All posts in Alberta Politics

Wildrose deftly defuses robo-call crisis while federal Cons suffer Scotch verdict

Members of the Wildrose Party try out their new robo-calling technology, which should avoid future problems with the CRTC. Right-wing Alberta politicians may not appear exactly as illustrated. Below: Wildrose Party Executive Committee President David Yager.

You don’t have to agree with Alberta’s right-wing Wildrose Party to admire the skill with which it stick-handled yesterday’s revelation it had been fined $90,000 by the federal broadcast regulator for a series of improperly identified robo-calls made to voters during the 2012 election campaign.

Compared to the federal Conservative Party’s blundering response to its various recent troubles, it seems mildly astonishing the two parties are essentially the provincial and federal branches of the same organization.

Slapped with the significant fine by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Wildrose Party officials responded deftly.

When the CRTC decision was reported by Global TV, party officials fessed up immediately, then followed with an immediate, contrite and seemingly sincere admission they were wrong and a promise never to do it again. They’d already paid their fine by the time the matter was in the news and that was the end of it. There will be no appeal.

Party leaders left the embarrassing admission to David Yager, president of the party’s executive committee, instead of Opposition Leader Danielle Smith.

The tone and speed with which the matter was handled was pitch perfect. Under the circumstances, the party’s claim it didn’t realize it was breaking the rules will sound quite believable to voters. As a consequence, the whole potentially embarrassing business will likely fall off the radar within 48 hours.

Given the size of the fine and the Canadian right’s issues with regulators like the CRTC, the temptation must have been strong in Wildrose circles to make a fight out of the dispute – but someone obviously made a cool-headed assessment of the facts and realized that would only prolong and magnify the agony.

This contrasts dramatically with the federal Cons’ ham-handed handling of the continuing Duffygate Senate expense scandal and the coincidental court ruling yesterday in the election fraud case stemming from the last federal vote in May 2011 – a case less that coincidentally involved Rack 9, the same Edmonton robo-call company that made the Wildrose calls.

In fairness, there’s a significant difference in gravity between the Wildrose Party’s failure to identify itself as the source of partisan robo calls and the outright electoral fraud in which targeted Liberal supporters were misdirected to incorrect or imaginary polling stations by callers pretending to be from Elections Canada.

Still, if the federal Conservatives had adopted a similar strategy, contritely admitted they had done wrong, paid the party’s debt to society and perhaps tossed in a few extra “overenthusiastic” low-level flunkies to accompany party operative Michael Sona under the bus, the whole affair could have been forgotten by now.

But Prime Minister Harper is almost pathologically incapable of admitting error. His party tried to block the proper investigation at every turn.

Now, in a classic “Scotch Verdict,” the judge in the federal case appears to have let the Conservatives off the hook because, despite powerful circumstantial evidence, the facts were well enough hidden to make it difficult to tie the well-established fraudulent activities to the only party in a position to benefit from them.

According to the Globe and Mail, this result clears Mr. Harper’s Conservatives, Tory candidates and two telemarketing companies of wrongdoing. However, the political reality is quite different. The case is merely “not proven,” while the odour of corruption will stick to Mr. Harper’s party like a miasma.

Moreover, federal Tory pain is bound continue, since the Council of Canadians will now likely take its demand for election results in six ridings to be overturned to the Supreme Court of Canada. Win or lose before the Supremes, the Council’s case will continue to bedevil the Harperites.

Given the ways they dealt with these superficially similar cases, you’d almost think the Harper Conservatives in Ottawa were the farm team, and the Wildrose Party in backcountry Alberta were the pros!

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

CBC journalist Charles Rusnell: slaying Alberta’s Tory dragon, one scandal at a time …

Your blogger with CBC investigative reporter Charles Rusnell. Below: Edmonton-Manning MLA Peter Sandhu; Mr. Sandhu with Alison Redford in a Tory Party photo grabbed from the Daveberta.ca blog. The photo-bomber is Calgary-Fort MLA Wayne Cao.

You’d think it would be easy to run a petroleum-soaked, cash-rich jurisdiction like Alberta, but a day seldom seems to pass out here on the western edge of the Great Plains without our governing Progressive Conservative Party suffering another pratfall or embarrassment.But how many Albertans know that so many of these scandals bedevilling our permanent governing party have been uncovered by the same guy — a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. investigative reporter named Charles Rusnell?

It was Mr. Rusnell who broke stories on, among other things, former Tory leadership candidate and senior minister Ted Morton’s bogus government email account; a host of illegal political donations, including the one from Athabasca University; Tobaccogate, wherein a law firm that had the premier’s ex-husband for a partner got picked for years of highly lucrative legal work; former Alberta Health Services CFO Allaudin Merali and his wonderful expense account; Alison Redford’s sister’s iffy political donations; and the disturbing tale of the whistleblower at Transcanada Pipelines.

The latest Conservative caucus calamity (C3) uncovered by Mr. Rusnell is the troubling case of Peter Sandhu, the Tory MLA for Edmonton-Manning, who since his election in 2008 has generally been assessed as a legislative under-performer but not much more.

A low performance rating is no barrier to re-election around here, however, as long as the MLA in question has official permission to put his or her face on a blue-and-orange PC lawn sign, something Mr. Sandhu proved in April 2012.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sandhu is performing well beyond specifications in the press clippings department right now – indeed, to such a degree that he’s at least temporarily no longer a member of Premier Alison Redford’s PC caucus.

On Tuesday, the Edmonton investigative staff of the CBC was reporting that Mr. Sandhu’s house-building company, NewView Homes, not only has a history of chronic debt and faces dozens lawsuits for unpaid bills, but a goodly portion of its liabilities weren’t properly disclosed as required of an MLA under the province’s Conflicts of Interest Act.

Worse, Mr. Rusnell revealed, his investigation “uncovered a false statement made by the MLA in a sworn affidavit filed in a civil court case involving a dispute over an alleged debt.” The CBC says it can show Mr. Sandhu was in Canada at a time he swore he was in India.

