Here is part 1 of my CBC radio Wildrose open line show last week on executive bonuses.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Part Two: Ken Chapman on CBC Wildrose April 01, 2009
Here is part 2 of my CBC Radio open line on executive bonuses
Monday, March 30, 2009
Alberta's $2B Carbon Capture and Storage Project Receives Proposals
March 31, 2009 is the final day for Alberta companies to file details plans on what they would do to reduce CO2 emission if they were funded as part of the $2B Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) program of the Stelmach government.
This $B is an impressive financial commitment by 3.3 million Albertans into CCS technology. This is particularly impressive when you consider the U.S. was only investing $B and China was in for $6B for CCS technology and they are significantly bigger players than little ol' Alberta. Alberta is obviously serious about capturing and storing CO2 and this investment is a strong signal about the level of engagement from the province.
The CCS program was the only budget item that was NOT under reconsideration in the Alberta government's revisit of its budget with the economic meltdown that hit the world in September 2008. There was considerable private sector interest in the opportunity with over 50 initial indications of Expressions of Interest in the project. Over 20 proposals made it through the initial evaluation process and they were invited to submit details project plans by March 31, 2009.
Indications are that all 20+ proposals will make details submissions which will be evaluated by a committee of Deputy Ministers to whittle them down to between 3 to 5 accepted projects. What happens then is the proponents must actually develop and deliver on their proposals at their own expense. Once the projects are up and running and proven to reduce the CO2 as promised, only then will they get reimbursed from the $2B fund.
The Group of 20+ Proponents has been made public and I know of a number of project proponents and they are all proceeding very diligently on preparing their details submissions. That can only auger well for them, Alberta and our government’s efforts to reduce GHGs and deliver on it Climate Change policy. I hope there is a release of the Group of 20 who actually submit detailed project plans and a brief description of what they intent to do and how much they will reduce CO2 emissions.
This is all good news but there are some who are very suspicious about the effectiveness of CCS and say it is unproven technology. It is technology in progress for sure but it is far from unproven as the Weyburn CCS project has proven over the past number of years.
There is one persistent matter of confusion around the intent and outcomes of Alberta’s CCS efforts. The CCS project has been positioned as a solution to the CO2 emissions from the oil sands. It is not but that messaging still persists from some politicians and some government officials. The open pit mining of oil sands CO2 emissions will not be easily captured given the nature of the open pit mining process. However that process represents about 20% of overall oil sand development over time. Some 80% of total oil sands exploitation and almost all of future development with be using a drilling techniques, not open pit mining,
Drilling for oil sands is the future of the resource and most of the CO2 can be captured in those processes. The bitumen upgrading process also emits CO2 that and that can be captured too. That is all significant but the real payoffs for the Alberta CCS project will come from the reduced emissions from coal-fed electricity generation. Alberta uses a lot of coal to produce electricity and needs a great deal more electricity to keep pace with growth demands.
At a recent dinner meeting I had with the Premier I asked him about where the CO2 emission benefits would come from with the CCS project investment. He was quick to point out some benefits would be from oil sands development now and much more in the future. He noted the big payoff would be in coal based power generation.
The Premier had the facts right and the message clear but the impression left in the public and the media is Alberta is investing $2B in CO2 emission reductions from the oil sands. That mistake in messaging is going to cause more heat than light and increased mistrust over the intentions and actions of the GOA on delivering responsible oil sands development. We have had too much of that already so I hope the Premier and Ministers make it clear and transparent what the $2B CCS project is intending to do. I hope the clarity and transparency starts this week with some information on the 20+ project proposals that are applying for consideration for a share of the $2B of Alberta taxpayer money to reduce the Alberta carbon footprint.
As an Albertan I want to be proud of how we are developing the oil sands resources in a responsible and sustainable manner. I look forward to being proud of how we respond to CO2 emission reductions, still sustain growth and create green jobs in the process. $2B of investment in CCS is a great start.
This $B is an impressive financial commitment by 3.3 million Albertans into CCS technology. This is particularly impressive when you consider the U.S. was only investing $B and China was in for $6B for CCS technology and they are significantly bigger players than little ol' Alberta. Alberta is obviously serious about capturing and storing CO2 and this investment is a strong signal about the level of engagement from the province.
