Ombudsman's Complaint (Ski Grooming)

From TriRudy (with editorial additions):

Jacques Bourbeau reported last winter how he was bringing a complaint before the NCC Ombudsman concerning XC grooming in Gatineau Park. He has now posted a detailed update at TriRudy. I have copied that below and included a few contextual additions myself.Jacques writes:

For those of you with long memories, I posted an entry on Tri-Rudy last winter, indicating I was going to file a complaint with the NCC Ombudsman regarding the poor grooming of cross-country ski trails in Gatineau Park. The posting touched a nerve, because I received dozens of e-mails from people who have been complaining to the NCC and are frustrated by the lack of response. At the time, I promised I would provide an update to my complaint. Given the ski season is now around the corner, I thought I would provide that update.

When I filed my complaint with the NCC Ombudsman, I included dozens of e-mails that have been sent to the NCC about poor grooming in the Park, to highlight the fact that I am not alone in my dis-satisfaction. Reading the complaints, some common themes soon become apparent. Poor grooming techniques, snowmobiles constantly running over groomed trails, the NCC’s handling of complaints, and inaccurate information about trail conditions. The Ombudsman was quite helpful, and took my complaint seriously. It took a few months, but she finally arranged a meeting between myself and 2 NCC staff members with responsibility for Gatineau Park. After the meeting, I cannot say I am encouraged that we will see any drastic changes in trail maintenance.

In presenting my case, I went through the problems with the grooming practices, the complaints that the NCC web site does not accurately portray the actual trail conditions, and that the NCC’s handling of complaints is inadequate.

Here is what I heard in response to my case. I was told that the sales of cross-country ski passes have been increasing year by year, and for the NCC, this is an important metric in measuring customer satisfaction. They have concluded that because people still buy passes, everything is relatively hunky dory.

They told me they have received numerous complaints (if my memory serves me correctly, it was somewhere north of 300), but they did not seem to be too concerned by this volume of complaints.

Editorial comment: I believe that the NCC are indeed concerned about the complaints. They held internal brainstorming sessions on how to better manage such waves of complaint and hired a consultant to explore improvements in their process.

I spent a great deal of time asking them what they do when they get a complaint. Do they assess it? If they think it raises a valid issue, do they pursue it with Demsis? And if they do pursue it, what do they do to ensure the problem is not repeated. I also asked who on their staff is monitoring Demsis’ performance, and what do they do when they find that performance lacking. I really didn’t get anywhere pursuing this line of questioning.

I didn’t get a lot of engagement when I raised specific problems. Overall, I got the sense they acknowledge that this is an issue they have to deal with. But I did not get the impression they think this is a serious problem.

I put forward the idea of establishing some kind of advisory committee of skiers, to provide on-going feedback to NCC staff about grooming issues. I also suggested some names of local people who have a good deal of knowledge of proper grooming techniques, who might be able to provide them with useful information. They did not rule this out, nor did they actively embrace these ideas.

They did talk a great deal about the need for better communication. I pointed out this would only be effective if they also worked to improve grooming in the Park. Otherwise, all they would be doing is better communicating the fact that on many days, the cross country ski trails are not in very good shape.

I would note that the NCC is holding 2 meetings in October, and have invited a cross-section of the cross-country ski community to discuss the winter trail program in Gatineau Park. I see this as a positive development, and hopefully the beginning of an honest dialogue between the NCC and the winter users of the Park.

Editorial comment: One of the meetings Jacques  refers to is an invitation by the NCC to several dozen cross country ski community leaders to “explore the possible creation of an on-going dialogue mechanism between all stakeholders associated with winter activities in the Park.” The NCC wants to be open and transparent and one supposes that this is a good faith effort to establish an ongoing communications with winter park users. The word “collaboration” also fit into their description. As Jacques points out, communications does not equal altering grooming, but talking is the right place to start. The second meeting Jacques notes is one the NCC is holding with hikers and their activities as relates to the Ecosystem Conservation Plan.  Jacques continues…

So here are the challenges I think we face. First, if you buy a season cross-country ski pass, the NCC believes you are happy with the current state of grooming in the Park. I think there are a number of us who don’t fit into that category, and it would be worthwhile to find out just how many, and communicate that fact to the NCC. So a web site will soon be set up. If you are buying a season’s pass, and are unhappy with the state of grooming in the Park, I would encourage you to visit the web site and add your name to the list. I think this would be the most effective rebuttal to the NCC’s argument. (And if anyone has any suggestions about the nature of this web-site, please contact me. I will be posting the web address, once it is on-line.)

The second issue is a bit more difficult to address. The problem, as I see it, is that we give our money to the NCC to gain access to the cross-country ski trails. The NCC in turn uses that money to hire a contractor to maintain the trails. When there are problems, it is the NCC that has the contractual and monetary relationship with Demsis, not the cross-country skier. So we have to rely on the NCC to deal with Demsis when there is a complaint. From what I have been able to gather, the NCC has simply abandoned that duty. I found little evidence that when it is presented with a valid complaint, the NCC acts as our advocate, and deals firmly with Demsis to ensure the problem is rectified. So how do we, as a cross-counry ski community, take back that economic leverage? If we complain to the NCC, and they don’t exert pressure on Demsis on our behalf, what avenues can we pursue to make sure Demsis actually improves its performance?

I don’t have a web site, so I don’t really have a venue to carry on a public discussion of these matters. For the moment, if you want to weigh in on this issue, or have suggestions, please e-mail me at [email protected]

I will provide further updates when warranted.

Thanks…..Jacques Bourbeau