The front page story in today's Edmonton Journal by Archie McLean on Lobbyist's contributions to political parties is the kind of journalism a fear we would lose with the demise of the traditional media. The story is just the kind of thing the Lobbyist Registry was supposed to bring forward. It is the kind of transparency and accountability such legislation intends to help regular citizens know and better understand how the machinery of politics, and yes even democracy, actually works in Alberta.
I have no issues with the story and I am not surprised by the sources or levels of the donations. I don't think that level of contribution is enough to buy any politician. But is does buy access. For example, big industry gets their phone calls returned from government, and even opposition parties. I expect Brian Mason of the NDP is quick to respond to big unions when they phone. Again I have no issues with that.
The startling fact is the concentration of donations to the current government and the picayune level of support for the Liberals and NDP. The Wildrose is pretty good at fundraising but will be secretive about the sources and amounts when it suits their political purposes...like the lack of disclosure of who paid for Danielle Smith's leadership campaign. Too bad we can't force that kind of disclosure under the Lobbyist Act. There are no rules running those gong shows that that private process inside political parties actually selects the small group of folks who could be Premier.
What is of concern is what is said and by whom for what ends when contributors come calling on politicians? Is it all done behind closed doors - or on the golf course? If there confidentiality for good reasons or secrecy pure political reasons? When that happens we get a sick system and at best casual corruption. I don't think any of that is actually happening in Alberta so don't misunderstand. It is like the MPs expenses being audited by the Auditor General.. Of course they should be, just as we, as citizens, have a right to know who is trying to influence government. Jaffer has proven the need for that kind of sanitizing in spades.
The Lobbyist Act in Alberta is a late addition to an effort about applying more integrity to the Alberta political culture. It is a tepid toe in the water of more openness, accountability and transparency in who influences government and politics and how they do it. It is at least a start and when the review of the legislation comes up in a few years I trust the system will become even more honest and open about how democracy is done and ought to be done in our Alberta.
For the record, I am a registered lobbyist and make political donations but only modestly. I have found access to politicians in Alberta not to be a problem and I don't think the money contributed makes any difference. In fact since I quit the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta last year, my access to the political and administrative levels of the provincial government has never been better. Go figure.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
What Will Albertans Get From Yet Another Royalty Rollback?
I wanted to do a blog post today on the latest retreat from responsible royalty rates by the Stelmach government. My research made me realize that Don Braid of the Calgary Herald more than captures my response.
The short term thinking of generating activity by single minded policy approaches is hindering integrated thoughtful policy approaches. We know from our research and the early findings of The Big Listen by the Alberta Party that Albertans want a public policy approach that has a longer term view. We can't ignore the ecological and social impacts of shallow, simple-minded and myopic approaches to competitiveness that is exemplified by a constant foregoing of rents from non-renewable resources.
These resource royalties rents are one time chances to grasp the intergenerational and birthright benefits of our kids and their kids. We are being told our government can't afford to pay teachers according to the contracts we negotiated with them but we can walk away from another $1.5B of royalties because why? More drilling activity in more marginal areas? How much more have the companies who are doing this more drilling committed to do as a result of the royalty give-away? Are there any guarantees from them in this deal? What about a condition of a rollback that these companies first clean up and reclaim some of the old wellsites, roads and seismic lines they no longer need so wildlife can return to these areas?
We are not well governed and the Wildrose would be worse. They appear to be already owned and controlled by the conventional energy sector. These guys are so cloaked in anonymity that they will not even disclose their contributions to the leader of that party. We need a viable political alternative in Alberta that has Integrity, is Honest with us, truly Accountable, actually Transparent and who sees Stewardship of public assets and resources in the greater public of all Albertans interest as its job.
The short term thinking of generating activity by single minded policy approaches is hindering integrated thoughtful policy approaches. We know from our research and the early findings of The Big Listen by the Alberta Party that Albertans want a public policy approach that has a longer term view. We can't ignore the ecological and social impacts of shallow, simple-minded and myopic approaches to competitiveness that is exemplified by a constant foregoing of rents from non-renewable resources.
These resource royalties rents are one time chances to grasp the intergenerational and birthright benefits of our kids and their kids. We are being told our government can't afford to pay teachers according to the contracts we negotiated with them but we can walk away from another $1.5B of royalties because why? More drilling activity in more marginal areas? How much more have the companies who are doing this more drilling committed to do as a result of the royalty give-away? Are there any guarantees from them in this deal? What about a condition of a rollback that these companies first clean up and reclaim some of the old wellsites, roads and seismic lines they no longer need so wildlife can return to these areas?
We are not well governed and the Wildrose would be worse. They appear to be already owned and controlled by the conventional energy sector. These guys are so cloaked in anonymity that they will not even disclose their contributions to the leader of that party. We need a viable political alternative in Alberta that has Integrity, is Honest with us, truly Accountable, actually Transparent and who sees Stewardship of public assets and resources in the greater public of all Albertans interest as its job.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Do You Believe Calgary is #1 Eco-City in the WORLD?
