Farmers’ Market Berry Berry Good

Mary-Ann Rennie takes home a quart of locally grown field fresh strawberries from the Downtown Windsor Farmers’ Market which opened Saturday.

It was months in the making and downtown residents responded enthusiastically to the return of a  farmers’ market to Windsor on Saturday.

Hundreds of  people descended upon downtown Windsor early Saturday morning for the farmers’ market, organised by the Downtown Residents Association, in partnership with the Downtown Windsor BIA and the City of Windsor.

Greeted with the sounds of banjos playing and the smell of fresh baked bread, the market was so popular with residents, many Winds0r-Essex vendors were out of stock by noon.

Organic vegetables, home-made pies, hand crafted gifts, stained glass and artwork were also snatched up by shoppers.

Ward 3 councillor Alan Halberstadt and market committee chair, Gail Growe officially opened the market with a ribbon cutting ceremony followed by the sounds of Windsor Symphony Orchestra.

There was something even for the kids as mom and dad stocked up –  with face painting and balloon animals to entertain and delight.

For the budding Picasso’s attending, local artists provided the tools for the children to unleash their creative talent.

The Downtown Windsor Farmers’ Market returns every Saturday from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. until October 10.

For more information please visit www.downtownfarmersmarket.ca.

More photos from the Farmers’ Market

Councillor Control: The new mute button

You really can’t believe everything you read in the paper.

I admit I find myself in unfamiliar territory, but I must come to the defence of Councillor Jones and demand that City of Windsor CAO, John Skorobohacz , issue an apology during a public session of council.

Below, the Chatham Daily News reported that city CAO, John Skorobohacz wrote a letter to the Mayor of Chatham-Kent apologising for Councillor Jones’ statements during June 29th, 2009 city council meeting:

Windsor Coun. Ron Jones erroneously stated during a June 29 council meeting that Windsor had contracted out Ontario Work applications to Chatham-Kent for preparation and processing in its Ontario Works office since they are non-union.

The comments were made by Jones in connection with the current CUPE work stoppage that has affected many services in Windsor.

“Unfortunately, the councillor did not seek clarification from the administration prior to the council meeting wherein we would have had the opportunity to set the record straight and avoid placing the spotlight on your community during this CUPE strike,” Skorobohacz wrote.

However, according to video footage of Monday’s council meeting, it is apparent that no such statement was made.

In fact, Councillor Jones asked whether or not it was “fact” that Ontario Works applications were being contracted out to Chatham-Kent for processing, as both the video clip and transcript outline below:

Councillor Jones:

Thank you your acting Worship.

And I guess through you to administration…Is it a fact that Ontario Works applications for Windsor are now being contracted out to the City of Chatham for preparation and processing in their Ontario Works office since they are non-union?

Acting Worship Dilkens:

Ms. Worsh?

Ms Worsh:

Yes through you your acting Worship to Councillor Jones.

(Shame! Shame! Shame!)

Acting Worship Dilkens:

Members of the audience, please allow the question to be answered.

Ms. Worsh:

There are currently no Ontario Works applications being done by CUPE members in any other municipality. There are other municipalities that have come forward with some management staff to assist us with the heavy demand in the Ontario Works area.

And in particular, I might add, Chatham, the City of Chatham, has no staff, either management or front-line CUPE workers assisting us with the heavy workload with Ontario Works applications.

So why would the CAO find it necessary to apologise to the City of Chatham-Kent? 

A letter to the City of Chatham would be warranted had Councillor Jones posed his question as fact – as he sometimes does – but he did not do so in this case.

So who authorized the CAO to write such a letter to Chatham’s Mayor? 

And who sent it out to the Chatham Daily News?   

We’ve witnessed a number of times city council directing administration to write a letter to DRIC officials, but I don’t recall – at least in a public meeting of council – councillors directing Mr. Skorobohacz to do so in response to councillor Jones’ question.

Is that not what we expect our City Councillors to do – ask questions in the public forum to clarify or bring to light information?

Frankly, the only one shining the spotlight on the City of Chatham-Kent is the City of Windsor’s CAO, John Skorobohacz.

Or is this the emergence of a new “mute button” for councillors; designed to silence council questions?

