Got an email today from a person I know and respect and presume is working on the Dinning campaign. She wanted to clarify the disclosure commitment from Dinning and noting the punctuation error in the Globe piece I quoted. The Globe quote on Dinning I referenced was:
"He has said his campaign will voluntarily follow provincial election rules, and disclose all donors after the election. Mr. Dinning's campaign also will not accept anonymous donations or money from any individual or corporation that totals more than $30,000."
The email clarification stated:
"Hey, cute interpretation of the reporter’s punctuation or lack thereof. For the record, it’s no donations over 30K. And no anonymous donations. So we’ll publish your name even if you keep that penny and only give $29,999.99."
If one inserted a COMMA in the Globe quote after the word donations you get an entirely different meaning from the Globe story and the one that I expect Dinning intended. The second sentence in the quote would then read "Mr. Dinning's campaign also will not accept anonymous donations, or money from any individual or corporation that totals more than $30,000."
Reminds me of the great example that I like to use from time to time, mostly to make a communications point. Do you agree with the statment "A woman without her man is nothing." Not many agree and no women in my experience . Now do you agree with the statement "A woman: without her man is nothing." Almost unanimous female agreement in my experience. Minor punctuation change big meaning shift.
Fun eh? Dangerous too! Just ask any political speech writer.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Nondisclosure is a Betrayal of the Public's Trust
I have just had my fears about who is behind the Ted Morton Campaign confirmed. Today's Globe and Mail story has the telling quote that donor information is just too strategic to let people know about. Here is what a Morton campaign organizer is reported to have said:
“It's a strategic thing. That gives too much away,” Sam Armstrong, a campaign organizer for leadership hopeful Ted Morton, explained when asked why his camp has decided that it won't disclose names of contributors.
Obviously we will not get to know the Morton donors and ignorance is not bliss...especially in this case. My instincts tell me he is afraid to reveal his donors because they are an array of extremists groups that would scare us away from him. Remember how "scary" Harper was in the 2004 election when the religious far right was visible and vocal in supporting him? They kept quiet in the 2006 election and Harper was less scary. Harper became the temporary PM but his revival of the CPC anti social agenda and recent mean spriited grant cutting is starting to scare us all over again.
To be fair, Morton is not the only concern. I think we citizens have cause for concern about every candidate and the facts about their campaign contributors. Since there are no rules it is a chance for some candidates to raise the ethical bar of disclosure and challange the others to do the same.
We have to wonder if Dinning has too much money ($3m estimated and not denied) and is it collected from a few powerful forces so that he can effectively buy the leadership. Here is what the G&M says about Dinning's donors:
"He has said his campaign will voluntarily follow provincial election rules, and disclose all donors after the election. Mr. Dinning's campaign also will not accept anonymous donations or money from any individual or corporation that totals more than $30,000."
That $30K plus level of anonymity does not reassure me. So for a kicker of $29,999.99 I can stay off the radar screen. Can my kids and numbered companies under my control do the same thing? Too Volpe-esque for my liking. Just because you can do something clever to support Jim does not mean you ought to do it. That reliance on elites is the nature of the uncertainty about how Dinning will govern - for the benefit of the anonymous elites or the rest of us schmucks.
Oberg is already over the ethical line - just not the legal line - with his cozy "long term relationship" with certain trade union bosses and their top down membership "giveaway" tactics. That says everything we need to know about how he will govern. Top down, special deals for friends of long term relationships and what ever means that are available but only to the ends that Oberg personally identifies. Kind of like George W Bush don't you think? I can't help but wonder who will be the "Alberta Haliburton" - overcharging us for infrastructure projects with an exclusive inside "bidding" track in an Oberg government.
Norris' disclosure underscored fears of is he his "own" man or is he an "owned" by the 100 or so "clients" cum donors who are "buying" Norris' "consulting services." Who will he be "working for" as Premier - us or them? We citizens should not have to be asking ourselves that question! Again doing something indirectly you can't do directly shows a penchant for situational ethics - a real shortcoming and brings into question about how he would govern.
Others are very late into the game like Stelmach and Hancock because they played by the rules and timing that Premier Klein set out. That respect for the Party and the Klein leadership has hurt them and now they have to play catch up in the campaign fund raising function. That is no excuse however for not disclosing donors!
Others are either vanity candidates or issues based with no intention of winning just positioning or proselytizing. Who supports them dollar-wise is of less interest but the duty to disclosure demands are still the same.
