Fords Working to Fire Webster, Stintz, Scrap Streetcars: Star

[EnviroTO]

Except that the vehicles to be used in the LRT subway are low floor and not the same capacity as a Metro and therefore the argument that LRT could be no different that Metro is a moot point because it this case it is very different. What is proposed isn't even a pre-Metro in that no effort is being made to ease conversion or make it compatible with what already exists.

 

[car4041]

I guess I would have to see if and when the LRT comes to 6 cars and the capacity to carry so many passengers plus the speed. I was told at the open house for the design of the Keele station that the LRT is the same width as a streetcar but will have 2 or 3 cars. This does not sound like a subway to me except its underground

Being underground is exactly what defines a subway (even though it's not "subway" as we know it in Toronto, i.e. huge 6-car trains). As for its speed, the speed of a rail service depends mainly on the station spacing, not the vehicle. (Our current streetcars have a top speed of over 100km/h, not that they get to use it!) The LRT subway planned for Eglinton has similar station spacing to the Bloor-Danforth line, so the speed will also be similar. Capacity is smaller, but sufficient for the projected demand.

Also, the LRVs will be a little wider than the current streetcars (2.65m vs. 2.54m). (from Metrolinx)

 

[Electrify]

^^And that is 3cm wider than our metro trains! http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5511.shtml

Anyways, the 'sub' in 'subway' is short for 'sub-terrain'. Does this look like a 'heavy rail' railroad? http://maps.google.com/maps/myplace...d=jbbqA7DeqbLUgIMxnAokXg&cbp=12,0.35,,0,-2.81

Doing some Googling on the topic last night, I came across a 7 page thread from a forum I used to post on, and even there they couldn't find a consensus on what differed between light and heavy rail.

 

[nfitz]

Anyways, the 'sub' in 'subway' is short for 'sub-terrain'.

Better tell Ford. He thinks it stands for 'sub-urban'

 

[nstuch]

Originally Posted by Admiral Beez:

Political agendas aside, has Webster been an excellent manager of the TTC? Under his leadership were projects completed on time and on budget? Was the St. Clair ROW for instance completed on time and budget?

Your answer to that is found at the south end of Rosedale station, where, supposedly, an elevator is to be installed in a longer period of time than it took to construct the 50+ storey Four Seasons tower a few blocks away. Or the supposed elevator at Lawrence West. Or look through Drum's old photothreads of the Kipling and Vic Park station rebuilds that took years longer than they should have. Or Broadview station. The list is endless. Project management under Webster would have led to lawsuits and class actions were the TTC a private company. How quickly did the TTC adapt Next Bus and other apps without kicking and screaming? How far behind are they in fare collection? How low have standards slipped regarding vehicle and station and ROW upkeep? The list is endless.

my thoughts exactly. while his firing was handled poorly i don't know on what basis people are holding him up to be 'highly respected' and irreplaceable. Just because someone is an engineer who's worked in transit forever doesn't make them a good manager. i don't think you could do worse by making a random person off the street the general manager.

 

[jje1000]

This ought to clear up some arguments people are making.

So Gary Webster is now a former TTC manager. What's next?
Posted by John Michael McGrath on Wednesday, February 22, 2012

About as long as we've had politics more complicated than "Oog want rock. Oog take rock," one of the basic rules of anyone looking to stay in charge of a large group is simple. Unite your allies, divide your enemies. After yesterday's meeting of the TTC board—where five councillors voted to fire TTC Chief General Manager Gary Webster, and a crowd of people came out to cheer the TTC management this city mostly loathes any other day—it's pretty clear that Rob Ford is doing the opposite. With (former?) allies such as Peter Milczyn (Ward 5, Etobicoke-Lakeshore), John Parker (Ward 26, Don Valley West) and TTC chair Karen Stintz (Ward 16, Eglinton-Lawrence) voting on the same side as Webster and the crowd of transit supporters in the room, the Mayor has created what I (and John Lorinc) have called the age of minority government. At least on the transit file there's a substantial, and growing, majority of councillors who have put down votes against the Mayor. This is important for the city's future, and the mayor's political wound is entirely self-inflicted.