Video Segment

Making a Mount Francis out of a molehill

Unfortunately, the councillor did not seek clarification from the administration prior to the council meeting wherein we would have had the opportunity to set the record straight and avoid placing the spotlight on your community during this CUPE strike,” Skorobohacz wrote.

Chatham Daily News, July 3, 2009

If accurate, I’m not really surprised as councillor Jones has made similar gaffes in the past – but talk about making a Mount Francis  out of a molehill. 

However, the precedent has now been set. 

I hope a letter of apology is sent to Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the Canadian Transit Company and DRIC officials. 

But I digress.

Windsor CEO sends letter of apology to C-K mayor

Windsor’s chief administrative officer John Skorobohacz has sent a letter of apology in response to a public gaffe by a Rose City councillor.

Windsor Coun. Ron Jones erroneously stated during a June 29 council meeting that Windsor had contracted out Ontario Work applications to Chatham-Kent for preparation and processing in its Ontario Works office since they are non-union.

The comments were made by Jones in connection with the current CUPE work stoppage that has affected many services in Windsor.

“Unfortunately, the councillor did not seek clarification from the administration prior to the council meeting wherein we would have had the opportunity to set the record straight and avoid placing the spotlight on your community during this CUPE strike,” Skorobohacz wrote.

“We trust that our excellent working relationship with the Municipality of Chatham-Kent will remain intact and this unfortunate incident can be placed behind us,” he added.

Such drama.

Downtown Farmers’ Market this Saturday!

 

Come on out Saturday, July 4, 2009 for the Downtown Windsor Farmers’ Market.

In partnership with the Downtown Resident’s Association, the Downtown Windsor BIA and the City of Windsor, the former Greyhound Bus Station at 44 University Avenue East will be transformed into a farmers’ market.

Gates open at 8 a.m. and runs until 3 p.m. featuring locally grown produce, artisans, and entertainment.

________________________

There will be no blogs until Monday, July 6, 2009.

Have a great weekend and see you at the market.

And now for some comic relief…

I HATE FACEBOOK! 

Just teasing, but pictures of the past continue to haunt me.

Yes – I had hair.

But this picture is quite halarious.

Back in 1983 my elementary school in Sarnia, St. Joseph’s – Home of the Jaguars – decided to put together a yearbook.

However, back then we didn’t have the miracle of desktop publishing and had to cut out and glue individual pictures as well as the letters onto sheets of grids.  

It took hours to do then what takes minutes today.

We also developed the pictures with the kind assistance of Brother Gregory.

But least to say, we had some fun, particularly when spelling Public as in Public Speaking. 

Somehow, the “L” went missing…but thankfully was later found before it went for copying.

Note in the background the Commodore computers with probably less power than todays digital watch!

Ah!  The memories.

Promises with a Price: Post-Retirement Alternatives

“States have the means to control their destinies. They just have to have the political will to do so,” said Katherine Barrett, co-author of the report. “For a state to succeed, it must use reliable data and good planning, carefully analyze whether proposed new benefits are affordable, and, above all, do its best to make full payments each and every year to reduce the long-term cost.”

Promises with a Price, The PEW Centre on the States

____________________________________

While the issue of post-retirement benefits appears to be a “new” issue in Windsor – as I have written here before, this issue has been known by the current administration since 2005 with no action taken.

So I did some digging to find out what our US neighbours are doing to address this “problem.” 

I place quotations around the word “problem,” because according to Windsor City Blog’s Ed Arditti, Mayor Eddie Francis stated on AM800 that the elimination of post-retirement benefits will not affect employees for the next several years. 

It appears the financial Armageddon is not at our doorstep after all.

 Which makes my blog entry of June 24th, all the more important:

Eliminating post-retirement benefits will do nothing to reduce the unfunded liability today.

While eliminating post-retirement benefits for new hires will eventually end the growing liability – which will continue to grow between 5 – 10% per annum for the foreseeable future, it will not pay for the current liability of $290-million.

This is what has been bothering me about these claims of financial Armageddon – the current proposal does nothing at all to avoid this.

Given the Mayor’s comments, I have to wonder why the Mayor and council -in partnership with CUPE – won’t investigate what other options there are and end this strike.