The CCS program was the only budget item that was NOT under reconsideration in the Alberta government's revisit of its budget with the economic meltdown that hit the world in September 2008. There was considerable private sector interest in the opportunity with over 50 initial indications of Expressions of Interest in the project. Over 20 proposals made it through the initial evaluation process and they were invited to submit details project plans by March 31, 2009.
Indications are that all 20+ proposals will make details submissions which will be evaluated by a committee of Deputy Ministers to whittle them down to between 3 to 5 accepted projects. What happens then is the proponents must actually develop and deliver on their proposals at their own expense. Once the projects are up and running and proven to reduce the CO2 as promised, only then will they get reimbursed from the $2B fund.
The Group of 20+ Proponents has been made public and I know of a number of project proponents and they are all proceeding very diligently on preparing their details submissions. That can only auger well for them, Alberta and our government’s efforts to reduce GHGs and deliver on it Climate Change policy. I hope there is a release of the Group of 20 who actually submit detailed project plans and a brief description of what they intent to do and how much they will reduce CO2 emissions.
This is all good news but there are some who are very suspicious about the effectiveness of CCS and say it is unproven technology. It is technology in progress for sure but it is far from unproven as the Weyburn CCS project has proven over the past number of years.
There is one persistent matter of confusion around the intent and outcomes of Alberta’s CCS efforts. The CCS project has been positioned as a solution to the CO2 emissions from the oil sands. It is not but that messaging still persists from some politicians and some government officials. The open pit mining of oil sands CO2 emissions will not be easily captured given the nature of the open pit mining process. However that process represents about 20% of overall oil sand development over time. Some 80% of total oil sands exploitation and almost all of future development with be using a drilling techniques, not open pit mining,
Drilling for oil sands is the future of the resource and most of the CO2 can be captured in those processes. The bitumen upgrading process also emits CO2 that and that can be captured too. That is all significant but the real payoffs for the Alberta CCS project will come from the reduced emissions from coal-fed electricity generation. Alberta uses a lot of coal to produce electricity and needs a great deal more electricity to keep pace with growth demands.
At a recent dinner meeting I had with the Premier I asked him about where the CO2 emission benefits would come from with the CCS project investment. He was quick to point out some benefits would be from oil sands development now and much more in the future. He noted the big payoff would be in coal based power generation.
The Premier had the facts right and the message clear but the impression left in the public and the media is Alberta is investing $2B in CO2 emission reductions from the oil sands. That mistake in messaging is going to cause more heat than light and increased mistrust over the intentions and actions of the GOA on delivering responsible oil sands development. We have had too much of that already so I hope the Premier and Ministers make it clear and transparent what the $2B CCS project is intending to do. I hope the clarity and transparency starts this week with some information on the 20+ project proposals that are applying for consideration for a share of the $2B of Alberta taxpayer money to reduce the Alberta carbon footprint.
As an Albertan I want to be proud of how we are developing the oil sands resources in a responsible and sustainable manner. I look forward to being proud of how we respond to CO2 emission reductions, still sustain growth and create green jobs in the process. $2B of investment in CCS is a great start.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Does Calgary West Harken to Harper's Downfall?
March 30 UPDATE: Just spoke with Randy Dawson and contrary to prior information, he confirms that he is not involved in any way or with any candidate in the Federal Conservative Calgary West nomination process. He says he only gets involved in his own constituency and that is not Calgary West. I have revised this blog post to reflect that reality.The recent results of the Conservative Party AGM in Calgary West are very interesting. With 27 of 30 new board members supporting challenger Donna Kennedy Glans, this means incumbent MP Rob Anders is in serious trouble in Calgary West.
That is fascinating example of constituency politics but the implications go much deeper, right into Harper’s hope for continuing party leadership and potential to stay as Prime Minister. But more on that in a minute.
In an attempt to protect incumbents the Harper Party recently imposed new rules that required a 2/3 vote of constituency members to call for a nomination contest. That means most ridings will preserve the status quo for the protected incumbents – and representative democracy continues to erode. But not so in Calgary West! The new board election resulted in the ousting Ander’s loyalists and that pretty much guarantees that the incumbent Anders will face a nomination race.
