I Am Tired

I am tired. There, I said it.

I am tired of being “told” to use hand sanitizer when I enter every business. I have eczema on my hands, you might as well light me on fire – because that is what alcohol feels like on my skin. Even when I politely decline, I get the accusatory stare-down.

I am tired of wearing a mask. No, it is not as bad as the compulsive hand sanitizing, but plain annoying for me. They are uncomfortable and unattractive. The worst part though is they are DAMAGING what little human interaction we have left.

I am tired of having to search all through my phone to find the QR code that confirms I am fully vaccinated.
I am really tired of watching friends’ weddings and funerals via ZOOM – seriously could we get any COLDER??!!!

I am tired of hearing “the new normal.”   People say this as if this is as good as it is going to get.

NO! Absolutely NO!!!  I will not accept this.

Over the past few days of the Convoy to Freedom gaining steam, I have seen people comment things like.

“They should just get vaccinated or change jobs.”

“I don’t get what they are protesting, I still have all my freedoms.”

Really? It has been two years and already you have forgotten that; wearing a mask, showing vaccine passport, not being able to attend a wedding or funeral – are not normal things and they certainly are not “freedom.”

And why should they have to change jobs? Them or any other unvaccinated. We have known from the very start we would never achieve 100% vaccination rate – no country will. Canada and Alberta DO have one of the worlds’ highest rates of uptake. There is no reason to discriminate against this minority. Once the restriction mandates are lifted, no ones’ vaccine status will matter.

And then there is the travel aspect – I am tired of this on several fronts.

One - We operate a vacation rental (Galloway Nest). We used to host US and internationals guests, that market has evaporated.

Two - Traveling to most places is not too hard, it is coming home that is the challenge. We recently drove to the States for a short vacation. Crossing the border into US there was not one question about vaccination. Just showed our passports (regular passport, not vaccine one) and answered questions about where/who we were visiting.

To return to Canada though we had to get a “re-entry test” and load this to the ArriveCan App with all our other vaccination details within 72 hours prior to return. Unfortunately, when we arrived at the border, we hadn’t received out test result… and the 72-hour window was closing. 

This is when the most bizarre thing happened – the Canadian Border Service Agent deemed us “unvaccinated.”  This meant we had to enter the full quarantine protocol. It’s no wonder no one is travelling to Canada.  If we, as fully vaccinated Canadians must go through all of this, I cannot imagine what foreigners have to go through.

Three - Australia.  I can’t even write about this, it’s too upsetting.

I will say if you have been able to hug your grandkids in the past three years you better damn well be grateful.
We no longer have the freedom to do this!

I know it’s been hard for media and the public alike to define what the Freedom Convoy is all about. I think though, like me, the truckers in the Freedom Convoy are likely tired. The people who have chosen to join them are likely tired. The supporters at the roadsides waving, and supplying food are likely tired.  You might not be there yet, maybe you can live more years like this; but I can’t, they can’t.

We really didn’t need to look any farther than the name to define what this is about it’s right there, Freedom Convoy.

Link to website for vaccination rate graph.

Time to Revamp Alberta's Minimum Wage

With the recent news about the Alberta government appointing a panel to review the minimum wage for alcohol servers, my husband, Cory, was encouraging me to publish my ideas.  To be literal he said “…you write it and I will post it as a ‘guest blogger’ on my blog.”  

After some consideration I decided to dust off my blog and he is welcome to share it…. 😉

Aside from Cory, there are very few people I’ve shared this idea with. One of them though is, Doug Schweitzer. It was nearly two years ago I chatted with him about this; at the time he had taken a position on lowering the minimum wage.  While as a restaurant owner I liked the idea; politically I thought it wasn’t the best position to take.  Nor did I think any government could get away with taking away from employees.

Now, not only do I think it can be done, I think it should and needs to be done. Also, it shouldn’t be limited to those who serve alcohol.  

However, it needs to be coupled with other measures which I will outline.

First some background.

Cory and I purchased our pub/café in 2015. Just 10 days after the NDP was elected to govern, in hindsight probably not one of our wisest decisions.
When we started the minimum wage was $10.20 and $9.20 for alcohol servers.  
Each October since the minimum wage has gone up.

2015 to $11.20

2016 to $12.20

2017 to $13.60

2018 to $15.00

We are not a huge operation; we average 10 to 12 employees depending on the time of year.  And that compliment of staff hasn’t really varied greatly over the years. Looking back now we can see the actual dollar impact it has had on our business.

In 2017 our payroll expense went up $25,000.00 from the prior year. In 2018 it went up another $40,000.00.  Remember – this is without increasing the number of staff or number of hours worked by staff.

We were able to weather these increases by cutting back on other things (like less entertainment) and we were also able to increase our sales each year.  Many other restaurants couldn’t do this and have had to close.

There is only so much cutting of expenses one can undertake and it’s challenging to keep increasing your sales when you have limited market. 

I should mention in 2019 we did eliminate one position in our establishment and that is of a dishwasher. Now other staff have this added to their responsibilities.  Over last winter we also took to closing on Monday’s to reduce hours.

We won’t know the full impact of the October 2018 increase until later this year – I anticipate it will also be in the 40K range. 
All things considered, we have done well over the past four years, but the effects of past policies are still impacting the restaurant industry.

Our serving staff have also noticed an impact.  They are getting smaller tips even though they are providing the same service.  They aren’t imagining this, our system tracks the percentage of tips.  Where tips used to be in the 15-18% range, it is now 13-15%.

Servers love tips – and they deserve them!  I’m confident in saying all our bartenders and pub servers make more in tips per hour than they do with their wage.  I know this since our POS system (like every pub out there) tracks it.

Our café servers are also alcohol servers, however the sales of liquor in the café are considerably lower, the average bill is lower and as a result the tips are lower.

At the end of each shift the tips that were given to staff via credit/debit card payments are paid to the staff in cash. In 2018 our establishment paid out $94,704.40 in credit card tips in cash to staff – and we’re just one small, rural pub!!

It’s these tips that I believe hold the key to the minimum wage dilemma. 

The tips I’ve described above are what CRA calls Direct Tips. It’s up to the employee to then claim them as income on their annual tax return.  They do not appear on the employee's T4.