With that out of the way, some of the questions that remain from l'affaire Webster:


What's the big deal? David Miller fired a bunch of people.

Well, not exactly. As detailed by the Toronto Sun's Sue-Ann Levy, many civil servants left City Hall under David Miller after clashing with the Mayor's office, quietly or otherwise. But most of these departures were either (a) resignations, or (b) people whose contracts weren't renewed. Actual outright firings were rare. One case where someone was unquestionably fired "without cause" is Tim Invanyshyn, who, it was rumored at the time, was being held responsible for embarassing leaks about councillor expenses.

But charges of hypocrisy work both ways. Doug Holyday (Ward 3, Etobicoke Centre) and Rob Ford, who railed against Miller for Ivanyshyn's firing, can't claim with a straight face that Webster's firing is just the business.


Why should we care about Webster? The TTC is a mess!

Well, sure. Which is why it's a mark of Rob Ford's reverse Midas touch that suddenly people care who runs the TTC. But holding Webster responsible for a rude bus driver makes about as much sense as holding Rob Ford responsible for my broken green bin. But since Webster's contract was up in 2013 anyway, we've got to ask not just why Webster was fired, by why he was fired now.

This can't be separated from the argument at council two weeks ago today about the future of transit in Toronto. Ford, still smarting from losing a crucial vote, seems to have decided that since he couldn't fire Karen Stintz, he'd fire Webster instead. Or, he'd been waiting to fire Webster for a while and decided he'd had enough. Either theory fits the evidence. It seems likely, then, that part of what the Mayor's office is looking for out of this is throwing another roadblock in the way of the council-endorsed LRT plan.


So what happens next?

In normal times the will of the TTC commissioners would be final. Toronto, you may have noticed, is not living in normal times. The "open, constant warfare" that started with the special session of council, continued with yesterday's TTC meeting, now moves to council again. As it happens, the March 5 meeting of council will have the composition of the TTC board on the agenda, so the Mayor's opponents won't even need any extraordinary procedural gimmicks to start talking about changes on the TTC board. The Speaker (Frances Nunziata) can rule opposition motions out of order, but she can be overruled with a majority of council. That same majority now exists, remember, on the other side of council from the Mayor.

On top of all this, the report on what to do with the Sheppard extension (LRT or subway?) is due back in March as well. So we've got two more acts of this drama to go yet. Hang on to your hats, Toronto.

http://toronto.openfile.ca/blog/cur...ary-webster-now-former-ttc-manager-whats-next

 

[Electrify]

Back on topic, what is council's next move? My understanding was that they would simply vote the members who supported Webster's firing off of the commission, but I am reading from the Star it might not be that simple:

"The tête-a-tête could come March 5, when Mayor Ford has a motion before council to change the composition of the TTC to five civilians and four city councillors, with the chair being a civilian. (Now, they are all city councillors.) If Ford succeeds, the mayor, through the appointment process, would control the commission. Currently, the mayor’s council allies hold the majority, but it is council who decides on the chair. Ford is pushing to solidify his grasp and that is triggering a council backlash."

http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhal...-councillors-plot-new-scenes-in-transit-drama

I thought that council could have the power to appoint, if it so chooses?

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't agree with the firing of Webster but….

Civil servants serve at the pleasure of the executive. They are supposed to give sound advice. But at the end of the day, unless there is something criminal or unsafe about it, they must implement the decisions put forward by the executive. So Webster being fired is no more a surprise or any different to me than Moscoe shoving off Gunn.

This also shows me why Toronto needs a strong mayor system (as advocated by David Miller no less). Right now the executive powers are so diffuse. And electoral legitimacy is confusing at best. Mayors campaign like they can do grand things. In reality, they have no power to implement anything they campaign for (this is true of Miller and Ford). The mayor says he won on a platform to build subways. The councillors positions were wide and varied on the other hand. My councillor (Raymond Cho) didn't really support Transit City and then gave a pitiable soliloquy when the mayor cancelled the SELRT. Look at Cho's campaign material. Tepid support for LRT and Transit City. He wanted subways because that's what a lot of his constituents wanted. In the last few monts, he's changed his mind, essentially, and now claims electoral legitimacy for his support for LRTs. And this mess will continue until there is a strong mayor system which allows a definitive vision to prevail. We need a system where a Mayor can run the city with council acting as legislative body. Let the mayors live and die by their visions. Or, if we insist on having the weak mayor system, let's allow political parties in. Let them run on cohesive platforms for council and the mayor's chair.

