Former Winnipeg Transit director Rick Borland quit his job this past week after being "slagged" by Mayor Sam Katz's staff.
It's a great story — lots of drama and controversy.
Shame it's not true.
The easy — and lazy — conclusion to draw for why Borland quit suddenly after nearly 25 years on the job is that he was publicly hung out to dry by Katz's office over bus rapid transit.
The truth is, neither Katz nor his staff have ever publicly criticized Borland or transit staff.
The entire story was made up.
Some people have suggested that Katz's office "questioned the integrity of transit staff."
The accusation stems from an inaccurate portrayal of a six-page memo written by Bryan Gray, a senior political adviser to Katz, who reviewed a marketing report written by Metropolitan Knowledge International.
The MKI report was penned in support of a federal funding application for BRT.
However, nowhere in the memo did Gray question the integrity of transit staff.
Rather, Gray wrote that none of the data used in the report, much of which was supplied by transit, was independently verified.
Independently verifying data for any type of report — including reviewing and sometimes challenging assumptions used — strengthens the conclusions of a study.
In fact, it was MKI that pointed that out in the first place and stated that "the accuracy of the output from the model is consequently limited to the quality of the inputs."
MKI was neither calling into question the integrity of transit staff nor suggesting the data used was inaccurate. It was merely pointing out that the data wasn't independently verified. Which is precisely what Gray echoed.
I read one piece that alleged that Gray accused MKI of "probably" misrepresenting the case in hopes of getting future contacts with transit.
Gray wrote nothing of the kind. What he did write is that MKI has ties to a company named McCormick Rankin Corporation which he said has a "contractual relationship" with Winnipeg Transit's BRT project.
He did not accuse MKI of "probably" misrepresenting anything.
This is what he really wrote:
"It appears, therefore, that there is at least the risk of a perception of bias with the study consultant due to its parent's (MRC) general interest in promoting large-scale infrastructure projects and its particular interest arising from the potential to seek further work from Transit, possibly including design or management contracts in relation to the construction of the proposed BRT project (should it proceed)."
A "risk of a perception of bias" is hardly "probably misrepresented the case."
Coun. Donald Benham got in on the action of deceit, too. He said Borland was the victim of a "drive-by slagging" from the mayor's office.
You won't find Rick Borland's name anywhere in Gray's report. Mayor Katz, nor anyone from his office, has ever publicly criticized Borland. So where does the drive-by slagging come from? It comes from nowhere.
It was manufactured, something the rookie Benham — who used to be Glen Murray's director of communications — is getting quite adept at.
(During council debate last week, Benham said the city — if it delayed BRT — would have to return the $34 million it received from Ottawa and the province for BRT and may never get it back. In fact, the city has never received that money in the first place.)
Even Coun. John Angus jumped into the misinformation campaign.
He wrote a letter to Katz the day before council deep-sixed BRT, accusing the mayor's office of " publicly challenging the credibility, honesty and ability of senior management in transit."
No such challenge or criticism was ever made. And nowhere in Angus' letter does he substantiate his very serious allegation.
Rick Borland resigned for reasons only he can explain.
He chooses not to explain them publicly and that's his right.
But making up stories about how he was publicly slagged or how his staff's integrity was called into question is patently dishonest.
The people peddling this stuff know better.