Civic decisions involving taxpayer money should be transparent
By Medicine Hat News Opinon on October 26, 2018.
It is one thing when you make a mistake and there are personal financial consequences but it is altogether different when it is those entrusted with the public purse who do the miscalculating. Calgarians recently wanted to know why the second phase of an art project had simply not happened. Mayor Naheed Nenshi helped to clarify the situation in a radio report. When the second phase was to start, he said, it became evident that it was going to cost a whole lot more to install than previously thought. That meant it was simply not feasible. In Medicine Hat this week we have learned the city will no longer have a whole fleet of CNG buses and will instead go back to half being diesel. We are told by city officials there had been hope that the private sector would embrace CNG fuel and build other CNG stations. This did not happen and we can’t have all transit vehicles dependent on one CNG station. That all sounds perfectly logical on both counts but what was the thinking when these decisions were made? There is, correctly, an expectation that public officials working on a proposal will think critically about the ramifications. They should ask a range of questions getting down to the nitty-gritty and financial implications. That should include alternatives and what those will cost. It should not have been a surprise to anyone at city hall in Calgary what the second phase of the art project was going to cost to install. People involved in projects like this know the ramifications and the costs involved. There is a public expectation that those involved are employed for their expertise. In Medicine Hat we are told the decision to return half the buses to diesel has nothing to do with the cost of natural gas. Both diesel and natural gas are subject to the carbon tax and the decision to switch to CNG was long before a carbon tax was established. That is all perfectly true but the assumption was that the private sector would build more CNG stations. Hatters would probably like to know on what that assumption or hope was based. If there was nothing definite from the private sector, the calculation to build the CNG station near the airport was not based on fact and certainties — it was very vague. Many would suggest too vague to make major decisions on. Even at this stage the decision to return half the buses to diesel is based on solving what could be a problem if the CNG station was out of action. Hatters would probably benefit from hearing about other options such as electric buses rather than diesel. Was this considered and how did the numbers compare? What are the environmental consequences by going diesel? Perhaps all these factors have been considered and even calculated. Because it’s the public paying, they have a right to know. Transparency would explain decisions and there are times the public may even be able to positively contribute to the discussion and avert wasting money. (Gillian Slade is a News reporter. To comment on this and other editorials, go to https://www.medicinehatnews.com/opinions, email her at gslade@medicinehatnews.com or call her at 403-528-8635.) 15-14