Some of these options are investigated in a US publication entitled, “Promises with a Price” and finds:

1. At least five states—including Ohio, Washington and Oregon—offer hybrid pension plans that combine elements of both defined benefit and defined contribution plans.
2. Some states are raising the retirement age and closing loopholes within pension systems that allow employees to inflate the amount they collect after retirement.
3. For non-pension benefits, states are increasing premiums and co-pays and raising the number of years of employment required for lifetime or fully subsidized benefits, among other reforms.
4. At least 13 states have set up irrevocable trusts to pay for retiree health care in years to come.

Granted, laws may be different in Ontario and this needs to be taken into account when looking at these alternatives.

But perhaps CUPE and the City could accept some of these proposals and/or modify them for a truly made-in-Windsor solution. 

Maybe they won’t – and with that, council has the final authority with respect to the 1950’s bylaw.

But we won’t know unless they engage in an honest dialogue that investigates possible alternatives that appear to be working for other municipalities state-side.

Because apparently, at least according to Mayor Eddie Francis,  we have the time to deal with this issue respectfully and putting the circus that has evolved over the last 12 weeks behind us.

And most importantly, ending this bitter and divisive strike – creating a conducive environment for honest dialogue that deals effectively with the post-retirement issue as well as the growing unfunded liability that eliminating PRB’s will not resolve in the immediate future.

The cynics were right

Don’t forget – the Amherstburg Ice Cream Festival is tomorrow from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.

http://www.icecreamfest.ca

__________________________________________

The City of Windsor has posted their response to CUPE’s application to the Labour Board that alleged bad-faith bargaining on the part of the City.

For reference the documents are here:

CUPE’s submission            The City of Windsor’s submission

As is increasingly the case, the Windsor Star will report comments made by Mayor Francis and weeks later – after the intended purpose of those comments have borne out – do we only learn the opposite was true.

This is how public opinion is manipulated – avoid directly answering a question.  Wait for the desired outcome and then admit the facts.

The Star’s Don McArthur wrote an interesting piece today, which, based upon my read of it, the city has been attempting to foment negative public opinion  regarding CUPE:

The response, submitted by fax to Ontario’s Labour Board Monday afternoon and released to the media prior to Monday night’s council meeting, concedes the union’s allegation that the city struck an 11th-hour deal to prevent picketing of the Red Bull Air Race and suggests Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis was misquoted, or had his words taken out of context, when he reportedly told The Star that the union wanted job security for life, as opposed to the life of the agreement.

Remember back on June 11, 2009, when Mayor Francis called those who questioned the timing of the city’s surprise decision to return to the bargaining table, conveniently just before Red Bull, “cynics?

“We’ll try to do the best we can — nobody is happy with this situation,” he said.   Asked about possible perception on the timing of the announcement, the mayor replied: “You know what I think about cynics.”

As to the job security issue, McArthur points out what the Mayor said. 

Misquote?  Not likely, as you can’t misquote the overall meaning of a statement:

The comments by Francis that city lawyers now say may have been taken out of context were published in the May 25 edition of The Star.  Francis is reported as saying the outside union wanted job security for life — a demand the union denied making.

“It’s just — it’s unheard of,” Francis is quoted as saying. “The city would lose all flexibility. It would be binding future councils forever. They would not be able to reduce the workforce, if circumstances were so dire.”

Looks like this cynic was correct with my assessmentand only reaffirms my belief the contempt Mayor Francis has for anyone who dare disagree with him, has been reflected throughout the CUPE negotiations. 

And based upon my limited experiences with the City, and indirectly the Office of the Mayor, you can’t negotiate for a glass of water in that type of environment let alone a labour contract. 

Not unless you have a team of lawyers behind you.

An amazing coincidence?

Nothing earth shattering, but an amusing observation.

At 10:02 AM I sent the following email to the city clerk:

—–Original Message—–

From: chrisxxxxxxx@xxxxxx [chrisxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx]

Sent: June 30, 2009 10:02 AM

To: Critchley, Valerie

Subject: City Submission to Labour Board

In the spirit of fairness, openess and transparency, I am requesting of copy of the city’s submission to the Ministry of Labour in response to CUPE’s application – which had been posted on the Windsor Star website and provided to me through the Mayor’s office.

If you go into the PDF properties of the city submission to the Labour Board, you see the PDF file was created at 10:10 a.m.:

Who dun it? 

