8°c Light rain
15°c Mainly sunny
Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Maybe it was just trash talk
Related Items
-
Articles
If the city's administration is going to deny information to a city councillor or the public, it needs to come up with better or more complete answers than the one it gave to Coun. Harvey Smith, who wants to know how much the city's garbage and recycling collector has been fined for performance problems.
Mr. Smith was denied the information on the grounds that it would affect the business interests of Emterra, the company that started picking up waste from 165,000 Winnipeg households on Oct. 1 with uneven results. The city received thousands of complaints of missed collections and lost carts, a problem that has only recently improved.
The resulting firestorm of bad publicity did far more damage to the company's reputation and business interests than would the disclosure of how much it has been fined for missed pickups and other problems.
The city didn't tell Mr. Smith how disclosing the value of fines would affect the company's interests, a concern it does not display when releasing the names of restaurants that have been penalized for health violations. It also shows no concern for the reputations of firms and individuals who violate bylaws or commit some minor sin against the common good.
Mayor Sam Katz, in fact, found it convenient to serve as the leading critic of Emterra when its performance was poor. He said last October "very significant" fines had been assessed against the company and he even threatened to cancel the firm's contract and hire a new provider.
There are some commercial interests that are legitimately confidential. Companies, for example, do not want competitors to know their trade secrets, methods of business and other proprietary matters.
It's easy to understand why companies would not want the value of fines against them made public, but it's harder to understand why the city would see it the same way. It might be because it wants to mend the relationship, but it should have thought of that earlier.
If there is a broader principle at stake in denying the information, then the city must be more forthcoming.
As it stands, the city's secrecy merely raises suspicions that the promised "significant" fines were never levied, or that they were discounted.
Mayor Katz and other councillors made a point of threatening the company in public. The least they can do now is demonstrate that they meant what they said, or explain why they changed their minds.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition January 2, 2013 A10
Fact Check
Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.
More Editorials
- Back to Top
- Return to Editorials
Poll
Most Popular Editorials
- Mr. Katz strikes out again
- Rule by law the new norm
- Resign, Mr. Duffy
- Welcome to the 1900s, drinkers
- Mayor Selinger
- NDP needs its fix
- Temporary ain't what it used to be
- Nurse practitioners are underemployed
- Transit justice
- Tackling the crime statistics
Ads by Google
You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.
Have Your Say
New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.
The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.