CEO Ian Jarvis fired

On Wednesday, Feb 11,  CEO Ian Jarvis ‘stepped down’ from his position at Translink. The Translink board stated that they were looking to make a change in management due to “a lack in public confidence”. A “hastily assembled” press conference announced that Mr. Jarvis will be replaced and retained (as consultant) through his 2016 contract with full pay. Since that day it has become clear that Mr. Jarvis was fired.  Surely the board has to understand that this move can only hurt the “Yes” vote?

The interesting point behind this move is that this happens when the “Yes” vote seems to be weakening. The ink on an $83,000 bonus cheque for Mr. Jarvis for 2015 may still be wet. So why, within two months of being rewarded so generously is he being removed? Is this pressure from BC Transportation Minister Todd Stone who felt a “change was needed at the top”? Or is the board finally waking up to the fact that they are managing the disaster that is Translink?

As the “No” campaign and many others are suggesting, this is the time to put a stop to the referendum. What really needs to be done is a complete overhaul of Translink, its management and board and its priorities. Only when the public can see what plans are in place for Translink, with the appropriate costing and management can ANY decisions be made about finance.

Transparency is the second major issue in this debate. Victoria and Translink have clouded the financial requirements for transit in many ways. One of which is mixing capital and operating costs. It is reasonable to assume that operating costs need to be largely funded through transit fares and existing taxation (gas tax, property tax, parking tax and BC Hydro levies). This is mostly the norm in all cities with transit installations. It is unreasonable to burden these costs with capital costs. Especially those incurred with past installations such as the Canada line (which was a political decision) or replacement or subsidy of the bridges that Translink is saddled with. It truly is mismanagement of public funds when we are asked to pay to build a bridge and then have to pay to cross the bridge.

Hopefully the latest move to shake up Translink will continue to weaken the “Yes” vote. It is time that the referendum itself be reviewed for its validity. Victoria has floated the referendum out there and has stepped back to let the Majors take the flack. This shows Premier Christie Clark knows the outfall of this will be significant and not at all positive. Maybe it’s time that people recognize that this debate is really about good planning and reasonable expectations. It is not about more funding for another poorly managed government entity.

 

More on the "Yes", well, maybe No vote for Translink

The issues around the additional sales tax referendum are very indicative of all that fails in the current Provincial Government approach. Responsibility is passed on and hidden in a jurisdictional swirl that leaves us in the dark about costs and responsibility.  Why, for instance does the Metro transit system own bridges? Is it because they need to be rebuilt (Patulla, Westham Island) or are losing money (Golden Ears) and Victoria does not want to pay for these costs? This is just more off-loading of tax responsibilities which we are now being asked to pay for through a tax to “relieve congestion”.

The government is asking us to pay additional taxes not for the “operation” of Translink, but for additional infrastructure. Translink is unusual in that the operating and capital budgets are combined, obfuscating the issue even further. Historically infrastructure is put in place only with “meaningful stakeholder participation” so that the government can make appropriate plans and know what the costs will be. This cost is generally born by the government and paid out through the fairest tax distribution; income tax. This infrastructure is considered necessary for quality of life, fair access to housing and work and a buoyant economy.

Operational costs are dealt with in a less straight forward manner. Translink gets two thirds of their budget from taxes that are born equally by people of all levels of income. Arguably due to inefficiencies, only one third of Translink income comes from fares (down from 55% in 2009). Hence the dilemma. Victoria is asking us to voluntarily put in additional money for costs usually born by the government. We can only assume that this is to make their budget look better. However, it comes down to this; we are asked to pay more and get less. To add insult to injury, these costs cover a system that appears to be poorly managed (just look at the ticketing issues), with compensation exceeding the norm. CEO Ian Jarvis was paid an increase in base pay of almost $80,000 from 2008-2009. As well he gets a possible 40% annual bonus. With Translink “performance level to four peer Canadian transit systems …deteriorating”, it is difficult to see how this is justified.

Sadly the additional revenue raised by the tax will not make the system more efficient. Translink needs to be more effective to be more self-sufficient! The worst part of this is that this does not fulfill any criteria of good planning. Does it make sense that Victoria is not willing to subsidize a transit system, but will subsidize a $3 Billion (estimated) bridge over the Fraser? While cutting bus service to the same area? The transit system is positive planning in that it takes cars off the road. The bridge will only put more cars on the road and add to the urban sprawl.  The associated costs to serve the sprawl, of course, are born by the municipality serving the area. Not to mention the negative effects on the ecology and quality of life.

This leaves us with the issue of planning. All issues of transit, roads and bridges need to be planned by a non-partisan planning group. This means people trained in urban planning and not bound by political ideology. The plan needs to be holistic in its outlook, covering all aspects of transportation needs relative to growth and urban needs. Such a transparent planning process would be reasonable for the government to put to a vote. That way, healthy and appropriate decisions can be made about how costs should be born and how a Metropolitan area can grow.

In the meantime be prepared for more GRRRRidlock.