Yikes! Now the opposition parties of the left and right are screaming for Mr. Sandhu’s head and demanding that the RCMP step in and lay charges.

The Redford Government would really rather do nothing at all, thank you very much. Premier Redford and Human Services Minister Dave Hancock – who is also the Government House Leader and as readers of this blog will recall, according to the Edmonton Journal the moral compass of the Tory caucus – lamely tried to praise Mr. Sandhu for doing “the honourable thing” and jumping before he was pushed.

So, is Mr. Rusnell on a crusade against the Progressive Conservatives?

No doubt it seems that way deep inside the Redford cabinet bunker, but it’s said here that it wouldn’t really matter which party was in power, Mr. Rusnell would be going after bad behaviour with the same pit-bull fervour.

Charles Rusnell is just one of those guys who can’t stand hypocrisy, special dealing, rule breaking, insider trading and the idea that the law is for everyone else – just the sort of things you’d expect to be rampant in a province that has been run by the same party for 42 years and essentially the same crowd for almost twice that long. Really, probably the only way to get him off your case is to behave yourself.

If Mr. Rusnell were a police officer, he’d be the kind of cop who’d ticket the chief’s car at a funeral. Instead, he’s a former print reporter with a lot of knowhow about filing Freedom of Information requests.

Years ago, Mr. Rusnell worked for the Edmonton Journal, but they pushed him over the side along with many other skilled senior reporters who cost too much and knew too much for the beancounters in Ontario who run the paper.

So nowadays, while the investigation-free daily timorously ducks behind its leaky new paywall, Mr. Rusnell wins awards and breaks scandals one after the other for the national public broadcaster, which is hated by Conservatives everywhere for doing just this kind of thing.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised Mr. Rusnell will be breaking another C3 very soon.

Meanwhile, in other news, Mr. Merali, the former AHS CFO, is back in the news, demanding the payment of the $580,000 severance package he was denied when he was made to walk the plank for embarrassing the government when his sometimes lavish expenses turned up in one of Mr. Rusnell’s most famous reports.

And reading between the lines of the news coverage Wednesday, it sounds very much as if the people who run AHS recognize they’re going to have to pay him – which will be yet one more serious embarrassment for the Redford Government.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: lessons from B.C. for NDPers everywhere

Just to set the mood, it’s Left-Leaning B.C. Premiers Day on Alberta Diary. Here’s your blogger with some former NDP premiers from that province – Dave Barrett above, Mike Harcourt and Ujjal Dosanjh below. 

No one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the New Democrats in my native British Columbia.

Still, while Tuesday’s upset B.C. election victory by Premier Christy Clark and her un-liberal Liberals is inevitably going to be, well, upsetting to a lot of New Democrats, it is not really bad news for Thomas Mulcair and the federal NDP.

This, we might say, is the social democratic truth that dare not speak its name: an NDP government in a large province like British Columbia would inevitably have enacted policies that upset voters elsewhere in Canada and would have provided excellent targets for attacks by the ever-negative Stephen Harper Tories on Mr. Mulcair and the NDP.

So, as my mother used to tell me, every cloud has a silver lining, and this is the faint silver lining to the clouds blowing over B.C. today.

Pretty soon, I expect Premier Clark will sit down with Alberta Premier Alison Redford and politely negotiate a pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat, Ms. Redford’s home town.

But, as has been said in this space in the not-so-distant past, defeated B.C. NDP Leader Adrian Dix probably would have done much the same thing, which is one problem with running a low-bridge campaign that doesn’t really seem to stand for anything much.

The majority of British Columbians who are opposed to pipelines from Alberta running through their back yards can be forgiven by their confusion about whom best to vote for to stop them.

Look, it’s been an awfully long time since I lived in B.C. – more than 30 years now – and the place has become a foreign country to me. Someone closer to the West Coast scene can probably tell me how wrong I am about each of these points, and almost certainly will.

Still, it seems to me there are several telling lessons for New Democrats elsewhere in Canada, and for plenty of Liberals too, in the unexpected B.C. vote results on Tuesday night. Because I’m just a negative sort of guy, I’ve configured them all as Don’ts:

  • Don’t be too quick to skid your leader. Who can doubt that if Carole James were still the leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party, she would have done better than Mr. Dix, and probably would be the premier today?
  • Don’t run an issueless campaign from opposition. Low-bridging is for governments with a lousy record and popular leader. (Pierre Trudeau, c’mon down from above!) If you don’t have a compelling narrative that’s different from the government’s, sooner or later the government is sure to start looking better than you do.
  • Don’t promise never to use negative advertising. This is simple foolishness. Not only do Canadian voters tolerate negative ads, they expect them, even desire them. If you won’t vigorously attack your opponents, you will be assumed to stand for nothing. How many times does this have to be said? Nice guys finish last. This is something for Justin Trudeau to think about too.
  • Don’t succumb to poll-driven hubris. Alberta Premier Redford proved it in 2012. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark proved it again this week. Hell, Harry Truman proved it back in 1948 – and that was before everyone under 40 only had a cell phone! Public opinion polls do get it wrong. They’re a useful tool. But that’s all they are. Always run as if you were far behind. Don’t start naming your transition team before you’ve won the election, for crying out loud! Mr. Dix ran as if he was in the lead and he paid the price.
  • Don’t forget your core supporters. In the case of the NDP, that would be social democrats, trade unionists, and even (ahem!) socialists. Maybe B.C. voters figured if only Liberals were running, they might as well vote for a real Liberal.
  • Don’t assume Canadian political parties must be led by men to succeed. This should be obvious to everyone now. There’s a trend apparent here, wouldn’t you say? Canadian voters appear to like women leaders. Right now five of 10 Canadian provinces – with about 87 per cent of the population – are led by women. Maybe you should take this into consideration when you’re picking a leader.

I’m also inclined to think that if you’re a politician expecting to get elected, you should have your doubts about hiring political campaign operatives who are in partnership with people working for other parties. And that you should always pay your transit fare – no matter how short a ride it is you’re planning – although in fairness accidents do happen. But I’m not so sure there are big, profound lessons in these two points.