Mercer's Quality of Living and Eco-City survey of 221 cities world wide does not likely include Edmonton. Not sure but if it were to find Calgary at the top ranking Eco-city in the world something is fishy about the survey. Calgary has lots of merits but beyond the public transit system it is hardly a top ranked eco-city. It has the largest number of cars per capita in Canada and is urban sprawl writ large...and that is still the norm in Cowtown with 100% of its growth in the suburbs.
Mercer says it used the following criteria for eco-ranking. Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion. Water availability is a serious problem for the future of Calgary. In fact there was a restriction put on industrial use of water a few years ago. Calgary suffers from water shortages and with the growth it has endured, that will only become more critical. Only recently has Calgary metered water and that met with serious resistance I understand. Quality of water in Alberta is excellent almost everywhere with notable exceptions. Waste removal and recycling are not big items in the Calgary civic culture - at least not compared to Edmonton. Edmonton has a long standing and extensive blue box recycling system and city owned composting plant and even recycles Christmas trees. As for traffic congestion with the largest per capita car population and the Deerfoot Trail rush hour "parking lot" and narrow downtown street system, traffic congestion is a serious problem for Calgary.
This is not a knock against Calgary. It is very livable city with lots going for it. But to rank it as #1 Eco-City in the WORLD? That stretched credulity. Mercer needs to broaden and deepen its Eco-City criteria and look to other locales for comparisons - especially in Canada.
Mercer says it used the following criteria for eco-ranking. Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion. Water availability is a serious problem for the future of Calgary. In fact there was a restriction put on industrial use of water a few years ago. Calgary suffers from water shortages and with the growth it has endured, that will only become more critical. Only recently has Calgary metered water and that met with serious resistance I understand. Quality of water in Alberta is excellent almost everywhere with notable exceptions. Waste removal and recycling are not big items in the Calgary civic culture - at least not compared to Edmonton. Edmonton has a long standing and extensive blue box recycling system and city owned composting plant and even recycles Christmas trees. As for traffic congestion with the largest per capita car population and the Deerfoot Trail rush hour "parking lot" and narrow downtown street system, traffic congestion is a serious problem for Calgary.
This is not a knock against Calgary. It is very livable city with lots going for it. But to rank it as #1 Eco-City in the WORLD? That stretched credulity. Mercer needs to broaden and deepen its Eco-City criteria and look to other locales for comparisons - especially in Canada.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution! | Video on TED.com
Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution! Video on TED.com
If you are interested in the future and what we need to change to adapt and enjoy the revolutions that are all around us you will want to watch Ken Robinson at TED this year.
If you enjoy this then you will want to hear the speakers (including Gwynne Dyer) and participate in the public dialogues happening May 31 in Calgary and June 1 in Edmonton on the theme "Learning Our Way to the Next Alberta." You can learn more and buy tickets ($10) online at http://www.learningourway.ca/ Ticket sales end Noon on Friday May 28 so you will want to act now.
My firm, Cambridge Strategies Inc is a sponsor of this event along with the ATA and Literacy Alberta. Hope to meet you in Calgary or Edmonton
If you are interested in the future and what we need to change to adapt and enjoy the revolutions that are all around us you will want to watch Ken Robinson at TED this year.
If you enjoy this then you will want to hear the speakers (including Gwynne Dyer) and participate in the public dialogues happening May 31 in Calgary and June 1 in Edmonton on the theme "Learning Our Way to the Next Alberta." You can learn more and buy tickets ($10) online at http://www.learningourway.ca/ Ticket sales end Noon on Friday May 28 so you will want to act now.
My firm, Cambridge Strategies Inc is a sponsor of this event along with the ATA and Literacy Alberta. Hope to meet you in Calgary or Edmonton
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Alberta Law Society Polls on Legal Services Quality and Value for Money
This is not my usual blog post stuff but as a lawyer I found it interesting! Looks like the days of lawyer jokes are pretty much past when you see recent Law Society of Alberta survey results. This blog post is just a repeat of the summary of findings I received as a member of the Law Society of Alberta. The actual poll results will be out tomorrow and available at http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/. I hope that brings more clarity to the findings and afford an opportunty for some more indepth conclusions.
It has been an axiom for a long time that people do not like lawyers but they like their lawyer. This survey seems to address the last half of this question but not the first part so much. Here are some findings that Rod Jerke QC, the President of the Law Society says, “…show(s) that the public is generally satisfied with the service and value they receive.”
The Law Society notes the relationship between the delivery of legal services and the regulation and governance of the legal profession. This poll is said to “give valuable insight on the reputation of the legal profession and the high levels of satisfaction experienced by consumers of legal services.” ON the down side the survey showed “consumers” were concerned about availability of legal services to low income Albertans and the “perception of the costs of legal service.”
