seeing the forest (city) for the trees

Simmer Down: Focus on Solutions

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:17:00 -0400

If you’ve ever lived in or visited Toronto, even for a short time, you’ve heard the heartbreaking ‘I was an engineer in my country’ stories. It may sound cliche or like some kind of urban legend, but we’ve all heard them. I’m talking doctors, pharmacists, engineers; people much smarter than me who deserve better from their newly chosen country.

In London, I know a janitor who worked in Poland as a professional for a large municipality; she lectured at the local university and was a respected member of her community. She fled communism in the late 1980’s to come to Canada; she’s been emptying garbage at our local university ever since. She’s the first to point out that she’s found success in Canada and she loves this country just as much (quite possibly more) than you and I. Her son recently graduated from university and she’s beyond proud of what he has achieved – but as she beams with pride talking about her son I also detect a sense of sadness of ‘what could have been’ for her.

I’m hoping we can all agree, regardless of our political affiliations (or lack thereof), that it isn’t good enough for people to immigrate to Canada in search of a better lives ‘for their kids.’ They deserve to use their skills and talents to build our community and better their lives. It is an utter waste, a tragedy really, letting newcomers’ skills wither on the vine. This isn’t about newcomers failing to work hard or play by the rules. They’re working really damn hard but they’ve been failed by the rules.

So let’s all move past scoring points by using narratives about ‘foreigners’ or ‘the politics of division’ and focus on the real goal: how do we help a very real segment of fellow Canadians apply their skills and talents, and achieve their fullest potential? I’ll be the first to admit that the solution is more complex than a tax credit - be it $400 or $10,000. But if we answer this policy question correctly we’ll have highly skilled folks working in their profession - innovating, helping companies and non-profits achieve their goals, and filling the skills shortages that are just around the corner. We’ll also have a larger tax base; investments in skills development - be them in new Canadians or folks who have been here their whole lives - are repaid many times over through the taxes derived from higher incomes.

I know all political parties want to address this problem. So let’s all tone down the rhetoric and start talking about solutions.

The Liberals have suggested a tax credit - here’s their plan. The Progressive Conservatives have worked on this issue too - Mr. Hudak introduced this bill, which has a ‘Newcomers Employment Opportunities Tax Credit’ as part of the legislation; rather than going with this ‘foreigner’ narrative I’m hoping they’ll promote the virtues of their own proposed legislation and focus campaign messaging on why they got it right then and the Liberals have got it wrong now. I’m unsure if the NDP has a plan, but I’m quite confident that they do (or will) given their political philosophy. I’m happy to add links from the NDP if proposals exist out there that I’m not aware of. There’s only so much legislative research I’m willing to do on a Saturday night.

This issue is just too damn important to make newcomers pawns in some political game. Let’s all remind ourselves of that and recommit ourselves to doing something about this very real public policy issue.

Heading into vacation I always tend to begin reflecting on life,...

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:00:06 -0500

Heading into vacation I always tend to begin reflecting on life, work and leadership. This is my reflection piece in advance of the first ‘real’ vacation that Megan and I have taken in many, many years. It is a leadership lesson that I share with the students I work with, and is a mantra that I try - sometimes unsuccessfully - to follow myself. So I share it will all of you too.

I’m officially off the grid until February 14th. See ya’ll on the other side.

Ron Swanson Pyramid of Greatness. NBC’s Parks and...

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:46:07 -0500

Ron Swanson Pyramid of Greatness. NBC’s Parks and Recreation makes me smile. I could write a lot about why it might be one of the smartest shows on TV right now - particularly in an age of cynicism in government - but I’ll leave that for another day.

Mayor's Economic Council: Keep an Open Mind and Get Involved

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:35:15 -0500

I had the pleasure of attending the Mayor’s Economic Council on behalf of Emerging Leaders last Thursday. I’ve been asked by lots of folks for my opinion on the whole thing - so thought I’d share here and also hopefully engage ya’ll in the process. You can only cram so many people into the Lamplighter for coffee and pastries, so we were all asked by the Mayor to reach out to our groups (that’s where you come in!) to widen the base of opinion. This is part of my effort to do so.

Before we get into your part I’ll offer some commentary. First, change is always an opportunity to question assumptions, push boundaries and generally say things that would have been taboo only a few months ago. That’s healthy for a city or an organization - and it gives license to all of us, not just the mayor, to be part of it all. After a change election our elected politicians are taking a second look at our economic development strategy and that isn’t a bad thing. So try not to be troubled or excited by specific ideas at this stage (401 development outside urban growth boundary, stop funding UWO/Fanshawe), instead take the big picture view and see this as an opportunity to express what is best for your business, organization, your family and neighbourhood and for London as a whole.