Oh, and one other thing: if you’re not prepared to fight a tough, meaningful campaign that pays attention to your core supporters – you know, like Prime Minister Harper is a master at doing – maybe you should go to church instead of into politics!

 

This is a moment of reckoning for Canadian pollsters

Pretty obviously, we have reached a moment of reckoning for Canada’s pollsters.

If you only have three strikes before you’re out, Canada’s pollsters have only got one more election to get it right.

Here are four reasons, polling companies’ claims notwithstanding, for Canadian pollsters’ dramatic misses in Alberta last year and British Columbia the day before yesterday, not to mention their none-too-stellar performance in Quebec last fall:

  1. Polling methodology is getting worse on average. Some pollsters will tell you their online panels are nipped and tucked into a perfect imitation of a traditionally random telephone survey, maybe even better. I remain skeptical. Pollsters like these panels because they cost less, and they eliminate the problem of people who won’t talk to them. But the people who join panels are engaged by politics, and therefore a greater percentage of them want political change. This influences these polls’ results and by osmosis exaggerates the desire for change shown in averages of several polls.
  2. Polls don’t tell who will vote. With voter turnout down everywhere – and active voter suppression techniques in use by conservative parties to discourage people who want change – Canadian pollsters are having trouble figuring out who will actually vote. Well, people who are satisfied with the government may not join online panels, but they do come out and vote. If pollsters can’t account for this, they will keep getting it wrong.
  3. Canadian voters are becoming more volatile. Maybe it’s instant online communications. Maybe it’s shorter attention spans. Whatever it is, Canadian voters are becoming more volatile. Lifelong Tories, Grits or Knee-Dips? Forget about it! Every poll nowadays needs to come with a disclaimer: Results may not turn out to be exactly as illustrated. And maybe pollsters need to start doing Third World style exit polls.
  4. Canadian voters are becoming more strategic. In both Alberta and British Columbia, it is said here voters who wanted to scare the governing parties but didn’t really want change sent a message via the pollsters who called them. In other words, they’re lying – knowingly and with a plan – to pollsters. The impact of this is magnified by over-reliance by online panels.

Pollsters need to figure this stuff out – or become a laughing stock.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Who leaked the Alberta government’s response to AUPE’s Labour Board complaint, and why?

AUPE President Guy Smith in a characteristic pose.

Who leaked the Alberta government’s response to the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees’ unfair labour practices complaint to an Edmonton Journal political reporter, and why?

This is an important question because at the time the leak took place, the government document questioning AUPE President Guy Smith’s personal honesty in harsh and colourful terms was being kept confidential by the Alberta Labour Relations Board.

This was done as a fairly routine part of the board’s effort to effect a settlement of AUPE’s complaint that the Alberta government had broken an agreement it made to end the illegal strike by about 2,500 jail guards on May 1.

On May 9, the day before the Journal story was published, Labour Relations Board Chair Mark Asbell appointed Vice-Chair Lyle Kanee under the terms of Alberta’s Public Service Employee Relations Act “to enquire into the complaint and endeavour to effect a settlement.”

To assist Mr. Kanee’s effort to bring the parties together to reach a settlement, the board halted formal processing of AUPE’s complaint until the vice-chair’s inquiry and settlement efforts could be completed.

To promote opportunities for settlements, it is the board’s policy in such circumstances not to release or comment on any complaints or replies it receives from the parties to a dispute.

So, just to make this crystal clear, although the government document according to the Journal was filed with the board on May 7, acting officially, the ALRB did not provide and would never have provided the document to the Edmonton Journal.

Indeed, because the processing of AUPE’s complaint had been suspended by the board – and even before the vice-chair was appointed to seek a settlement, everyone involved must have known this was an almost inevitable step in the process – there was really no requirement or need for the government’s position to be filed with the board at that time.

Regardless, the only way the Journal could have received this document was in the form of an unofficial leak from a person or persons who for the time being remain unknown.

So it is reasonable for us to ask what the objective was of whoever leaked the government position.

AUPE and the government were making conflicting claims at the time and were in a battle for public opinion. AUPE said the guards who had struck illegally on April 27 had been offered an amnesty by the government, which in this case is also the employer. The government claimed there never was any such agreement.

So by making the government’s argument public, the leak of the government filing to the Journal story delivered a potentially significant public relations blow to AUPE.

The document was summarized by the Journal’s reporter as saying AUPE President Guy Smith, desperate to stop the heavy fines the courts were piling onto the union for the strike, intentionally lied to his own members to get them to go back to work.

It is reasonable to conclude the leak of this document was a gesture of bad faith, by whoever leaked it. It is possible to conclude it was an act of sabotage, intended to make a settlement impossible.

At the very least, the assault on Mr. Smith’s reputation will certainly make achieving a resolution much more difficult – although AUPE is now reacting in a very measured fashion, no doubt on the advice of its legal counsel.

Only four general groups of people would have had access to the document before it was leaked: ALRB staff and officials, the union, lawyers involved in the case, and the government, including the political infrastructure of the Progressive Conservative Party.

It is said here it is extremely unlikely that anyone associated with the board, the union or any of the lawyers involved in the case would have done this.

We can rule out the union because the document paints it and its president in an extremely unflattering light, and had the potential to damage the president’s reputation among the members who elect him.

We can rule out the ALRB because despite a legislated structure designed to be employer friendly, its staff is thoroughly professional and aware of the need to act in good faith and enforce its own policies.

We can rule out any lawyer involved in the case because they are sworn to uphold the law and obviously understand clearly the professional implications of engaging in unethical jiggery-pokery with material of this sort.

So this leaves us, by process of elimination, with only one group of likely suspects for this highly unorthodox and unethical information leak.

To wit: someone in the government, most likely associated with the Progressive Conservative Party.