Another casual observation.

For the City to state that leaking information to the media is not demonstrative of bad-faith bargaining; the city certainly goes to a great extent to argue that no one – either councillors, the Mayor or senior administration, “leaked” the information to the media.

Don McArthur points out that,  “Francis has said affidavits would be sworn by the councillors and administrators who were privy to the city and union proposals, but that has not yet been done.”

So who could have? 

The city submits (line 62 of the City’s response):

The City denies that the only manner in which the proposals could have been leaked to the media was through the City’s representatives. It could have been leaked by a member of the Union bargaining committee. Furthermore, prior to the first meeting of council setting out the details of the proposals the President of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 616, which represents the hourly employees of Transit Windsor, was in possession of the particulars of both offers, notwithstanding that he was not a member of any bargaining committee.   Prior to disclosing the particulars to others he indicated he would get the details from “CUPE”, which he apparently did. This raises several additional possibilities with respect to how information made its way to the media, particularly as this individual did not, on at least one occasion, hesitate to share the details with others.

Wow – I hope the City has proof of this allegation since they did post the document on the city website for all the world to see.

I wonder if the Star will attempt to interview the President of the Transit Union.

Celebrate the Downtown Farmers’ Market

The Downtown Residents’ Association in partnership with the Downtown Windsor BIA and the City of Windsor are proud to announce the grand opening of the Downtown Windsor Farmers’ Market on Saturday July 4, 2009 at 44 University Avenue East at the site of the former bus terminal.

Buy local and support your local farmers!

Gates open at 8 a.m.  See you there!  (Click on image for larger view).

[Note - website will be up shortly.]

CFIB highlights Mayor and Council’s Failure

Well not directly anyway. 

But what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s press release really does highlight is the Mayor and council’s failure to successfully negotiate a resolution to the continuing CUPE strike by demanding the province bail out Windsor politicians again.

It is a wonderful piece of double-speak.

Praise the Mayor and council – but give CUPE what they want – which is arbitration.

In their June 26, 2009 press release the CFIB called upon the Province of Ontario to legislate local striking CUPE workers back to work.

Mayor Francis has taken a firm stand against the shameless demands of these so called public servants. In return, he has received the support of Windsor’s residents and businesses, who have gone out of their way in the last 11 weeks to cope with this unnecessary strike.

Premier, this unjustifiable work stoppage has dragged for too long and I urge you to legislate CUPE members back to work. Further, I urge you to move to expand the list of ‘essential services’ for which strikes cannot and will not be tolerated. It’s high time elected representatives stood up for average taxpayers instead of pampered public servants.

Yes – absolutely – legislate the local CUPE back to work.

In legislating CUPE back to work,  the dispute would move to arbitration – something the Mayor and council have been opposed to:

Francis bristled at the suggestion he was personalizing the strike or dismissive of unions and the collective bargaining process. Caving in to demands by Lewenza and CUPE to end the impasse by agreeing to third party arbitration would represent a cowardly and expedient “political copout,” said Francis.

“I have a tremendous amount of respect for the collective bargaining process and that’s why I indicated to them that I’m not prepared — and city council is not prepared — to abrogate our responsibility and turn over the collective bargaining process to a third party that lives 400 to 500 kilometres away,” said Francis (May 30th, 2009, Windsor Star).

The CFIB release continues:

Providing CUPE members with full benefits (at taxpayers’ expense) until their death and the death of their dependents is absolutely outrageous. The cost for the future liabilities on this item alone is horrendous. There is no question that CUPE’s demands pose a significant financial strain on the city’s budget. What is more troubling is that this display of union muscle is happening during an economic recession, which has hit Windsor harder than any other city in Canada. The union’s apparent sense of entitlement to a disproportionate share of the public purse during these economically troubled times is appalling.

“Outrageous!”  “Horrendous!” “Appalling!”

Did the CFIB really think about what they were writing? Or were they busy looking up words in a thesaurus?

And garbage collection an essential service? 

Just as Police and Fire Services are considered essential services, labour disputes involving these services must submit to arbitration – and again, I repeat, something Mayor Francis and council are opposed to.

As they did with Greenlink, the Mayor and council have painted themselves into corner over the CUPE strike. 