A second category is called Controlled Tips. This is where the employer possesses the tips and pays them to the employee at a later date. (This could be either as part of payroll cycle or a separate issuance).  These funds are then subject to Tax, CPP and EI and the income will show up on the T4 slip for the employee.

A third term I’d like to introduce you to is Declared Tips. This when provincial law requires employees to declare their Direct tips, along with the Controlled Tips.  Currently Quebec is the only province with this law.

I believe Alberta should move to a model where all tips are Declared by the employee and Controlled by the employer.  

There are benefits to both parties (and to government) and a couple drawbacks.

Employee benefits:

-          Higher reported income (good for securing mortgages and student or car loans)

-          Higher amount going to towards CPP

-          More RRSP room

-          Higher EI benefit should they become unemployed

Employer benefits:

-          Increased cash flow

-          Higher employee satisfaction

Employee drawback – No daily cash

Employer drawback – Extra paperwork

For the provincial and federal government this means more dollars going towards Tax, CPP and EI.

In Quebec employers are rebated a portion of the extra CPP and EI paid by the employer on the tips.

Alberta should introduce a Minimum Wage Range (MWR); coupled with the Quebec model of Tip reporting and the Refundable Tax Credit to employers.

If the employee works in an industry that doesn’t typically see tips or they have smaller tips, then the employer must top up the hourly rate to bring it to the top of the MWR.

Let’s say for the sake of these examples, the Minimum Wage Range is $10.00 to $15.00 per hour.

1) A bartenders’ tips, over a defined period, calculate to be $20.00/hour.  The employer then pays the $10.00 + the $20.00, for a total of $32.00/hr.

2) A coffee shop servers’ tips calculate to be $3.00/hr.  The employer pays the $10.00 + 3.00, but this only brings it to $13.00, so the employer would then need to add an extra $2.00 to bring it up the top of the MWR.

3) A dishwasher who receives no tips at all. The employer would be required to pay the top of the MWR, $15.00 in this scenario.

By implementing this employees’ declared income will more accurately reflect their actual financial situation to their benefit.

Employers will have benefit of lower source deductions, due to paying only on the $10.00/hr. for some and the rebate on the tips paid as wages.  This could allow them to increase the number of staff or the number of hours available to existing staff.

Government will have the benefit of higher revenues and higher compliance on individual tax returns. It would also lower the number of reviews CRA would need to conduct.

I don’t think alcohol servers should be the only ones under review, as I’ve illustrated among alcohol servers there can be a wide variance. Additionally, there are other minimum wage positions that have high tipping rates – nail salons come to mind. In my opinion, my idea of an MWR shouldn’t be industry specific.

I certain this idea will be controversial and I'm sure to hear from both business owners and employees about potential negative outcomes.  I recognize too, that implementation would be a bit of learning curve.

I still believe it can and should be done. And that the end result would be a boost to our economy with more people employed and more hours available to employees.

I will be watching with interest to see what the panel proposes and then of course, there will be the bigger question of what the government will actually implement.



- CRA info on Tips and Gratuities  

- Quebec Refundable Tax Credit
- Canadian Provinces Historical Minimum Wages

Lastly, a shameless, self-serving link as our pub/cafe is on the market!!

Not a day goes by......

An open letter to my four grandchildren in Gladstone, Queensland, Australia.

Dear T, AJ, R and L,

It is Christmas Day here in Canada. It has been over a month since your mother has been able to speak to you or see you on Facetime.  For me it was over three months ago that we last Skyped together. I’ve missed the twins’ birthday, you didn’t get to speak to your mom on her birthday and we both missed T’s birthday just this past week too.

Your mom and I want you to know we have tried. Oh, how we have tried. We have emailed, texted and called, but received no replies or calls back.  Maybe you even heard your dad’s phone and your step-mom’s phones ringing on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and you will hear them ring again today. Perhaps you’ll wonder why they aren’t answering the calls or listening to the voicemails. 

I want you to know it was US, that we were right there and all we wanted to do was to talk to you. My last voicemail was short; “Hi it’s Gramma, Merry Christmas. I love you and I miss you. Please call back.”

This isn’t the first time we’ve been cut off from one another for an extended period, but in my experience, this has been the most painful thus far.

I doubt you will see this letter, but maybe, just maybe someone near you; Nanna or Poppy, or another parent or grandparent or even one of your teachers will recognize who I’m writing about. All I ask is they give you a hug for me and let you know that…

...not a day goes by that we don’t love you.

...not a day goes by that we don’t miss you incredibly.

...not a day goes by that we wish we could just hold you.

…not a day goes by they we wish we could watch you grow and learn.

I know your hearts must ache for us at times, as ours do very much for you. More and more I find myself having very emotional responses to what should be ordinary things.  Like looking out our back window and seeing the tree you planted T.  Or the other day when I moved a carpet in the basement and saw the stain from AJ’s play nail polish.  And of course, Christmas always reminds me of the concert at Red Deer Lake school (right before you left Canada) where R and L danced on our laps as T performed and later AJ fell asleep on my lap.

Grampa Cory’s sister is a gramma now. Seeing her grandson the first time was very hard for me. I must admit, I’ve probably developed an unfair jealousy of her and my own brothers and sisters; who have free and liberal access to all their grandchildren.  We have friends with twins as well and whenever they post pictures, I can’t help but wish I had photos of my twin grandchildren to share or pictures of any of you for that matter.

One thing I’ve gained a greater appreciation of is my time with your cousin H. He asks about you all the time. He misses you very much too. Whenever he visits we always share memories of all of you and he asks to Skype as well, like we’ve done before.

If by chance you are reading this, you are likely a lot older and maybe I’m gone. In that case, I want you to know something about your mother.  In the past she had made some poor choices in life. But that is now years in the past and she is a much better, healthier person now. She has become a very strong and determined woman. Please know everything she is doing or will do, is to find a solution to what is incredibly complex and heartbreaking situation.  She loves you so very much, regardless of the thousands of miles that separate you.

                                     ...... not a day goes by.............

Another NDP blow to small business in Alberta

Earlier this week I posted on Facebook page about upcoming changes to Alberta Employment Standards, in particular the changes to General Holidays and the pay associated with them.

