Are you tired of the same predictable rhetoric from our politicians?
Aaron Braaten has a simple and excellent analysis of the economic growth numbers used in a new report from the Pembina Institute.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
smith v. board of education (part 3).
This post is the third of a multi-part series that will be published over the next week. Part 1 was posted on October 26, 2009, Part 2 was posted on October 28, 2009, and Part 4 was posted on November 3, 2009.
June 22, 1999: After being forced to leave a meeting due to conflict of interest, it was decided that Liz LoVecchio, Jennifer Pollock and Judy Tilston needed to submit their legal bills to an arbitrator before they could have them paid by the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). The motion was passed unanimously by the four remaining trustees. The question for the arbitrator was whether the trustees acted as members of the board or as individuals when controversial letters written by a school board candidate were given to a reporter during last year's election campaign. If they acted as a board, their legal fees would be covered by the CBE, but if they acted as individuals, the CBE would not cover the cost.
While leaving the meeting, Pollock declared it to be a "travesty of fairness" because "the administration and CBE Chair [Teresa Woo-Paw] would not provide legal support on an action that was taken on behalf of this board and known by the chief superintendent." Smith said the CBE had already received a $12,300 legal bill from its own lawyer for the inquiry and wouldn't name a trustee who also submitted an $18,000 legal bill.
July 15, 1999: Despite calls for her resignation, Tilston declared that "couldn't care less" about the demands for her resignation by Danielle Smith and Peggy Anderson. Tilston told the Calgary Herald that she had been wrongly blamed for breaching provincial privacy laws by ordering former CBE trustee candidate Andrew Koeppen letters released to the media.
The matter was then investigated by Alberta's Privacy Commissioner. A hearing was scheduled for later that year to determine if the letters contained personal information. If so, Tilston and other trustees could have been liable for a fine up to $10,000, and a lawsuit.
July 29, 1999: After being told by CBE administrators that it would be too expensive to host on the CBE's official site, Anderson and Smith launched their own website to publish board reports, discussion papers and agendas. The two trustees drew the ire of their colleagues after not informing them of their decision to launch the website.
August 8, 1999: A collection of notes are discovered in a CBE trash bin and are published by the Alberta Report, the Herald, and the National Post:
August 9, 1999: Reported in the Herald:
June 22, 1999: After being forced to leave a meeting due to conflict of interest, it was decided that Liz LoVecchio, Jennifer Pollock and Judy Tilston needed to submit their legal bills to an arbitrator before they could have them paid by the Calgary Board of Education (CBE). The motion was passed unanimously by the four remaining trustees. The question for the arbitrator was whether the trustees acted as members of the board or as individuals when controversial letters written by a school board candidate were given to a reporter during last year's election campaign. If they acted as a board, their legal fees would be covered by the CBE, but if they acted as individuals, the CBE would not cover the cost.
While leaving the meeting, Pollock declared it to be a "travesty of fairness" because "the administration and CBE Chair [Teresa Woo-Paw] would not provide legal support on an action that was taken on behalf of this board and known by the chief superintendent." Smith said the CBE had already received a $12,300 legal bill from its own lawyer for the inquiry and wouldn't name a trustee who also submitted an $18,000 legal bill.
July 15, 1999: Despite calls for her resignation, Tilston declared that "couldn't care less" about the demands for her resignation by Danielle Smith and Peggy Anderson. Tilston told the Calgary Herald that she had been wrongly blamed for breaching provincial privacy laws by ordering former CBE trustee candidate Andrew Koeppen letters released to the media.
The matter was then investigated by Alberta's Privacy Commissioner. A hearing was scheduled for later that year to determine if the letters contained personal information. If so, Tilston and other trustees could have been liable for a fine up to $10,000, and a lawsuit.
July 29, 1999: After being told by CBE administrators that it would be too expensive to host on the CBE's official site, Anderson and Smith launched their own website to publish board reports, discussion papers and agendas. The two trustees drew the ire of their colleagues after not informing them of their decision to launch the website.
August 8, 1999: A collection of notes are discovered in a CBE trash bin and are published by the Alberta Report, the Herald, and the National Post:
- One of the notes is addressed to "Lizard," and another writes Ms. Tilston's name five times, as if someone was practising writing it.Woo-Paw reminded trustees to abide by their code of conduct, which prohibited malicious behaviour. Smith told the Herald that she had seen the notes and believed the hand-writing was Tilston's and LoVecchio's. "Judy and Liz pass notes back and forth all the time" at board meetings. It's a shame people are so petty when there is such important work to be done on the school board."