They cannot submit to arbitration; nor can they support back to work legislation – let alone making local services essential – because all would end in arbitration. 

And that, according to Councillor Halberstadt would be “political suicide.”

Or in the words of Mayor Francis, they cannot  ”turn over” the process to a party that lives “400 to 500 kilometers away.”

So while the CFIB is lamenting the “lavish” wages and benefits of public servants, arbitration, at least according to media reports, would  maintain them.

In CFIB’s attempt to praise Mayor Francis’ stand against CUPE; they have highlighted the failure of the Mayor and council to negotiate an end to the impasse and the impossibility of a resolution that is mutually agreeable.

Or do their comments raise questions as to what could really happen under binding arbitration?

______________________________

Canadian Federation of Independent Business

CFIB was formed in 1971 as an advocacy organization for small- and medium-sized enterprises. We are determined to strengthen the democratic system, promote free enterprise, and prevent abuse of power by government agencies, public service monopolies, corporate giants and trade unions. Our actions in the areas of tax, labour laws and public sector spending have brought real dollars-and-cents benefits to our members, helping them prosper.

Death knell for bridge project premature

Who knew that Councillor Ron Jones was the new voice of council as it relates to border issues. 

 Here all along I thought it was Mayor Eddie Francis as councillors have reaffirmed many times through motions of council. 

Mayor Francis has no choice but to reprimand Councillor Jones for violating a council motion.

Because Mayor Francis supports the Ambassador Bridge Company, but wants the company to “answer those questions and satisfy the same requirements as you and I would if we were building the bridge” (Windsor Star, June 16, 2009).

Contrast this with Councillor Jones’ statement in Saturday’s Star:

“We have two vulnerable communities that should be enhanced by a border crossing, not decimated by it.”

Jones told the crowd a twin span would “cut Sandwich Towne in half and we’re not going to allow it to happen.”

There’s a simple solution to that Councillor Jones – fix Huron Church to the foot of the Ambassador Bridge – you proved it could be done with Greenlink, why can’t the same apply to West Windsor? 

But I suppose literally flattening a low-income community in Delray is the better alternative.

MDOT Lawsuit versus Arbitration

What I find sadly amusing (but completely predictable) is the apparent surprise the Ambassador Bridge Company is doing everything within their right to protect their investment.

And how quick certain columnists, politicians and bureaucrats are to ring the death knell on the company’s enhancement project.

But  what caught my eye were both media reports of, and company president Dan Stamper’s claim the company has been seeking arbitration to resolve the outstanding issues with respect to the Gateway Project.

Dan Stamper said:

We are partners with MDOT in this important Project and we want to be good partners. Disputes over interpretation of diagrams or changes in detail are part of all large construction jobs. That’s the reason why our agreement has an arbitration clause…

This piqued my interest.  What is an arbitration clause?

Well, in the US there are two pieces of legislation I found.

First, there is the Federal Arbitration Act and in the State of Michigan there is what is called the Michigan Arbitration Act (MCL 600.5001).

Basically, under both bills, an arbitration clause can be included within contracts between parties to resolve contract disputes through arbitration rather than through the courts. 

According to USLaw.com, “the reason why arbitration is becoming so popular is that it is seen as generally being a faster, cheaper and less disruptive method for resolving business disputes than traditional litigation in the courts.”

Generally faster, cheaper and less disruptive. 

Gotcha. 

I have no idea if one or the other or both would apply in the case of the Ambassador Bridge and the Gateway Project; but what is clear is there is an arbitration clause in the contract between the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Detroit International Bridge Company with respect to their joint Gateway Project.

So why then would MDOT launch a lawsuit for “breach of contract” which is presumably slower, more expensive and more disruptive?

According to Detroit News (June 26, 2009):

On Wednesday, MDOT filed a lawsuit against the bridge company, accusing it of breach of contract for changing its portion of the Gateway Project, including the illegal seizure of city property as well as constructing a duty free shop, toll booths and fueling stations at the Ambassador Bridge.

Crains Detroit reported (June 25, 2009):

MDOT says the bridge company closed streets it shouldn’t have, hasn’t provided access to private property as it agreed to, hasn’t built roads and ramps it agreed to do, and MDOT wants the new duty-free store, gas station and toll booths removed from the plaza.