Disclosure is more than information. It goes to the very character of the candidates. I think those who deny to disclose, display disrespect for the duty to disclose by being obtuse about it or those who are simply too naive about the consequences all need to feared as leadership hopefuls.
Nondisclosue is not justified as just clever politics and acceptable because it is simply playing by the nonexistant "rules." It is a betrayal of the public's trust and ought to be enough to disqualify anyone as a serious candidate worthy of such high office.
“It's a strategic thing. That gives too much away,” Sam Armstrong, a campaign organizer for leadership hopeful Ted Morton, explained when asked why his camp has decided that it won't disclose names of contributors.
Obviously we will not get to know the Morton donors and ignorance is not bliss...especially in this case. My instincts tell me he is afraid to reveal his donors because they are an array of extremists groups that would scare us away from him. Remember how "scary" Harper was in the 2004 election when the religious far right was visible and vocal in supporting him? They kept quiet in the 2006 election and Harper was less scary. Harper became the temporary PM but his revival of the CPC anti social agenda and recent mean spriited grant cutting is starting to scare us all over again.
To be fair, Morton is not the only concern. I think we citizens have cause for concern about every candidate and the facts about their campaign contributors. Since there are no rules it is a chance for some candidates to raise the ethical bar of disclosure and challange the others to do the same.
We have to wonder if Dinning has too much money ($3m estimated and not denied) and is it collected from a few powerful forces so that he can effectively buy the leadership. Here is what the G&M says about Dinning's donors:
"He has said his campaign will voluntarily follow provincial election rules, and disclose all donors after the election. Mr. Dinning's campaign also will not accept anonymous donations or money from any individual or corporation that totals more than $30,000."
That $30K plus level of anonymity does not reassure me. So for a kicker of $29,999.99 I can stay off the radar screen. Can my kids and numbered companies under my control do the same thing? Too Volpe-esque for my liking. Just because you can do something clever to support Jim does not mean you ought to do it. That reliance on elites is the nature of the uncertainty about how Dinning will govern - for the benefit of the anonymous elites or the rest of us schmucks.
Oberg is already over the ethical line - just not the legal line - with his cozy "long term relationship" with certain trade union bosses and their top down membership "giveaway" tactics. That says everything we need to know about how he will govern. Top down, special deals for friends of long term relationships and what ever means that are available but only to the ends that Oberg personally identifies. Kind of like George W Bush don't you think? I can't help but wonder who will be the "Alberta Haliburton" - overcharging us for infrastructure projects with an exclusive inside "bidding" track in an Oberg government.
Norris' disclosure underscored fears of is he his "own" man or is he an "owned" by the 100 or so "clients" cum donors who are "buying" Norris' "consulting services." Who will he be "working for" as Premier - us or them? We citizens should not have to be asking ourselves that question! Again doing something indirectly you can't do directly shows a penchant for situational ethics - a real shortcoming and brings into question about how he would govern.
Others are very late into the game like Stelmach and Hancock because they played by the rules and timing that Premier Klein set out. That respect for the Party and the Klein leadership has hurt them and now they have to play catch up in the campaign fund raising function. That is no excuse however for not disclosing donors!
Others are either vanity candidates or issues based with no intention of winning just positioning or proselytizing. Who supports them dollar-wise is of less interest but the duty to disclosure demands are still the same.
Disclosure is more than information. It goes to the very character of the candidates. I think those who deny to disclose, display disrespect for the duty to disclose by being obtuse about it or those who are simply too naive about the consequences all need to feared as leadership hopefuls.
Nondisclosue is not justified as just clever politics and acceptable because it is simply playing by the nonexistant "rules." It is a betrayal of the public's trust and ought to be enough to disqualify anyone as a serious candidate worthy of such high office.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Thank You - Arts on the Avenue
This is Thanksgiving so you will not be surprised that you will not be reading my usual politically oriented post.
We Albertans live abundant lives, not all of us but that is true for most of us. We have lots to be thankful for. Yesterday I had little time to reflect on Thanksgiving but I did on this Sunday morning. I have all of the ususal thoughts of giving thanks but yesterday was special and filled me with feelings of hope and optimism - as well as for giving thanks.
Yesterday in a small part of Edmonton along 118 Ave (“The Ave”), bordering the north side of the city core, a minor miracle happened. A locally produced one day eclectic arts festival happened…Arts on the Avenue. It brought together dancers, painters actors, musicians and artisans to show their talents and to make a statement. That statement was about the rejuvenation of a community that has, euphemistically speaking; “seen better days.”