- One note refers to Ms. Woo-Paw as a despot, and a second one says "TWP absolutely nauseates me."
- Another note accuses "DS"-- an apparent reference to Ms. Smith -- of having "crappy hair," while a fourth note has the authors conspiring to recruit people to oppose Ms. Smith politically. "I have to find a constituent to write a formal letter of complaint," the short missive says. "Any ideas?"
- A note in response includes the names of two potential complainants, each of whom "lives in DS's ward." But the note says the pair may be too high-profile, and so it may be better to recruit "someone more obscure."
- Saying "I've decided to apply for aides for DS and PA, as they appear to be slow learners."
- Questioning whether Ms. Anderson is wearing a "mood ring," and is "more distant and pissed-off than usual."
- Describing Ms. Pollock as looking like she has "stitches or a scar" on her face.
- Asking where "the FCD (an apparent reference to Ms. Woo-Paw) got her suit -- it sure is ugly!"
- Saying "the FCD is being decidedly pissy this evening, as is her sidekick."
- Asking "what's trustee-half-a- brain is doing?"
August 9, 1999: Reported in the Herald:
The Calgary Board of Education voted Monday to punish two members who've been writing nasty notes about their colleagues at public meetings.This post is the third of a multi-part series that will be published over the next week. Part 1 was posted on October 26, 2009, and Part 2 was posted on October 28, 2009, and Part 4 was posted on November 3, 2009.
But only one of the two has admitted responsibility, and neither has apologized to her colleagues, board chairwoman Teresa Woo-Paw said after the board met privately.
Woo-Paw said her colleagues voted to have her write letters of reprimand later this week to the trustees, telling them their behaviour breached the board's code of ethics.
Although Woo-Paw refused to name the two trustees, one acknowledged her role last week.
"The only way somebody could've got hold of these (notes) was either they ruffled through garbage and pieced them back together, or they stole them from me," Liz LoVecchio said.
All the notes are in two handwriting styles that some board members have said match LoVecchio's and trustee Judy Tilston's. Tilston has refused to comment.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
it's about the power grid: my thoughts on bill 50.
It is not difficult to understand why Bill 50: the Electric Statutes Amendment Act, 2009 has become a lightning rod for opposition to the governing Progressive Conservatives. The origins of the unease over Bill 50 can be traced all the way back to deregulation and the sale of TransAlta’s power lines, which led to the creation of AltaLink in 2002, but more recent politics have played a large role in the toxicity of the debate.
In June 2007, it was uncovered that a private investigator hired by the now dissolved Alberta Energy Utilities Board had posed as a landowner in order to participate in conference calls of groups opposed to major power-line projects and their lawyers. Premier Ed Stelmach defended the hiring of the private investigator, "Whether real or not, there was some people to insure there wasn’t any harm done to the members of the AEUB." In the same month, Edmonton-Calder NDP MLA David Eggen was barred from public hearings on the power lines. In Spring 2009, opposition to Bill 50s sister act, Bill 19: The Land Assembly Area Project Act, created a political stir that had not been seen in rural Alberta in recent memory.
The Lavesta Area Group, led by landowner Joe Anglin, have been the public face of opposition against transmission expansion, and they have been joined in their public opposition to Bill 50 by by Enmax, the Liberal Official Opposition, the NDP Opposition, anti-nuclear advocates from the Peace Country, and Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier.
There are legitimate concerns about the construction of new power lines, but I have been less than convinced by many of the arguments raised by the opponents of Bill 50. For example, arguing that upgrades are simply a cash grab by the large energy companies on the back of the ratepayer appears to be an argument with political traction, but it doesn't address the more important debate behind the Bill 50:
A number of opponents to Bill 50 have pointed out that power demands have dropped in Alberta. While electricity demands from certain sectors may have lowered during the recession, it would be irresponsible not to ensure that the grid will have the capacity to handle an increase when our economy starts growing again (for example, future projects such as the three proposed bitumen upgraders in Sturgeon County).
When reading Bill 50, I discovered that the amendments do not remove consultation procedures, but only provide the option to bypass the needs hearing and move directly to the second hearing where the exact placement of the power lines is determined.
