Secrecy shrouding library board's short list unnecessary

After a two-hour, behind-closed-doors meeting of the Ottawa Public Library board, all that can be said forsure about the process of picking a location for the city's new central library is that it's shrouded insecrecy.

That's the only conclusion anyone can draw about the board's key meeting to discuss the short list of possiblesites.

Which of the 12 previously announced possible locations made the cut? The board won't say.

For how many properties did the board order further study? Up to four, it seemed, as per the board's discussions lastmonth.

But wait it's possible that four different scenarios, where the city would partnerwith the federal Library and Archives Canada, are also on the table.

So, up to eight possibilities?No one with the library board would confirm the exact number. And certainly no one wouldsay where these possible locations for this major institution actually are.

The reading, book-borrowing public isn't scheduled to hear anything more about the new central library arguably the city's most exciting public infrastructure project after the LRT until December.

That's when, according to library CEO Danielle McDonald, a big report will be released that includes therecommended site, the proposed partnership structure, the financial frameworkand the "project delivery method."

Essentially, the rest of the city will find out which properties the board was considering only after it's alla done deal.The public will then get five days to read the reportbefore it goes to the board for a vote.

What we do know

Last monththelibrary released a map of 12 sites being considered for a new central branch. The properties,most privately owned, are all located between King Edward Avenue and Bayview Road, and are all within afewblocks of Queen Street.

A team of planner-types from both outside and inside the city, as well as some officials from Library andArchives Canada, evaluated the 12 sites based on two approved sets of criteria: one for a facility that would house only the city library, and another set for one that would combine a central library and the Library and Archives collection.

This is why there are up to eight scenarios being worked on: four for a city-only library, and four for apartnership model. But that doesn't necessarily mean there are eight separate sites, since some locations may be on the listforboth a stand-alone and combined project. We just haven't been told.

It's likely that the December report will recommend one of the combined scenarioswith a backup, city-only option just in case the deal with the feds for a blockbuster project fallsthrough.

There is one location that we know for sure is being looked at: 557 Wellington St. That's a city-owned property, just east of LeBreton Flats and north of Albert Street. The library folks used to refer to thistract of land as their "preferred option," but have since changed their language.

Now, they say the site will serve two purposes. It remains a candidate for the new library (it's not too farfrom the current Library and Archives building), but will also be used as the "comparator" for other sites.

That means that the financial analyses and business cases for the other three (or seven, or whatever) siteswill be judged against 557 Wellington.

No rules compelling release ofshortlist

A fairness commissioner is overseeing this entire process to make sure it's open and trustworthy. But that commissioner never imposed a ban on the release of the shortlist.

In fact, according to an email McDonald sent to board members, the commissioner's view was that "this is not amatter of fairness with respect to releasing the ranked sites publicly, but that [releasing] it would not represent a bestpractice."

At Tuesday's meeting, the city's deputy city solicitor suggested that all 12 sites would still be in playuntil a binding legal agreement is in place for the winner. But that sounds like merely a lawyerly technicalpoint.

If the board is really looking closely at, say, four top-rated sites, it's highly unlikely they will burnthrough all those options and end up reconsidering lower-ranked locations. So the public interest in knowingthe sites on the short listremains valid.

Any suggestion that releasing the short list would somehow hurt the competitive process would take someexplaining. After all, the property owners of all 12 sites will know soon enough if their land is incontention.

And no one is asking for the actual ranking. We don't need to know which sites received what marks up to thispoint. Nor is anyone asking for the secret details that would go into a legal agreement.

We'd just like to know locations being considered in case, you know, taxpayers might want to express their opinions aboutthis project, which a preliminary study pegged at $86 million.

The group Bookmark the Core, for instance, has been vocal when it comes to where the library should go.

That seems to have upset the library board chair, Coun. Tim Tierney, so much that earlier this year he went ona public rant about the group's main spokeswoman, Emilie Taman. The councillor has since apologized.

Still, it's hard not to suspect that the main reason for not releasing the site finalists is to prevent anylively debate, or even disruptive discussion. Who's loudest in voicing their opinion shouldn't dictate where the centrallibrary goes, but an engaged public shouldn't be frozen out of the process just to make life easier for the board.