In my interpretation it sounded drastic and I openly admitted that I hoped I was wrong.

I had emailed Employment Standards and as of today I had not received a reply, thus I called them.

I spoke with Carol, she was very helpful and addressed all of my questions.

Here are the key points of change:

1) the eligibility requirement of having worked 30 days/shifts prior to the General Holiday  has been removed.

2) for part-time individuals or those with irregular schedules, the requirement to work 5 or the last 9 same day of week of the General Holiday has been removed.

The result of these two points is everyone is eligible right away.

Eligibility goes on to say they must work their scheduled day before and after the holiday. Some have taken this to mean the "immediate" day before and after the holiday - this is not the case. It's any day before or after that they are scheduled.

There is no longer a definition of a "regular" or "non-regular" workday for employees.

I gave Carol the example of us having one employee in particular who only works Wednesday's. She confirmed under new rules he will now be eligible. Even though he never works a Monday or Friday (when the General Holidays usually land). Because he has worked he regular scheduled day before and after he is eligible.

We then went onto to discuss how the pay is calculated.

1) for those who work the holiday, they will be paid at a rate of 1.5 times their wage for the hours work, on top of their regular wage for those same hours.

This is the same as it is now.

2) for those who don't work the holiday, their pay will be calculated as 5% of their wages, general holiday pay and vacation pay earned in the four weeks immediately preceding the general holiday.

This point is a huge departure from the current structure, since everyone now is eligible all staff with be paid this when they don't work the holiday.  Or if your business is closed for the holiday, this will also apply to all staff.

There are nine mandated General Holidays, plus businesses must choose one more, bringing the total to ten per year.  They are relatively spread out over the year and each time (roughly monthly) employers will be paying out 5% out on all the wages paid.

Add to this the burden of making these calculations for every employee. To the best of my knowledge no accounting program will have this calculation built in.

Businesses that have mostly full-time staff they won't see much difference. Ones though who predominantly employee part-time staff - this is very significant.

Using our business as an example:

We have 15 staff, nearly all are part-time.  On General Holidays we typically have 3, sometimes 4 staff in.  Under prior rules the staff who didn't work it would only be eligible if it was a "regular" work day for them or if they had worked 5 of the last nine.

Under the new rules we will be paying all staff for every General Holiday. This is pretty much equivalent to increasing our wages cost by 5% - nevermind the additional employer portion of CPP and EI.

In closing here is a link to the Government site where you can read it for yourself.

Why I'm supporting Doug Schweitzer

Over the past many months I've been very optimistic about merging of the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservatives. I have many friends who were involved in or supported the PC's (sometimes through difficult times) and generally we had more in common than not.

With a taste of what an NDP government is like, it didn't take much for nearly everyone to realize we must work together - in the same direction.  Thus the unity vote passed at an incredible 95% in favour.

What I had been less optimistic about was who might become the leader. It was a given that Brian Jean and Jason Kenney were going to run.  Neither of these two inspire me.  Even though I'm the same age as Brian and Jason is younger; they both seem "old school". Some may interpret this as "old boys club", but that isn't what I mean.  They just present themselves as not being very flexible or forward thinking.

When Doug Schweitzer entered the race I admittedly didn't know a single thing about him. I was then involved with the LEC and hadn't had the time to do any research.  It even took me a couple of weeks to get his name right; ironically not his surname, but his first. ;)

The first UCP debate in Calgary on September 20 would be the first time I have an opportunity to learn more about Doug.  A couple of things that struck me during that debate were his love of our province and also his strong support of businesses, entrepreneurs and women.  However what really stood out and set him apart from the other candidates - was his support of GSA's.

Doug is the only candidate who has spoken out directly on the fact the new UCP has to set the tone on the social issues correctly, right from the start. This isn't something we can be wishy washy on or be one thing one week and flip flop the next.

So where do the three candidates stand on this? Here is a quote from the Edmonton Sun (after the second debate)

Kenney's response was that nothing is more important than parental choice. 
His declaration that Alberta doesn't need politicians standing between parents and kids drew perhaps the loudest cheer of the evening. 

Schweitzer, though, rejected the notion of informing parents if their child is in a GSA.
If his two girls weren't comfortable talking to him for some reason, he said, he would hope they could have the support at a GSA at school. 

Jean said afterwards he doesn't favour parental informing, either, but during the debate was keen to shift attention to improving Alberta's standard of education.

Doug used similar phrases in the Red Deer debate, which I attended on October 3rd.   His words really struck me.
Ironically, not because one of my children is a member of the LGBTQ community. More because I once was that student in school, who went to a guidance counsellor with a serious personal issue - I was 17 and pregnant.  My parents were the last people I wanted to talk to about it. That counsellor worked "with" me, not against.

Now this isn't the only reason I'm supporting Doug - but it's a big reason to be sure.

Personally I'm fiscally conservative and (small l) socially liberal.  I don't know if Doug would also describe himself this way, but I do know Jason and Brian don't. 

They are socially conservative - full stop.  They make no bones about it and are actively courting the SoCon vote. And good on them, they are upfront about it and you know what you are dealing with.

Yesterday I resigned my position on the LEC so that I may speak freely on this.
In particular this following point:

I know there may be members out there who haven't bothered to registered to vote. You may think that it's a foregone conclusion that one of the perceived front runners (Kenney or Jean) are going to win and that your vote won't matter.

I don't think it is a given. I think there are enough other members who, like me, don't want to return to regressive policies of the old reformers or of the old Alberta Alliance. And we don't have to. Doug has made it clear there is a path for us, under his leadership.

Resigning with optimism

I first joined the Alberta Alliance Party in 2005. They had some archaic policies which I worked actively to remove. When we later merged with the Wildrose group (who also had regressive social policies), I worked on the merger team and my focus was to ensure those policies never see the light of day.  And they didn’t.

In the early years I was involved with the leadership races as a volunteer and as party CFO.  As the first Executive Director of the (then) newly formed Wildrose Party, I oversaw the 2009 Leadership Election. It was with that background I was asked to Chair the 2015 Leadership Election Committee. 

I’ve always viewed the governance of the party as a high priority.

