Re: Audit of Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects – Potential Conflicts of Interest
Mr. Mayor, Members of Committee,
The Carp River Coalition is supported by four environmental organizations in the city: the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, Friends of the Carp River, Ottawa Riverkeeper, and the Ottawa Group of the Sierra Club of Canada.
The Coalition takes no position at this time on the matter of conflicts of interest. We submit that it is an issue worthy of research and debate, which should take place.
What is of concern to us today, however, is what the observable effect has been of the potential conflict of interest the Audit has signaled.
In the case of the potential conflict between the City’s role as reviewer of development proposals and its ownership of land and membership in a landowners’ group, four important examples are offered by the Auditor General on pages 17 and 18 of his report.
The examples show that comments by staff, or lack thereof, on the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study, the Existing Conditions report on flood levels and the Post-Development report, were not heeded but that staff approved the reports anyway, and recommended them for approval by Council.
As Mr. Kostuch explained after the A G ‘s report was tabled, this was primarily a technical audit, not a project management audit. It would appear there is ample room for a further audit of this project. The Audit report’s examples are evidence of a breakdown in the development review process inside City Hall. (Not that the failure was limited to City staff. The Conservation Authority and various Ministries need to equally share the blame.) Additional questions such an audit could explore include:
– Incorporating the impacts of development of the 200 ha of Fernbank that drain to the Carp should have been a no-brainer. Not doing so defies all common sense. Why did staff so vigorously defend this untenable position?
– At the press conference after the tabling of the Audit report, Mr. Kelly, Secretary of KWOG, was questioned about the failure to heed a recommendation of the Watershed Study that continuous gauges be placed in the watercourse in order to collect the data for a proper flood level analysis. He replied that the City never demanded it. Why not?
For the Existing Conditions study, only temporary gauges were installed and data for a single rain event (in September 2004) were collected. Common sense tells us that it cannot be good practice to rely on just one event to calibrate a complex model to the specifics of a given watershed. Yet, even now, there are still only two continuous gauges in the River. And these came about, by the way, via the circuitous route of one our members – the Friends of the Carp River – applying for a grant and then handing over the gauges to the Conservation Authority. At least it shows that we’re trying to be helpful! A year later, one of these gauges is still not working properly. Two other gauges are to be installed further upstream… four years after they were recommended in the Watershed Study! Why such delays in beginning to meet a fundamental requirement?
It is important to understand that the errors laid bare in the Audit are not just a matter of the consultant correcting his failure to include a major input in his model and using the correct drainage area. The most fundamental – indeed, fatal – weakness is that the necessary data for calibration of the models are still not available at this time.
We understand that the Terms of Reference for a 3rd party review will be discussed this week. They had better recognize that the data needed to “truth” the models are not at hand. Without these data no so-called “corrections” of previous models will give us the answers we need. It’s that simple: No data, no reliable output. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Mr. Mayor, Councillors, whether or not these failures are at least in part a result of the potential conflict of interest signaled by the Auditor General, it would be advisable to expand the audit beyond technical matters to investigate the strange things that have been going on with this file.
At this time, the public trust in the role that the City and other levels of government are expected to play in protecting the public interest is badly shaken.
What is needed is a bold step on your part. You must call a halt to all further development approvals until the 3rd-party review has been completed. You must make the process of this review transparent by publishing the Draft Terms of Reference, requesting comments and having them approved by Council. You must ensure that City staff’s management of this 3rd-party review and the “translation” of the analysis and conclusions into responsible implementation are visibly done by staff untarnished by previous omissions and slants.
To do this requires leadership. This audit report has put important facts on the table. Other issues should be investigated further. You have received very poor advice from staff on this file in the past. The time for you to take leadership on this file is now.
For the Carp River Coalition,
Erwin Dreessen
(If asked about the potential conflict of interest by the consultant working for the city as well as KWOG:)
How consultants should relate to the city, in whose employ they should be, again, is an important subject, worthy of thoughtful discussion. What is of interest to us right now is what effect, if any, this potential conflict had. Were the recommendations in the Watershed Study tainted by the desire to serve the landowners in the Concept Plan? That too could be subject of a further audit.