So presuming a nomination battle in Calgary West, what might happen? Looks at first glance like a race between Anders and Donna Kennedy Glans.
That is fascinating example of constituency politics but the implications go much deeper, right into Harper’s hope for continuing party leadership and potential to stay as Prime Minister. But more on that in a minute.
In an attempt to protect incumbents the Harper Party recently imposed new rules that required a 2/3 vote of constituency members to call for a nomination contest. That means most ridings will preserve the status quo for the protected incumbents – and representative democracy continues to erode. But not so in Calgary West! The new board election resulted in the ousting Ander’s loyalists and that pretty much guarantees that the incumbent Anders will face a nomination race.
So presuming a nomination battle in Calgary West, what might happen? Looks at first glance like a race between Anders and Donna Kennedy Glans.
Anders is the choice of the rabid old-guard Reformers and has tried to frame Glans as a Liberal in his phony fending off of her challenge. So with all this positioning of the players, let’s play political scenario!
Anders is a formidable campaigner and the new rules favour the incumbent. Glans’ takeover of the Calgary West constituency board shows she too is a formidable campaigner. More to the point she has proven that she can attract new people to the party who will also show up to vote for a change.
The other dynamic at play is the disenchantment of the Reform base with Harper’s abandoning of their political principles for his own purposes, namely personal political power. Harper’s Liberal-like pandering to Quebec with money and federal largess was the very stuff that started the Reform Party in the first place – and it did not work in the last election. Now the Harper stimulus policy is again way too Liberal-like for the hard-core Reformer/Alliance conservatives. They, after all, are the ones who actually brought Harper to the dance in the first place.
This has plenty of implications for Harper’s survival as the conservative leader but what does it have to do with Ander’s candidacy! Potentially plenty! I don’t know if the rabid Reform base stayed home from the Calgary West AGM or if they were complacent. Perhaps they just did not see Glans coming, along with 600 other party folk, who were mostly intent on electing a new board. Both ways, they obviously did not show up in sufficient numbers to support Anders. The end result is that the Anders Reformers have lost control of the Calgary West constituency. Now what!
Will the rabid Reformers decide to stay home on the inevitable vote for a Calgary West nomination meeting? And will the nomination itself throw Anders under the bus as a way to send an early warning sign to Stephen Harper? Or will they “catch on” to the consequences of passivity and return to kill a nomination vote and thereby ensure that Anders survives as a symbol they still support the Harper leadership? I’m seeing the former reaction as more likely from old Reformers who have become more disenchanted with Harper’s leadership.
So where will the Calgary west battle lines be drawn? Will it be between the Reform/Alliance Anders types versus the Progressive Conservatives? Could it be between Anders’ Reformers and the Kennedy Glans Progressive Conservatives as it seems at present? What if another candidate enters the nomination process from Progressive Conbservative or the Reform side of the Federal Conservative Party? What if the Reformers stay home and the battle is between two Progressive Conservative candidates? What will that say about Harper’s presumptive Alberta stronghold and his political stranglehold in Calgary?
Remember in the last provincial election, Morton Reformers and Dinning Progressive Conservatives saw both of them rejected and Stelmach win the PC Party leadership. Calgary then saw Stelmach win a decisive election victory, much to their amazement. What’s more there were five Liberals elected in Calgary – and only three from Redmonton - in the last provincial election. The Calgary political climate seems to be changing, maybe not as dramatically as the planet's climate is changing but who knows.
I think the Calgary West Conservative Party AGM results have to be seen as some serious writing on the wall for Harper and his leadership. It is going to be a bell weather constituency for Harper’s future, even before the election, and especially if it chooses to have a nomination meeting in the near future.
Harper has ignored his base and they know it and they are not amused. He has also taken Alberta for granted for much too long. His best times are behind him and his style of leadership and his penchant for political tactics over good governing are “talents” that are no longer valued by the voters. His bullying and misleading instead of leading has worn thin. It is becoming more and more obvious that Harper is not what Canada needs, especially as we face enormous and mounting economic, environmental and social challenges all over the county.
