Pal Gord Needs To Remove Blinders

My old canoeing partner Gord Henderson took a shot across the bow at me in Saturday’s Windsor Star. “Who would have thought that my old pal Alan Halberstadt, once a ferocious tax fighter and downsizer,” would oppose the 100-percent outsourcing of recycling and solid waste collection? he wrote.

These words appeared in yet another of his weekly genuflections to Mayor Eddie Francis. Gord is a sweet man, an old friend and a fine writer, but he has finally spurred me to ask the question: “Who would have thought that Gord Henderson, the once ferocious City Hall watchdog and fact-finder, would become such and unquestioning lapdog of the mayor of Windsor?”

Gord’s sweeping condemnation of anyone who dared to vote against the scorched earth outsourcing option lacks any kind of analysis or balance. I fear that City Councilors have also lost that balance because of a fear of getting pounded by the Windsor Star.

As for me, yes I opposed the 100-percent outsourcing option. It’s a position I have consistently held, and stated publicly, since the beginning the waste and recycling tendering process almost a year ago. I continue to believe that the city needs to retain a measure of control.

Those who watched the debate know that I favored the option to outsource 100 percent of recycling and 50 percent of the solid waste collection. This option would keep some of the collection in house, and retain half of the garbage truck fleet in case the city decides to go back into the business full-time a few years down the road.

It would provide a safeguard if Turtle Island, the Toronto contractor, doesn’t work out. In addition, the 50-percent option would cost the taxpayer less upfront since half the employees, 24 I am told, would be retained as collectors, and not all would be bumped into the parks department where they will be replacing part-time rink attendants and summers students at much higher wages until they retire.

In the end, after seven years, the 50-percent option would save $7.7 million, a significant savings to the taxpayer.

That is less than the $8.9-million savings estimated in the administration report, but it is based on the assumption of an annual 40-percent rolling retirement rate of the displaced waste collectors. Former Central Yard management guru Ron McConnell, for one, seriously doubts that assumption, which pegs transitional funding requirements at $7.648,600 to pay the higher salaries until attrition of some 46 workers fully kicks in.

McConnell believes that figure is greatly exaggerated. If the rolling retirement rate is instead 20 percent, for instance, the transitional funding could be $12 to $14 million and greatly diminish the business case.

As it is, the upfront, one-time transitional cost of the 50-percent option is estimated at $2,408,542 compared to the aforementioned $7,648,600.

Those who cared to read the entire administration report will know that the 50-percent solution was actually described as “appealing.” In discussing this option with finance staff prior to the July 12 meeting, I learned that operations managers prefer it to the take-no-prisoners option. For reporters and columnists who didn’t read the report, here is what administration said about the option I favoured:

The Hybrid model is similar to the one used in Winter Control and it has been successful there. Other municipalities have employed this model and have found it to be successful for the reasons noted below:

• Would maintain operational flexibility, i.e. number of yard-waste pick-ups could be easily changed, special clean-ups and events (e.g. floods, festivals).

• Able to respond quickly to changes in the Waste Diversion Act, i.e. possible legislated addition of an organics program.

• Could be considered the first step toward fully exiting the direct provision of the service if Council should decide to do so in the future.

• This would permit an easier transition from a partially contracted to a fully contracted model of service delivery through existing employee attrition over the next few years.

• More easily able to ramp back up to 100% waste and recycling collection services by city forces in the future if advantageous to the city due to dissatisfaction with the level of service provided by the contractor.

• Encourages competition between Union and Contractor with respect to efficiency, service level, service delivery, etc. (holds both parties accountable).

• Less disruption to the entire organization than the placement of displaced employees would cause with the 100 percent contracting-out option at this time.

Those who argue that the 100-percent option would not protect the public against a repeat of the 101-day garbage strike need to turn to Page 32 of the outsourcing contract. Clause 22.1 Strike Contingency Plan., states that one month prior to the commencement of service, the supplier must submit a strike contingency plan that will address alternative methods for the collection of waste so as to maintain the services in the event of a labour dispute.

For all those reasons, and one more, I believe the hybrid outsourcing model is the best option. The one further reason? That option might just reclaim a modicum of positive labour relations that no longer exist at City Hall.