 

[Tulse]

while his firing was handled poorly i don't know on what basis people are holding him up to be 'highly respected' and irreplaceable. Just because someone is an engineer who's worked in transit forever doesn't make them a good manager.

I read somewhere today that the real problem with Ford firing Webster is that it has sucked all the nuance out the issue. Webster indeed was not a notable success, but the politicization of his firing has made him a martyr, and a lightning rod for Ford's mismanagement. Ford continues to force complex issues into simplistic binary categories, to the detriment of the city.

And, to be clear, if Webster was a lousy manager, Ford shouldn't have fired him without cause.

Civil servants serve at the pleasure of the executive. They are supposed to give sound advice. But at the end of the day, unless there is something criminal or unsafe about it, they must implement the decisions put forward by the executive.

Did Webster refuse to implement the decisions of Council? Did he even actually refuse to implement Ford's original proposal? He gave "sound advice" to council that happened to be contrary to Ford's fantasy, and that's why he was fired -- the TTC board said exactly that. Toadying is not the job of the civil service.

 

[nfitz]

I don't agree with the firing of Webster but….

Civil servants serve at the pleasure of the executive. They are supposed to give sound advice. But at the end of the day, unless there is something criminal or unsafe about it, they must implement the decisions put forward by the executive. So Webster being fired is no more a surprise or any different to me than Moscoe shoving off Gunn.

I seems completely different. First off, did Gunn get fired, or did he resign? I know he was fired from Amtrak. Secondly ... Gunn was at opposition with the Chair, who was supported by council. Webster had the support of the Chair (and vice-Chair), who had the support of council. Webster primarily takes direction from the Chair, from the TTC, and then from Council. He certainly hadn't crossed either the Chair or Council. And I'm not aware of what the TTC had voted on that he was not doing either ...

This also shows me why Toronto needs a strong mayor system (as advocated by David Miller no less). Right now the executive powers are so diffuse. And electoral legitimacy is confusing at best. Mayors campaign like they can do grand things. In reality, they have no power to implement anything they campaign for (this is true of Miller and Ford). The mayor says he won on a platform to build subways. The councillors positions were wide and varied on the other hand. My councillor (Raymond Cho) didn't really support Transit City and then gave a pitiable soliloquy when the mayor cancelled the SELRT. Look at Cho's campaign material. Tepid support for LRT and Transit City. He wanted subways because that's what a lot of his constituents wanted. In the last few monts, he's changed his mind, essentially, and now claims electoral legitimacy for his support for LRTs. And this mess will continue until there is a strong mayor system which allows a definitive vision to prevail. We need a system where a Mayor can run the city with council acting as legislative body. Let the mayors live and die by their visions. Or, if we insist on having the weak mayor system, let's allow political parties in. Let them run on cohesive platforms for council and the mayor's chair.[/QUOTE]

 

[jeffreym]

Back on topic, what is council's next move? My understanding was that they would simply vote the members who supported Webster's firing off of the commission, but I am reading from the Star it might not be that simple:

"The tête-a-tête could come March 5, when Mayor Ford has a motion before council to change the composition of the TTC to five civilians and four city councillors, with the chair being a civilian. (Now, they are all city councillors.) If Ford succeeds, the mayor, through the appointment process, would control the commission. Currently, the mayor’s council allies hold the majority, but it is council who decides on the chair. Ford is pushing to solidify his grasp and that is triggering a council backlash."

http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhal...-councillors-plot-new-scenes-in-transit-drama

I thought that council could have the power to appoint, if it so chooses?

That was just the motion from the Executive Cmte. It can be amended in any way council wants. All they really did is get this item onto the agenda without making anyone call a special meeting.

 

[Electrify]

Googling this Tim Ivanyshyn, I find some delicious ironies...