One can argue that there are also practical arguments from the government’s perspective not to leak the document – at least if it is serious about reaching an settlement to end AUPE’s complaint.

Certainly, if mediation fails as a result of the leak, it seems extremely likely the union will call Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk to the stand and examine him under oath.

After all, what transpired at Mr. Lukaszuk’s dinner with Mr. Smith on April 29 – the one at which Mr. Smith says they agreed to an amnesty deal and Mr. Lukaszuk says they did not – is the key to the dispute between the union and the government.

Nevertheless, the government is the only party that stands to gain in any way from the publication of this material.

Moreover, the Progressive Conservative Party is well known to have a history of using questionable leaks to media of confidential information as a political strategy. Conservative parties generally are known to put a premium on appearing tough, and eschewing flip-flops like the one executed by Mr. Lukaszuk in the AUPE’s version of post-strike events.

It is highly evocative, moreover, that in addition to its timing, the leak was made to the Journal’s political reporter, who conveniently works in the Press Gallery of the Legislature Building.

Naturally, no one can fault a journalist for reporting on such a document.

But the leaker needs to be identified and dealt with if Albertans are to continue to have faith in the work of quasi-judicial bodies like the Alberta Labour Relations Board.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Democracy, Alberta-style: Voters can have any policy they want, as long as it’s Conservative

The Alberta government bargaining team on their way to talks with the Alberta Teachers Association in their Model-T, coloured black. Actual Alberta labour relations specialists may not appear exactly as illustrated. Below: Education Minister Jeff Johnson and industrialist Henry Ford.

In Alberta, it appears you now have more power as the president of a neighbourhood community league than as a duly elected member of a school board!

With province-wide municipal elections scheduled to take place in October, that’s something would-be candidates for school trustee might want to think about.

Albertans had a small but significant demonstration of this axiom yesterday, when Education Minister Jeff Johnson announced that if members of elected school boards won’t co-operate with the government and vote the way they have been instructed, the results of their mistaken votes will be made to reflect the decision they were supposed to make.

The same goes for teachers’ union locals, which usually hold contract ratification votes. But if union members fail to vote the correct way, the minister said, they will also be required to accept the contract they rejected!

Figuring out how to live with it, of course, will still be their problem.

We call this … Democracy, Alberta-style!

We might also call it the First Law of Governing Alberta, which would go something like this: “We made a mistake. We gave it to you. Now it’s your mistake … and we won’t take it back!

So Mr. Johnson says he will introduce a law that takes the four-year collective agreement that the government of Premier Alison Redford negotiated in March with the Alberta Teachers Association and make any school board that refused to ratify it (like the Public School Board in Calgary, the largest in the province) or any ATA local where members did the same thing (like the public schoolteachers in in my community of St. Albert) and force them to take it anyway.

The really strange thing about this is that it was Mr. Johnson himself who made this into an all-or-nothing proposition. There is no basis in existing legislation, regulations, ATA policy or Alberta School Boards Association policy saying teachers’ negotiations have to be unanimous or a deal fails. The minister just made that part up.

Now, back in the days when a bilingual Canada seemed like a fairly novel idea, out here in Alberta a lot of Conservatives used to call bilingual product labelling on cereal boxes having French shoved down your throat with your cornflakes.

However, in 2013 when it comes to making democratic organizations vote the way you want them to – or else! – it’s called the Assurance for Students Act.

That means, I guess, that students can be assured that their school trustees aren’t allowed to vote the way they want to if the Redford Government disagrees.

No, I’m joking. What Mr. Johnson seems to have in mind is that students can be assured that their teachers won’t be getting a pay raise for the next three years, but their union will be getting the “comfort letter” it wanted saying it’s their sole bargaining agent plus their professional association now and forevermore.

Or, as the Edmonton Journal more accurately summarized it: “The four-year, province-wide agreement freezes teacher salaries for three years and gives them a two-per-cent raise and bonus in the fourth year. It also limits teachers’ working hours and offers assurances the government won’t tinker with the ATA’s powers for the length of the agreement.”

What this is really about, most likely, is proving that the Redford Government can get something done before the premier’s party leadership review next November. As such, if we lived in less Orwellian times, it should probably have been called the Assurance for Alison Redford Act.

Presumably if everyone had gone along with the deal as the government wanted, it would also have let the government say to other unions now or soon in negotiations with it or its agencies, like the province’s civil servants and its nurses, “see, the teachers took zero and you should too.”

Alas, this argument surely loses some of its impact when you realize that the teachers had no choice.

Still, it was a step back from the rumour circulating last week, presumably spread by government officials who were putting the full-court press on holdout trustees, that any school board that failed to ratify would be summarily fired. Not sure if we can call that a positive sign for democracy in Alberta, though.

The act also didn’t include legislation summarily imposing contracts on other public service unions – just yet, anyway – the topic of another rumour that was busily doing the rounds.

From the government’s perspective, the legislation does act as a convenient threat to try to make other public sector unions behave as the government wishes.

All this put the ATA in a tricky position. The teachers’ union clearly wants the deal, and was doubtless pressing recalcitrant teachers almost as hard as the government was coming down on reluctant trustees.

At the same time, they couldn’t really publicly cheer Mr. Johnson’s crushing the rebellion by the feisty public schoolteachers in St. Albert and their colleagues down Highway 16 in Elk Island.

So ATA President Carol Henderson came right out and was both for and against Mr. Johnson’s legislation: “He had to do this in order to keep the deal alive, and we will accept it, but it’s not our preferred solution.”

I guess that’s about as close as the ATA is going to come to a passionate cry of “A las Barricadas!”

Henry Ford, the American industrialist, actually explained pretty well how this sort of thing works, when he said of his Model-T automobile, at the time the best-selling horseless buggy in America: “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”

For those of you who aren’t from around here, that’s how democracy works in Alberta too: You can have any government you want, so long as it’s Conservative.

And now we know that goes for any level of government under provincial control as well.

As for union members, you can have any contract you want as long as it’s the one we tell you to want. But then, we already knew that!

