OK you guys, you finally smoked me out.
There are some reasonable questions...like why should TransLink get .5% on the sales tax. And there are reasonable things to respond to, like the business with the CEO. As the former Director of Communication - I left the post at the end of 2011 - I am manic and pained by the fact that the organization stopped telling its story and, without any political champion (quite the opposite...they all like taking cheap shots), TransLink left itself vulnerable to the stuff it's getting now.
So, here's a Coles Notes summary. In late 2004, the TransLink Board, then made up of mayors and councilors, committed the organization to a massive service expansion (Canada Line + lots of bus routes + roads projects) knowing full well that the operating costs would not be sustainable much beyond 2011. However, the expansion took place, and if you want to see what it looks like, check pages 20 and 21 in this media resource guide we published in 2009:
http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen ... 2010YP.pdf Along comes Ian Jarvis as CEO and Cathy McLay as the CFO in 2009. They see the organization heading for a financial cliff and start squeezing dollars and efficiency out of all areas. The gap they have to cover is $150 million a year
just to sustain current services . They manage to do it with the help of a small lift in revenues. But today, 87% of TransLink's $1.4 billion budget covers three of four priorities: 1) sustain current services 2) keep services in a state of good repair - and except for the SkyTrain failures last summer, that's mostly worked 3) upgrade if you can afford it - so old buses continue to be taken out of service and new vehicles brought in. There is no revenue left to handle the 4th priority - improve services, which is why the idea of a lift in the sales tax is being floated. So it's simple...there are lots of ways to improve transit
and roads - TransLink does both - but it will take extra dollars to do it.
TransLink has been subject to four of what I would call 'hostile audits' that examined all aspects of the operation in the belief, by the provincial government, that the organization was badly run and there were dollars that could be found. Of course, in a big, complex organization, there are always dollars to be found, but the audits did not reach the province's preconceived conclusion and nothing was found that came even remotely close to the amount to pay for the expansion the majority of people say we need.
Now, as to the CEO's salary. Ian Jarvis gets paid a total of about $480,000 per year according to a contract. The CFO, Cathy McLay, gets about $350,000. Between the two of them, they have managed TransLink's finances well enough to earn excellent credit ratings scores from both Moody's and the Dominion Bond Ratings Services. TransLink's bond issues total about $2 billion and, with the preferred interest rates, the savings are at least $1 million a year...could be a lot higher. So even if you don't give them credit for the other savings, the CEO and CFO have more than covered their salaries just by earning a great interest rate.
Firing Ian Jarvis was a dumb idea and totally unnecessary. If the intent was to take TransLink out of the discussion on the tax or to instill confidence, it was a miserable failure and accomplished just the opposite. Now the issue of paying two CEO's should stick in everyone's craw. Ian wasn't fired 'with cause' so like any of us, he is entitled to either sufficient notice or a payment in lieu of notice. But what was totally missed, including by those who drove the Board to let Ian go, is the fact that TransLink had recently eliminated the Chief Operating Officer's position, freeing up over $300,000 per year. It would have been far more sensible to bring in the capable Doug Allen as the COO, with the mandate to do exactly what he's trying to do now. But alas....
The true bottom line here is that TransLink does not deserve the crap it has been taking, except for the fact that it has allowed critics, politicians, reporters, talk show hosts and columnists to propagate half truths and garbage conclusions without challenge. It has been hard to be retired and watch it all happen.