Deeply entrenched practices must be re-examined
AMONG the most oft-repeated rationales for the manner in which public service-related standards and practices remain stubbornly entrenched are variations on the following bureaucratic bromide: “We do it this way because we’ve always done it this way.”
It’s a standard-issue, accountability-dodging cop-out. It’s also infuriating. And, as a recent Free Press investigative series on Winnipeg’s traffic-regulation infrastructure has suggested, on occasion it might even prove deadly.
The week-long series titled “Red Light, Green Light, No Oversight” flagged numerous failures of decision-making and policy formulation within the traffic division. Based on the voluminous data compiled by independent researcher Christian Sweryda, the series raised serious questions about the city’s failure to take seriously the concerns raised by Mr. Sweryda about processes and equipment whose sole purpose is — or, at least, should be — keeping Winnipeggers safe when they venture onto or near the city’s roadways.
The series examined several shortcomings uncovered by Mr. Sweryda’s exceedingly thorough research — some have described it as obsessive — in traffic-division operations, ranging from repeated and seemingly unnecessary replacement and repositioning of traffic light poles and the failure to replace missing speed-limit and schoolzone signs, to the persistent use of inadequate amber-light times at intersections and the chronic reluctance, despite numerous pleas and warnings, to install pedestrian-corridor warning lights at eye level rather than high overhead.
Some of the highlighted issues relate to unnecessary work and expenditures that cost taxpayers untold millions; others expose safety concerns that, according to Mr. Sweryda’s research, can be linked to fatalities that might have been prevented by a simple, practical, relatively low-cost solution.
After reviewing the materials that were the basis for the series, lawyer Kevin Gillese, who specializes in anti-corruption, called the information “extremely disturbing” and added “they suggest a pattern of either incompetence or corruption, or perhaps both.”
The Free Press offered to walk the city’s senior managers through the data if those officials were made available for an interview. The offer was declined.
Such reluctance to confront Mr. Sweryda’s reams of data and related information suggests a general satisfaction with the manner in which the traffic division continues to operate. So, too, does a statement from the city in response to the traffic light-relocation aspect of the series, which states the city’s traffic engineers “recommend solutions and make decisions… with diligence, care, and consideration of both best practices and the context of the location where they are to be applied.”
There are, however, too many unanswered questions that render the “best practices” defence unsatisfactory. More, and more complete, answers are due the citizens of Winnipeg.
The series did prompt some elected officials — councillors Matt Allard (St. Boniface), Shawn Nason (Transcona) and Scott Gillingham (St. James), chair of the city’s finance committee — to call for a full external audit and/or a public hearing related to the public-works department and the revelations in Mr. Sweryda’s findings.
That’s a good place to start. Winnipeggers have the right to expect their tax dollars are being spent wisely and, more importantly, that the roads on which they drive, cycle and walk are not deadly dangerous. The city must justify its spending and planning, as well as its failure, reluctance or refusal to amend its practices when confronted with clear evidence of significant problems.
Rather than “because we’ve always done it this way,” the officials in charge might be inclined to adopt the observation of Carleton University transportation-engineering professor Yasser Hassan after viewing the significant shortcomings uncovered in the series: “If there is no documentation, there is no defence.”