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Athabasca University board to Athabasca University Faculty Association: Drop dead

The Athabasca University board meets to discuss its vision for the future of the distance-learning institution. Actual visioning board members may not appear exactly as illustrated. Below: History Professor Alvin Finkel, AU Faculty Association President Mark McCutcheon.

It took Athabasca University’s rubber-stamp board less than 48 hours to tell the university’s faculty association to forget about its suggestion an interim president be appointed to get the distance-learning institution back on track while a replacement is found for President Frits Pannekoek.

Alert readers will recall that Dr. Pannekoek, the subject of an overwhelming non-confidence motion last year by the university’s faculty and another by a staff union, has announced his intention to resign, but not until his replacement is found – a process professors fear could take up to two years, with potentially disastrous results for Athabasca.

On Friday, the university board put out two press releases. In one, Board Chair Barry Wilson stated that the board “cannot and will not accept the ‘rescue plan’” proposed on Wednesday by the faculty association.

In the mean time, the board said, it “will move forward with the governance of the institution, including the presidential recruitment process and strategic direction for the future of the university.”

In its second release, the board stated explicitly it would not accept the faculty association’s “recommendation to appoint a faculty member nominated by the AUFA as interim president of the institution.”

In other words: drop dead, and get off our turf.

The board claims it cannot (and anyway, it will not) “delegate that responsibility to an organization that has no legislated public or ministerial accountability.”

Meanwhile, in a comment posted to this blog, a distinguished Athabasca professor charged that some professors who have recently been laid off “are excellent workers who got targeted because they have had run-ins with powerful people.”

“Management is using the ‘stringency’ section of the faculty association collective agreement to pretty much set aside everything in the agreement,” said Professor Alvin Finkel, a well-known political and labour historian, author of an important history on the Social Credit movement in Alberta.

“That section does require them to ‘declare’ stringency and demonstrate that there are long-term financial issues at play as opposed to short-term issues,” Dr. Finkel wrote. “They have not done that because they don’t want our students and potential students to know that we are allegedly in deep financial doo-doo.

“But they want to act internally as if it is just fine to ditch the agreement without having either declared or proven stringency,” he said.

Dr. Finkel said he felt safe making such a statement because he is “someone who is likely less vulnerable to be fired purely for spite. I’m a very senior professor with a huge sheaf of publications and awards both from the university and outside for my academic work.”

Also on Friday, the Athabasca University Faculty Association issued a press release expressing disappointment in the board’s swift rejection of its proposal that it “exercise its legal power to appoint an interim internal president, thus saving money and boosting morale at AU.”

“Why is the board of a university that’s supposedly in financial crisis not interested in saving the estimated one million dollars this proposal would save?” asked AUFA president Mark McCutcheon in the association’s news release.

“Nothing in AUFA’s ‘rescue plan’ asks for the board to delegate its duties,” Dr. McCutcheon, a professor in the university’s English Department, said in the news release. “Article 10 of the university’s president hiring policy makes a clear provision for the board to appoint a temporary president. AUFA’s proposal suggests a way for the board to exercise its duties more effectively, and to help return AU to more collegial governance.”

Notwithstanding its multiple press releases, the university’s board and administration continue to be able to fly largely under the radar on this important story because it is being ignored by Alberta’s mainstream media.

This is good news for Advanced Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk and Premier Alison Redford, who don’t need another embarrassing crisis to solve just now – especially one involving a university whose administration spent well over $10,000 making illegal donations to their Progressive Conservative political party, and which despite being a public institution saw the need to spend another $125,000 hiring professional lobbyists to sweet talk officials of their government.

Nevertheless, there are clearly serious and increasingly public problems at Athabasca University that may threaten the survival of the institution.

Moreover, it seems unlikely the board and the present administration have much intention of doing anything about them – although the board said in its second release it has scheduled “a planning and visioning retreat with all the current board members, senior administration and the school’s deans to set out a strategic direction for the institution and address governance issues.”

Well, we all know how useful visioning can be!

It’s pretty obvious the job of doing something meaningful to end the crisis at Athabasca University is going to fall to Mr. Lukaszuk and the rest of Premier Redford’s government, whether they like it or not.

Unless, of course, their plan is to let Athabasca University founder in a way that the government can escape any blame for its demise.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Negotiating with Alberta’s PC government? Better bring witnesses!

Wildcat strike scene, grabbed from AUPE’s website during the strike. Below: AUPE President Guy Smith, Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk.

Advice to anyone who tries to negotiate a deal with Alison Redford, Thomas Lukaszuk or any member or official of their government: take witnesses with you, and make sure you also bring a tape recorder.

You might want to bring a piece of paper, a pen, a Bible and a notary public as well. One-on-one meetings ending in “handshake deals” with these people? I don’t think so!

In what surely is one of the most outrageous Alberta news stories of the year to date, the Edmonton Journal reported yesterday evening that “Alberta Union of Provincial Employees president Guy Smith ‘misled’ union members when he claimed he had negotiated a full amnesty for striking workers, the province alleged in legal documents filed this week.”

As is to be expected, AUPE and the government are now slugging it out before the Alberta Labour Relations Board over the wildcat strike by about 2,500 provincial Correctional Peace Officers that began mid-morning on April 27 when a long-simmering dispute over occupational health and safety boiled over at the just-opened Edmonton Remand Centre.

The fight over what punishments the government can mete out to the union, including seeking compensation for the cost of the strike and a six-month dues suspension, can be expected to drag on for months or years.

As is most emphatically not to be expected, the government came right out in a statement of claim to the Alberta Labour Relations Board and called Mr. Smith a liar: “He then chose to falsely claim that he had the agreement that he desperately tried to get and never obtained,” the statement says.

The strike ended on May 1, when the jail guards went back to work, assured by Mr. Smith he had had negotiated an amnesty for them.

The deal looked like a climb-down by Deputy Premier “Stompin’ Tom” Lukaszuk, Ms. Redford’s designated tough guy and court jester, who just hours before had vowed he would never even talk to Mr. Smith or any other official of AUPE while the strike continued.