It has been twenty-years since Alberta's power grid has had large-scale upgrades and as demand on the grid has increased by the equivalent of a city twice the size of Red Deer every year since 2001, the likelihood of running over-capacity has become closer to a reality. Over $200 million worth of electricity (the equivalent of power for 350,000 homes) was lost in 2008 through 'line-loss' that occurred when power lines were forced to transmit excessive levels of electricity. Upgrades are necessary and all Albertans will benefit from investing into a secure, effective, and safe power grid.
I can understand why some landowners do not want power lines constructed near or through their property. Joe Anglin and the Lavesta Area Group have been extremely effective at agitating their way into the media spotlight, but how long can Albertans reasonably allow localized pockets of NIMBYism stand in the way of essential investments in our electric transmission infrastructure?
In the immortal words of Mr. Spock, perhaps this is a case where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."
The Lavesta Area Group, led by landowner Joe Anglin, have been the public face of opposition against transmission expansion, and they have been joined in their public opposition to Bill 50 by by Enmax, the Liberal Official Opposition, the NDP Opposition, anti-nuclear advocates from the Peace Country, and Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier.
There are legitimate concerns about the construction of new power lines, but I have been less than convinced by many of the arguments raised by the opponents of Bill 50. For example, arguing that upgrades are simply a cash grab by the large energy companies on the back of the ratepayer appears to be an argument with political traction, but it doesn't address the more important debate behind the Bill 50:
'Corporate greed versus the ratepayer is not the discussion Albertans should be having... they should be discussing whether the powers granted to the provincial government in Bill 50 are the most responsible manner in which to proceed with essential investments in our transmission infrastructure.'In June 2009, the Alberta Electric Systems Operator (AESO) released their Long-term Transmission System Plan and recommended that an estimated $14.5 billion be invested in necessary upgrades to our provincial transmission system’s capacity. This includes the construction of new high-capacity power lines between Edmonton and Calgary, and connections to Fort McMurray and the Industrial Heartland (in parts of Sturgeon, Strathcona, and Lamont counties). The plan also recommends new transmission development in southern Alberta to integrate wind energy.
A number of opponents to Bill 50 have pointed out that power demands have dropped in Alberta. While electricity demands from certain sectors may have lowered during the recession, it would be irresponsible not to ensure that the grid will have the capacity to handle an increase when our economy starts growing again (for example, future projects such as the three proposed bitumen upgraders in Sturgeon County).
When reading Bill 50, I discovered that the amendments do not remove consultation procedures, but only provide the option to bypass the needs hearing and move directly to the second hearing where the exact placement of the power lines is determined.
41.1(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate as critical transmission infrastructure a proposed transmission facility if it is contained in a plan that is prepared by the Independent System Operator pursuant to this Act or the regulations...Bill 50 would give the provincial Cabinet more control over which power lines are built and when, and the Alberta Utilities Commission would retain control over where they are built. It is up to Albertans to hold their elected officials responsible for the decisions they make daily, including those decisions related to the future of our power grid.
It has been twenty-years since Alberta's power grid has had large-scale upgrades and as demand on the grid has increased by the equivalent of a city twice the size of Red Deer every year since 2001, the likelihood of running over-capacity has become closer to a reality. Over $200 million worth of electricity (the equivalent of power for 350,000 homes) was lost in 2008 through 'line-loss' that occurred when power lines were forced to transmit excessive levels of electricity. Upgrades are necessary and all Albertans will benefit from investing into a secure, effective, and safe power grid.
I can understand why some landowners do not want power lines constructed near or through their property. Joe Anglin and the Lavesta Area Group have been extremely effective at agitating their way into the media spotlight, but how long can Albertans reasonably allow localized pockets of NIMBYism stand in the way of essential investments in our electric transmission infrastructure?
In the immortal words of Mr. Spock, perhaps this is a case where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."
smith v. board of education (part 2).
This post is the second of a multi-part series that will be published over the next week. Part 1 was posted on October 26, 2009, Part 3 was posted on October 30, 2009, and Part 4 was posted on November 3, 2009.