Earlier this year many people called and emailed me, asking if they could put my name forward to serve once again on the LEC (Leadership Election Committee) of the new UCP (United Conservative Party).  In July I was called upon to serve and I accepted. 

Since then the LEC has truly melded. There are no remnants of which party each of us came from. It is one cohesive group of UCP members.  It is comprised of many brilliant minds, who ask the questions that need to be asked, who can see past the politics and render fair decisions. The governance of the leadership race is in sound and secure hands.

Knowing this has made my decision to resign my position easier.

I believe I could have continued in the role and remained fair and unbiased. What I wasn’t sure of though, was how I would feel on October 28th, after the race if I hadn’t spoken up on the matter of who is the best suited to lead the UCP.

And clearly, I couldn’t do both. Thus today I have resigned and tomorrow I will expand further on who I will be supporting as the new UCP Leader.

Brian Jean, Wildrose Party Leader

This week I spoke to hundreds of Wildrose supporters in Calgary. One thing is clear: Albertans are ready for change!Vote for change you can trust. On May 5, vote Wildrose.

Posted by Brian Jean on Sunday, May 3, 2015

Wildrose Position, Policy and Constitution on Human Rights

A political party defines itself by many things. Its members, its actions or issues presented in the Legislature. However they are also defined by hard written documents.  These can be broken into three categories.

Statements: These could also be called Positions, Policy Positions or at the time of an election it could be called Party Platform.  These can come from either the members of a Party or from the elected Caucus of the Party.  They are timely and they are things that are likely to be seen enacted if the Party forms government.

Policy: These are positions the party takes on various issues.  They are things that generally will stand the test of time and must have party members support.  To add, remove or alter a policy it must achieve at least 50% of a member vote at an AGM or SGM.   

Policy is not necessarily what a Party will enact when they form government.  Yes, you read that correctly, I said it is NOT.  Once you form government you represent all of the population, not just those who choose to be members of your party.  We have seen it time and time again; parties implement public policy that is contrary to their own party policy.

Constitution:  This could be referred to as the “guiding document” for a party.  This document lays the foundation (principles) for the Policy and Positions that may be developed.  Anything the members or caucus may pass as Policy or Positions must align with the Constitution.   This document is much harder to alter; it requires 75% member support to enact any changes.

In 2013 at the Wildrose AGM a motion was brought before the members to endorse (or defeat) the following Statement:

“Wildrose will defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of all persons. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to freedom of belief, public expression, practice, and association. These rights and freedoms shall be protected, regardless of race, religious belief, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.”

It was overwhelmingly endorsed.  Here is what one Wildrose member (a gay one, I might add) had to say about this Statement.

This motion shows the true nature of this party, one that will stand up for the rights of everyone, no matter what. One of the reasons I support this party is because it allows people to be true to themselves and they keep private matters private. Matters that the government has no business in.

At the 2014 AGM members were asked to delete the following Policy:

“…..recognize that all Albertans have equal rights, privileges and responsibilities.”

And replace it with the Statement we had endorsed the previous year.  This motion was defeated. It was defeated as the majority of the members like the current Policy. For myself I find it concise and to the point.  Additionally we already have the Statement on record and I saw no need to duplicate that. Let me very clear, not accepting this amendment did NOT rollback or revoke the previous years’ Statement.

At this AGM we also added the following to the Constitution: 

“Wildrose will defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of all persons.”

This passed. And remember Constitutional changes require the higher bar of 75% to pass.

To recap and emphasize what I feel are the key takeaways from this:

Wildrose has enshrined in their Constitution (the guiding document for all Policy and Platforms): 

“Wildrose will defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of all persons.”

Wildrose has in their Policy:

“…..recognize that all Albertans have equal rights, privileges and responsibilities.”

Wildrose has a Statement on record:

“Wildrose will defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of all persons. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to freedom of belief, public expression, practice, and association. These rights and freedoms shall be protected, regardless of race, religious belief, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.”

I have reviewed the Policy and Constitution of other Parties currently represented in our Legislature in Alberta and none of them have such a clear, succinct and all inclusiveness as that of the Wildrose.

Please note: I hold no official position in the Wildrose Party. I am an ordinary member. I’m also the mother of a bi-sexual child.

You've had enough?? Well so have we.

@Jaanikka @CoryBMorgan @willmimi lets discuss all of this in court. i am have put up with your shit for too many years. Enough.
— Craig Chandler (@CraigBChandler) September 10, 2014

The following is an excerpt from a October 28, 2009 "Report of the Leadership Committee". This after completion of Wildrose leadership race.

2.  The Committee assessed a penalty against the Dyrholm campaign for not validating people's consent to the membership application (resulting in memberships for dead people).  This amounted to an early release of their list to the other campaign, and a requirement that they provide actual verification of all memberships sold beyond that date.   We chose not to challenge the validity of any memberships handed in before that date, as a mater of practicality.

This penalty was appealed to the Executive, and denied based on an email exchange with response individually to the President.

Tip of an iceberg.

Look forward to the entire document being revealed in court.

On lobby groups, forums and astroturfing in the Calgary election.

The following is a cross-posting from Cory Morgan.

Nenshi Budgets a Massive Increase in Campaign Spending

On Naheed Nenshi's campaign website he states he will:

• limit campaign expenditures to $0.65 per resident;

When put that way it sounds like a low amount. I thought I would check how it compared to his 2010 election spending.

In 2010 his expenditures were $404,229. (pdf document) and the population then was 1,071,515. This equates to $ 0.37 per resident.

Our current population is 1,149,552. This means Nenshi's campaign has budgetted to spend up to $747,208 on his 2013 campaign.

That's an increase of $ 342,979 or nearly 85% !!  Let that sink in....85%

In 2010 he was in a huge battle and clearly considered an underdog. Now, in 2013, he doesn't even have any real competition yet is planning on such a massive jump.

Why spend so much more money when there is clearly no need to? Did they budget so high simply because they had the money and could? How much of this attitude and spending perspective will come into play when he is budgetting our (taxpayers) money?


Disclaimer:

Percentage was calculated using  this math; if that stresses you can use this online calculator. Numbers may vary when calculated in NenshiMath. Sadly I haven't been granted access to the magical purple calculator.

