Friday, June 06, 2008

Freedom of Information Request

Tired of getting answers like this:

"The information signs on Rochester Street were implemented by the Project Manager at the request of the Preston St BIA. This was coordinated with the local Councillor and approved by our Program Manager, and myself. Staff of Traffic and Parking Operations Branch were contacted concerning the traffic detours and to create the signs. The Councillor's office circulated 375 flyers about the signs in the area. The signs were paid for from the project budget, and are based on signs that were used during the Richmond Rd reconstruction."
In response to questions asking for detailed information of the cost, internal review/approval processes and precedent for advertising in conjunction with road construction I filed a freedom of information request today.

Information Sought:
  1. Detailed breakdown of the costs for the (1) design, (2) manufacturer, (3) installation & maintenance and (4) removal for all informational (advertising) signs erected, or to be erected, on Rochester Street or other streets around the Preston Street Sewer reconstruction, and directing citizens to BIA businesses on Preston Street.
  2. Copies of requests for review of this signage, and related responses, from appropriate approval departments, including but not limited to signs by-law and traffic (or meeting minutes where such approval was sought or given).
  3. Copies of the request from the BIA for such signage – or copies of the meeting minutes where it was requested.
  4. Copies of any meetings minutes or documents (including with the councilors office) where this request was reviewed or approved.
  5. Copies of the instructions issued by the department to the manufacturer of the signs as well as assess to any documents covering the standards uses to define those instructions.
  6. Access to review all notes, meeting minutes, approvals etc related to the erection of what the department refers to as similar signage (and precedent for this signage) erected during Westboro sewer/road construction in 2007.
The real pity is that I have to do this despite the mayors office requesting more than a month ago that staff and the local councilor supply detailed information.



Thursday, June 05, 2008

Tax spending - Relative or absolute?

People have a hard time with big numbers - and processes that control them.

Once a big purchase has been made people think of every additional expense related to that purchase as a percentage of the original - not in terms of the absolute value of the item.

So it was yesterday when I was at a meeting where someone argued that since the cost of an item was only 0.00072% of the overall budget of the project that it doesn't matter that the cost was unjustified or the city process that led to it being spent flawed.

That's an interesting perspective. That same person would likely never accept that the is-appropriation of 0.00072% of their assets - but if the city gives it to favoured group outside any mandated requirement or review process - it's supported - because it's hard to think of misspent tax money in the same way as miss-appropriated personal assets.

Of course the local councilor - who's waist deep in the handout wants to further blur the issue by suggesting that all city projects have funds set aside for special circumstances - suggesting the item I have concerns about is the same as the city pro-actively replacing lead water pipes as part of this project.

What a crock. Lead pipe replacement has been mandated and budget set aside - the 0.00072% has never been approved.

And what is that 0.00072% equal to - one installment of your typical taxpayers tax - $1800.00.

The way the city, and some groups, think about it spending that amount isn't worth a thought - which is why so many taxpayers see increases year after year - while the actually amount of money they send to th city increases - the city spends percentages not dollars.