City Hall firing linked to expense controversy

Donovan Vincent
City Hall Bureau

Some politicians at city hall are demanding answers after a senior bureaucrat who scrutinizes councillors' expenses was suddenly fired from city hall this week.

Tim Ivanyshyn was a manager of council services until Monday, when he was terminated, without cause, after 28 years of service.

In his role he was responsible for questioning councillors about expenses they file under their $53,100-a-year office budgets.

Reached yesterday, Ivanyshyn declined to talk about the situation except to say he is consulting a lawyer. City hall officials are also mum on the reasons behind the sacking.

Mayor David Miller called the matter a personnel issue. City spokesperson Brad Ross said he couldn't comment.

Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, whose own expense claims have sometimes been controversial, said he has asked the city clerk and Ivanyshyn's director for an explanation for the firing. Mammoliti said that even if he didn't always like or agree with what Ivanyshyn said, as far as he knew, "He's done the job with utmost integrity."

Councillor Michael Walker said he may ask for a special closed-door meeting to discuss the firing.

Councillor Rob Ford said Ivanyshyn did provide him with expense details for Ford's website, www.robford.ca, which shows councillor expense information. But Ford said Ivanyshyn didn't leak any information, and it always came through proper channels.

"It wasn't easy, it was like pulling teeth,'' getting information from Ivanyshyn, Ford said, calling him a good guy and a straight shooter.

Rumours swirling at city hall among staffers and councillors suggest the firing relates in some way to how Ivanyshyn dealt with councillors and their spending.

He had been known to take a tough stand when it came to asking them to explain some receipts.

There are suggestions the termination was connected to a controversy that swirled late last year over some councillors' expense claims for things like alcohol, an espresso machine and even bunny suit rentals for an Easter parade.

The Star published stories about the expenses after reviewing city documents. Miller then asked staff to devise a clearer policy.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/301989

Rob Ford, the new sheriff: Granatstein
Here's an easy win: Do what you said and lay down the law on 'expense account' abuses

BY ROB GRANATSTEIN,TORONTO SUN

Rob Ford needs to change the rules at City Hall.

Yes, the gravy train must stop - and then Ford should take that damn phrase out of service.

But there's some specific slop on that train that must be addressed.

It's the spending that drives Torontonians batty.

For years, councillors have disregarded staff advice about how they feather their own nests.

For example, sponsoring sports teams like Bussin's Blue Jays.

In July, 2008, staff recommended team sponsorships and charitable donations using public funds should be discontinued because of "several issues" they raised.

A big one was sponsoring sports teams could be seen as buying votes.

But councillors didn't care. They decided to continue the practice, allowing it under their expense policy.

After all, what sitting politician doesn't like the opportunity to buy votes?

And no one was - or is - minding the store for taxpayers, anyway.

As Ford has noted, the man who was the watchdog of councillor expenses, Tim Ivanyshyn, a 28-year City Hall veteran and former manager of council support services, was railroaded out by the Miller regime for trying to slam the brakes on this spending.

"He'd say they were scams. Leather jackets. He said 'I'm not expensing this,'" Ford told the Sun editorial board.

"He came into my office and said, 'Rob, I think I'm going to lose my job because (Mayor David Miller's) telling me I have to let all this stuff go.'"

In 2008, Ivanyshyn did disappear from City Hall with a severance package and gag order.

It's a firing that still has Ford fired up.

Today, staff rubber stamp councillor expenses and move on. Video cameras, bunny suits, even ice cream and alcoholic beverages were all approved in the past.

"It's a culture that couldn't care less ... there are no rules ... black is white and white is black," thrifty Coun. Doug Holyday has said. "To add insult to injury (councillors) belittle someone like me who tries to follow the rules."

Belittle? Hardly. They attack.

Holyday and Ford were singled out for not spending enough tax money.

Councillors' cash for those inappropriate expenses came from their $50,000 office budgets, or as Ford calls them, their expense accounts.

The present system is self-policing.

What's changed is that Ford is now the new sheriff in town.

While he may stumble and bumble on many issues - he sounded downright ridiculous in an interview on CBC Radio's As it Happens last week - he's rock solid on the councillor expenses file.