Candidates Vilified for Following the Law

Today I received an email from Calgary Ward 4, incumbent candidate, Gael MacLeod. This is how it starts:

• Election Day is Only 12 Days Away - We Need Your Help Today‏

  Dear Jane,

  Election Day is only 12 days away and we still need your help! Gael MacLeod is facing a well-funded candidate who will not release his donor list or show up at Ward 4 forums. Gael has also been designated a target of the Manning Centre, who are putting alot of resources into unseating her. Don't let them get away with it - help us send Gael back to City Council. 

  
  
  Gael is clearly attacking Sean Chu, as he is her only real competition. Sean placed a very strong second last time. With fewer candidates this time (5 vs 11 in 2010) and Sean being the only one representing sound fiscal management, he stands a decent chance of unseating her.
  
  It has been proven time and time again, well-funded campaigns are not a guarantee to winning elections. It's the candidate, their actions and their ability to connect and resonate with the electorate that will bring success. And if someone hasn't released their donors how can one make the claim they are "well-funded"?
  
  I for one, am getting tired of hearing this public shaming of candidates who are not releasing donor lists. There is no such requirement at this time. They are following the law. Period. 
  
  Laws I might add that were influenced and passed  by the current "elected" officials. If you don't like them, see to it that they are changed.  Civic politicians like Naheed Nenshi and Gael MacLeod, will say "We tried, but it's Provincial jurisdiction, we can't do anything about it".  Well then obviously your opinion and position on the matter wasn't strong enough or relevant to them - so why impose it on others? This constant badgering of the other candidate comes off sounding whiny and very petty. You want respect then raise above these childish temper tantrums.
  
  One of the problems with releasing donors early is that it puts individuals privacy at risk. I've seen cases where addresses have been inadvertently posted online.  We also have groups like Civic Camp under the guise of being "non-partisan" pressuring people to release donor information. On their affiliate website you can, in some cases, even seen the names of donors who gave under $100.00.  Under the law their information is protected and never publicized. They have a disclaimer that this is how the candidates are displaying them as well. I wonder do those people know their privacy has been breached? Did they sign something to agree to their name being made public?
  
  As for the Manning Centre I fail to see how Gael feels threatened by them. They are a think-tank. They conduct studies. They hold lectures and training sessions. And yes, they are very politically focused. Did Sean Chu attend any Manning functions or training? I don't know, I do know when I spoke to him about a month or so ago, he hadn't. Besides it's open to the public; anyone, including Gael can take advantage of their resources.
  
  In my mind it is continuing education. Something I support and I know Gael does too. As evidenced by her spending while in office.
  
  

  The recent disclosure shows three aldermen expensed more than $10,000 between Jan. 1 and June 30.  Ward 4 Ald. Gael MacLeod topped the list with $11,046 in expenses, $4,905 of which was spent on website and communications training sessions for her two ward assistants.

  
  To me it is very hypocritical for an elected official to on one hand support spending taxpayers money on education and then turn around and point a finger at someone who "might have" sought out further education on his own time, with his own money!!!
  
  
  

  How did I even get this email?

  We moved out of Ward 4 nearly six months ago. I didn't sign up or subscribe to any Calgary candidates email lists. I replied to the email from Gael asking how they got my address. I got a very prompt reply from Pam Krause, Campaign Manager.
  
  Pam wrote: I believe it was from when you were a candidate in the 2010 election. 
  
  I replied with: I didn't use this email during the last campaign. Please confirm for me how I got added to your distribution list.
  
  Pams response: I am sorry - I don't actually know that. I am a volunteer on Gael's campaign. 
  
  
  What kind of records are they keeping if they can't tell when or how I was added to the list?  Even a bare-bones campaign will use an Excel spreadsheet and retain such information. And really Pam, you may be volunteering, but you have the top level position - it's your business to know these things.
  
  Since Gael was elected I have corresponded with her using this email address (the address this email came to). There were a few emails on personal matters that I sent to her at the Aldermanic office and later there were group emails involving the Highland Park Community Association which I was a member of at the time.
  
  Gael knows I moved, she acknowledge that on Twitter just a few weeks ago and she knows I'm supporting Sean, so it is highly unlikely she would purposely add me to her campaign distribution list. This leads me to believe other lists were imported into her database. Either a list of people she has had contact with via her role as an Alderman or lists of active Community Association members.
  
  If it is the former, then she has abused information gathered as an Alderman; if it is the latter, then she has misused information that was to be strictly used for Aldermanic, non-political work with communities. If either of these are indeed what happened, they are very disappointing actions for an elected official.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

The Alberta Party, a sad waste of a good name.

Background

So far as registered political parties in Alberta go, the Alberta Party has by far the coolest and best name.  It’s been around since the mid-eighties and more than one other party has tried to get their name. The Social Credit, the Separation Party of Alberta and the Alberta Alliance all made attempts at mergers through negotiations and all failed. 

In 2010 people from the failed “Renew Alberta” movement and the defunct (deregistered) Alberta Green Party were successful in a quiet takeover. They managed to attract some intelligent and well spoken individuals, like Chima Nkemdirim and Naheed Nenshi.

Many feel they took a big hit to their rise as a real party when Nenshi became Mayor of Calgary. He really was their only hope at having a quality leader. They also saw a glimmer of hope when Dave Taylor crossed the floor to sit as an Alberta Party MLA.  That was short-lived as Taylor didn’t run in the following election. I’ve heard some explain his actions as a “final ego trip” before retiring.

Trying too hard?

The Alberta Party will say they are “big in social media”; they are utilizing “cutting edge of technology” and the “new way of doing politics.”    

Social media can be a deceptive thing. For example, Marc Doll one of their biggest cheerleaders, recently admitted (after getting caughtred-handed) to creating a “sock puppet” account on Twitter. He said many people had access to it. So you know if there is one fake account, there likely many, many more.