Second, in any change process there are usually 10 per cent with you no matter what, 10 per cent against you no matter what (and who will never be with you, no matter what), and a huge chunk in the middle that will swing to either poll based on how the change process shakes out. The decision I made at the outset is to be an active member of the middle group. To keep myself to this promise I wrote down four goals the night before the meeting: “Be an active and positive contributor. Push back where necessary but don’t be stubborn. Keep an open mind and stay positive. Work to make this work.” I think I achieved those goals and hope you will too.

OK, now on to your part. We were asked to answer three questions during the morning session - I’ll give you the same set of questions. You can e-mail your responses to mec@london.ca. If you don’t feel comfortable sending responses through official channels, you can send them my way: scott.courtice@gmail.com and I’ll make sure your opinions are heard.

Oh, if you’re not a ‘stay within the process’ kind of person please feel free to add ‘other’ comments…but only if you make a good effort to answer the questions asked by the Economic Council and keep those four goals I shared above in mind. ;)

1. What can the City of London do to be more welcoming and attractive to business?

2. What do you see as the ‘low hanging fruit (easy stuff)’ in the area of business expansion and job creation?

3. How can the City of London improve how it does business with business?

4. ‘Other’

That’s all friends. Next meeting is March 10th, so please comment away.

Don't play politics with water

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:55:00 -0500

Council will be debating at their Committee of the Whole meeting today whether or not to stick with a 20 year plan to finance much needed improvements to our water and sewer infrastructure, or to give Londoners a ‘taxcation’ in 2011 from water and waste water/treatment rates.

The rationale for freezing rates goes like this: the economy is terrible, people’s budgets are maxed out and we all could use more money in our pockets. I get this rationale and believe governments should be looking extra hard at the books this year and doing their best to pass on savings to the taxpayer. But I think governments should also be wise about where they find those savings - cut frills, find efficiencies and ask for some sacrifices, but also protect priorities that require investment.

Water and waste water/treatment infrastructure are probably two of the last places I’d go looking to find savings. I can live with my sidewalk and street being a little bumpy and can put up with other temporary service cut-backs, but I really, really don’t like putting our water infrastructure at risk to save a few bucks in 2011.

I think this should be put into perspective - freezing rates probably won’t lead to another sinkhole or Walkerton tragedy, but it also won’t result in mind blowing savings for taxpayers either. In the end it’ll result is some savings this year, but will cost everybody a bit more down the road.

Here’s the dollars and cents of it: if rates are frozen the average homeowner would save $25 (~$2.50 a month) on the water bill and $41 on waste water treatment (~$3 a month) in 2011. So we’re talking about $66 here - or $5.50 a month. Every little bit helps, but this isn’t a silver bullet for the family budget.

I guess what offends me most is the principle of the matter. We’re dealing with higher than inflation water and wastewater rates because previous generations didn’t pay the piper - they deferred maintenance, let our infrastructure crumble and ultimately pushed costs into the future. Making matters worse, the costs are also higher now than if they’d been dealt with before (it costs a lot more to fix a sinkhole than keeping up a regular schedule of maintenance and replacement.)

The last Council made the unpopular decision to deal with this once and for all by establishing a 20-year financial and capital plan. It has meant higher rates in the short term, but ultimately gets water rates to inflation by 2013 and wastewater to inflation by 2015. Freezing rates in 2011 throws this plan off kilter. I hope this Council chooses the unpopular yet responsible path by staying the course - we’ve got 4 more years of higher than inflation increases for water and 2 more years for waste water, and then we’re finally in a sustainable position. No more rolling the dice with our water infrastructure, and no more passing costs into the future. High rates aren’t very popular - but in the context of our water infrastructure, they are responsible.

Bottom line for me: you can play politics with lots of things, but water should not be one of them!

Civic administration has prepared a great report here that lays out the debate. In true administrator fashion they’ve prepared several scenarios for Council to consider. Also in good public servant form they’ve provided an option ‘d’ that is a nice compromise between the ‘rate freeze’ camp and the ‘status quo’ camp. If I was a betting man, I’d wager they’ll end up choosing that option. It allows face saving all around, gets us to inflationary rates only two years later than planned (2017 for water and 2015 for waste water), but will result in higher rates until that point. I still would vote for status quo, but could swallow this option if the status quo option is defeated.

I’m on vacation until January 3rd - I’m going to try and get back into a blogging routine, and I’ve got a long list of things to write about!

Heading to Council tonight - hope to see some of you there.