It will take some time for Harper to exit, but by the time the next election rolls around, I think Canadians will just want to butter Harper because he is toast - and stale toast at that.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Is Alberta's Not-For-Profit Voluntary Sector Doomed?
The not-for-profit (NFP) voluntary sector in Alberta faced some challenging and changing financial times in 2008 but nothing like they are likely to face in 2009.
NOT-FOR-PROFITS REVENUES DOWN BUT DEMANDS ARE UP:
A recent survey comparing 2007 and 2008 NFP revenue sources and program demands has some interesting and disturbing trends, especially if we project into the emerging recession reality of 2009.
In 2008 51% of the sector sustained the same level of donor support but that is definitely not the 2009 expectation. Calgary and Edmonton have the highest expectations of support retraction and are likely to face the largest growth in social service demands in this recession.
There is a lower expectation of government contracts, a major source of some service agency revenues. These are likely to be reduced as the province deals with its own declining revenues from resources and taxes. That means the NFP sector will seriously suffer further decline as this semi-substitute for core funding dries up for many of them.
The NFP community based voluntary sector is responding with 57% of them hoping for new funding sources in 2009 – Good luck! Others (53%) think they can squeeze the nickel even more to meet the continuing and growing shortfalls – Good luck! In the 30% range is a group of agencies who hope to use a combination of reduced staffing, program or shared services to cover the gap. Doing even more with less in an already seriously stretched sector is potentially dangerous. This is particularly true for those social service agencies who are under staffed and dealing with vulnerable clients like kids-at-risk, seniors and the disabled. People are going to suffer and get hurt.
How is it possible to meet increasing demands with declining resources? The impact of the recession shows that the NFP social services sector believes that demands for its services will increase over 70% in 2009. Estimates show that health service demands on the sector are going to be up over 50% so how does staffing stretching and program cuts make any sense? This is a recipe for disaster and burnout in this vital social services sector.
If government was smart and strategic they would realize this NFP community based voluntary service sector is the best and most effective program provider. It is also a prime source for fiscal leverage to meet most of the local social pressures being caused by the recession. They should be adding fiscal and other resources into these NFP community-based volunteer supported local agencies in times of recession. That is the best way to ensure local needs have responsive and reliable program design and competent agencies with the capacity to meet the increased local demands.
VOLUNTEERS ARE ADAPTABLE & ACCOUNTABLE BUT NEED FUNDING AND FLEXIBILITY:
There is a catch to achieving this that goes beyond more money. Volunteers are not easily controllable, particularly from the top down. The sector is prone to caring, resourcefulness, innovation and adaptability, especially if they are encouraged and enabled. To be most effective this sector must be freed up to use those strengths, wisdom and professional talents to the best of their abilities. They ought not be burdened with fiscal fears, administrivia and even intimidation as happens in some cases these days.
Unfortunately we see an emerging governing philosophy that is increasingly driven by dollar tracking accountability measures and a hardening of the auditors approach. A focus on effective outcomes for people needing services gets lost in this kind of narrow accountability culture.
We have evolved from the days of debt and deficit slaying into a fiscal accountability model that seeks to know how to track the cost of everything. In the process the system tends to ignore the real value and any meaningful evaluation of program service outcomes for citizens. Those in need also become victims in this new narrow accountability culture.
The community based social services sector has proven that it can deliver good results. They do not always fit nicely into prescribed and pro forma program accountability models that are designed mostly to make auditors happy but not necessarily serve the clients or the community. We need a balance but I fear we are not headed in that direction and the policy pendulum is swinging and shifting...perhaps too far.
To make matters worse, the individual agency volunteers, those folks with the heart, energy and courage to deal directly with addressing local social issues and pressures are facing burnout, policy backtracking and the harmful effects of funding shortfalls. My speculation is that the pending GOA budget constraints are going to cause the dismantling of many of the community based volunteer agencies as they just give up and close their doors. Those that survive will see fundamental changes in their roles and relationships with government and with clients.
