City council last fall backed a rapid transit proposal that included light rail and fast buses, but by the spring abruptly left light rail behind. Why? The Free Presswent looking for paperwork to shed light on the switch, but heavy city hall censoring means Londoners remain in the dark on the project.

--- --- ---

City hall is censoring, in whole or in part, nearly half the pages of a rapid transit report one politician says should be made fully public.

The 46-page document is the latest bit of evidence that London’s municipal government, once a remarkable example of openness, has slowly become more difficult to penetrate for information, even while Mayor Matt Brown trumpets a commitment to transparency.

“I can’t imagine what kind of information is in there that would need to be redacted,” said Coun. Jesse Helmer, who was council’s loudest voice in the failed push to build light rail.

“I haven’t seen it. There are people in the public who’d like to see it. I don’t see what the big deal is.”

The report, a draft version of the city’s business case for rapid transit, dated February 2016, was obtained by The Free Pressunder freedom-of-information laws. But vast swaths were censored by city officials.

It raises anew questions about what led to council’s contentious decision to drop light rail, a move that sparked a fierce political debate and ripped open a community divide over London’s future.

Officials in the city hall clerk’s office ruled the redacted sections are censored under Sec. 7 of the Ontario law governing municipal information. It allows a city to “refuse to disclose” any “advice or recommendations” by staff or consultants.

The Free Press is appealing the decision to Ontario’s privacy commissioner.

Sec. 7 states the city “may” censor the document from the public — which to one expert means they don’t have to do so, but chose to keep it secret.

Before council approved pursuing bus-only rapid transit, there was a draft business case that recommended . . . what? Londoners may never know even though The Free Press used freedom of information laws to get the report.

“ ‘May’ means the decision is theirs,” said Ann Cavoukian, who spent three terms as Ontario’s information and privacy czar and now runs Ryerson University’s Privacy and Big Data Institute.

“They’re not compelled to not disclose. ‘May’ is not ‘shall.’ ‘May’ means it’s up to them,” she said, adding she doesn’t know enough about the transit report to critique the city’s decision.

But, she said, “I believe in transparency and the public has a right to see a great deal of information relating to publicly funded reports.”

City hall’s rapid transit decision remains perplexing to some politicians and many observers.

Last November, city hall’s top bureaucrat, Art Zuidema, recommended London pursue a “hybrid” system that would combine light rail and buses. It drew unanimous council support.

In March, The Free Press reported Mayor Brown’s support for light rail was weakening, the first sign the heralded project was falling out of political favour. Maureen Cassidy, then the deputy mayor, stepped into political hot water for perhaps being too honest by stating there had been resistance from other levels of government to the $880-million bus/light rail price tag.

Then, in May, Zuidema returned with a recommendation to drop light rail — and instead go with a bus-only rapid transit system. At the time, Coun. Stephen Turner said no significant facts had changed, and questioned the altered recommendation.

In between those two reports — in February — was a draft version of the final business case that wasn’t disclosed until The Free Presspushed for its release. Unlike the cover of the final business case, which features only buses, the February cover shows buses and light-rail trains.

But large portions of what’s inside — in some cases, entire pages — are redacted by staff in the city hall clerk’s office. Jim Purser, the bureaucrat who oversees such decisions, said staff recommendations were being redacted.

City officials ruled the portions should be censored under Sec. 7 of Ontario’s laws governing municipal government information. That section states:

“A head may refuse to disclose a record if the disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations of an officer or employee of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution.”

There are several caveats in Sec. 7, advising that information can’t be kept hidden if it relates to any of 11 areas, such as “a technical study, including cost estimate” or “a final plan or proposal to change a program.”

That may suggest that what’s censored are the mid-term rapid transit opinions, as of February, of city staff and the consultants hired to work on the projects.

There were, essentially, four options on the table:

— A basic bus-only rapid transit system

— A “full” bus-only rapid transit system

— A light rail/bus “hybrid” rapid transit system (council’s “preferred” initial option)

— A full light rail system

A read of what’s uncensored, though, suggests at least some of what’s redacted relates only to the rail-bus hybrid option.

For example, on page 16 of the February business case, the options are detailed under the sub-head ‘Rapid Transit Alternatives Considered.’ Only “Option 3” — which appears to be the hybrid model staff had recommended, then ultimately spiked — is censored. The rest are untouched.

Here’s a recap of the study’s timeline:

— In November, Zuidema recommended making an $880-million light rail/bus hybrid system London’s “preferred” early option, pending more study. Council approved that unanimously.

— In May, Zuidema and staff returned with a recommendation dropping light rail and instead pursuing a $500-million bus-only rapid transit system. That led to a tough political fight.

— In their May presentation to council, staff included a slide showing the cover of a rapid transit business case, dated February, that showed images of light rail. That prompted The Free Press to push for the full document.

The question for many pro-rail Londoners is simple: What happened between November and May? Coun. Turner expressed that view in a May debate.

“The business case . . . numbers haven’t changed. The conclusion did,” he said. “That left me scratching my head.”

The censored draft version of the business case could refine that question: What happened between November and February? And what happened between February and May?

Rapid transit will be the biggest single infrastructure project in London history. But in either scenario — $880-million rail/bus or $500-million bus-only — the city’s stake would be capped at $129 million. That led many, Turner included, to question why city council wouldn’t vote to push Ottawa and Queen’s Park for enough cash to build the more ambitious rail/bus project.

Council, though, voted 10-5 to not even ask for funding to build the hybrid, instead starting toward the $500-million bus-only option. Not long after that decision, Queen’s Park offered $1 billion to build light rail in Ottawa, echoing a similar pact to construct rail in Hamilton.

So, with London’s decision made and the push for funding underway, why is city hall censoring the February draft of the business case?

In an email to The Free Press, Zuidema said: “Our general practice is to not release draft reports from external consultants. . . . Staff redacted sections which included inaccuracies or where significant revisions were needed, to ensure all information in the public doman is correct.”

Speaking generally, Helmer says openness is crucial to the trust between government and citizens. “Transparency and being clear with people about what’s going on, especially at the local level, is really important at maintaining that trust,” he said.

--- ---- ---

RAPID TRANSIT TIMELINE:

— November 2015: City hall’s top bureaucrat, Art Zuidema, recommends an $880-million “hybrid” model combining buses and light rail as London’s “preferred preliminary option” for a rapid transit system. City council unanimously endorses it.

— March 2016:The Free Press reports Mayor Matt Brown’s support for light rail is weakening, the first public sign that the heralded project is falling out of political favour.

— May 2016: Zuidema returns with a business case that drops light rail and recommends council instead pursue a $500-million bus-only rapid transit system. Council approves the less-ambitious plan by a 10-5 vote, even as some politicians question why the staff recommendation changed.

— July 2016:Under freedom-of-information laws, The Free Press obtains an undisclosed “draft” version of the business case, from February, that appears to suggest light rail was still part of the plan at that point. It’s heavily censored.

pmaloney@postmedia.com

twitter.com/patatLFPress

Shift - London's Rapid Transit Initiative - Business Case by The London Free Press on Scribd