Ignite London: full text of my talk

Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:00:41 -0400

I gave an Ignite London talk on Tuesday night at the Aeolian Hall. It was a fantastic evening - lots of inspiring speakers. My mind has actually blanked out the entire 5 minutes that I was on stage, so I thought I’d post the full text of my comments in case I didn’t quite get them all out.

SHAKING UP THE 2014 MUNICIPAL ELECTION - The Time to Organize is Now

The Municipal Election is two weeks away, and I’d bet that very few in this hall are tingling with excitement. Many of you undoubtedly feel the election lacks vision and you’re not particularly inspired by where London is headed over the next 4 years.

If I wasn’t involved in a ward campaign (I’m helping out Paul Hubert in Ward 8) I think I’d be utterly disengaged. And I’m a politics guy – my wife and I fell in love as students watching Kingston City Council and way too many Senate Committees on CPAC. Yeah, really hot, I know. So if I can’t get really excited about this election it isn’t a good sign.

So I’m going to try and do two things with my talk: define two key challenges facing municipal elections; and start a dialogue about how 2014 can be different.

Making 2014 different’ centres on a two-part idea: organizing citizens to develop a vision and plan for London, and then turning those citizens into a political force that will elect candidates who can make that vision a reality.

Challenge 1 - There are close to 70 candidates running in this election. Contrary to popular belief, many of them have visions and plans for the city, and are quite talented people – I’m sure that all of us could all find at least one candidate that excites us. So why this collective sense that the election is devoid of ideas, vision or talent?

I believe it is because the greatest strength of our municipal political system also works as its greatest weakness. That strength is that councillors are elected as independents, able to vote their conscience – allowing them to think freely and work towards compromise on public policy. All good things.

Only at the municipal level would you find the famed ‘Killer B’s’ – four Councillors who would likely run under different party banners if they sought provincial or federal office, but are very effective when working together on common issues around the council table.

But this independence also acts as a weaknesses because it is difficult for voters to discern a common vision or platform during election time, which can be confusing and disempowering. Also, those informal coalitions that do exist around the Council horseshoe aren’t entirely transparent for voters – so it should be no surprise that some folks perceive there to be ‘socialist cabals’ and ‘good old boys’ running the show from behind the scenes.

This extends to the Council term, where the public perceives a Council that is always fighting about seemingly small, meaningless issues. You can find common visions among groups of councillors – to its credit, this council even wrote a strategic plan – but you really need to be looking for vision. It isn’t easily apparent.

Challenge 2. I hate the rule that you can’t bring up politics in polite company. We need to reclaim ‘politics’ and make it something we can all feel comfortable engaging with.

At its core, politics is about discourse – and turning that discourse into policy that meets the needs of our community. This doesn’t mean everyone needs to aspire to public office, but more of us need to get involved with candidates, politicians, or undertake advocacy in between elections.

Politics is participatory. It isn’t enough to point out problems, or just talk about solutions. Sometimes you’ve actually got to lay it on the line and be the solution. Unfortunately, there just aren’t enough of us willing to do that. This must change.

We can no longer view politics as a gladiator arena with winners and losers. We need to appeal to our greater instincts; through both our deeds and words we can demonstrate that politics and government can be a source of good in our community.

So what to do? I believe we must maintain the independence of councillors, but borrow some of the organizing and platform development strengths of political parties. So I suggest that we organize a coalition of candidates and volunteers for 2014. Coalition candidates that are elected would remain independent, free to vote as they choose from issue to issue, but they’d be united by a common vision and broad platform. That vision would be transparent for voters, and those voters can decide in 2018 which coalition candidates held up their end of the bargain.

The first step in building this coalition is to organize citizens to develop a vision and broad platform. This must precede the recruitment of candidates so that ideas, not egos, are at centre stage in the beginning.

The good news is that there are plenty of citizen coalitions already out there – I just think these groups need to come together around the same table more often. The Labour Council and the Chamber of Commerce; Emerging Leaders and Senior Citizen groups; Students’ Councils and Neighbourhood Associations around campus; the Urban League and the Keep London Growing Coalition. Let’s get uncomfortable, and then try and find some common ground. Too often we’re singing to the choir when we should be testing our assumptions and beliefs.

Finding a common vision may not be possible – this group of citizens may in fact splinter – but having two or three coalitions pitching different visions is better than an election with no vision at all. If we as active citizens don’t try to bridge differences, should it surprise or dissapoint us when our politicians don’t? Lets model good behaviour.

The coalition(s) must then engage with the political process. This involves finding at least 15 people – current councillors or complete newbies – willing to put their names on a ballot, and hundreds of citizens willing to support them. I can guarantee there’s a role for everyone in this hall to play if you want it.