As mayor, Ford will have to ensure the rules already on the books are enforced and the ones begging to be abused are tightened.

Remember the rules that permitted a $12,000 retirement party Coun. Kyle Rae threw for himself to be covered by his office expenses?

Stopping such practices became a key plank in Ford's election platform. It was one of the few numbers Ford got right during the entire campaign and it's one of the few easy wins he should have at council.

You can bet newly-elected and re-elected councillors also got the message voters are not happy with the money councillors now spend on themselves.

In a Leger poll for the Sun just before the election, only 32% of respondents said Toronto council is efficient with their tax dollars.

Ford will also come down hard on the Metropasses, parking passes, zoo passes and golf passes councillors get.

But those are essentially irrelevant, or, if you prefer, purely symbolic. They don't cost the city any out-of-pocket money.

As Norbert Hartmann noted in his investigation into how Toronto's Catholic school board trustees were spending taxpayers' money, nothing erodes public trust quicker when it comes to elected officials than the misuse of public funds.

He also wrote that while handing out money to the communities a politician serves may benefit some people, "it is not appropriate and may be seen as a 'political slush fund.'"

In other words, politicians should fund things the proper way, or pay these expenses out of their own pockets.

Taxpayers' money isn't free to whip around.

Especially under Rob Ford.

At least that's what we have a right to expect.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/rob_granatstein/2010/10/29/15883871.html

So what was the deal here? Was he really fired for doing his job, or is there more to this story?

 

[Eug]

And, to be clear, if Webster was a lousy manager, Ford shouldn't have fired him without cause.

It's almost impossible to fire someone with cause these days in the public sector. He basically would almost have had to stolen funds or been caught smokin' up in his office or something.

Did Webster refuse to implement the decisions of Council? Did he even actually refuse to implement Ford's original proposal? He gave "sound advice" to council that happened to be contrary to Ford's fantasy, and that's why he was fired -- the TTC board said exactly that.

Nah, but it seems like he orchestrated the coup against the Fords with the help of Stintz and her political aspirations.

I'm not saying the Fords were justified, because I don't agree with their actions, but what I am saying is that I'm not surprised the Fords went after him. Webster put the target on his own back.

 

[MisterF]

my thoughts exactly. while his firing was handled poorly i don't know on what basis people are holding him up to be 'highly respected' and irreplaceable. Just because someone is an engineer who's worked in transit forever doesn't make them a good manager. i don't think you could do worse by making a random person off the street the general manager.

Regardless of how good he was at his job, he's irreplaceable in the sense that nobody who's qualified would want to work in an environment where you're not supposed to give your impartial, professional opinion but where you're supposed to tow the political line. Just look at this quote from councillor Di Giorgio: "Excellence in a bureaucracy … is the ability to put forth the positions that are consistent with those adopted by the mayor". Um, no, it isn't. The bureucracy are the experts: the engineers, planners, building officials, accountants, and lawyers whose job is to analyze an issue and provide their opinion, even if it isn't what the mayor or councillors want to hear. Their job is to be unswayed by politics and if they cave to political pressure they can be disciplined by their respective professional organizations. The elected officials make the decisions and they don't have to take the bureaucracy's advice.

Bureaucracy = expert advice to Council. Council = elected officials who make the decisions. That's a clear and essential separation between the two roles and if employees are expected to cave to political pressure the whole system breaks down.

The implications of this go way beyond one manager.

 

[MisterF]

It's almost impossible to fire someone with cause these days in the public sector. He basically would almost have had to stolen funds or been caught smokin' up in his office or something.

Nah, but it seems like he orchestrated the coup against the Fords with the help of Stintz and her political aspirations.

I'm not saying the Fords were justified, because I don't agree with their actions, but what I am saying is that I'm not surprised the Fords went after him. Webster put the target on his own back.

Firing people with cause happens all the time in the public service.

How exactly did Webser "orchestrate a coup"? lol. Rob Ford isn't a dictator with absolute power, although I'm sure he'd like to be. He's a mayor in a system where the real power lies with council. There was no coup. Just a manager who was asked to produce a report, a spiteful mayor who hid it away because he didn't like what it said, and a bunch of councillors who are getting sick of the mayor's crap.