I am speculating but I would not be surprised to see a new GOA fiscal, command and control approach, institutionalized within government, thereby causing the demise or forced amalgamation of a bunch of NFP volunteer community-based service provider agencies. That may not be a totally bad thing so long as we do not lessen the overall capacity of locally based not-for-profits to serve their communities needs effectively.
GOVERNMENT APPOINTED BOARDS ARE CHANGING TOO:
I suggest we may even see big changes and the possible dismantling of some of the government appointed Agencies, Boards and Commissions (AB&Cs). Because some of them are no longer needed while others are ineffective and should just go. My concern is, as a consequence of some shortcomings in some AB&Cs, especially in the social services sector, that may hasten the end of many community-based volunteer supported NFP service provider agencies. If this happens it will be politically justified in the name of fiscal efficiency and auditor-type accountability demands. Such justifications will discount any necessity for improved program performance, service delivery systems and enhanced client outcomes due to the recession.
For example, remember the Calgary Health Authority governing board? It was consistently out of control, over budget and demanding perpetual bail outs from the province. Instead of just changing the Calgary Health Authority the GOA dumped and disbanded all of the local health authorities across the entire province and put in a single Super Board to run things.
I personally think that is a good precedent to follow in terms of some other regional governing board structures like those in Children’s Services and Person With Developmental Disabilities. This is because they, like the old health authorities, have delegated authority, power and influence, but they seem to be more of a buffer that protects the government from the realities of the rabble rather than being locally astute and effective policy advisers to Ministers and departments.
There has been a thorough and independent review of Alberta's system of governance covering all of the appointed AB&Cs. There are changes coming in their governance structures as well with a new Bill 32 that has been recently tabled in the Alberta legislature. Since these AB&Cs spend about half of the annual provincial budget and there is a need to cut costs, I expect their will also be fiscal changes imposed on the AB&Cs in April 7th Budget too. I anticipate the coming provincial budget will also require more policy alignment of the AB&Cs with more fiscal and program delivery transparency, accountability too. All worthy endeavours for fiscal efficiency but that should not trump program and policy effectiveness. We need both.
I also expect there will be more fiscal pressures put on the NFP community-based voluntary sector for the same reasons. There will be pressures for agency consolidation and even elimination in some cases. There are about 19,000 registered NFP groups in Alberta engaged in a wide range of activities. In the end, I'm betting there will be fewer of these community-based volunteer not for-profit groups in the province by the end of 2009.
The end result will also see more centralized funding approvals with more program design and delivery decisions being made in the provincial bureaucracy level. Those functions will likely be brought back into the direct control of provincial government departments and become even more rigid and rule bound than before. This will be politically justified as part of the journey towards more fiscal prudence and accountability for taxpayer dollars. My guess is many social program outcomes and effectiveness will suffer along with the vulnerable Albertans who depend on those services.
MLAs WILL BE LOBBYISTS FOR FUNDING LOCAL NEEDS:
These changes will put the local MLAs in the direct line of fire. They will be expected to personally get the government support needed and to get things done in their local constituencies and communities. They will have too know much more, and in more detail, about the local social needs, trends, implications and consequences as the recession impacts grow and deepen. They will have to be more activist, engaged and representative of their constituencies to the government and not from the government.
MLAs will have to become the overt and activist champions within the government to get the provincial resources needed to address the local social needs of their constituencies. Bottom line, political success will be measured in how well MLAs deliver the government resources needed to resolve the various concerns of their constituents. The competition amongst MLAs for limited and declining provincial resources will be fierce. I'm betting that caucus and committee meetings will be more volatile and differences will be more personal amongst politicians.
THE LOBBYIST ACT WILL ENABLE MORE CITIZEN ACTIVISM
The Lobbyist Act is scheduled to be finally proclaimed in November and the regulations are to come into effect then too. It will set the rules of the game for the NFP voluntary sector to pressure their MLAs to better understand, deliver and to satisfy local needs. I think the Lobbyist Act will not inoculate the local MLA and Ministers from feeling some profound political and public policy pressures coming from local citizens and community interests groups. I think The Lobbyist Act will actually enable and embolden more local citizens and groups to be more aware, engaged, aggressive and politically overt in lobbying techniques to achieve the desired ends of their communities.