How to select candidates is a whole other can of worms. Should one candidate per ward be supported, or any candidate that signs on to the vision and plan? The first is likely to garner greater electoral success, but would exclude some motivated people from running under the coalition banner. How should candidates be selected? These are tough choices that need to be addressed early on.

If you take anything from this talk, I hope it is this: It isn’t enough to get passionate about a vision for London – you also need to do the hard work to elect candidates who will help make that vision a reality. We’ve got 4 years and we can do this. I’m ready to get started, are you?

London Election Predictions (not endorsements)

Sat, 09 Oct 2010 21:10:18 -0400

I love the ‘fantasy council’ game that the good folks at Hack the Vote have put together. I know that I should be keeping my predictions to myself to increase my odds of winning, but thought I’d share anyway. (Quick rules of the game: You get 5 points if you pick the mayor, 3 points for correctly calling your own ward, and 1 point for every other correct ward.)

Keep in mind my picks below are not endorsements - they are just where I think the chips will fall on election day. I’ll give you a list of endorsements next week, with a rationale for my preferences.

Mayor - Anne Marie Decicco-Best

Ward 1 - Bud Polhill

Ward 2 - Bill Armstrong

Ward 3 - Joe Swan

Ward 4 - Greg Thompson

Ward 5 - Joni Baechler

Ward 6 - Nancy Branscombe

Ward 7 - Matt Brown

Ward 8 - Paul Hubert

Ward 9 - Gina Barber

Ward 10 - Paul Van Meerbergen

Ward 11 - David Winninger

Ward 12 - Harold Usher

Ward 13 - Judy Bryant

Ward 14 - Jim Wood

You don’t get any points for correctly calling school board races, but here are my picks for Thames Valley District School Board:

Ruth Tisdale

Sheri Polhill

Peggy Sattler

Peter Jaffe

Joyce Bennett

Terry Roberts

Accountability and transparency motion: let the sun shine in

Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:48:00 -0400

Just doing my regular Saturday morning scan of the upcoming Council agenda, and was very pleased to see a motion requesting that all local agencies, boards, and commissions that have councillors sitting on them post agendas, minutes, and meeting notices using the same standards as City Council - approving the motion would direct the city to politely request this action because it can’t ‘require’ agencies, boards and commissions to do so.

This is totally a political/symbolic move by Ms. Barber and Ms. Eagle to squeeze more mileage out of the Western Fair Board decision regarding ticket prices, but politics aside I find it very hard to disagree with their sentiment. (You may recall reports of inconsistent recollections of how certain councillors voted on the matter - public minutes would certainly clear that issue up, but the Western Fair would not release the minutes to the public.)

Though the fair is not technically a city board or commission funded out of the city base budget, it does have councillors on the board who sit on by virtue of their elected office. The Board of Governors at the University of Western Ontario is another example, as is the Fanshawe College Board - according to my old Governance Task Force materials, there are 31 such bodies that Councillors sit on.

As such, I completely agree that citizens should be able to evaluate the performance of their elected officials sitting on those boards. If they make a bone-headed decision, I’d like to know that when I cast my next ballot.

Many of these agencies will argue that they’re separately incorporated entities that have a duty to their members, not to the public; thus, they are not required to disclose meeting information to the public using the same standards as the municipality. This may be technically correct, but what’s the issue with sharing more information with the public? Many decisions will still be made in-camera (land, labour, law, contract issues) but why not share everything else? Many of the agencies, boards, and commissions have Councillors on them because their mandates serve a clear public interest, they receive some kind of financial break from the city, or both - so it is completely fair to hold them to a higher standard than other separately incorporated entities.

So I say these entities should give the public as much information as they can without breaching their fiduciary responsibility related to sensitive issues (land, labour, law. etc.); 99.9 per cent of the people serving on these boards are doing an excellent job and have absolutely nothing to fear and 99.9 per cent of the decisions are reasonable and made in good faith. Also, letting the public attend portions of meetings that don’t need to be confidential reduces the mystery and public cynicism, and also engages customers and stakeholders during the decision making process rather than after the fact. Good things, no?

More transparency very rarely leads to worse decisions - quite the opposite. So I’m hoping a) this motion is unanimously supported by Council on Monday night, and b) agencies, boards and commissions take the advice.

Off to a wedding this afternoon - have a great weekend everybody.

Insite: Another case of ideology trumping data

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:55:00 -0400

Apologies for my radio silence of late - work, illness, and plain old ‘enjoying the family’ have kept me from my keyboard. A few more busy days ahead, but promise to be more regular once September hits and the Municipal campaign heats up.