There is an abundance of Cultural Creatives that live in The Ave area. They were joined by other artists who have recently befriended The Ave and who also caught the spirit of the place - especially yesterday. They came from around the city with their friends and families and spent the day to enjoy, to perform, to participate and to celebrate. What they created was a connection amongst themselves and they reaffirmed the sense of community on The Ave. What they enabled, experienced and expressed was the creative power of art and culture to renew the sense of hope in a community.
I was there for the day as part of our work at Cambridge Strategies Inc. for the City of Edmonton on the revitalization of the 118 Ave from NAIT to Northlands. It felt so much like my experience in the early days of The Fringe…I was there too. I remember well the feeling in Old Strathcona and on Whyte Avenue at the time of Alberta’s 75th Anniversary celebrations. We enabled a few actors, on very short notice, to essentially perform audition pieces to small audiences. We knew then “we were really on to something.” That early effort quickly morphed into the Edmonton International Fringe Festival. That event grew and then morphed into a North American wide Fringe Festival movement that thrives today.
I felt that feeling that “we are really on to something” again yesterday at Arts on the Avenue. Yesterday was authentic and eclectic with a well produced and very professional line up of talent. In that way it was much more than the early Fringe days. It was genuine, energetic and unpretentious and just brimming with talent and potential. In that way it was totally aligned with the early Fringe Festival days.
Volunteers are tough to find in the overly committed and complex life styles we seem to live these days. But they came out of there homes yesterday and did all the Joe Jobs with a smile and got caught up in the sense of what was happening. That added to the rays of hope that the Arts on the Avenue brought to all those who worked on it so hard, and against such odds, to make this happen.
So on a day that started out cold and grey and drizzling, that evolved, emerging as a sunny crisp fall afternoon. It ended with a clear night sky and a full moon. Everyone gathered around a huge bon fire to warm the body. They were good people working together and accomplishing much that warmed the heart. To warm the soul they enjoyed an outdoor concert by Captain Tractor, who merely had to walk across the neighbourhood park to perform.
There is meaning here. The people who made this event happen are tired today and there is still clean up and lots to do. But they know that yesterday was the start of something good. Something very positive happened yesterday on 118 Avenue. Something that augers well for the future of The Ave and the neighbouring communities as a place to work, live and raise a family. They too are “really on to something!” Thanks to the people of Arts on the Avenue for letting me be part of it.
We Albertans live abundant lives, not all of us but that is true for most of us. We have lots to be thankful for. Yesterday I had little time to reflect on Thanksgiving but I did on this Sunday morning. I have all of the ususal thoughts of giving thanks but yesterday was special and filled me with feelings of hope and optimism - as well as for giving thanks.
Yesterday in a small part of Edmonton along 118 Ave (“The Ave”), bordering the north side of the city core, a minor miracle happened. A locally produced one day eclectic arts festival happened…Arts on the Avenue. It brought together dancers, painters actors, musicians and artisans to show their talents and to make a statement. That statement was about the rejuvenation of a community that has, euphemistically speaking; “seen better days.”
There is an abundance of Cultural Creatives that live in The Ave area. They were joined by other artists who have recently befriended The Ave and who also caught the spirit of the place - especially yesterday. They came from around the city with their friends and families and spent the day to enjoy, to perform, to participate and to celebrate. What they created was a connection amongst themselves and they reaffirmed the sense of community on The Ave. What they enabled, experienced and expressed was the creative power of art and culture to renew the sense of hope in a community.
I was there for the day as part of our work at Cambridge Strategies Inc. for the City of Edmonton on the revitalization of the 118 Ave from NAIT to Northlands. It felt so much like my experience in the early days of The Fringe…I was there too. I remember well the feeling in Old Strathcona and on Whyte Avenue at the time of Alberta’s 75th Anniversary celebrations. We enabled a few actors, on very short notice, to essentially perform audition pieces to small audiences. We knew then “we were really on to something.” That early effort quickly morphed into the Edmonton International Fringe Festival. That event grew and then morphed into a North American wide Fringe Festival movement that thrives today.
I felt that feeling that “we are really on to something” again yesterday at Arts on the Avenue. Yesterday was authentic and eclectic with a well produced and very professional line up of talent. In that way it was much more than the early Fringe days. It was genuine, energetic and unpretentious and just brimming with talent and potential. In that way it was totally aligned with the early Fringe Festival days.
Volunteers are tough to find in the overly committed and complex life styles we seem to live these days. But they came out of there homes yesterday and did all the Joe Jobs with a smile and got caught up in the sense of what was happening. That added to the rays of hope that the Arts on the Avenue brought to all those who worked on it so hard, and against such odds, to make this happen.
