floor streetcars restrict space available for the wheels and motors, therefore would tend to have higher purchasing and maintainence costs.
Vossloh Kiepe may make bad streetcars, but they should be excluded if they derail or can’t handled the hills, not because they aren’t 100% low floor. There could be other 70% low floor streetcars out there that can perform better then a 100% low floor streetcar, so we should not limit our options.
We might even want in allow lift-equipped high floor streetcar to bid, if only so we know exactly how much we are paying for better access.
Arthur, thanks for taking the time to put your position forward. With due respect, I’m compelled to believe an unbiased engineer’s report over a person paid to advocate for a specific model developed by a specific company.
However, I’ll take you on your word that Councillor Stintz hadn’t read documentation on this file before signing her name to the letter supporting your efforts. But I don’t believe that makes her decision to sign your letter any more honourable. It distresses equally me to know that Councillor Stintz and her two colleagues, people charged with representing the public interest, would have signed on to something developed by a person with a business interest only because they were asked to do so and not because the public interest was at stake. And I find it even more troubling that the person for whom these councillors did that favour just happened to donate to their campaigns (Di Giorgio notwithstanding.)
While I wouldn’t draw any specific conclusions on this matter, any objective observer would have to agree that this doesn’t pass the smell test.
Given Mr. Pott’s comments and the obvious transparancy of his involvement I do not understand the agenda of Adam and Barber in questioning Mr. Potts’ integrety. The Globe article I saw made clear Vossloh Kiepe is repared to build a low floor car but simply think a 70% low floor is a more robust machine. So what is the problem. No one has ever suggested that lobbyists are not needed and as far as transparency goes the hidden agendas and secrecy issues surrounding Toronto seem more the purview of the Miller Executive and City Hall staff.
Canoe Man
David, this has nothing to do with Potts personally. Potts is doing his job when he solicits support for the company he is working on behalf of. I do not believe, however, that the councillors involved were doing their job when they signed on to Potts’ letter. Instead of researching the issue for themselves, the councillors took the word of a person who donated to two of their campaigns and is obviously more invested in the well-being of a private company than the public interest since that’s where his pay cheque is coming from. (That’s not to say that no one should be in Potts’ position, only that our elected officials are put in office to serve the public interest rather than certain private ones.)
The problem here isn’t, as far as I can tell, Potts (I’ve never said that.) The problem is councillors who are making decisions based on a donor/lobbyist’s pitch rather than fact. That should concern everyone, even if the donor/lobbyist is transparent about their involvement.
I would recommend those interested in this process to go to stevemunro.ca and check out his Nov. 9th post on the change to the streetcar specification.
Here’s an excerpt:
This change will have a significant effect on the models offered by maunfacturers to the TTC. Those we have seen in Toronto to date are not 100% low floor, and in a way this sends bidders back to the drawing boards.
The reference that “… the Commission has determined …†is intriguing because there has not been a public meeting of the Commission at which such a decision could have been made. Have the technical and cost implications of this position been explained to the Commissioners?
Adam
After reviewing postings referenced by Mark three things become clear.
Your claim not to be attacking Potts is pure sophistry as the title of your blog is about the Lobbyist Registry. So since you have no problem with him doing his job you owe him an appology.
In reviewing the connections provided by Mark it is clear that the TTC specifications and engineering reports are in fact clouded in secrecy and hidden adgendas completely the result of staff secrecy and someones political agenda. Your attack on Stintz is therefore completely off the mark as she signed on to the letter in attempt to get information to review. You cannot attack her for not studying relevant information that is not available to her or the many others who are trying to find out why Specs were changed. She is attempting to get transparency you claim to seek. You therfore owe her an apology.
Finally you owe this site and its’ readers an opology for a posting an opinion full of inaccuracy and a hidden political agenda. As a wanaby insider with the Mayor Miller crowd you are required to attack anyone who is viewed as an questioner of his righteousness and to put aside any independent thinking about how City Hall is run.
Potts and Stintz fit this description and are therefore subjected to unfounded cheap shots.
The real question is where are the lobbyists for the other bidders who got the TTC specs changed and how much money you have helped raise or contributed for Mayor Miller.
Canoe Man
A hard but simple truth.
You’re dispelling truth, Canoe Man?
If so, don’t hide behind a silly name and be brave enough to back up your opinions.
You may not agree with Adam, but you use inflammatory language (not to mention error-filled). “Wanaby insider, “required to attack anyone who is viewed as a questioner”, while providing no reasons why you disagree (the post is “full of innacuracy” but don’t tell us what’s inaccurate). You just take offense to Adam pointing a finger.