handyDART info
feedback
Most recent feedback is now at the top.
Anyone with facts or opinions to contribute is invited to send them by email to handyDART. info which reserves the right to select what to publish on this page. Address contributions or comments to: feedback [at] handydart.info
September 11, 2008
There has been no further communication from TransLink. The only conclusion we can draw is that the basis of TransLink's response to the material on this site was supplied to them at their request by MVT. This is not an independent source. We stand by our reports. Further analysis of this situation has been added in News.
September 5, 2008
The editor of handyDART info replied to TransLink:
Thank you for your feedback. The responses that you have provided are very interesting. I did not encounter those facts when scrupulously researching this matter.
As I have indicated, both the facts and the overall process are important As editor of an independent online publication, it is my aim to provide an accurate and objective view of the situation. I therefore have some questions about your response.
Did you obtain the assertions of fact in the first seven points from MVT or from research of sources independent of MVT? In the latter case, would you be so kind as to provide me with the sources so that I can review them and ensure the accuracy of my information?
Was TransLink aware of the all the allegations made in the publications quoted on handyDART info before selecting MVT as the successful proponent in all three areas? If not, was TransLink aware of any of these allegations before seeing them quoted in handyDART info?
If MVT were to subcontract some of its obligations under a contract with TransLink, would TransLink consider MVT to be absolved of any responsibility for negligence or misconduct by the subcontractor or its employees?
As my research does not corroberate your statement that MVT's union/management record reveals positive and contructive relationships that are lauded by all unions that deal with MVT" I would appreciate receiving any sources of information other than MVT that you used in coming to this conclusion.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in assisting me to continue presenting a fair, objective and independent assessment of the current handDART crisis.
The editor awaits TransLink's response. But it is clear that some of TransLink's comments are disingenuous to say the least.
In reference to the discrimination case brought by Somali immigrants against MVT, TransLink says “Yes, MVT was sued for discrimination. However, the lawsuit was found to have no merit and was thrown out of court.” The real facts are more complicated. The Somali immigrants were employees of MVT in Burnsville Minnesota during an earlier organizing drive by the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). They alleged discrimination by a black-American MVT supervisor. ATU filed unfair labour practice charges against MVT related to the actions of the same supervisor. In the hearing, MVT argued that the testimony of the Somali employees was
“made up and part of a cabal against Mitchell because he is African-American and because he enforces the employee rulebook.”
The Board rejected this, saying:
“I reject the Respondent’s argument that Nabry made up the incident or that it was a setup generated by the alleged hostility of Nabry and other Somali employees to an African-American manager or because of hostility to Mitchell’s enforcement of an employee handbook.” [click here]
The Board accepted the evidence of the employees and rejected that of the supervisor. The Board ruled that MVT had committed several unfair labour practices as alleged by ATU.
TransLink's response reveals a lack of understanding and information regarding the labour relations history of MV Transportation and also of the pitfalls inherent in the present situation. More details on this have been added in new page on the site titled Labour relations complications
[click here].
September 4, 2008
TransLink responded to our request for details. However, it appears that it simply asked MVT for its response, and passed it on. MVT can hardly be considered an independent source. Disabled passengers are entilted to more scrupulously diligent appraisal of handyDART contractors who are otherwise unknown to TransLink. They were entitled to it before the selection was made. Here is TransLinks's response:
I am pleased to provide details of the information posted on the handyDART.info site that I consider to be inaccurate and/or misrepresent facts (as they do not provide your readers with fair-minded context).
I especially take exception to the "troubling reports" you list as (negative) examples that your readers would reasonably conclude as being representative of MVT's customer service, innovative operations and on-time performance. These reports are being stated as concluding facts, which upon closer examination, are found to be misleading to the reader because they are not fully research to verify accuracy and context. I have listed a number of the more glaring examples for your reevaluation, and hopefully, correction.
1) handyDART.info quote:
"An advisor to the State of California who handled complaints in Santa Rosa said of MVT "We have had unbelievable battles with these people. They treat the disabled like they're cattle."
TransLink's response:
The individual quoted is Ms. Francine Moeller. Ms. Moeller is a paratransit passenger in Santa Rosa, California. She is not employed by the State of California nor does she represent any official ADA agency.
Ms. Moeller was a regular rider of the paratransit system prior to MVT taking over the service. She was involved in a lawsuit against the previous provider. The lawsuit did not involve MVT, but was resolved a year after MVT took over the service, resulting in misperception of MVT's involvement.
Ms. Moeller's sentiments about the service reflect problems associated with the previous service contractor and not the present service MVT is providing. Ms. Moeller's comments are not in anyway representative of MVT's service.
2) handyDART.info quote:
"A 78 year old man died of injuries after falling down a flight of stairs at a house (the wrong address) where he had been mistakenly dropped off by a MVT paratransit bus."