December 22, 1998: Peggy Anderson and Danielle Smith publicly called on the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) to drop its legal challenge to regain the right to tax collection. "I'm not sure that the power to tax should rest with the local boards," Anderson said. "I'm not very excited about spending my time trying to bully the province into giving us more money." The two trustees opposed the CBE decision to spend up to $100,000 arguing the board's right to collect taxes before the Supreme Court. Liz LoVecchio defended the legal challenge and compared the 1994 government amendments to the School Act to "constitutional change by stealth."
January 8, 1999: Smith introduced a motion to achieve 100% utilization in CBE schools by June, 2002. Officials had estimated that moving to an 85% utilization rate would require closing up to 30 schools. Smith told the Herald: "I am not doing this to be alarming, I want clarity, and communities deserve clarity." The motion was rejected in a 5-2 vote on January 12.
January 10, 1999: CBE superintendent of finances Don Dart informed trustees that "the chances are not good the board can have a balanced budget and meet contract demands" of employees without an increase in provincial funding. The public board has run a $34.6-million deficit in the previous fiscal year due largely to an early retirement deal that encouraged 465 senior teachers to leave. Smith objected to the board spending $6,000 to pay for newspaper ads advertising the meetings. Teresa Woo-Paw disagreed, saying newspaper ads are the best way to get the word out.
January 12, 1999: CBE trustees unanimously passed a motion introduced by LoVecchio that expressed alarm at the number of elementary schools who had stopped French instruction. LoVecchio and several other trustees argued the CBE had a duty to offer French language instruction. Smith said she was not sure parents want French forced on them at the exclusion of other options, such as music and art. Smith told the Herald:
March 10, 1999: Nominated by Smith, Lynn Nishimura was elected vice-chairwoman over Pollock in a 4-3 vote. LoVecchio had resigned as vice-chair after claiming that Woo-Paw had shut her out of important decisions.
April 13, 1999: Smith publicly states that the CBE needs to take action to plug leaks to the media.
May 9, 1999: In a letter to Premier Ralph Klein, Calgary businessman and Liberal organizer Donn Lovett accused Anderson and Smith of skipping three school board meetings in a row. Lovett's letter argued that the School Act provided for removal of anyone who misses three consecutive regular meetings. Anderson and Smith sought legal advice and Smith fired back:
May 22, 1999: The CBE unveiled a plan to close 565 classrooms as part of its budget trimming. With the lights switched off and heat turned down, $1.5 million would be trimmed from the maintenance budget. The total maintenance budget was cut by $2.5 million.
June 14, 1999: A National Post editorial:
December 22, 1998: Peggy Anderson and Danielle Smith publicly called on the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) to drop its legal challenge to regain the right to tax collection. "I'm not sure that the power to tax should rest with the local boards," Anderson said. "I'm not very excited about spending my time trying to bully the province into giving us more money." The two trustees opposed the CBE decision to spend up to $100,000 arguing the board's right to collect taxes before the Supreme Court. Liz LoVecchio defended the legal challenge and compared the 1994 government amendments to the School Act to "constitutional change by stealth."
January 8, 1999: Smith introduced a motion to achieve 100% utilization in CBE schools by June, 2002. Officials had estimated that moving to an 85% utilization rate would require closing up to 30 schools. Smith told the Herald: "I am not doing this to be alarming, I want clarity, and communities deserve clarity." The motion was rejected in a 5-2 vote on January 12.
January 10, 1999: CBE superintendent of finances Don Dart informed trustees that "the chances are not good the board can have a balanced budget and meet contract demands" of employees without an increase in provincial funding. The public board has run a $34.6-million deficit in the previous fiscal year due largely to an early retirement deal that encouraged 465 senior teachers to leave. Smith objected to the board spending $6,000 to pay for newspaper ads advertising the meetings. Teresa Woo-Paw disagreed, saying newspaper ads are the best way to get the word out.
January 12, 1999: CBE trustees unanimously passed a motion introduced by LoVecchio that expressed alarm at the number of elementary schools who had stopped French instruction. LoVecchio and several other trustees argued the CBE had a duty to offer French language instruction. Smith said she was not sure parents want French forced on them at the exclusion of other options, such as music and art. Smith told the Herald:
"This is a cost issue. Feasibly, French can't be offered at every school and I don't think that parents want that, either."January 26, 1999: Reported by the Herald:
Trustee Jennifer Pollock accused trustee Danielle Smith of deliberately leaving the boardroom before a vote, saying it was the second time such a thing had happened.January 28, 1999: Following the January 26 confrontation between Pollock and Smith, CBE Chair Woo-Paw suggested that trustees "need to review how we work together from time to time."
