Windsor Mayors' Conflict Of Interest

The word “mayors’” in the subject line was not a typo but deliberate. It is not specific to any mayor. The issue is much broader than just the one that is most obvious now. It goes right to the heart of the relationship between Council and its creations.

Let me discuss the matter in the context of the issue that is front and centre now. But the conversation can apply to other companies and boards as well

As a relative new-comer to Windsor, I always wondered why the Windsor’s mayors seemed so antagonistic to the Ambassador Bridge Co. I would have thought that they should be proud that the #1 border crossing point in North America is in Windsor and of the economic prosperity it brings. Clearly, it must pay a good chunk of money in taxes to the City and provides employment, including jobs for University students at the Duty-free shop. It certainly makes contributions to a number of institutions in town at a time when corporate contributions are harder to find.

Without going into the pros and cons of the Bridge Co’s economic redevelopment/border crossing proposal at this time, superficially at least it seems to make sense and is worthy I would have thought of consideration. After all, the trucks would go right through Windsor to eliminate backups, the Customs inspection areas would not be in Windsor and it seemed that the combination of the bridge and tunnel would make us closer to having an “invisible” crossing to attract tourists and business to the region. The best news for taxpayers is that the Bridge Co., not Windsorites, pay for all of it. More importantly, it was entirely consistent with the thoughts of the international guru who spoke at the City/County meeting recently respecting regional economic redevelopment and could help us create employment in Windsor when we just lost over a thousand high-paying auto jobs.

So I was surprised when the 200 booth proposal was first announced that the Mayor and Councillor Budgeteer were so negative. This time around, the Mayor wants to butt in and look at the anti-trust situation in the US, supposedly, I assume, to see if there can be any roadblocks put forward to hinder or delay or stop the deal cold. I do not remember seeing anyone commenting about the economic impact on the region however.

In passing, I am not sure what gives the Mayor any right to spend taxpayer money on such an issue outside of our jurisdiction or is he spending the money as Chair of the Windsor Tunnel Commission. I wonder if a lawyer was retained and if Councillors understood the legal consequences of taking the action being proposed and approved spending money on legal fees by email or Blackberry again. We shall have a chance to find out and to speak on it when it is brought to Council for ratification after the fact for the third time recently.

But in rereading what they said, I finally understood the problem. “The plan would effectively shut down the tunnel.” “the bridge's plan [is] a serious threat to $6 million in annual revenues for the city as part owner of the tunnel.” Their focus seemed to be on protecting the interest and revenues of the Tunnel and the City's slice of the Tunnel Duty-free shop revenue as members of the Windsor Tunnel Commission. I wondered if they were also looking at the “big picture” as members of Windsor City Council to protect Windsor’s interests as well? Other examples where the same type of issue can arise are the Library Board or Transit Windsor or Enwin.

In other words, is there an inherent Conflict of Interest built in when the Mayor and Councillors are both a Tunnel Commission Chair or member and when they are also a member of City Council. On the one hand the Mayor can say from a Windsor-wide perspective : "We see the tunnel as a public utility while the DCTC sees it more as a profit-generating private operation." On the other hand when the Bridge takes away Tunnel traffic, he says as a true competitor "our traffic has gone to the bridge and we have to do a better job of convincing people that the tunnel should be their crossing of choice."

Assuming that the proposal may hurt the Tunnel, (I think the proposal would actually enhance Tunnel business) is that necessarily bad for Windsor's over-all interests? If the Tunnel were not owned by the City, would Council look at the matter from a different perspective? I would have thought that Council would look at what is in the best interest of the City from an economic perspective, and not also as a competitor to the Bridge Co. It would be forced to look at how to keep the border moving from a practical point of view and not also an owner.

What if the City thought the Bridge Co's ideas made sense and took actions that hurt the Tunnel's interests. How would its manager react to a decrease in revenues? Could it take action against the City since it looked at Windsor's interests before that of the Tunnel?

It is hard to wear two hats when legal duties are owed to both entities and the interests may conflict.

I don’t have a solution but one obvious action to minimize the conflict is to remove the Mayor and Councillors from the Boards, even though it may mean a reduction in their take-home pay. Citizens could replace them and matters would be brought to Council with the recommendation of the Board’s directors for action. The structure of the Windsor Police Services Board with Council could serve as an example.