TransLink's response:
This death was tragic. The Pioneer Valley Transportation Authority (PVTA) conducted a formal investigation into the incident. MVT also conducted a full internal investigation into the incident. The two investigations concluded that this passenger was not dropped off at "the wrong address". MVT's driver had been instructed by the 78-year-old gentleman to drop him off at the home where he ultimately fell down the stairs and suffered his fatal injuries.
During the PVTA investigation, the deceased's wife revealed that her husband likely recognized the home, as it was owned by a close friend of the family. The driver had no choice but to follow the gentlemen's instructions to be let off the vehicle. Had he done otherwise, the driver could have been charged with holding the gentleman on the vehicle without his consent.
3) handyDART.info quote:
"A woman died when her scooter fell from an MVT bus."
TransLink response:
Yes, Ms. Margaret Lewis, a customer in the care of MVT did die when her scooter fell from an MVT bus. However, as heartbreaking as this incident was, the Alameda County Medical Examiner ruled that Ms. Lewis' cause of death was a heart attack that likely caused her to fall from the scooter. MVT was cleared of any wrongdoing in this incident. The MVT driver was found to have acted appropriately in the situation and the vehicle's lift was found to be working properly during the time of the incident.
4) handyDART.info quote:
"East African immigrants sued MVT for discrimination based on nationality and religion."
TransLink's response:
Yes, MVT was sued for discrimination. However, the lawsuit was found to have no merit and was thrown out of court.
MVT is an African-American owned company, and is proud to maintain a workplace policy that forbids discrimination based on race, gender, nationality or religion. MVT was named the #1 African-American owned employer by Black Enterprise Magazine in May 2007.
5) handyDART.info quote:
"Disabled Chicago commuters dominated the first half-hour of a Pace Suburban Bus Company board meeting calling MVTs service to the disabled slow, rude and unsafe."
TransLink's response:
Performance statistics show MVT provides service at a much higher level than the previous contractors in the Chicago area (under contract to the Pace Suburban Bus Company). In fact, MVT is currently providing service at an average on time performance level of 94%.
That being said, some commuters with disabilities in Chicago did voice concerns regarding changes that the Pace Suburban Bus Company had implemented when MVT began providing paratransit services under this specific contract. The transit agency chose to change its service delivery model after more than 20 years. These changes included splitting the service area into three zones. This added additional vehicle transfers for customers, which ultimately prompted the complaints.
6) handyDART.info quote:
A subcontractor of MVT in Washington DC retaliated against an employee for speaking out in a forum, making him "functionally unemployed."
TransLink's response:
MVT has several subcontractors in the Washington DC area. MVT is not responsible for a subcontractor's internal employment decision.
7) handyDART.info quote:
"MVT ran up a $.5 million operating deficit for Fresno's paratransit system in 2007."
TransLink's response:
After being awarded a paratransit contract in Fresno, California, an independent consultant hired by the City found that while MVT was meeting the contract requirements, the RFP used in the procurement process lacked specificity in many areas, including the budget.
The consultant determined that the previous contractor had misrepresented on time performance reporting for the contract. Simply put, MVT was required to provide more service than was originally projected to meet the expectations of the community. MVT worked through these issues to everyone's satisfaction, including the City staff and the passengers. On time performance was improved from 80% to 97.5%, and MVT worked extensively with the passenger community and operators to improve customer service, which resulted in substantial reduction in customer complaints.
8) handyDART.info quote:
"In New York, MVT and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) engaged in a strike that left their disabled clients stranded during the weeks leading up to Christmas last year. The ATU blamed MVT and other operators for refusing to bargain."
TransLink response:
This allegation is false. In fact, MVT was the only provider that continued paratransit services during this strike, and was honoured by the New York MTA because of the company's commitment to continue providing service to customers.
MVT is part of a collective union agreement that includes three other contractors in New York. If one provider's unionized employees decide to strike, it affects the entire group.
That being said, from day one, MVT made it very clear that the company had no intention of participating in the strike. On December 10, the first day of the strike, MVT had more than 80 drivers on the road, providing service on about 60 routes. Each day of the strike the number of drivers increased.
9) handyDART.info quote:
"The unsuccessful proponents will have been treated shabbily, the users will be let down and the employees will face a major labour dispute."
TransLink's response:
Regarding "the unsuccessful proponents will have been treated shabbily":
All proponents responded to the same RFP and were graded using the same predetermined criteria. In the end, no proponent scored as high with respect to Organizational Profile, Management Plan and Costs as MVT. MVT's alternate service model was only evaluated after they were deemed the preferred proponent in all three service areas.