Just the same, as Journal political columnist Graham Thomson reported yesterday evening in an excellent column, Mr. Lukaszuk nevertheless met Mr. Smith on April 29 in an Edmonton restaurant where they discussed the illegal strike, and presumably how to end it.

When the meeting was over, notwithstanding the things now said in the government’s statement of claim, Mr. Smith appears to sincerely have believed he had a deal – a belief he used (at considerable political risk to himself within AUPE, it should be noted) to get the guards back to work.

Pretty quickly, though, various government spokespeople started backing away from the deal that Mr. Lukaszuk either made or didn’t make with Mr. Smith. When they began to do so, AUPE filed an unfair labour practice complaint with the Labour Relations Board.

The union complaint said in part that AUPE members “feel betrayed by the government and AUPE and take the position that they were tricked into returning to work.”

It is the government’s response to that complaint in which Mr. Smith is accused of intentionally misleading his members.

The government’s and AUPE’s filings to the ALRB were leaked to the Journal by some person or persons unknown for some reason, about which we can only speculate. But the government statement of claim, Mr. Thomson accurately reports, “reads like a political speech, using inflammatory language that would be at home on the floor of the legislative assembly.”

It is hard to say with any confidence what the principal actors on the government side of this story truly believe, or who came up with this particular strategy, but it is a fair observation that the government’s response is not a particularly astute one.

Now, to those of you who are grumbling, “Yeah, but Dave’s a union guy, and he used to work for Guy Smith,” all that is true. Full disclosure: I know Mr. Smith, I used to work for him and I hold him in high regard.

Beyond my personal confidence, however, there’s not much sense to the government’s story – which, as they say, has not been proved before the ALRB, let alone in a court of law. The most obvious flaw, of course, is that doing what the government now claims he did would amount to political suicide for Mr. Smith within AUPE. For that reason alone, it seems highly unlikely.

Then there is the matter of the documents on which the story is based. They were supposed to be held in confidence by the ALRB. It is interesting to speculate on who did the leaking and for whose benefit.

Whatever the answers to those questions are, it is said here the government’s response was foolish because there is no way the union is going to roll over on its unfair labour complaint – and now they’re bound to go before the labour board and try to prove the government did make the commitment that is now in dispute.

If they don’t succeed before the labour board – which, after all, is a tame and employer-friendly body – expect this fight to move on to the courts.

And so at every step of the way, in a public forum, the honesty and trustworthiness of a government that growing numbers of Albertans mistrust on those very grounds will be disputed in a public forum.

As good an idea as it may have seemed at the time to whoever came up with the idea of leaking the government’s statement of claim and AUPE’s documents, it’s hard to see how this will do this government much good. Some of the potential consequences include:

Other groups going into negotiations with the government – and not just unions – will now to be extremely wary and distrustful, with good reason. Can it be trusted? Likely not.

The credibility of the ALRB has also suffered another blow, even if the documents were not leaked from its offices.

Jail guards represented by AUPE will be so furious another illegal walkout must be considered a possibility.

Chances are also good this is another nail in the coffin of the 11th Hour progressive coalition Ms. Redford’s government cobbled together to save her government from the Wildrose Wave in the April 2012 election.

Next time, it is said here, many progressive voters will be prepared to take a chance on another Smith, Wildrose leader Danielle, even if they do it by voting for the Liberals or the NDP.

As for Mr. Smith, I can only say that if I were him, I’d challenge Mr. Lukaszuk or the premier to state the government’s allegations in public, instead of in a privileged document. That way he could respond in an appropriate manner to the government’s claim he lied to his own members.

It might have been momentarily less satisfying, but surely it would have paid dividends in the long term for the government to argue Mr. Smith must have merely been mistaken, and for the documents to be kept confidential until they were presented to the ALRB panel.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Albertans want election-spending-limit law but are unlikely to get one from Redford PCs

Generous corporate donor drops off cash at Tory headquarters. Actual donors, who may not be exactly as illustrated, will be determined later. Below: Parkland Institute researcher Trevor Harrison and Tory Human Services Minister Dave Hancock.

It’s a conundrum!

What should Alberta’s Tories do? A study by the University of Alberta’s Parkland Institute released yesterday demonstrates something almost everyone already knew anyway – that most Albertans strongly support limits on election spending.

So not setting limits on donations from corporations and unions, or enforcing the rules about how donations are made – Hey, Daryl Katz, c’mon down! – potentially spells big trouble for the Progressive Conservative Party of Premier Alison Redford.

At the same time, pretty much everybody in Alberta is starting to sense that Ms. Redford and the members of her government couldn’t get elected dog catcher without loads o’ dough from corporations with deep pockets and unending schemes for laundering cash through friends, spouses, relatives, employees, subsidiaries, pet border collies and a tank full of goldfish, plus numbered companies registered by any or all of the above.

Choices … choices … although it’s not too hard to guess which choice the Redford government is going to make.

As Social Services Minister Dave Hancock put it recently about Mr. Katz’s controversial seemingly-illegal-yet-not-illegal-for-Tories $430,000 donation to Ms. Redford’s PC party – which was later divided up among the drugstore and hockey billionaire’s friends and relations for bookkeeping convenience and legal compliance – “people should be able to organize their lives the way they want to, and if it’s more convenient for them to contribute through their company than personally, I don’t have a problem with that.”

Mr. Hancock, by the way, was touted in yesterday’s edition of the Edmonton Journal as “the government’s moral compass on social issues,” which actually sounds about right. He also appears to be a leading author of TripAdvisor reviews of coastal B.C. hotels, so one wonders if he too has almost had enough.

The Parkland report, authored by University of Lethbridge Sociology Professor Trevor Harrison and Harvey Krahn, chair of the University of Alberta’s Sociology Department, was based on public opinion polling done by the U of A’s well-regarded if pokey Population Research Lab, which is a smart-aleck blogger way of saying it’s almost certainly right regardless of how Conservatives as a group feel about people who commit sociology.