I have to break my self-imposed tumblr exile with a plea to ya’ll to read Paul Wells and John Geddes on the Insite safe injection site in Vancouver. I’m hoping most level headed Canadians will be upset by the clear attempts of upper brass in the RCMP, most likely on orders of their political masters in Ottawa (remember Tony Clement on Insite?) to ignore clear-cut science when it comes to harm reduction. I’m not an illegal drug user myself (I have certainly inhaled, but not in quite some time), but I think we should be treating addiction with a view towards what is proven to work just as we would treat any other illness.

Moralizing, fear-mongering and ideology yet again seem to be trumping data and the better instincts of loyal civil servants, and that just pisses me off. Hope it pisses you off too.

Anyway, please give these stories a read. This issue is much bigger than the census in my opinion, and I’m hoping it gets some legs.

Paul Wells - Insite Flim-Flam

John Geddes - RCMP and the truth

Censi-Leak, and must read columns on the census

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:37:15 -0400

This census debate keeps heating up (never thought I’d write that phrase) after the CBC obtained documents that demonstrate the government tried to arm-twist Statistics Canada into signing off on a communications plan that essentially said that StatsCan, not the Government of Canada, pushed for the scrapping on the mandatory long-form. If you want a good laugh/cry, take a look at the MS Word track change bubbles next to the government communications plans - some pretty unhappy and stunned bureacrats! I’m sure more insights will come from the leaked documents as the CBC has more time to go through them.

Anyway, back to work this week with lots on my plate - so I’m going to leave you with two columns written over the past few days about the importance of this debate. If you haven’t written, called, or e-mailed your local MP please take the time to do so - we’re running out of time.

Roy Romanow - Information Must be Canada’s Bedrock

Jeffrey Simpson - The long form will return. Voters won’t.

City of Edmonton: public involvement

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:01:56 -0400

Edmonton provides another Canadian example of a municipality using a citizen panel to help make decisions. The municipal council struck a citizen panel - drawing on 49 randomly selected citizens - to help make recommendations for its 2010-11 budget priorities.

Edmonton has a pretty extensive public involvement policy that sets rigorous standards for how the public is to be informed and involved; a partnership has also been struck with the University of Alberta to establish a Centre for Public Involvement.

I know the mayor is committed to stepping up our public involvement game here in London town, and an internal process is underway among city staff - so I’m feeling very positive that we’ll see some very interesting public involvement experiments during the next term of Council. I hope that we try a bunch of different ideas until we land on a mix of involvement opportunities that work best for our municipality.

In the spirit of doing my part to help London become a leader in citizen involvement - and also in the spirit of turning my insomnia into a positive - I’ll keep pulling examples for consideration.

“In the future, if you’re wondering, ‘Crime....

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:48:00 -0400

“In the future, if you’re wondering, ‘Crime. Boy, I don’t know’ is when I decided to kick your ass.” - President Bartlet, West Wing

Using unreported crimes to justify spending a tonne o’ dough ($9 billion) on new prisons puzzles me. Sure, StatsCan data (Crime and Victimization Survey) do show that only 34 per cent of crimes are reported (compared to 37 per cent in 1999, and 42 per cent in 1993) but overall reported crimes statistics are improving.

Even if you buy the argument that ‘unreported’ crimes are on the rise, and that official crime statistics can’t really be trusted, how does this justify a massive prison building regime? Building more prisons isn’t the magic bullet that will incent people to report more crimes. I’m no crime expert, but I have done some reading on the subject - my understanding is that many unreported crimes fall into several categories: minor property crimes (your car gets broken into, and a few loonies are stolen) and minor assaults (bar brawlz); criminal on criminal crime (a police friend told me that 90 per cent of home invasions are drug related - and many go unreported); sexual assaults and domestic disputes (very serious issues, but hardly solved by prisons.)

So yeah, I’m scratching my head a little bit.

Addressing unreported crime is a valid public policy issue to pursue; the New York experience in the 1990s shows that addressing minor, petty crimes can help reduce major crime; and, it is difficult to argue against getting at the root causes of unreported domestic and sexual assaults. I just think the policy prescription Mr. Day is holding up - prison building - hardly addresses the issue of unreported crime.

Calling a spade a spade, I think he was getting grilled by the media in what he and his aides expected to be a sleepy summer media conference; he was shaken off his talking points, and pulled some stats from his briefing book.

I only wish the unreported crime data were taken from the long-form census - that would have made my week.

I almost spit out my coffee when I saw this - it is SO true.

Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:08:00 -0400

I almost spit out my coffee when I saw this - it is SO true.

I've been put in a mood

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:57:00 -0400

Just reading Free Press coverage of the Fontana presser from today - he promised to “lead by example” and ride the bus; he quickly managed to kill his transit credibility by saying that money earmarked for transit in the draft transportation master plan “scares the bejesus out of (him).” He also made a whole bunch of other traffic-flow related promises that likely resulted in animated dinner table conversations at households of London traffic engineers this evening:

Traffic Engineer: Seriously! Hey Einstein, if improving London’s traffic flow was as simple as adding more advance greens and making left hand turn signals flash a little bit longer, we would have been done it by now!