They do use the latest in technology, like online and telephone voting, live streaming of their AGM’s and other meetings. However in doing so they have cut themselves off from both a huge voting demographic and forgotten how to use tried and true methods of reaching people. Case in point: My husband Cory purchased a membership, he never received a membership card; in fact he has never received any correspondence via regular mail from the Alberta Party – not even a ballot or voting information for the Leadership vote happening this weekend.  And from the sounds of it many others didn’t receive anything either, since on Friday morning they sent out a last minute emails to everyone. 

So far as their new way of doing politics – their “Big Listen” turned into a Big Flop.  No clearly defined policies, no one knowing where they stood on issues – in fact you could ask two or more members and get two or more widely different answers. 

Downhill fast

On February 23^rd of this year the Alberta Party held a “Special Constitutional Meeting” to make some amendments to their Constitution/Bylaws. They made some bizarre changes, like allowing the Leader to be a voting member of the board and keeping the board size at an inflated 25 members.

The one though that was of interest was changing the quorum requirement at AGM’s and Special Meetings. Their requirement had been set at 25% of membership. Their reasoning (top of pg 16) for the proposed amendments (there were several) was as follows:

“As the party has grown, 25% of the membership has become an unreasonable number for quorum (the bylaw in its current form requires a quorum of almost 800 people).”

From that we can calculate they had nearly 3200 members in February.  Just days ago it was reported that they have580 members eligible to vote for the new leader. This means that over 2500 people, who likely purchased memberships in March/April of 2012, decided not to renew.

Even the Wildrose in 2009 (year after an election) had nearly 1200 members and exploded to 12,000 during its leadership race. If the Alberta Party had a hope of growth post-election, this should have been it.

Getting back to the quorum amendment – what did pass was to change it to:

“One hundred and fifty (150) or 1% of Party Members in good standing, whicheveris less, will constitute a quorum for Special Meetings or Annual General Meetingsof the Party.”

Well one percent is indeed a very attainable goal with only 580 members. Heck at 5.8 people only ¼ of the provincial board could show up and they could have a valid AGM.  Is it just me or isn’t that downright absurd? They need the majority of the 25 directors at board meetings – so 13 people; yet only need 6 at AGM’s???

I asked yesterday on Twitter how many were registered to attend. The President, William Munsey replied saying “50 or so”, well above their required quorum. 

Is it though? Most political parties in Alberta are registered under the Society’s Act and as such fall under the law of the Act. One of those reads as follows:

Rescission,etc. of bylaws
15(1) The bylaws of a society shall not be rescinded, altered or added to except by special resolution of the society.(2) No rescission or alteration of or addition to a bylaw has effect until it has been registered by the Registrar.(3) If the Registrar is of the opinion that a bylaw is not in accordance with the application for incorporation or that it contains anything contrary to law, the Registrar shall refuse to register it.

It is 15(2) that is important to note. Societies can vote on all sorts of things, but until the changes are filed the bylaw has no effect. Actually not only do they need to be filed, but as you can see in 15(3) they have to be accepted, as the Registrar can refuse to register it.

It took the Alberta Party a very long time to get their revised Bylaws and Constitution posted on their website, it just showed up this past week. That got me thinking, if they didn’t have it amalgamated into one document until now (7 months) after the Special Meeting, what were the chances that the changes were in fact filed and approved by the Society’s Registrar?

I went down to a local registry office and requested a list of directors and a copy of the current bylaws and constitution.  They were able to give me the list of directors and a detailed history of all changes and documents filed.  The copy of true and current bylaws will take a couple business days to come to me.

With the information I did get though, I can already see that no changes or documents have been filed in 2013. The most recent change being an update to their address and the most recent documents filed being the annual return; both filed November 5, 2012.

Now, I’m no lawyer, but I do know from past experience - a party can’t presume to operate under amended bylaws until you receive the confirmation letter from the Society’s Registrar that they have been accepted.  To me this would indicate that the Alberta Party is still governed by (what they believe to be) their previous bylaws.  

The bylaws that require 25% of membership at AGM’s to meet quorum. With 580 members they will need 145 members in attendance at today’s AGM in order for it to be valid.  Will this impact the Leadership vote? Likely not, I suppose the losing candidate could make a case for it.  

However, I believe it would invalidate any other party business done at this AGM; the election of the new board for example.  Indeed there are many who would argue, that unless quorum is present at the onset of the meeting, it shouldn’t even proceed.

Update 9:50 PM

I've had a couple of exchanges on Twitter today and it would appear the Party thought my concerns valid enough to seek legal advice.  According to Chris McClure "legal council says no problems" This is great news and as you can see, I asked if they would be issuing an explanation to members.  Apparently they are going beyond that and have issued a press release, which they say will be covered on Global TV tonight.

You can see that information in the same link by scrolling down to see responses from "suepeac" and "SusanPeac".  I suspect they are one and the same person. It would be an incredible coincidence that two people, with nearly identical names, are both huge Alberta Party supporters AND just happen to respond to questions directed at the other.

Guess what's wrong with this picture.

Take a close look at this document - see anything amiss?  

Here is a huge clue for you.

Red Green Meets Tim Hortons

Spotted this at my local Tim Horton's this afternoon.

They must have an aspiring Red Green on staff.

Alberta PCs: SOME PARTY THAT I USED TO KNOW

The following video is the result of a creative endeavor by Amanda Achtman and friends.

While I was only a member of the PC party for three weeks; I have many friends who are still hanging in there hoping for "change from within".  For those who have left, I think Amanda has captured how they now feel.

Enjoy.

Wildrose 2012 AGM - Live Journal

Going to try quasi live journaling our weekend adventures and the Wildrose AGM. Truthfully a lot of it may end up being after things happen - depending on how much socializing we do, battery power on the laptop and of course internet access.

Thanks to the good graces of a wonderful boss, I have today off of work. :)

Friday November 23

First - Happy Birthday to my oldest sister. Man you ARE old...she is 6X today.. LOL

7:00 AM - Thought I could sleep in a bit today; had to settle for just 30 minutes extra sleep as the dogs decided to break into their food bin and help themselves to breakfast.

Duke, Blue and Stewie (click on image to enlarge)

9:00 AM - Blue and Stewie are packed up and Cory is taking them to their sitter for weekend. Thanks Jade at Where's You're Sit.

9:30 AM - Cory returns and loads up Duke, who is currently an Alberta Bulldog Rescue, and he is on his way to a foster volunteer. Time for me to get dressed and go for my pedicure / manicure appointment.