Of special note, according to the Parkland Institute, especially given the current controversy about the Great Katzby’s donations in the last exciting moments of the 2012 election campaign when everyone thought the Wildrose Party was about to win, “is the fact that fully 84 per cent of Albertans either agree or strongly agree that election spending limits should be introduced in the province.”

Let’s say the key part of that sentence again, just to make sure it registers: “84 per cent.” That’s what you call an unambiguous majority.

Interestingly, this strong level of support spanned all political parties and was seen in all regions of the province.

The Parkland study also indicated that Albertans get it about democracy not being just about voting – 62 per cent of the respondents said they believed that protest generally and protest groups in particular play an important role in the democratic process.

In addition, the survey showed significant levels of support for higher taxes and replacement of Alberta’s unflat-flat tax, which tilts the field in favour of the wealthy, with a progressive tax system

Less surprisingly, the survey indicated deep mistrust and dissatisfaction with the way democracy operates in petro-state Alberta. Voters who identified themselves either as non-partisan or as supporters of political parties other than Ms. Redford’s Progressive Conservatives agreed with her sentiment the government doesn’t care what they think.

Roughly half of the NDP, Wildrose Party and non-partisan voters said they thought the government doesn’t care about their views. Liberals were more trusting, at 33 per cent. Actual Tories who owned up to their political preference, as one might expect, were more trusting still – with only about a quarter who reckoned they weren’t being listened to. Still, that’s a pretty high number for government supporters, it’s said here.

Notwithstanding the intuitive sense Doctors Harrison and Krahn got it basically right, the results were getting a little stale by the time the Parkland Institute put out its news release – the demon-dialler calls to the 1,207 respondents of the push-button survey were made almost a year ago, between June 5 and June 27, 2012.

In Parkland’s defence, the researchers didn’t get numbers to crunch from the PRL until the fall, and then, well, you know how busy the winters can be. Anyway, good research takes time to produce – which may be why the Parkland Institute, unlike the Fraser Institute, doesn’t put out a press release every week and a half.

Also unlike the Fraser Institute, no one in the media seems to have picked up the Parkland press release and reprinted it verbatim with no reaction. Whatever, the data remains informative.

The two sociologists estimated the margin of error for the survey at 2.8 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Indeed, if the poll had been conducted since the Katz Crowd’s contributions were revealed and the Redford Government’s 2013 “Screeching Smuggler’s Turn” (SST) Budget was published, the levels of support for controls on election spending and distrust in the government both might have squirted considerably higher.

Professors Harrison and Krahn speculated that the voter cynicism they identified in this survey might contribute to the spectacularly low voter turnouts habitually recorded in Alberta. This is almost certainly true – although you have to remember that’s a normal part of any conservative government’s reelection strategy in this part of Canada.

The feeling your vote doesn’t mean anything, after all, tends to induce feelings that favour the ruling party – like there’s really no point bothering to vote for whatever flavour of opposition you prefer.

Moreover, since dogcatchers aren’t elected in Canada there’s no way to test the PC Party’s fund-free electability in that regard.

Still, don’t expect any changes to Alberta election laws any time soon. Just sayin’.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Fixing Athabasca U: a chance for tough-guy Tom Lukaszuk to do something constructive

Athabasca University’s isolated headquarters in winter. Below: Athabasca U President Frits Pannekoek and Alberta Advanced Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.

Athabasca University’s Faculty Association called yesterday for the institution’s president to be replaced by an interim president chosen from among senior staff.

On the face of it, this idea makes a lot of sense, since the president in question – Dr. Frits Pannekoek – announced back in December 2012 he’s going to retire anyway, although a date has never been set for a departure that is certain to be greeted with relief by staff and faculty whenever it comes.

The association’s “rescue plan” announced yesterday is yet more evidence the financial crisis sparked by the Redford Government’s wholesale attack on post-secondary education in the 2013 provincial budget has sparked a full-blown crisis at the already troubled distance-education university.

Conflict between the faculty and administration at Athabasca was brewing long before a sure-to-be-difficult round of contract negotiations began last month at the 43-year-old correspondence university that nowadays does most of its teaching over the Internet.

The province-wide post-secondary funding crash imposed by the government has  hit AU particularly hard, and certainly acted as a catalyst for yesterday’s proposal – particularly in light of a disastrous decision by AU’s administration to spend most of the university’s financial reserves.

Faculty members are furious at Dr. Pannekoek in particular for overseeing the spending binge in recent years that drained the university’s reserves. That left AU ill equipped to respond to the unexpected squeeze on post-secondary budgets imposed by the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Alison Redford in March when it used an expected and temporary “Bitumen Bubble” as an excuse to break its promise of stable and secure post-secondary funding.

No official reason has ever been given for why the administration and board used up the reserves, but widespread speculation suggests the decision was motivated by a scheme to make the university look broke and thereby leverage additional cash from the province.

If so, it was a lousy strategy and the hoped for “operational lift” never materialized in the budgeting chaos that followed the Bitumen Brouhaha.

AU faculty members also hold Dr. Pannekoek and the board responsible for lavish spending on travel and on the president’s residence in Athabasca, a town of fewer than 3,000 souls 145 kilometres north of Edmonton.

To top it off, they are furious at the administration for $10,675 in illegal donations to the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party between 2006 and 2008 – an effort Board Chair Barry Walker told the CBC was made to try to “develop a relationship with the government,” but which seems to have brought AU nothing but woe.

Indeed, it’s whispered in Alberta government circles that one reason Athabasca University is friendless in the PC caucus and cabinet is the embarrassment caused by the revelation of the illegal contributions.

The university spent another $125,000 in roughly the same period on lobbyists to talk to provincial officials – something one would think a public institution wouldn’t have to do.

The faculty has now reached the conclusion Athabasca U can’t prosper, and may not even be able to survive, as long as the old administration remains at the helm.

Last year, two of the three unions representing university staff overwhelmingly passed motions of non-confidence in Dr. Pannekoek, after which he announced his decision to step down.