Pollock even briefly blocked Smith's path out and whispered a warning to her not to leave.
"I said `don't be unaccountable and leave the boardroom,' " Pollock said afterward.
Smith said she simply saw someone in the hallway she wanted to talk to.
"I got back in for the vote and that's the bottom line, isn't it?" she said later.
During Smith's absence of about five to 10 minutes, Pollock was livid.
"I personally find offence with trustees who choose to leave the room" before a vote, she said.
March 10, 1999: Nominated by Smith, Lynn Nishimura was elected vice-chairwoman over Pollock in a 4-3 vote. LoVecchio had resigned as vice-chair after claiming that Woo-Paw had shut her out of important decisions.
April 13, 1999: Smith publicly states that the CBE needs to take action to plug leaks to the media.
May 9, 1999: In a letter to Premier Ralph Klein, Calgary businessman and Liberal organizer Donn Lovett accused Anderson and Smith of skipping three school board meetings in a row. Lovett's letter argued that the School Act provided for removal of anyone who misses three consecutive regular meetings. Anderson and Smith sought legal advice and Smith fired back:
"The allegation is that I'm breaking the law. I'm not breaking the law."Smith and Anderson told the Herald that they suspected Pollock, LoVecchio and former chair Judy Tilston convinced Lovett to send the letter.
May 22, 1999: The CBE unveiled a plan to close 565 classrooms as part of its budget trimming. With the lights switched off and heat turned down, $1.5 million would be trimmed from the maintenance budget. The total maintenance budget was cut by $2.5 million.
June 14, 1999: A National Post editorial:
Political irregularities may be acceptable -- that is for the voter to decide. But financial irregularities are less easily excused. And the inquiries by Ms. [Peggy Anderson] and Ms. [Danielle Smith] revealed excesses that would make Livent blush. They found dozens of questionable expenses; one trustee had racked up $4,500 in cell- phone bills in one school year. That's tough to do -- being a trustee is a part-time job with an office and phone included. More than $25,000 was spent on travel -- on top of trustees' car allowances. Office expenses for the seven were grossly over budget. A $104,000 legal opinion on the "rights of parents" had been commissioned.
This post is the second of a multi-part series that will be published over the next week. Part 1 was posted on October 26, 2009, Part 3 was posted on October 30, 2009, and Part 4 was posted on November 3, 2009.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
setting the tone.
It only took two days into the fall session before the offensive hyperbole started to fly and the rotten culture inside Alberta's Legislative Assembly is now out in full force. Sixth Grade students visiting the Assembly may easily mistake the men in dark suits as grown ups, but that description is harder to believe when you hear some of the words coming out of their mouths.
Health Minister Ron Liepert has mocked Edmonton-Strathcona MLA Rachel Notley, claiming that she doesn't understand the health care system. Premier Ed Stelmach has referred to the Liberal caucus as "these people" and even ridiculed the attendance at Liberal Party conventions.
This afternoon, following a question from Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood NDP MLA Brian Mason about H1N1 vaccinations, Stelmach responded:
Health Minister Ron Liepert has mocked Edmonton-Strathcona MLA Rachel Notley, claiming that she doesn't understand the health care system. Premier Ed Stelmach has referred to the Liberal caucus as "these people" and even ridiculed the attendance at Liberal Party conventions.
This afternoon, following a question from Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood NDP MLA Brian Mason about H1N1 vaccinations, Stelmach responded:
"I'll take the word of this nurse [Minister Yvonne Fritz] over the word of a bus driver any day"On April 30, 2009, Stelmach took issue with comments by Calgary-Currie MLA Dave Taylor and wrote a letter to Liberal leader David Swann, calling for "civil debate in the Assembly." Stelmach may have apologized for his comments this afternoon, but that doesn't excuse the negative tone that the the Premier has already helped set on the floor of our elected Assembly.
Monday, October 26, 2009
reboot alberta.
As the Second Session of the Twenty-Seventh Legislature re-convenes in Edmonton, I am finding it increasingly difficult to get excited about the kind of debates that we have become accustomed to witnessing on the floor of our elected assembly. With only 13 opposition MLAs in the Assembly, much of Hansard have unfortunately become an endless echo chamber for the chorus of backbench PC MLAs either reading pre-scripted soft-ball talking points or attempting to gain points with their political masters through flattery. Of course there are exceptions, but they remain far and few.