Regarding "the users will be let down":
MVT has indicated that they will be hiring virtually all HandyDART employees that are interested in continuing their careers with them, subject to suitability interviews and background checks. The users can be assured that HandyDART services will continue to be delivered by skilled, dedicated employees who always have, and will continue to, put the interest of the clients first.
Regarding "the employees will face a major labour dispute"
No one can predict labour disputes, whether with existing service providers or new service providers. However, a review of MVT's union/management record reveals positive and constructive relationships that are lauded by all unions that deal with MVT.
10) handyDART.info quote:
"August 2008: TransLink's HandyDART service in Greater Vancouver is currently in a state of crisis."
TransLink's response:
September 2008: HandyDART service in Metro Vancouver is currently in transition as it moves to deliver a more efficient and customer-focused service that is seamless and integrated into the overall conventional transit system. This transition is in response to the overwhelming customer concerns heard in the Access Transit consultation process.
The Access Transit consultation process highlighted the following areas of improvement:
Program Model
- The eight service areas function largely as separate transit systems, resulting in duplication of effort. For example there are eight sets of staff performing application processing, customer follow-up, database management and other administrative functions.
- There is little integration between HandyDART and the conventional transit system, both at the policy and operational levels. These systems largely operate as two completely separate entities.
Service Delivery
- Operating hours, service levels, waiting times, and boarding procedures are inconsistent across the current eight service areas.
- The process for trip booking and registration can be frustrating and difficult. In particular, trips that cross service area boundaries are extremely challenging or impossible to book, and when available, often involve difficult and time-consuming transfers.
Customer Service
- There are concerns with complaint processes and the lack of a neutral third party to consider some complaints.
- Some HandyDART contractors also run social service programs and these programs may, to some degree, affect their booking priorities.
11) handyDART.info quote:
"There were a number of proposals made for each contract [click here ], but only two companies applied for all three areas, neither a current contractor. One of them was selected for all three areas: MVT Canadian, a subsidiary of MVT Transportation (MVT), a large American company [click here ]. TransLink's announcement indicated that a significant reason for this decision was MVT's intention to consolidate all three contract areas into one integrated operation [click here ]. "
TransLink's response:
TransLink encouraged the "existing service providers and their employees the opportunity to form new entities to deliver services within the new service areas starting January 2009. "
quote from "Access Transit - You Spoke, We Listened"
May 9, 200712) handyDART.info quote:
"TransLink did not disclose its preference for such consolidation to the proponents in the RFP process."
TransLink's response:
TransLink did not have a predetermined preference for any model. The RFP clearly outlined the measuring criteria for all potential proponents to consider.
"Criteria
a) Organization Profile: the experience, knowledge, and resources that a company/individual brings to the management of the custom transit service;
b) Management Plan: the specific plan for the operation of the custom transit service; and
c) Costs: the proposal costs required for the period of three (3) years (note: TransLink intends to assign less than 35% weight to costs).
18.4 The envelope system as identified in the cover page of this RFP will be used. Envelopes should be submitted as follows:
a) Envelope No. 1 - Organization Profile and Management Plan;
b) Envelope No. 2 - Costs;
c) Envelope No. 3 - Alternate Service Delivery Model and any associated costs (optional)."
TransLink evaluated all proposals using these criteria. MVT's three proposals individually scored highest in all three service areas. MVT's alternate service model was evaluated only after they were deemed the preferred proponent in all three service areas.
13) handyDART.info quote:
"Was MVT a good choice for the system and its users?"
TransLink's response:
TransLink evaluated all proposals using the same criteria outlined in the RFP. MVT's three proposals individually scored highest in all three service areas.
14) handyDART.info quote:
"Was selection of an undisclosed criterion fair and proper to all proponents?
TransLink's response:
TransLink weighted all proposals using the same predetermined criteria for Organizational Profile, Management Plan and Costs.
15) handyDART.info quote:
"Was this choice of proponents fair to HandyDART employees?"
TransLink's response:
TransLink made it very clear in the RFP that any successful proponent must have a staff mobilization plan that recognized the value of the current workforce. TransLink is confident that MVT's mobilization plan, like a number of other proponents' plans, does recognize the value of the current work
September 2, 2008
A TransLink manager's email suggests that some of the conclusions drawn by handyDART info from the facts and situation are "unsubstantiated or incorrect." handyDART info replied:
"Thank you very much for your feedback. I have made every effort to ensure that the information on the site is accurate. I would appreciate receiving details of any fact on the site that you (or TransLink) consider to be inaccurate. If there is any statement of fact that is incorrect or misleading, I would want to correct it and would be pleased to consider your input.
"I would also welcome any views you have on conclusions drawn on the site, and with your permission would be happy to publish them along with any other feedback you would like to submit for that purpose."
As of 24 hours later, no reply or further correspondence from TransLink has been received.