So on a day that started out cold and grey and drizzling, that evolved, emerging as a sunny crisp fall afternoon. It ended with a clear night sky and a full moon. Everyone gathered around a huge bon fire to warm the body. They were good people working together and accomplishing much that warmed the heart. To warm the soul they enjoyed an outdoor concert by Captain Tractor, who merely had to walk across the neighbourhood park to perform.
There is meaning here. The people who made this event happen are tired today and there is still clean up and lots to do. But they know that yesterday was the start of something good. Something very positive happened yesterday on 118 Avenue. Something that augers well for the future of The Ave and the neighbouring communities as a place to work, live and raise a family. They too are “really on to something!” Thanks to the people of Arts on the Avenue for letting me be part of it.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Oberg's Style - Over Promise and Under Deliver
The recent editorial in the University of Calgary student newspaper The Gauntlet captures the essence of Oberg's unilateral power-based governance style. He is notorious - no pun intended - at over promising and under delivering. Be it resolving the teacher's strike, dealing with the pension issues, twinning hiway 63 to Fort Mc or the preemptive announcement of the misguided Veterinary School at the U of C. The list is virtually endless if you want to do the research.
Alberta has been sending students to Saskatchewan's Vet School for years, helping to keep it viable in part. If there was a new approach needed - why would we not help the U of S do it rather than use our arrogant Alberta bucks to build our own only to beat up on them? The crass personality politics of Dr. Oberg is the answer.
So the great quote from the Gauntlet that captures the governing character of Oberg is:
The original announcement for the vet school came in 2004, during a high-publicity press conference at the Calgary Zoo from then-learning minister Lyle Oberg. The announcement, like so many since, was accompanied by a pledge that funding would be committed so the faculty could open on time. Obviously, it didn't and it won't.
Why? Because there is no glory for a Minister like Oberg in collaboration or consulting colleagues. He made a big promise for the U of C school knowing he could not deliver because he lacked budget approval and the Priorities support from the government. More of the reasons why the Caucus canned him....now he thinks he could lead the same Caucus as their leader? That tells me he is delusional at best.
If he did win on the 1 person 1 vote model, my experience says he would be a brutal ideological dictator if he ever became Premier.
Alberta has been sending students to Saskatchewan's Vet School for years, helping to keep it viable in part. If there was a new approach needed - why would we not help the U of S do it rather than use our arrogant Alberta bucks to build our own only to beat up on them? The crass personality politics of Dr. Oberg is the answer.
So the great quote from the Gauntlet that captures the governing character of Oberg is:
The original announcement for the vet school came in 2004, during a high-publicity press conference at the Calgary Zoo from then-learning minister Lyle Oberg. The announcement, like so many since, was accompanied by a pledge that funding would be committed so the faculty could open on time. Obviously, it didn't and it won't.
Why? Because there is no glory for a Minister like Oberg in collaboration or consulting colleagues. He made a big promise for the U of C school knowing he could not deliver because he lacked budget approval and the Priorities support from the government. More of the reasons why the Caucus canned him....now he thinks he could lead the same Caucus as their leader? That tells me he is delusional at best.
If he did win on the 1 person 1 vote model, my experience says he would be a brutal ideological dictator if he ever became Premier.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Oberg "Sells" Himself
You gotta love Dr. Oberg’s view of democracy as captured in the cryptic comments of the “Benevolent Dictator” at Renewing the One Party State site. His posting says it all. “Dr. Oberg, it is one thing to lose and election it is another to lose your honour in the process.” The Edmonton Journal story headline captures the essence “Union Oberg backers buying memberships.”
The brain trust at the Alberta Building Trades Council has decided that as “Union Bosses for Oberg” they know best how their members should vote and are reported to be prepared to prepay for $10,000.00 of “free” PC party memberships for union members and have even hired staff to process the program. Gotta admire the efficiency of it all – don’t you?
What is the message here? Suspend your citizenship and do as you are told as a union member! “We a putting up the Five Bucks for you – and therefore you will vote Oberg.” What evidence supports the reports that the Union Boss is saying "Oberg…has been onside with the issues?” Do you think teachers and parents of students would agree?
Don’t ask why this top down directive to suspend independent thought and citizenship is happening. We are told why. The reason is clearly stated in the Journal story as because of someone’s “long standing relationship” with Dr. Oberg.
Who exactly is it that enjoys this “long standing relationship” with the good Doctor, and what is it based on - pray tell! What were the deals and the dealings that set up this “long standing relationship?” Ought we to be looking for “skeletons” as part of our questioning or is that too harsh?