1:30 PM We have been on road for about 1.5 hours now, just passed through Red Deer. I did a telephone interview with James Wood from the Calgary Herald. He will be attending and covering the AGM. You can follow him on Twitter.

3:15 PM Checked in at the Mayfair Inns & Suites in Edmonton.  Get ready for evenings events.

5:15 PM We had supper in the restaurant of hotel. I'm not a huge fan of buffets, but this one was quite exceptional. Awesome food. Highly recommend it.

6:30 PM We checked in with the Wildrose registration desk and received our AGM packages.

Saturday November 24

Saturday AM Session

8:00 AM Everyone rejoins for breakfast. Many look slightly and/or greatly hungover; thankfully I'm not one of them...LOL

9:00 AM Doug Main is MC'ing the morning events. We start out hearing from the various candidates for Executive Committee positions.

Provincial (Zone) Director candidates all speak of connecting with members, strengthening CA's and grow strong base in preparation for 2016 General Election. Excellent candidates and tough choices in all the various divisions around Alberta.

10:25 AM After a coffee break we will now hear from the candidates for key Executive Committee positions.

Confirmed there are 700 members in attendance.

Rob Anderson makes fun of bizarre rumors that have been floating around.

Looking forward to doing intro for @electdanielle #wrpagm speech - I will be discussing plans for a takeover - stay tuned...
— Rob Anderson (@RAndersonMLA) November 24, 2012

..... more to come.

You can also watch live stream of Danielle's keynote speech today.

Here is link will be around 11:30 AM

Media coverage

Graham Thomson, Edmonton Journal
James Wood, Calgary Herald

Reference material for followers:

Candidates running for Executive positions

General AGM information

AGM Attendees Package

My Twitter handle is Jaanikka

Burning the Grassroots ??

The PC’s held their AGM last weekend and there were a few jabs sent their way on Twitter; from the usual suspects and yes, okay I was one of them. On November 23 / 24 the Wildrose will be having their AGM and I fully expect return fire; times three. Likely very little of it will pierce me. Some might smart a bit if they come from PC friends like Calgary Rants or Enlightened Savage. Later we will get together for drinks with Alberta Altruist and others to commiserate on how every party has similar challenges to deal with. 

Typically I will point out how the Wildrose has been able to differentiate itself from some of the other parties; in particular when it comes to listening to the grassroots and avoiding top-down decision making.  Alas, it would seem the days of having those bragging rights are dwindling.

My last role with the Wildrose was being an elected (volunteer) Provincial Director (PD for short or some call them Zone Directors) from June 2011 to June 2012 when I stepped down. During that time the Executive Committee (EC) very seldom met (despite it being an election year) and on occasion the Provincial Directors were left off the meeting agenda. This made it very challenging to bring ideas forward that came from the Constituency Associations (CA) we represented and in turn from the members.

One thing the PD’s did get approved at the EC level was for the party to cut back its’ monthly fundraising letters to every second month. That way the CA’s could focus on their fundraising in the alternate months. That directive was given to the Executive Director, Shayne Saskiw in September 2011. It was never carried out.

More often than not though it would be the President bringing forward motions with the notion that it was a foregone conclusion we would pass them. With only a handful of individuals willing to ask questions or speak and vote against many of them, things generally got passed with little resistance. When this happens time and time again one begins to feel you are there simply to rubber stamp someone else’s agenda; but you never really know who “they” are.

Last Saturday my phone started ringing and emails came in about a motion apparently passed just last Wednesday (Nov 7) by the EC; that the vast majority of our members likely won’t be happy with, in respect to an office move.

The Party has been in very expensive downtown space since January 2010.  In my opinion it was the worst possible location and one of the worst financial decisions we ever made. It’s not wheelchair accessible, parking is expensive, the layout isn’t conducive to any sort of confidential business meeting, it’s so cramped volunteers are elbow to elbow, it’s cumbersome for media to get their equipment in and there is no room to set up for interviews. And to top it off we signed a lease that would expire March 2012.  I remember saying at the time; “we will be in another election then.”  And we were; so since then we have continued month-to-month paying the high downtown prices.

The Party does need to move; there is no doubt in my mind about that.  This was to have been a priority as soon as the election was over. This was discussed at the December 2011 and February 2012 meetings of the EC. There was resounding support to find a more affordable and accessible location in Calgary with free parking for our volunteers.  In fact in those same discussions we all agreed that when looking for our new Executive Director, (if Shayne were to be elected) that they would either be from the Calgary area or be willing to relocate to Calgary.

As I understand it a similar discussion occurred at the August 7, 2012 meeting; that the new location must be in Calgary. The EC didn’t want to deal with the blow-back they would get from CA’s and members if they considered another city.  Indeed the last time I did an analysis (early 2010), more than 80% of our membership base lived south of Red Deer and 75% of fundraising was coming from southern Alberta; with the vast bulk of that from Calgary.

Back to the motion passed. There seems to be two versions of what was passed going around. Even the board members I spoke to are confused as to what the motion said exactly. Version one is that there will be a report brought back to the EC on November 20^th with options as to available space with a focus on finding space in Edmonton. The second version is that by November 20^th they will sign a lease for a specific space in Edmonton.

Regardless of the wording, clearly the intent is to move the office to Edmonton. This was something that I had discussed with current ED, Jonathon Wescott just a couple of weeks ago when we sat down for a coffee. At that time he said it didn’t matter one way or the other to him where the office was. However he then proceeded to give me numerous arguments as to why it would be better in Edmonton.

Some of the things he cited were; “Staffing would be easier”, they wouldn’t “lose staff to the oil and gas sector.” “They could pay staff less”. “Space is generally cheaper in Edmonton”. “It would be closer to the Leg”. “It would help deter the ‘Calgary Party’ labeling”. And on and on.

People seem to have either very short memories or conveniently forget our failures. Wildrose has tried twice to have an Edmonton office and failed miserably both times. Volunteers don’t show up or if they hear certain other people are involved they refuse to help.  There are more ‘factions’ within the Edmonton Wildrose supporters than there are political parties in the whole province.