Traffic Engineer’s Spouse: Honey, I’ve never seen your face turn that shade of purple before - maybe you should just breathe.

Mr. Fontana also made an odd-ball transparency promise to “remove the multiple glass barriers currently installed outside the mayor’s office.” What is that about? Is it a lame attempt to spin a narrative that the mayor isn’t accessible to business or ‘the people.’ He also threw his weight behind a parking garage downtown, even though the economics of such a venture are fuzzy at the moment.

So in honour of having my intelligence insulted, I present Chewbacca riding a giant squirrel while fighting Nazis - you’ve probably seen this floating around the interweb over the past few days. In my humble opinion, this wonderful piece of art is a metaphor for the odds of a 4-year tax freeze in London, or for the likelihood that Mr. Fontana will ever truly empathise with transit riders; it is stuff of fantasy, and no matter how much we hope and dream for such an awesome scenario to come true, it will not.

Predictions on what’s next on the “I need a Hail Mary to unseat the mayor” hit parade? A ring road? Road construction that never inconveniences drivers? Every traffic light is a green traffic light?

I promise to return to my mature-self tomorrow - must be the vacation rotting my brain.

You may recall an earlier post about creating an “Assembly...

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:26:00 -0400

You may recall an earlier post about creating an “Assembly of 70” here in London - aka the Ignite Talk I never got a chance to give. My idea was largely based on my own experiences as a facilitator in public policy sessions, but also from the work of the Canadian Policy Research Networks.

My idea was/is kind of a loose, pie in the sky concept - so imagine my delight when I found a Canadian company this does this kind of work. London could do this - I really think we should experiment during the next term of Council. We could develop a vision for London, could help Council chart its strategic plan, or just give advice on the annual budget. We’re doing Open Data, the Strengthening Neighbourhoods Task Force was an excellent experiement that yielded great results, and city administration is looking at new ways to engage the public. I say we try this concept, even just once, and see what kind of result we get.

If the city doesn’t want to engage a firm like MASS LBP, I’m sure there are enough smart and motivated folks in London - thinking the university and others - that could pull something like this off, and do so pro bono or for very little cost. (ChangeCamp, but with a randomly selected pool of particpants.) Ask more of us, and we’ll answer the call.

London City Council: inside baseball zinger of the night

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:01:00 -0400

I’m working on a lengthy post on water rates but wanted write a quick post about decorum at the meeting last night - particularly during the water debate. It was quite a cordial debate for such a hot button issue, with most councillors providing remarks of substance. I’d even venture out on a limb and say it was a fruitful exchange of ideas, rather than a series of pre-canned, made for A-Channel sound bytes, or bush league manufactured bluster and indignation.

I did pick up on one zinger of a comment that made me chuckle, mainly from an ‘art of political theatre’ perspective. Thought I’d share it with ya’ll because it might amuse (or disgust) some of you.

The comment came from Tom Gosnell in response to the use of ‘fairness’ as a reason to equalize industry, commercial, and institutional (ICI) water rates with residential rates - I’m paraphrasing his quote, but it kind of went like this: “you know, whenever I hear people using ‘fairness’ as the reason for doing something I think back to when I was a young man, when in 1990 a new government was elected that almost destroyed Ontario.”

His comment was most certainly directed at two card carrying NDPers on Council, David Winninger (elected MPP in the NDP sweep to power in 1990, serving as a parliamentary secretary in Bob Rae’s government) and Gina Barber (David Winninger’s campaign manager in 1990.) Both David and Gina argued forcefully for the ICI increase, so I’m sure Mr. Gosnell couldn’t resist revisiting history to take a shot across their bow in an attempt to discredit their economic management credentials.

I was particularly pleased that David and Gina didn’t take the bait or howl and wail about his comment being a ‘Code of Conduct’ violation - they took it as they should: as part of the cut and thrust of debate. I’m not condoning cheap shots, personal attacks, or comments that are truly intimidating or hurtful - something that Mr. Gosnell has been accused of in the past (most notably when he suggsted Barber, Baechler, Branscombe, and Bryant were part of a socialist cabal.) But I do think well placed witty or cutting remarks are part of doing business, particularly when someone is trying to point out the fallacy of another politician’s argument. It is knowing where the line is that’s the trick - and last night Mr. Gosnell managed to toe the line.

That’s all I’ve got today. I’m working away on the other post, but my priority is vacation at the moment. Stay tuned.

