No doubt the Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, would like to thank all those who criticized TransLink for its failings and lack of accountability. That provided the necessary cover to ‘reform’ an organization which had few defenders. And to turn it over to an unelected board dominated by business interests.
Though there’s not been a lot of coverage in the major media, the proposed governance model is not going uncriticized. Most effectively, Johnny Carline, the CAO of the GVRD, weighed in with a report that was affirmed by the Board.
You can read the whole report here. But here’s the critical thrust:
… the Panel Report recommends that the new TransLink Board be composed of appointees with a strong emphasis on business expertise. That expertise is important in any governance model. It is usual to assume that senior staff will bring many of these skills to an organization and that it is desirable that a body of elected officials on a governing body includes business expertise amongst its skill set.
But to make ‘business expertise’ the central focus and overwhelming emphasis of what will be the effective governing body for transportation within the region is to take a dangerously narrow view of transportation as a ‘business’ divorced from its broader, vital public policy role.
If, however, it is to be argued that the new business Board will in fact be responsible for making the public policy decisions centrally involved in urban transportation decision making, and that having an ‘expert’ board unaccountable to the electorate is an appropriate model for such a role, then it would appear that far more than amending the governance of TransLink may be happening. The whole concept of what is considered to be politics and democracy versus what is considered to be business may be under reconstruction. (My emphasis.)
In other words, the new TransLink is fundamentally undemocratic. To turn the future of this region over to those whose allegiances will be suspect doesn’t pass the smell test.
But will people in this region raise a stink?
I’m not too sure about the governance of BC Transit before Translink was founded, but in effect, is the Province saying that the transfer/off-loading of decision-making power/responsibility to municipalities was a failed experiment and they are moving back to a governance structure that has more in common with a Crown Corporation than a municipal council?
I suppose that invites further questions as to whether there is now an entrenched right for municipalities to dictate transportation planning. Of course, there’s no doubt that the operation of and growth within a muicipality and transportation infrastructure are very, very closely tied, but I’m not sure whether there’s a historical basis for that line of thinking. i.e. in the glory days of the interurban and streetcars a in the region, if I recall correctly, those were private enterprises. BC Electric Railway Co. was only sold to the Province in 1962 with the decline in business and subsequently operated by a Crown Corporation – BC Hydro and Power Authority. In each of those cases, were those governance structures democratic?
Author
Ron
Interesting points. But odd.
Cities ‘dictate’ zoning. It goes with ‘dictating’ transportation. Those are
fundamental purposes of municipalities, regardless of who owns the rolling
stock, whether cars, buses or bikes, or who owns the land.
Bit of a difference, with respect to private enterprises making decisions,
when the government is handing over control of public assets to a
non-elected board with confused allegiances.
If the aim is to privatize, then municipal control would have to be even
stronger if the citizens of the city are to control their fate.
Imagine: the board decides that a new tolled freeway, built and operated by
a private firm, will be pushed through Vancouver.
Who’s to say no?
Gord