I’m not sure if the Windsor Star story from May 8, 2008 applies in whole or in part, but apparently, the Ambassador Bridge is immune from city ordinances:

The city of Detroit filed an injunction in 2001 after the bridge company built new toll booths and expanded its plaza, in part, on city property…

…The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the initial decision, ruling that the bridge company is “immune from the (city) ordinance as a federal instrumentality.”

Perhaps MDOT officials were too busy building mountains on service drives (which according to Construction Today were designed to separate truck traffic from the I-75) to notice that a duty free shop, toll booth and fueling stations were constructed.

And according to MDOT engineer, Tony Kratofil (Detroit News, June 24, 2009):

“Because the bridge company deviated from the plan, the government could say we didn’t meet the requirements of the contract and withhold their funding. The project isn’t divided into an MDOT portion and an Ambassador Bridge portion; as far as the government is concerned, it’s all one project.

If that is accurate, than MDOT has failed to properly supervise the project.  

I mean, thinking about this logically, if the company did indeed “deviate” from the plan, where was MDOT crying foul and seeking an order to halt the company’s alleged deviation when it happened? 

I mean a duty free store and fueling stations just don’t pop up overnight or the alleged illegal seizure of city property.

But, I suspect this is nothing more than a stalling tactic on the part of MDOT – depending upon how the arbitration clause is worded.

Because  600.5011 of the Michigan Arbitration Act states:

Neither party shall have power to revoke any agreement or submission made as provided in this chapter without the consent of the other party; and if either party neglects to appear before the arbitrators after due notice, the arbitrators may nevertheless proceed to hear and determine the matter submitted to them upon the evidence produced by the other party. The court may order the parties to proceed with arbitration.

So take the Detroit International Bridge Company to court; and depending upon the wording of the arbitration clause, the court may order the parties to arbitration – something the Detroit International Bridge Company has been asking for from MDOT with no response.

But I guess MDOT needs an appropriate scape-goat should their federal funding be threatened for their poor oversight and enforcement of their own contract.

Gives me the shivers considering MP Brian Masse was demanding a public border authority to provide oversight of border crossings in Windsor.

Let the games begin.

And we haven’t even begun to consider what, if any legal action the company may or may not take on this side of the border.

Death knell for the company’s proposal? 

Hardly.

More like the beginning of a prolonged legal dispute that could tie up both the DRIC and Ambassador Bridge projects in court for years.

Another Breach of Confidentiality? Push for cyclist-only streets as hundreds hospitalized

I misread the AFI story and made an incorrect assumption based upon what I had read.  My apologies and I have removed my confusing entry.

Another leak?  Councillor Halberstadt’s blog

Councillor Halberstadt writes:

It has become clear now that the infamous “leak” (to the A Channel) of the bargaining positions of the city and CUPE was perpetrated by CUPE National. Details were perhaps verified by one or more people on the city side. Whatever the case, the leak was a red herring to dismantle the talks since CUPE National wanted no part of a Windsor agreement to set a pattern with a Toronto walkout only days away.

It is very unfortunate for Councillor Halberstadt that he chose to utilize this tactic – which raises serious questions as to the independence of the integrity commissioner and/or the city’s ability to conduct an internal probe.

Councillor Halberstadt has made his position with respect to the municipal strike quite known.  

While I personally do not agree with the adversarial and inflammatory tactics he uses in the capacity of an elected official, Councillor Halberstadt is of course entitled to his opinion, as we all are.

But the Councillor’s allegation the leak was “perpetrated by CUPE National” raises some very serious questions as to the integrity of the internal investigation as well as the investigation of the part of the city’s integrity commissioner – a position that Councillor Halberstadt was opposed to creating:

“I think there are better ways to spend taxpayers’ money,” said Halberstadt, who voted against the proposal when it was approved in principle in October (Windsor Star, August 18, 2008).

For the councillor to make such an accusation, since it “has become clear” – who provided this information to the councillor? 

Was it the city’s integrity commissioner or the findings of the “internal” probe?

It would not be surprising for the city led  internal probe to find CUPE at fault. 