Census flap: future public policy driven by ideology or data?

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:31:00 -0400

Like most Canadians, I’m a pretty moderate guy when it comes to public policy. I do carry a Liberal membership card, but that doesn’t define me. I tend to lean left of centre on lots of things, but I’m also pretty right of centre on others. I think I’m all over the map because I approach issues with an open mind; I want to know what the data show, seek out advice of experts with a natural curiosity (with respect for their expertise, but also clear on their bias), and just generally ask lots of questions until I’m satisfied I’ve got the best solution to the issue at hand. My final analysis on an issue may be ‘right’ or ‘left’, but it also tends to be what makes the most sense once all the facts and opinions are weighed.

That’s why I just don’t get ideologues. I’ve had lots of experience with them during my time in the student movement, where there is a healthy disagreement regarding how best to improve access for demographics that are underrepresented in higher education - particularly low-income, aboriginal, and rural Canadians. Some approach this question with an open mind, willing to question assumptions; to be polite, others don’t - their policy prescriptions have been largely unchanged in over two decades.

I particularly remember when a rag tag group of researchers at the now defunct Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation began doing research on accessibility, and dared to suggest that the question of access was actually quite complex. I won’t bore you with the details, but their data show policy prescriptions like targeted grants and enhanced information about educational pathways are far more likely to get a low-income young person to pursue higher education than lowering or freezing tuition. (Don’t get me wrong - I think tuition is very high, but it is only a factor, not THE factor, that determines if a young person will pursue higher education.) Unsuprisingly, the ideologues were apoplectic when the Foundation began releasing research that questioned long-held dogma; as such, they waged a decade long battle to end the Foundation’s mandate - which was ultimately successful after the Conservative government decided not to renew funding for the CMSF in their 2008 budget.

I really see this census flap through the same lens. Good data is essential when governments want to create policy that works, rather than policy that fits into an ideology. Sometimes the data speak uncomfortable truths, but better to know and respond with a solution that works than respond with a policy that doesn’t.

The intelligentsia are largely united in opposition to the census changes, but recent polling shows that many Canadians are scratching their heads about why this census issue is a big deal. I really see it as a simple question: do you want public policy to be based on the best possible data and evidence, or do you want it to be based on a battle between ideology and wishy-washy data? Or, said another way, do you want your tax dollars to be spent wisely on programs that work, or spent to justify slogans, gut feels, and stuff that rakes in donations from a political base…and might work, if we’re lucky?

Two items from the media today on this issue that are similar to my opinion:
Ottawa Citizen Editorial

Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail

NOTE: I’m on vacation for a few weeks and have quite a few things happening on the home front, so my blogging activity might be curtailed slightly over the next few weeks.

Progress: London Community Engagement Policy, and Open Data

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:56:00 -0400

A very short entry today to give kudos to city staff for moving forward an issue that is near and dear to my heart: effective community engagement.

I’m particularly heartened by the objectives that have been set for the working group - in my opinion the group is starting from the right grounding, which is more than half the battle. I also agree that in exercises like this the process (and the culture change that accompanies good process) is just as if not more important than the destination. I’m also obvioulsy pleased that the community will be engaged in the development of the community engagement policy, and hope some creative forms of engagement will be used/piloted when garnering that feedback from the public.

Looks like the working group is on a timeline that will ensure the next Council will have a policy in place that will allow it to tap into the collective knowledge of the community, which is an invaluable resource to augment the expert advice of city staff.

With an Open Data pilot project also moving forward, I think all of us that agitate on the sidelines of city politics should take pause and recognize that when a good case is made, change can indeed happen. Both of these initiatives are still in their infancy, but I know there are community champions that want to see both through, and there are also champions within City Hall - politicians, and civic administrators - that are enthusiastic to take action on both of these fronts. So congrats to all, and I’m really looking foward to seeing both initiatives come to fruition.

$16 billion deserves a robust debate in Parliament

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:43:00 -0400

I’m not against investing in the Canadian Forces in principle - but I also believe we shouldn’t spend a penny more than we absolutely need given that defence dollars could be spent on other pressing domestic priorities. It isn’t a pure zero sum game - a dollar spent on the military is a direct trade-off for other domestic issues - but it can sometimes feel that way. So at the very least Canadians must be assured that we’re spending defence dollars on things that best support Canadian values and priorities.

So I’ve been following the government’s announcement that it will purchase sixty-five F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to replace the aging fleet of CF-18s with great interest. On a theoretical level I can buy the argument that we need fighter jets to defend the massive expanse of our country, and to live up to our NATO commitments abroad. I say theoretical because I’m no defence expert. What I am is a citizen and taxpayer, so I feel expert enough to be concerned about puchasing very expensive fighters using a single source contract, and designing Canada’s requirements such that no other source could even bid on the contract if it had been put to tender.