Do the union bosses actually believe that individual members will do as they are told with a one person one vote secret ballot system? Are individual union members pleased that their funds are being spent in this way? Is it clear what benefits they will be getting if they play along in support of this “long standing relationship?”
Since we are selecting a Premier for the entire province as a consequence of this PC leadership campaign, is it unreasonable for the rest of us to ask what promises and preferences are being proffered to whom in exchange for what because of such an "investment" in the Oberg campaign?
I have no problem with groups getting organized to educate and engage members, networks and their spheres of influence and encouraging individual Albertans participation as citizens. What these “players” are doing however is nowhere close to passing the “sniff test” but it is within the financial “rules” of the game, such as they are.
So then it ought to be open to the rest of us to be free to inquire as to surrounding facts and get clarity on some details. We ought to feel free to pass some judgement about the motivation and appropriateness of this approach and its impact on an open and transparent democratic participation process (sic). Is there a "cost" if anyone steps out of line and does not pick up a "free" membership card? What is the consequence if someone steps over the line and openly supports someone other than the "anointed Oberg?"
Are we to surmise from this that we now know what Dr. Oberg’s wholesale price for access to him will be as Premier? Will this be the ante needed to get Oberg interest and engagement- the $10K range – or is that an early-bird special for this group only?
We Albertans need to think long and hard about this, especially the individual members of the various unions who make up the Alberta Building Trades Council. Do we want a PC Party leader and Premier of this province who is only interested in obeying the letter of the law and could give a damn about the spirit of it? Is that the kind society and leadership we want? If so, feel “free” to pick up your “free” membership and forget about the cost to your freedoms of thought, expression and perhaps even of association.
As Dave Hancock’s campaign slogan says, its Your Values, Your Alberta and Your Choice!
The brain trust at the Alberta Building Trades Council has decided that as “Union Bosses for Oberg” they know best how their members should vote and are reported to be prepared to prepay for $10,000.00 of “free” PC party memberships for union members and have even hired staff to process the program. Gotta admire the efficiency of it all – don’t you?
What is the message here? Suspend your citizenship and do as you are told as a union member! “We a putting up the Five Bucks for you – and therefore you will vote Oberg.” What evidence supports the reports that the Union Boss is saying "Oberg…has been onside with the issues?” Do you think teachers and parents of students would agree?
Don’t ask why this top down directive to suspend independent thought and citizenship is happening. We are told why. The reason is clearly stated in the Journal story as because of someone’s “long standing relationship” with Dr. Oberg.
Who exactly is it that enjoys this “long standing relationship” with the good Doctor, and what is it based on - pray tell! What were the deals and the dealings that set up this “long standing relationship?” Ought we to be looking for “skeletons” as part of our questioning or is that too harsh?
Do the union bosses actually believe that individual members will do as they are told with a one person one vote secret ballot system? Are individual union members pleased that their funds are being spent in this way? Is it clear what benefits they will be getting if they play along in support of this “long standing relationship?”
Since we are selecting a Premier for the entire province as a consequence of this PC leadership campaign, is it unreasonable for the rest of us to ask what promises and preferences are being proffered to whom in exchange for what because of such an "investment" in the Oberg campaign?
I have no problem with groups getting organized to educate and engage members, networks and their spheres of influence and encouraging individual Albertans participation as citizens. What these “players” are doing however is nowhere close to passing the “sniff test” but it is within the financial “rules” of the game, such as they are.
So then it ought to be open to the rest of us to be free to inquire as to surrounding facts and get clarity on some details. We ought to feel free to pass some judgement about the motivation and appropriateness of this approach and its impact on an open and transparent democratic participation process (sic). Is there a "cost" if anyone steps out of line and does not pick up a "free" membership card? What is the consequence if someone steps over the line and openly supports someone other than the "anointed Oberg?"
Are we to surmise from this that we now know what Dr. Oberg’s wholesale price for access to him will be as Premier? Will this be the ante needed to get Oberg interest and engagement- the $10K range – or is that an early-bird special for this group only?
We Albertans need to think long and hard about this, especially the individual members of the various unions who make up the Alberta Building Trades Council. Do we want a PC Party leader and Premier of this province who is only interested in obeying the letter of the law and could give a damn about the spirit of it? Is that the kind society and leadership we want? If so, feel “free” to pick up your “free” membership and forget about the cost to your freedoms of thought, expression and perhaps even of association.
As Dave Hancock’s campaign slogan says, its Your Values, Your Alberta and Your Choice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)