External probe is in the public’s interest,

Council wants answer: Was buried report ‘part of the cause’ of RHVP accidents?

The big takeway from city council’s lengthy closed door discussion on how best to investigate the aberrantly buried Red Hill parkway safety report is that the probe will be independent and external.

In other words, the city’s own auditor general will not be delving into why the hell 2014 consultants’ document — which raises questions about the slipperiness of the accident-prone road — wasn’t disclosed to council or the public until recently.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger — blearyeyed after Wednesday’s 5 p.m. council meeting finally wrapped up at 3:15 a.m. Thursday — explained that council opted for an external inquiry to combat any hint of potential internal conflicts.

“I think council wants to see an independent investigation that is impartial and isn’t tainted in any way, shape or form and … is seen as a fair, reasonable and unbiased opinion of what actually happened.”

The message, Eisenberger says, is council is deeply concerned about getting to the bottom of this.

He says council understands that the public, especially those who have had accidents on the parkway, are wondering: “Was this part of the cause?”

“We want to be able to give that a clear and impartial answer.”

Well, give them credit for that. Regardless of whether or not the bureaucratically entombed report impacted driver safety on the RHVP, it certainly rocks public confidence and trust in the checks, balances and oversight policies at city hall. An external investigation is as much in the public interest as good government.

The question now is, what form will the investigation take? A unanimously approved motion by Coun. Brad Clark directs staff to get outside legal help to look at options, including a judicial inquiry or bringing in an external auditor. And councillors want that outside legal beagle to return with an information shopping list within 30 days.

They want clarity on the investigatory powers under the Municipal Act and the Public Inquiries Act.

They want to know how council would go about asking the Ontario Supreme Court to assign a judge to a judicial investigation.

They want to know who sets the parameters of the probe.

They want to know the cost and how long it could take.

They want to know if the final report would spell out who knew what, when did they know it, and why wasn’t the report shared.

They want to know if the investigation can assign blame or responsibility.

Finally, they want to know if the investigation can provide recommendations to make sure something like this can’t happen again.

Some answers are obviously already known.

For example, in requesting a judicial inquiry, councillors themselves would set the scope and terms of reference for what information they’re seeking.

But, according to Clark, though councillors have now received lots of legal interpretations on the breadth of different kinds of investigations, they’re looking for concrete answers from someone with direct experience.

Based on some three hours of in camera discussions, Clark says it’s clear some councillors favour a judicial inquiry while others prefer an auditor investigation, For his part, he strongly favours a publicly open judicial inquiry.

“A judicial investigation doesn’t simply provide suggestions for improving the process or improving policy,” Clark said after the meeting.

“It’s a fact-finding report and it can also assign blame. It can indicate there was somehow some malfeasance or wrongdoing. And that’s something that the auditor general can’t do. The auditor general reports are generally about, OK, this happened; now what policies can we utilize to fix this?

“I think that the public in this case wants to know everything.”

Interestingly, Coun. Sam Merulla went into the closed door meeting supporting an external auditor investigation. He emerged in favour of a judicial inquiry, which, he argues, can more directly focus on what went wrong and who is to blame.

Apparently it also has the added benefit of protecting the city from liability claims since its findings are not binding in other court actions.