Some members of Victoria city council are upset that a consultant's report on seismic upgrading didn't reach them. It appears that staff received the report in 2010, but did not pass it on to council.
The report identifies upgrades required at 16 facilities for a price tag of $34 million. But it only came to light this summer when a freedom-of-information request was filed by Focus magazine. Apparently, staff were planning to notify council at a later date when a full risk assessment had been completed.
However, Coun. Lisa Helps was concerned that the decision to replace the Johnson Street Bridge was made without the seismic repair costs in hand. She felt council might have taken a different choice if those impending costs had been known.
Helps is right to be concerned. Elected officials are ultimately responsible for decision-making, not city staff. They need to receive all of the relevant facts in a timely manner.
But that raises an entirely different issue. In defence of the staff, Mayor Dean Fortin offered an illuminating insight into city affairs.
Apparently, an enormous number of external studies are commissioned each year, perhaps 300 to 400. It would be impractical, the mayor suggested, for councillors to be briefed on all of these reports.
Several hundred studies a year? How could a city of 80,000 people require so many?
It's not as if there aren't employees to do the work. The staff salary bill for 2012, excluding the police department, is $52.8 million. That's a lot of hired help.
Of course, every organization occasionally needs technical assistance. It's neither practical nor cost-effective to employ the entire range of specialists in-house.
But the picture that emerges here is more than a little troubling. Managers seem to be contracting out studies at a rapid pace.
At a minimum, that raises questions about value for money. It's rare to find a consultant who knows more about an organization than the people who work there. A good chunk of the final bill is often spent getting the outsider up to speed.
There is also a lost opportunity for staff development. Bring in experts to solve a problem and they take their know-how with them when they leave. Staff learn little or nothing in the process.
But the real issue revolves around transparency. Councillors have a right to expect that the managers they employ are doing the job, not some unseen group of consultants.
It is necessary, to establish both trust and confidence, that staff be able to offer their own assurances that a decision is correct. And all the more so, when important matters are involved.
City chambers are the seat of local government. They're supposed to be the forum in which issues are thrashed out and resolved.
However, this is only possible if managers and elected officials decide matters together. When staff think they can't speak up or commit themselves because an outside consultant is on the job, their relationship with council suffers.
True, there will always be exceptions. Sewage treatment has been a controversial issue in the capital region for years. No one would quarrel with seeking the advice of an expert. The field is highly technical, and there may be legal liability issues that require the engagement of a qualified adviser.
And at the other end of the scale, no doubt there are minor reports, on office machinery and the like, that councillors don't need to see.
But what happened with the seismic-assessment study is a warning. Important policy choices were made without knowledge of other imminent pressures.
Council was kept in the dark, in part, because the issue had been contracted out. That is not a business model to be encouraged.