If my speculations are right, we can only hope any new centralized public policy decisions review processes will be based on sound principles and not just by politics-as-usual depending on what "big wheel" has the most squeak, influence and access to power.
NOT-FOR-PROFITS REVENUES DOWN BUT DEMANDS ARE UP:
A recent survey comparing 2007 and 2008 NFP revenue sources and program demands has some interesting and disturbing trends, especially if we project into the emerging recession reality of 2009.
In 2008 51% of the sector sustained the same level of donor support but that is definitely not the 2009 expectation. Calgary and Edmonton have the highest expectations of support retraction and are likely to face the largest growth in social service demands in this recession.
There is a lower expectation of government contracts, a major source of some service agency revenues. These are likely to be reduced as the province deals with its own declining revenues from resources and taxes. That means the NFP sector will seriously suffer further decline as this semi-substitute for core funding dries up for many of them.
The NFP community based voluntary sector is responding with 57% of them hoping for new funding sources in 2009 – Good luck! Others (53%) think they can squeeze the nickel even more to meet the continuing and growing shortfalls – Good luck! In the 30% range is a group of agencies who hope to use a combination of reduced staffing, program or shared services to cover the gap. Doing even more with less in an already seriously stretched sector is potentially dangerous. This is particularly true for those social service agencies who are under staffed and dealing with vulnerable clients like kids-at-risk, seniors and the disabled. People are going to suffer and get hurt.
How is it possible to meet increasing demands with declining resources? The impact of the recession shows that the NFP social services sector believes that demands for its services will increase over 70% in 2009. Estimates show that health service demands on the sector are going to be up over 50% so how does staffing stretching and program cuts make any sense? This is a recipe for disaster and burnout in this vital social services sector.
If government was smart and strategic they would realize this NFP community based voluntary service sector is the best and most effective program provider. It is also a prime source for fiscal leverage to meet most of the local social pressures being caused by the recession. They should be adding fiscal and other resources into these NFP community-based volunteer supported local agencies in times of recession. That is the best way to ensure local needs have responsive and reliable program design and competent agencies with the capacity to meet the increased local demands.
VOLUNTEERS ARE ADAPTABLE & ACCOUNTABLE BUT NEED FUNDING AND FLEXIBILITY:
There is a catch to achieving this that goes beyond more money. Volunteers are not easily controllable, particularly from the top down. The sector is prone to caring, resourcefulness, innovation and adaptability, especially if they are encouraged and enabled. To be most effective this sector must be freed up to use those strengths, wisdom and professional talents to the best of their abilities. They ought not be burdened with fiscal fears, administrivia and even intimidation as happens in some cases these days.
Unfortunately we see an emerging governing philosophy that is increasingly driven by dollar tracking accountability measures and a hardening of the auditors approach. A focus on effective outcomes for people needing services gets lost in this kind of narrow accountability culture.
We have evolved from the days of debt and deficit slaying into a fiscal accountability model that seeks to know how to track the cost of everything. In the process the system tends to ignore the real value and any meaningful evaluation of program service outcomes for citizens. Those in need also become victims in this new narrow accountability culture.
The community based social services sector has proven that it can deliver good results. They do not always fit nicely into prescribed and pro forma program accountability models that are designed mostly to make auditors happy but not necessarily serve the clients or the community. We need a balance but I fear we are not headed in that direction and the policy pendulum is swinging and shifting...perhaps too far.
To make matters worse, the individual agency volunteers, those folks with the heart, energy and courage to deal directly with addressing local social issues and pressures are facing burnout, policy backtracking and the harmful effects of funding shortfalls. My speculation is that the pending GOA budget constraints are going to cause the dismantling of many of the community based volunteer agencies as they just give up and close their doors. Those that survive will see fundamental changes in their roles and relationships with government and with clients.
I am speculating but I would not be surprised to see a new GOA fiscal, command and control approach, institutionalized within government, thereby causing the demise or forced amalgamation of a bunch of NFP volunteer community-based service provider agencies. That may not be a totally bad thing so long as we do not lessen the overall capacity of locally based not-for-profits to serve their communities needs effectively.