Next step is to survey lawyers but it is not clear how that will relate to the consumer survey. I have to say I find it strange to be referring to clients as consumers but many legal services have become commodities so I guess it makes sense. I also hope the actual survey breaks down the results in terms of types of legal services and geographically. Are divorce “consumers” at the same satisfaction levels as real estate “consumer?” I am curious to see if there is any difference between rural and urban and/or Edmonton and Calgary perceptions.
So here is a smattering of the poll results. There are 78% very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the legal service provided. I wonder what values were attributed by the public to their being very or somewhat satisfied. Is somewhat satisfied less than 5 but more than 1 on a 10 point scale?
As for value for money spent on lawyers only 34% who were polled say they received “very good value.” Then some 37% said they received “somewhat good value.” What does somewhat mean and what values were used to determine that answer?
How do you find a lawyer? This area has some more value based substance to it. Referral from another person – which means word of mouth, was the key factor for 41% of poll participants. Reputation was important to 43 % but what values and factors constitute reputation? Glad you asked! Here is where we got some useful information about what guide and drives lawyer selection. Legal training and professional credentials worked for 30%. Standing, whatever that means other than being subject to the Code of Ethics was crucial for 26%. Personal knowledge and relationship with a lawyer drove 25% while cost and proximity/access issues drove hiring decisions for 23%.
I applaud the Law Society for doing research on public perceptions on various aspects of legal services. But opinion polls are not of much value in figuring what really guide and drives the public’s state of mind in reaching such decisions. They are better than focus groups but not much better. The more effective way is to use discrete choice modeling or conjoint techniques to force participants to make trade off and choices between various values that they use to measure what is important to them about legal services.
I need to know more about the actual survey questions and methodology before I can comment further. Opinion polls are becoming notoriously inaccurate and when terms like “somewhat satisfied” is so vague that it is dangerous to attribute too much positive or negative results to those responses.
There is no doubt some useful information here for lawyers but it is far from being conclusive evidence to make sound a judgement and draw a decisive conclusion about what the consuming public thinks about the quality of legal service and the value for money received.
It has been an axiom for a long time that people do not like lawyers but they like their lawyer. This survey seems to address the last half of this question but not the first part so much. Here are some findings that Rod Jerke QC, the President of the Law Society says, “…show(s) that the public is generally satisfied with the service and value they receive.”
The Law Society notes the relationship between the delivery of legal services and the regulation and governance of the legal profession. This poll is said to “give valuable insight on the reputation of the legal profession and the high levels of satisfaction experienced by consumers of legal services.” ON the down side the survey showed “consumers” were concerned about availability of legal services to low income Albertans and the “perception of the costs of legal service.”
Next step is to survey lawyers but it is not clear how that will relate to the consumer survey. I have to say I find it strange to be referring to clients as consumers but many legal services have become commodities so I guess it makes sense. I also hope the actual survey breaks down the results in terms of types of legal services and geographically. Are divorce “consumers” at the same satisfaction levels as real estate “consumer?” I am curious to see if there is any difference between rural and urban and/or Edmonton and Calgary perceptions.
So here is a smattering of the poll results. There are 78% very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the legal service provided. I wonder what values were attributed by the public to their being very or somewhat satisfied. Is somewhat satisfied less than 5 but more than 1 on a 10 point scale?
As for value for money spent on lawyers only 34% who were polled say they received “very good value.” Then some 37% said they received “somewhat good value.” What does somewhat mean and what values were used to determine that answer?
How do you find a lawyer? This area has some more value based substance to it. Referral from another person – which means word of mouth, was the key factor for 41% of poll participants. Reputation was important to 43 % but what values and factors constitute reputation? Glad you asked! Here is where we got some useful information about what guide and drives lawyer selection. Legal training and professional credentials worked for 30%. Standing, whatever that means other than being subject to the Code of Ethics was crucial for 26%. Personal knowledge and relationship with a lawyer drove 25% while cost and proximity/access issues drove hiring decisions for 23%.
I applaud the Law Society for doing research on public perceptions on various aspects of legal services. But opinion polls are not of much value in figuring what really guide and drives the public’s state of mind in reaching such decisions. They are better than focus groups but not much better. The more effective way is to use discrete choice modeling or conjoint techniques to force participants to make trade off and choices between various values that they use to measure what is important to them about legal services.
I need to know more about the actual survey questions and methodology before I can comment further. Opinion polls are becoming notoriously inaccurate and when terms like “somewhat satisfied” is so vague that it is dangerous to attribute too much positive or negative results to those responses.
There is no doubt some useful information here for lawyers but it is far from being conclusive evidence to make sound a judgement and draw a decisive conclusion about what the consuming public thinks about the quality of legal service and the value for money received.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)