11 Boxes As A Stalling Device

Have we all been played again? Was it was the stall and distract tactic once again. If so, I am so tired of it. I have been telling you about it, dear reader, with respect to the border file for so long so it should not come as a surprise to you if this happened all over again.

Do you really think that there is anything substantially different in the Dunbar audit than there is in what was disclosed yesterday in the 200 Building audit i.e. Part One of the 400 Building audit? I would doubt it. My guess as well is that Mr. Dunbar probably saw most of what was in the 11 boxes of documents that surprisingly made an appearance that stalled off disclosure of the Audit Report until the City auditor was able to look at the materials.

What is the difference after all between not having an audit come out in a timely fashion because all of a sudden 11 boxes are mysteriously produced and using full tunneling/Greenlinks to stall off the building of the road to the border until the Province has the money to do it.

Oh some of you who are just recent readers probably don’t understand what I’m saying. It is more than just protecting the reputation of Councillor Valentinis who was the main proponent and defender of this Project. Interestingly, his name has not yet come up in the Star articles or on TV.

The really shocking revelation as far as he ought to be concerned is that no business case was presented to justify the project in the first place.

• Prior to the project approval, we expected to find in place a comprehensive business case analysis for a supportable, validated, investment decision. It was anticipated that the business case documentation itself would have set out clear objectives, scope, expected outcomes, critical success factors, risk assessment and risk mitigating measures, an environmental assessment, strategic alignments. The expected business plan would have clearly analysed costs and benefits of the project to Council for decision-making purposes...
  
  At an in-camera meeting of July 18, 2002, Administration submitted a report to address the questions of Council. However, the report did not contain the defined criteria that we would expect to be included in a business case such as, clear project objectives, scope, expected outcomes, critical success factors, risks assessment and risk mitigating measures, responsibilities and ownership."

Accordingly, on what business case basis was the Councillor continually supporting the Project at Council. He would always give us his justification but clearly it was not based on a strong business case as the Auditor pointed out because there never was one.

Oh my... what is the business case and, more importantly, the financial case, for the Tunnel that the Mayor has never disclosed other than keeping it in public hands so that the entranceway cannot be cemented up. Now I am really getting worried on the $100 million transaction.

Moreover, Councillor Valentinis was around while the Committees structure of the Project disintegrated and effectively there was little City management of it. He has to take responsibility for that.

However, in Windsor, there are more things around than meet the eye. Nothing is as plain as it seems in this City for whatever reason.

Just consider that the final draft of the Dunbar report was given to the CAO sometime in late 2006. That means most of the work had probably been completed by the fall of 2006. Now sit back and think, what else was taking place in the fall of 2006 that was historic for Windsor. What project could have meant the end of the careers of certain politicians in Windsor if it had not been started?

Oh I think that you are almost there. It was a design/build project as well, just like the 400 Building. It was started before there was a signed contract. As part of the justification on price, certain other City buildings were to be sold. It was all rush, rush, rush and significant mistakes were made that will now cost us money. Of course, the extra costs will not be shown as part of the project because it is finished, including financing costs that will be charged to General Revenues. It is claimed as well that it was built on budget. And one more amusing point, just like the 400 Building, there is a huge issue with respect to parking.

Now you know. I’m talking about the East End Arena. If the audit on the 400 Building had come out in the fall of 2006, someone could have asked questions about whether the arena was being constructed in a manner that was more satisfactory than the 400 Building fiasco. Wasn’t our last Municipal Election in the mid-November, 2006? Can you imagine as well the outcry that well could have cost some people their political careers. It might have meant that Project Ice Track would have been built instead in Tecumseh.

There has to be an Arena audit too. Poor Angela, she will get stuck doing that one:

• "A post-construction audit is a standard procedure upon the completion of a major project such as this and is also an industry “Best Practice”.
  
  A post-construction audit is an independent and objective assessment designed to add value and improve an organization’s project management process. It is a gathering of pertinent facts and evidence in accordance with internationally recognized standards that, when reviewed with integrity, objectivity and competence, provides a history of what has taken place. Comparing that history with the applicable Policies and Procedures of the municipality and with industry best practices provides a basis for recognizing processes that were performed well and for recognizing areas where improvements are recommended."

Do you honestly believe that the Arena project could have moved forward with this damning report out in public? Councillor Marra in fact said that he has serious concerns now over using the design/build model. But it was not out in public and the Arena project moved forward.

I find it very interesting if you go to the timeline that I posted yesterday that set out to how long it took to reveal the audit the excuses that were made. Why, it got so bad that we had to retain an outside lawyer and outside accountants to be involved in this audit which delayed it even more. I wonder what that cost us for retained experts.

Lo and behold, when the audit finally came out with, the Arena was already finished. I will leave it to the Audit Department to figure out if the Arena was plagued with the same mismanagement as the 400 Building. At least this time the Committees did not disappear because careers are on the line.

However, we were deprived of learning from whatever mistakes were made on the 400 Building. We were unable it seems to know about Best Practices in the Arena project because the Audit criticisms had not yet come out.

And if someone dares suggest that the Arena project was carried out differently, then one needs to ask why whatever processes and procedures were put in place were not there for the 400 Building.

I know what the justification will be. It is very clever too but it will not work. In October 2005, the City of Windsor hired Brodel Management to conduct a review of the new building using a very limited scope for the review according to the Auditor. Brodel Management was paid $13,811 to review the construction of 400 City Hall Square I believe.

Here is what I saw in Council Minutes in February, 2006.

• "400 City Hall Square Project Review
  
  Bill Rodrigues, Brodel Management; and Ronna Warsh, General Manager of Social and Health Services, appear before Council to provide an overview of the “400 City Hall Square Project Review”, which was undertaken for the City of Windsor to evaluate its overall performance in project planning and implementation, including a summary of key recommendations in the areas of governance and reporting, policies and procedures, project team resources, corporate communications, customer service, budget, design process, leasing, and property management."
  
  CR71/2006
  That Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward strategies for the implementation of the key recommendations in the report from Brodel Management dated December 2005, respecting “400 City Hall Square Project Review”

Remember as well what was said in February, 2006 that should be questioned today:

• "Councillors approved a report by an independent consultant who found the building was constructed under budget and filled an important need by bringing several city departments under one roof. "Overall, the assessment was that it was done well" and it met the objectives of the city, said John Skorobohacz, the city's chief administrative officer...
  
  Skorobohacz said the project came in under budget and the city will have an extra $1 million, based on projected revenues and operating expenses.

There is even more to talk about with respect to the Audit. That will come in another BLOG.