They also seem to think having an office there will somehow draw support. No – it doesn’t happen that way. Our office was originally in Red Deer, that didn’t change where our members came from. When we did move it to Calgary it was because the party was all but broke and someone offered free office space. Additionally, it was operated for over three years by volunteers.

Some (mostly the MLAs) argue that being closer to the Legislature will make it easier for MLAs or legislative staff to attend at the office. If you were to ask me that is EXACTLY the reason it shouldn’t be in Edmonton. The notion of is divvying their time between legislative and party activity is what will get us into very hot water. Directing any legislative staff or resources to partisan activity; even just the perception of it, would be a goldmine of material for the other parties to attack us on.

Many don’t seem to grasp the concept of the Board of Directors being responsible for the “operational” side of the Party and the Leader and Caucus being responsible for the “political and Legislative” side. The two work alongside one another, but the EC doesn’t tell Caucus how to run government (opposition in this case) and Caucus doesn’t tell the EC how to operate the Party. Sadly I think these lines have been drastically blurred.

Others also try to make a case about “there are too many Calgarians running for positions on the EC”. Well, yes there are a lot because this is where our largest base of members, supporters, volunteers and donors happen to be.  If Edmonton wants greater representation on the board all they need to do is RUN!  Again, moving the office there won’t magically make people more interested in doing a completely thankless volunteer job.

I’ve suggested it many times before, if Edmonton is so gung-ho to have an office (or Red Deer or the Hat or anywhere else) they should start it the same way we started in Calgary. Get your donated space, get volunteers to man it; then show us if you have an increase in support, membership, volunteers and donations. If your CA’s can’t do that, having 3 or 4 paid people in office cubicles aren’t going to get it done either.

After people started contacting me, I reached out to and spoke with several of the current board members. I wanted to get a handle on why the change in direction and why there also seems to be a rush to get this done just weeks prior to our electing a new board.

So I posed some questions to a few EC members (both for and against the move to Edmonton), CA presidents and a couple members. I’m only posting the responses that were made by two or more individuals.

Why did this have to be decided now, right before a new EC is elected?

• During the meeting an EC member did ask for it to be tabled for new EC
• Paul Collins insisted it be dealt with prior to AGM
• Rob Ladouceur formulated and put forth the motion
• There is a Nov 20^th deadline to enter into new lease (3 days prior to AGM)
• Some MLAs felt it wouldn’t go through once new board was elected at AGM

What about the staff?

• There is only one staff member Wescott is willing to bring to Edmonton
• One is being offered a soft landing with the CPC
• The other two will be let go

What do you think is the true motivation for moving the office Edmonton?

• Jonathon Wescott never intended to relocate to Calgary even though he was aware it was a board stipulation back in late 2011 for the new ED
• Jonathon’s wife is a Crown Prosecutor in Edmonton and won’t relocate, she is also 7 months pregnant so Jonathon knew this when he applied for the position
• Promises of jobs were made to people in Edmonton. IE: “Put your name forward in the election (that you likely won’t win) and we will take care of you post-election by way of employment.”

I will restate I do support the office moving and believe the EC should have dealt with it six months ago. Some will say; “oh but there wasn’t an ED in place six months ago.” My response to that is it’s not the EDs decision to make. ED’s operate under the governance and guidance of the EC. Certainly locating space is something they could task the ED with, however in the absence of one they could delegate it to someone else. Or as the EC in 2010 did, they could engage the services of commercial rental brokerage. Heck they could even send out a Tweet and do some crowd-sourcing.

It leave one to wonder why there is now such a rush to get this done? Especially when it seems the two main EC members championing it are Paul Collins and Rob Ladouceur, neither of whom are running for their positions again. Remember Rob L is the one who wrote the clause enabling them to prevent anyone from running for the EC for any reason.  And it was Paul Collins (in the comments of that same posting) who referred to vocal Wildrose, grassroots’ supporters as “clowns”.

They know full well a new board will be in place by month’s end. Indeed the timing of a November 20^th deadline, just three days prior the AGM is very suspect. Is this their way of leaving a legacy of their time served?

In case you’re wondering which board members opposed the move to Edmonton they are:

Cheryl Phaff

Judy Johnson

Krista Waters

Wendy Fulton

Now, back to my opening remarks about listening to the grassroots and avoiding top-down decision making.

Is moving the office part of Caucus business? No. Having a party office and its location are an operational function which the EC is responsible for.

Is moving the office at the ED’s request or to suit where he lives a good idea? Again, likely not. Are we going to move the office and hire new staff each time we have a new ED? Keeping in mind Wescott is our fourth Executive Director in less than three years.

Is moving the office a decision for the entire membership to be making? I think not, it would be a bit cumbersome to garner input from 25,000 people.

Is it something that perhaps the EC could elicit feedback from CA’s on through their PD’s? Absolutely. It would make great strides towards building those bridges and they do after all represent the members. 

One of the concerns I hear repeatedly coming out of Edmonton is access to EC minutes. Currently the only way to get them is for a CA president to request in writing to attend personally at the office to view them. Previously our practice was to email them out – you know part of being "open and transparent." So it’s no wonder CA’s who can’t attend personally at the office feel put out by the Party.

As it stands right now it looks like this decision was made outside of the EC and they are simply being used to get it approved. It unfortunately raises doubts about how many other decisions are being made by individuals not elected by the members. It begs the question; “are we really any different than the PC’s?”

If we want to be able to keep holding our heads high and honestly say “we aren’t like other parties”; we had better make sure we elect an EC at our AGM who will abide by our constitution and listened to the members and our CA’s who are also duly elected by the members.

Members please take the time to get to know all the candidates who are running. You can find a list and more information on each of them by clicking here.

Update: I've received a copy of Jonathon Wescotts' "Office Relocation Report".  However, I will need to remove some information; so will be posting a redacted version shortly.

Report is now posted under a separate tab at top of blog. Here is quick link to it.

Update: Saturday, Nov. 17

Interesting twitter discussion on this post.

@danknight3 @corybmorgan @jaanikka Definitely not. The new EC will sign the new leases. #wrp
— Danielle Smith (@ElectDanielle) November 17, 2012

Link to full string.

.