TransLink needs to apologize
A winning move: The corporation might restore public trust by taking responsibility for its failures
TransLink is the Achilles heel for the Yes side of the transportation plebiscite. Nobody trusts TransLink, or even likes it much. It has screwed up too often.
And while the Yes campaign has only just begun (which does raise the question of why it’s so late starting), whatever is planned likely won’t be enough to counter the critics.
A wise friend suggested that the only way to get to Yes is for TransLink to take responsibility for what’s happened and make some dramatic moves to restore public trust, starting with an apology — yes, saying sorry.
It worked for Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. His lastweek-of-campaign apology likely saved him from defeat.
So, here are some of my suggestions about how that might unfold.
CEO Ian Jarvis should apologize for TransLink’s tone-deaf responses to three major breakdowns that hobbled SkyTrain last summer.
And rather than providing excuses for why the $194-million Compass card system still isn’t working four years after the first fare gates were installed, Jarvis should apologize and admit it’s a mess.
But Jarvis isn’t the only one who should be saying sorry.
TransLink chair Marcella Szel and the eight directors should apologize for giving senior executives a seven per cent pay increase when there was supposed to be a wage freeze. Then, once the sorrys are said, the board should roll back the increases. It also wouldn’t be a bad idea if the directors took a cut of their own.
In 2013 (the last information available), the part-time chair was paid a $100,000-a-year retainer, while the directors got a $30,000 retainer as well as meeting fees that bounced their salaries up to more than $50,000. But they still need to do more. Jarvis and Szel, the senior executives and eight directors need to commit to transforming the organization, opening it up and making it more transparent.
The board could start by holding at least some of its meetings in public. Maybe if people had a better idea of how decisions were made, or even who is making them, they might feel a bit better about the organization.
But the most dramatic gesture of all would be if they pledged to resign if the vote is lost. All of them — Jarvis, the executive team, Szel and the directors. Of course, that won’t happen. The board is so out of touch that they’ve so far remained silent. It’s as if they don’t have a dog in this fight when, in reality, the future of regional public transportation depends on the vote’s outcome.
Who are they taking advice from? Did no one point out that if the referendum is lost, they’ll be presiding over a slow-moving disaster because the money spigot will be turned off?
Of course, even if TransLink were to make all those gestures, it’s still going to be hard for the Yes side to win.
The case Yes supporters have to make is complicated.
They’re asking people to approve a regional consumption tax, which even many supporters suggest is the least bad option. They’ve put out a long laundry list of improvements, including some controversial ones such as the Broadway subway line. But it’s a list that can’t possibly solve everybody’s problems.
But the No side? Their pitch is simple. Don’t trust them — politicians, TransLink, the mayors, take your pick. They’ll waste your money.
No supporters play on the antigovernment, anti-tax theme that dominates American and Canadian politics and was so successfully exploited during the HST referendum.
There’s little room for nuance in these kinds of votes. But, the No side is encouraging voters to believe that maybe No doesn’t really mean No.
That after a No vote, we’ll move on to some unspecified, unspoken Plan B.
The whole notion is helped by the fact that around the time Premier Christy Clark announced a vote on this plan, she also promised that construction of a bridge to replace the George Massey tunnel would begin by 2017.
History also reinforces the idea that the B.C. government is only too willing to swoop in and do what it likes regardless of what the local politicians say. It’s how we got SkyTrain and the Canada Line. It’s how we got TransLink, as well as the new Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges with tolls high enough that drivers choose not to use them.
And, frankly, it would be marvellous to think that if there is a No vote, Clark will sweep in, wave her magic wand and sprinkle billions of tax dollars to make all the transportation problems disappear. But it’s not likely to happen. No does mean No, if the HST vote is any indication.
Once “the people have spoken,” it’s only the brave or foolhardy politician who doesn’t respect the outcome.
Metro Vancouver desperately needs a better transportation system and lot of money to pay for it.
It would be a shame if all that was lost and all that was left was just one more thing to add to TransLink’s long list of failures.