The debate outside the Legislature is a very different story. Over the past year, I have met an increasing number of engaged citizens who are intent on carving a new direction for our city and province outside the realm of traditional partisan politics. Evolving across the province - ChangeCamp Edmonton, CivicCamp Calgary, and even out at lunch - I have witnessed engaged citizens congregating to flesh out the next big out-of-the-box ideas to drive Alberta into the future.
I am particularly interested in attending the upcoming Reboot Alberta meeting to be held in Red Deer from November 27 to 29. Organized by Don Sherman, Michael Brechtel, former Cabinet Minister David King, and increasingly disengaged PC member Ken Chapman, the weekend event is billed as an opportunity for progressive-minded Albertans to work together to develop a vision for our province, and start to explore how to bring that vision to life (which is key).
Last week, Ken and I met for coffee and had a great discussion about the potential for re-visioning citizenship in Alberta and how to re-engage individual Albertans to participate in the way they are governed. Ken successfully pitched the concept of Reboot Alberta to me and I am excited about the opportunity that this meeting presents. While I am not convinced that a new political party should develop from this meeting (nor is it the ultimate solution to re-engaging Albertans), the leadership vacuum that our province is feeling presents an opportunity for change that Albertans haven't seen in a long time. As I have written before, it is only a matter of time before we witness a big political shift in our province, but it will be up to Albertans to decide what this change will embody.
If you would like more information about Reboot Alberta, please email Ken at ken@cambridgestrategies.com.
The debate outside the Legislature is a very different story. Over the past year, I have met an increasing number of engaged citizens who are intent on carving a new direction for our city and province outside the realm of traditional partisan politics. Evolving across the province - ChangeCamp Edmonton, CivicCamp Calgary, and even out at lunch - I have witnessed engaged citizens congregating to flesh out the next big out-of-the-box ideas to drive Alberta into the future.
I am particularly interested in attending the upcoming Reboot Alberta meeting to be held in Red Deer from November 27 to 29. Organized by Don Sherman, Michael Brechtel, former Cabinet Minister David King, and increasingly disengaged PC member Ken Chapman, the weekend event is billed as an opportunity for progressive-minded Albertans to work together to develop a vision for our province, and start to explore how to bring that vision to life (which is key).
Last week, Ken and I met for coffee and had a great discussion about the potential for re-visioning citizenship in Alberta and how to re-engage individual Albertans to participate in the way they are governed. Ken successfully pitched the concept of Reboot Alberta to me and I am excited about the opportunity that this meeting presents. While I am not convinced that a new political party should develop from this meeting (nor is it the ultimate solution to re-engaging Albertans), the leadership vacuum that our province is feeling presents an opportunity for change that Albertans haven't seen in a long time. As I have written before, it is only a matter of time before we witness a big political shift in our province, but it will be up to Albertans to decide what this change will embody.
If you would like more information about Reboot Alberta, please email Ken at ken@cambridgestrategies.com.
smith v. board of education (part 1)
This post is the first of a multi-part series that will be published over the next week. Part 2 was posted on October 28, 2009, Part 3 was posted on October 30, 2009, and Part 4 was posted on November 3, 2009.
Since the selection of Danielle Smith as leader of the Wildrose Alliance, a number of readers have suggested that I take a closer look at her time as a Trustee with the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) from 1998 to 1999. Not completely knowing what I would discover as I dug through the ProQuest archives, I uncovered what I consider to be a collection some of the most bizarre shenanigans that I have ever seen from Canadian elected officials. My sources largely included articles published by the Calgary Herald and the National Post.
In the first of a multi-part series that will be posted over the next week, here is a summary of what I found:
October 19, 1998: The face of the long-time Liberal-dominated CBE was changed with the election of two new conservative trustees. Elected on the joint platform “Campaign to Make Public Education Work,” Peggy Anderson and Danielle Smith advocated for fiscal prudence and more parent choice, including Charter schools. Both had strong ties to the Reform Party as Anderson was a constituency assistant to Calgary-Southeast Reform MP Jason Kenney and Preston Manning; and Smith, then 27-years old, had interned with the Fraser Institute and was the Executive Director of the Canadian Property Rights Institute (pdf).