I’ve also read enough commentary this week questioning if the F-35 is the right choice for Canada to believe that there must be a robust public debate in Parliament regarding the issue. Maybe after debate the F-35 is the right choice (I’d note that the Liberal government started us down this path, so they have a responsibility to keep an open mind) - but I’d like to know exactly why the Super Hornet, Typhoon, or the Gripen are the wrong choices?

Between procurement and maintenance the F-35 purchase is about a $16 billion hit to the Canadian taxpayer. To put that in perspective, we could build a high-speed rail corridor from Windsor to Quebec City for between $18-30 billion. Admittedly, this isn’t a debate about the F-35 versus High-Speed rail - I simply raise it to demonstrate how massive a public expenditure this is, and why I believe a robust debate in Parliament is so necessary. Such a debate would help every informed Canadian answer the following questions: Do we even need new fighters in the first place? If yes, what do we need them to do? Finally, what fighter gets us the best value for money?

I’d personally throw in a final question: What other pressing priorities could be satisfied with these dollars, and are those priorities more important than purchasing the F-35s? Snow ball chance in hell that’ll get debated seriously, but it is the question that weighs most heavily on my mind.

Census long-form: bad policy, even worse politics

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:39:06 -0400

There’s been lots of great commentary about why scrapping the census long-form is about the worst public policy decision since scrapping the Avrow Arrow, so I’m not going to go there. What interests me most about this issue is just how crappy the Conservative’s issues management folks (read: the political operatives in the shadows) have been on this file.

I was just watching my favourite afternoon politics program, Power and Politics, and almost fell out of my chair listening to Industry Minister Tony Clement’s rationale for scrapping the long-form: Statistics Canada told us to. First off, it is highly doubtful that StatsCan initiated this recommendation without pressure from the Minister’s office. (I’m excited for the ”our Minister is full of sh$t” leaks out of StatsCan in the days ahead.) That aside, if ‘StatsCan told me to do it’ is the narrative - aka the best story they’ve got to justify this policy change - I’m feeling pretty confident the decision is going to be reversed. The other weak defence is that Clement has received complaints from some people about ‘invasion of privacy,’ but I’m betting those complaints are a trickle rather than a flood.

This government does very well with issues management - this is, when a controversial (or potentially controversial) piece of policy is announced they’ve got a great narrative to justify it that resonates with enough of the public to keep them on top of the polls; they usually also have a line-up of interest groups and commentators ready to feed that narrative; the conservatives also manage to link Liberal opposition to most government policy to Ignatieff’s ‘just visiting,’ ‘he’s an effeminate boob that puts grey poupon on his poutine, and pours crème fresh in his Tim Hortons’ narrative that has been so ruthlessly nurtured by the Conservative politics machine. Maybe an assumption was made that only a bunch of academics would come to the long-form’s defence, and Iggy standing with those folks only strengthens the ‘he’s an out-of-touch-professor-from-Harvard-who-is-more-American-than-Canadian’ crap that’s underpinned the ‘just visiting’ smear campaigns of late?

The most notable exception to the Conservative’s scary good issues management was the ‘let’s make the national anthem gender neutral’ balloon they floated in the last throne speech, which they popped almost immediately when the backlash was fast and furious. Their refusal to support safe abortions as part of their international maternal health policy came close too, but there was a very long line of groups willing to stand with the government on that one. Not so on the long-form elimination. Seems that only a few less than stellar commentators are with the government, but very few others.

This decision seems to be based on playing to (someone correct me if I’m wrong) a very small part of the Conservative base. A group of folks that would always vote for PM Harper’s team, or at the very worst stay home on Election Day.

Bottom line, I just don’t see good politics in this issue. I’m assuming somebody simply ‘misunderestimated’ the level of outcry that would come with scrapping the long-form, which is why the Industry Minister has been caught flat footed when trying to justify the decision in the media. He’ll get a chance to elaborate in committee, but I struggle to see how he’ll spin this issue’s narrative in the government’s favour. Even more amazing to me is the number of groups opposing this policy (not just the snooty academics that the Conservatives probably anticipated would stand in opposition), including lots of groups that would traditionally walk in lock-step with government policy. This is all the more curious to me that Industry dropped the ball, given how well their issues management was on C-32 (Copyright Modernization.)

Anyway, all that to say: from a political perspective, I’m more hopeful now that this policy will be reversed. That’s a good thing because the long-form is incredibly important. I guess all the good Conservative operatives have gone fishin’, or have been put on rapid response to the Iggy summer tour?