I find it highly unlikely that an internal probe conducted by the city would find fault on the part of the city, just as I would suspect a CUPE finding of city fault as CUPE claimed on CTV.ca:

Luke Tittley, a CUPE representative, told CTV.ca that a city council member had likely leaked the union’s full proposal to the media. “We want fair bargaining and we have proposed many cost cutting solutions related to staffing, hours of work, scheduling and equipment, and they’ve all been rejected,” Tittley told the news web site.

What would be surprising is if this information was leaked as a result of discussions with Earl Basse, the city’s integrity commissioner.

That would be  a significant problem (and a great reason on the part of politicians opposed to creating this position to terminate the position), since conversations with the Integrity Commissioner are supposed to be confidential.

And if that information was shared on the part of the Integrity Commissioner to Councillor Halberstadt – both must be called to task for this breach of confidentiality with Councillor Halberstadt investigated for a Code of Conduct violation and the Integrity Commissioner investigated.

Or, if the information came from the “internal” probe conducted on the part of the city, this finding must be taken with a grain of salt since it is hardly an independent investigation. 

I suspect this is where Councillor Halberstadt is getting his information, since he wrote:

“Details were perhaps verified by one or more people on the city side.”

Perhaps verified? 

It either was or wasn’t. 

“Perhaps verified” cannot lead to a conclusion the leak was “perpetrated by CUPE National.”

Or is this simply a childish tit-for-tat response to CUPE’s allegation on CTV?

Push for cyclist-only streets as hundreds hospitalized

 By Carmen Chai, The Province, June 9, 2009

An interesting article from Vancouver regarding the safety of bike lanes next to roadways in comparison to Europe.  While doing so may not be feasible on our transportation grid, utilizing existing rail corridors –  a network of off-roard bike paths could be constructed.

More than 670 adult cyclists have gone to emergency wards in Vancouver for cycling-related injuries between June 2008 and March 2009, a UBC study reports.

At least one in every five to ten cyclists who go to emergency rooms end up having to stay overnight because of the severity of the injuries, said Kay Teschke, UBC professor and leader of the study investigating how to make cities bike-friendly.

Colleagues in Toronto and Vancouver have followed 1,100 cyclists who have been injured in both cities.

Cyclists who died or suffered brain damage were not included.

The recent preliminary results shocked the nine researchers working with Teschke.

Canadian cyclists were between three to 15-per-cent more likely to get injured than cyclists in Holland.

The percentage doubles for American cyclists. “It’s quite dramatic. We have much higher rates of injury and yet [Europeans] don’t have helmet laws for kids or adults,” she said.

Teschke suggests Vancouver’s streets aren’t compatible with safety for cyclists compared to Holland, where cyclist lanes aren’t beside driving lanes. “That’s the big difference. Europe uses primary prevention. North Americans use helmets. Helmets are secondary. We slap a helmet on and we think that’s enough.”

The project showed more than 1,400 Vancouverites surveyed did not want to cycle near drivers.

They wanted paved off-street paths for cyclists only, and cycling paths separated from major streets with a physical barrier.

Teschke noted Vancouver streets made cyclists additionally uneasy because they didn’t like bike lanes between parked cars and moving cars. “And that’s common on our streets. Cyclists just want to be separated from traffic,” she explained, plainly.

The study determined the typical frequent cyclist is male, aged 25 to 45. They are labelled as a minority in a large group of adults with bikes.

If Vancouver wants to have a cycling culture similar to Europe, the focus should be on the majority of cyclists who aren’t comfortable with riding near drivers — older people, women, and people with children, she said.

Once cyclist culture increases, less accidents would occur because “drivers would be forced to be aware of the growing group, and a larger cyclist group could advocate for the type of roads they want.”

John McQueen, 47, says he feels confident cycling on the streets, but he knows why others wouldn’t.

“You can get spooked by the speed of traffic. There are bike lanes set up and there’s no respect for them from drivers,” he said.

“The lines are painted to keep them out, but they cross them all the time. I expect stuff like that now,” he said.

McQueen said he’d use cyclist lanes separated from roads if they were available.

Adam Barlev collided with a car and injured his shoulder years ago when he was cycling.

He’s lost a friend, Doug Preston, who died in February this year when he was struck head-on by a car in the middle of the afternoon in Surrey.

Barlev also agreed that separate bike paths would be safer and more convenient.

“Right now, you have to be careful when you’re riding your bike. It’s safer here than in the United States, though.”