GOVERNMENT APPOINTED BOARDS ARE CHANGING TOO:
I suggest we may even see big changes and the possible dismantling of some of the government appointed Agencies, Boards and Commissions (AB&Cs). Because some of them are no longer needed while others are ineffective and should just go. My concern is, as a consequence of some shortcomings in some AB&Cs, especially in the social services sector, that may hasten the end of many community-based volunteer supported NFP service provider agencies. If this happens it will be politically justified in the name of fiscal efficiency and auditor-type accountability demands. Such justifications will discount any necessity for improved program performance, service delivery systems and enhanced client outcomes due to the recession.
For example, remember the Calgary Health Authority governing board? It was consistently out of control, over budget and demanding perpetual bail outs from the province. Instead of just changing the Calgary Health Authority the GOA dumped and disbanded all of the local health authorities across the entire province and put in a single Super Board to run things.
I personally think that is a good precedent to follow in terms of some other regional governing board structures like those in Children’s Services and Person With Developmental Disabilities. This is because they, like the old health authorities, have delegated authority, power and influence, but they seem to be more of a buffer that protects the government from the realities of the rabble rather than being locally astute and effective policy advisers to Ministers and departments.
There has been a thorough and independent review of Alberta's system of governance covering all of the appointed AB&Cs. There are changes coming in their governance structures as well with a new Bill 32 that has been recently tabled in the Alberta legislature. Since these AB&Cs spend about half of the annual provincial budget and there is a need to cut costs, I expect their will also be fiscal changes imposed on the AB&Cs in April 7th Budget too. I anticipate the coming provincial budget will also require more policy alignment of the AB&Cs with more fiscal and program delivery transparency, accountability too. All worthy endeavours for fiscal efficiency but that should not trump program and policy effectiveness. We need both.
I also expect there will be more fiscal pressures put on the NFP community-based voluntary sector for the same reasons. There will be pressures for agency consolidation and even elimination in some cases. There are about 19,000 registered NFP groups in Alberta engaged in a wide range of activities. In the end, I'm betting there will be fewer of these community-based volunteer not for-profit groups in the province by the end of 2009.
The end result will also see more centralized funding approvals with more program design and delivery decisions being made in the provincial bureaucracy level. Those functions will likely be brought back into the direct control of provincial government departments and become even more rigid and rule bound than before. This will be politically justified as part of the journey towards more fiscal prudence and accountability for taxpayer dollars. My guess is many social program outcomes and effectiveness will suffer along with the vulnerable Albertans who depend on those services.
MLAs WILL BE LOBBYISTS FOR FUNDING LOCAL NEEDS:
These changes will put the local MLAs in the direct line of fire. They will be expected to personally get the government support needed and to get things done in their local constituencies and communities. They will have too know much more, and in more detail, about the local social needs, trends, implications and consequences as the recession impacts grow and deepen. They will have to be more activist, engaged and representative of their constituencies to the government and not from the government.
MLAs will have to become the overt and activist champions within the government to get the provincial resources needed to address the local social needs of their constituencies. Bottom line, political success will be measured in how well MLAs deliver the government resources needed to resolve the various concerns of their constituents. The competition amongst MLAs for limited and declining provincial resources will be fierce. I'm betting that caucus and committee meetings will be more volatile and differences will be more personal amongst politicians.
THE LOBBYIST ACT WILL ENABLE MORE CITIZEN ACTIVISM
The Lobbyist Act is scheduled to be finally proclaimed in November and the regulations are to come into effect then too. It will set the rules of the game for the NFP voluntary sector to pressure their MLAs to better understand, deliver and to satisfy local needs. I think the Lobbyist Act will not inoculate the local MLA and Ministers from feeling some profound political and public policy pressures coming from local citizens and community interests groups. I think The Lobbyist Act will actually enable and embolden more local citizens and groups to be more aware, engaged, aggressive and politically overt in lobbying techniques to achieve the desired ends of their communities.
If my speculations are right, we can only hope any new centralized public policy decisions review processes will be based on sound principles and not just by politics-as-usual depending on what "big wheel" has the most squeak, influence and access to power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)