Other trustees elected that year included liberals Jennifer Pollock, Judy Tilston, and Liz LoVecchio, and moderates Teresa Woo-Paw, and Lynn Nishimura. In their previous terms, incumbents Tilston and Pollock had publicly clashed with provincial government over school board autonomy and funding.
October 20, 1998: Following the election, a Herald editorial described the CBE as:
December 6, 1998: Smith proposed the closure of up to 30 schools due to excess space in older, inner-city classrooms. Smith suggested that the money earned from selling or leasing older schools could be used to build new schools and stem the exodus of public school students to Catholic, private, charter and home schooling. Contradicting Smith, LoVecchio told the Herald that she didn't "know where she's getting her numbers," explaining that when a CBE facility is leased to a non-profit group or private school, the Department of Education excludes those students from the board's utilization rate.
December 7, 1998: Calgary Herald editorial:
Since the selection of Danielle Smith as leader of the Wildrose Alliance, a number of readers have suggested that I take a closer look at her time as a Trustee with the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) from 1998 to 1999. Not completely knowing what I would discover as I dug through the ProQuest archives, I uncovered what I consider to be a collection some of the most bizarre shenanigans that I have ever seen from Canadian elected officials. My sources largely included articles published by the Calgary Herald and the National Post.
In the first of a multi-part series that will be posted over the next week, here is a summary of what I found:
October 19, 1998: The face of the long-time Liberal-dominated CBE was changed with the election of two new conservative trustees. Elected on the joint platform “Campaign to Make Public Education Work,” Peggy Anderson and Danielle Smith advocated for fiscal prudence and more parent choice, including Charter schools. Both had strong ties to the Reform Party as Anderson was a constituency assistant to Calgary-Southeast Reform MP Jason Kenney and Preston Manning; and Smith, then 27-years old, had interned with the Fraser Institute and was the Executive Director of the Canadian Property Rights Institute (pdf).
Other trustees elected that year included liberals Jennifer Pollock, Judy Tilston, and Liz LoVecchio, and moderates Teresa Woo-Paw, and Lynn Nishimura. In their previous terms, incumbents Tilston and Pollock had publicly clashed with provincial government over school board autonomy and funding.
October 20, 1998: Following the election, a Herald editorial described the CBE as:
‘...a board coping with financial woes, ongoing feuding with the province, the allocation and utilization of scarce resources, the pressure from parents to provide more alternatives under the umbrella of the public system and the need to raise standards and improve the quality of education.October 27, 1998: Woo-Paw was selected as chair and LoVecchio as vice-chair. Former chair Tilston declined re-nomination. Smith told the Calgary Herald that:
The Calgary public school board's new roster of trustees has a wonderful opportunity before it to set an example for the community at large by demonstrating an open-mindedness to look for alternative solutions while fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect and collegiality.’
"I look forward to a year of thorough debate . . . within a diversity of opinion."December 4, 1998: Due to budget and resource pressures, Tilston suggested sharing space with Calgary’s Catholic Schools. Smith supported the idea of sharing space with community groups, but told the Herald that she though that "the Catholic board has some legitimate concerns," about "moral decisions" made by the public CBE.
December 6, 1998: Smith proposed the closure of up to 30 schools due to excess space in older, inner-city classrooms. Smith suggested that the money earned from selling or leasing older schools could be used to build new schools and stem the exodus of public school students to Catholic, private, charter and home schooling. Contradicting Smith, LoVecchio told the Herald that she didn't "know where she's getting her numbers," explaining that when a CBE facility is leased to a non-profit group or private school, the Department of Education excludes those students from the board's utilization rate.
December 7, 1998: Calgary Herald editorial:
'Trustee Danielle Smith's contention that the CBE will close schools and then lease the buildings is also fatally flawed. Even if such buildings are rented to day cares, private schools or other users, Alberta Education still applies the space against the CBE balance sheet, but not the students. Previous decisions to lease old schools instead of sell them has simply exacerbated the CBE's poor utilization rate.This post is the first of a multi-part series that will be published over the next week. Part 2 was posted on October 28, 2009, Part 3 was posted on October 30, 2009, and Part 4 was posted on November 3, 2009.
No matter how hard trustees try to wiggle around it, there's only one solution -- some schools must close.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