Yet, despite his retirement proclamation, Dr. Pannekoek apparently plans to stick around until his replacement is found, which under the circumstances may be no easy task. It’s expected to take at least 18 months and possibly as long as two years to find a new president.

Fearing delay in making changes at the top will prevent the university from addressing its problems, the association suggests staff elect an interim president who would agree to serve with no additional pay above his or her present faculty salary, allowing the university both to move on and save significant money.

“This plan would save the university about $1 million in executive pay and the headhunter fees earmarked for a presidential search over the next two years,” the faculty association said in its news release. “AUFA’s plan demonstrates fiscal responsibility and leadership: replacing the current president would improve morale and employee confidence in senior administration, which has been sorely lacking since April 2012.”

As part of the deal, the faculty association promises to negotiate with the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the university’s two other unions, to come up with a way to ensure the interim president enjoys broad support among staff.

It might also make contract negotiations between the faculty association and the university easier if teachers didn’t feel they were being asked to pay for the board and administration’s mistakes.

The idea probably makes too much sense to be accepted by the university’s board, which has a history rubber-stamping the administration’s worst ideas, seemingly without much thought.

If the board says no as expected, it’s said here that for the sake of Athabasca University and the welfare of Alberta’s taxpayers, Advanced Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk should use the provisions of the Post-Secondary Learning Act to fire the board and start over.

Mr. Lukaszuk likes to pose as a tough guy who has the wherewithal to get things done that need to be done. That’s easy, of course, when you’re just yelling at unions. Now’s his chance to prove he really is what he says and achieve something constructive.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Ironies abound in Alberta’s agitated politics as Alison Redford cranks up the postage meter

How Albertans should see Progressive Conservative and Wildrose policies and procedures. Below: The clever Wildrose Facebook attack on PC Premier Alison Redford’s faintly unsavoury taxpayer-funded mail out, which makes it look a little worse than it really is.

Am I the only one who sees irony in the leader of Alberta’s ultra-conservative Wildrose Party working up a full head of steam because the merely very conservative government of Premier Alison Redford plans to mail a colourful budget brochure to every household in the province – at taxpayer expense, of course?

After all, the Wildrose Party of Danielle Smith is effectively the Alberta provincial branch of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada – the one mailing out those federal Tory flyers attacking Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s substance as well as his masculinity.

The federal Tory ads are being mailed to voters across the country at taxpayer expense as well, of course, but there’s no word about how Ms. Smith feels about that – nor is there ever likely to be.

She was also silent on the provincial government’s new policy of referring to the Alberta Government as the Redford Government in news releases drafted up by civil service public relations flacks – another bad habit copied from the Harper Government.

But on the topic of the Redford Conservatives – the 61 supposedly Progressive MLAs so spooked by Ms. Smith’s 17-member caucus they’ve forgotten who got them elected and offer destructive policies nearly identical to those of the Wildrose Party – the Opposition leader was in fine fettle.

“We have a premier who is desperately afraid of losing confidence from her party in her leadership vote in the fall, and she’s pulling out all the stops, including using taxpayer money to send out political propaganda,” Ms. Smith huffed in an interview with the always reliable Canadian Press, which you can only read in out-of-town newspapers nowadays because the moribund Alberta rags don’t use the news service any more.

Ms. Smith raised an important and fairly non-partisan point – which was echoed from the other side of the political spectrum by NDP Leader Brian Mason – and that is that this mail-out likely has as much to do with internal PC Party politics as with any desire to inform the populace of the government’s plans.

“This has got a lot to do with the premier’s campaign, which is now in full swing, to win her leadership review in November,” Mr. Mason told the CP, most certainly an accurate assessment of the premier’s motivation.

If the mail-out can help her improve her polling numbers with voters, it will most certainly help her win her party’s endorsement to carry on – which, as has been stated here before, she likely will anyway.

Still, with their characteristic ineptitude, Ms. Redford’s strategic brain trust made it easy for the opposition by printing the $350,000 brochure in the same orange and turquoise colour scheme the premier used in her 2012 election campaign.

A clever commercial artist in Ms. Smith’s party’s employ worked up a witty Facebook graphic that drew attention to this fact, managing to make the leaflet look just a little sleazier than it in reality is.

The contents of the eight-page mail-out add up to the usual baloney we’d expect from any premier who found herself in Ms. Redford’s shoes – plenty of excuses for the party’s screeching turn back to instinctive austerity from its promised sustainable funding for social programs, blamed on the already evanescing “Bitumen Bubble,” plus anodyne bromides about the province’s glowing future.

Well, call me cynical, but I reckon that to the winner goes the spoils – and in a democracy that usually means the keys to the room with the postage meter.

The brochure is faintly unsavoury, but I just can’t get my knickers in a twist about a sin this small compared with things like the Tories’ determination to ship bitumen and jobs out of the province and the country as quickly as they can – a policy they share with the Wildrose Party, except that Ms. Smith’s crew is standing on the sidelines yelling, “more, more, faster, faster!”

Nor do I believe for a moment that the Wildrose Party – the would-be, erm, Smith Government – would behave any differently in office on this particular count.

That’s not cynicism designed to discourage citizens from voting, yet another Tory bad habit, merely an evidence-based assessment of the likely behaviour of so-called conservative parties of almost all stripes whenever they manage to glom onto power.

The government, meanwhile, defended sending us all the factoids contained in its cheerful “Report to Taxpayers” – “we don’t apologize for communicating to Albertans the information that Albertans want to know,” sniffed Finance Minister Doug Horner.

Well, not all the information that taxpayers want to know. The government won’t be releasing the contents of a report on pipeline safety to taxpayers any time soon, Energy Minister Ken Hughes explained yesterday.

Mr. Hughes promised: “We’ll release it in the fullness of time” – the dispensation of which will happen, as lots of people in Alberta of all places understand instinctively, whenever…

In other words, don’t hold your breath waiting for environmental pie in the sky.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.