I have been searching for the right words to write to express what the Klein family and Alberta lost yesterday with the passing of Ralph Klein and almost a full day later I still can't come up with anything truly worthy of the man and his legacy. So instead I will link to some of the many wonderful articles written about the man who wanted only to be called Ralph and say thank you for all that he did for this province and say a big thank you to his wife Colleen and the Klein family for sharing him with us. You were one of a kind Ralph and you will be missed.
Gunter: We lost a great Albertan.
The Globe and Mail: Canadians remember Ralph Klein as tributes pour in.
Sun: Ralph Klein was one of us.
Corbella: Just call him Ralph, the peoples premier.
Thompson: Impossible not to like Ralph Klein.
Calgary Herald: We loved him.
Stockwell Day: Ralph Klein was genuine, kept his word.
Calgary Sun: Remembering Ralph
Colby Cosh: The deceptive shape of a shadow.
and a couple that pay tribute to the man and note just how far off track Alberta has gone since Ralph retired in 2006.
Flanagan: Deficit and debt fighters of today should learn from Ralph Klein.
Braid: Klein's debt fighting legacy at risk.
Rest in peace Ralph, Alberta missed you even before you were gone.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
Alberta Budget 2013. A few thoughts.
Obfuscate:
Graham Thompson called it "arguably the most opaque, obscure and cynical budget yet delivered in Alberta."
Don Braid wrote: "translating this one (budget) is like trying to decipher the Inca alphabet (clue: they didn’t have one.)"
and Derek Fildebrandt from the Canadian Tax Payer Federation tweeted: "I have never seen an attempt to obscure facts and numbers from the public as blatant and serious as this." (perhaps this is why they tried to keep him out of the lockup)
It is a mess. Nobody can peg an actual deficit and having Doug Horner unsure about the meaning of the word deficit and a Premier who is actually claiming that we don't have a deficit is clouding the matter even more for the average Albertan trying to get a handle on what the hell happened.
The bottom line is as Horner says “we’re in a deficit.” including an almost $500 million dollar operating debt of which Redford promised just 4 months ago "We will continue to ensure that our operating budget is balanced." and we will be $17 billion in debt by the year 2016. That is if you assume their numbers are correct and the PC track record has not been good in that regard and now Redford has had to break almost every election promise that she made not even 1 year ago.
Oh and fair warning to those that are not happy with Premier Redford about this because apparently if you were one of those who believed Redford's promises of a balanced budget and no debt, that she used to win the election, prepare to be called names and mocked if you believed her or if you believe in such extreme ideologies as honesty or fiscal responsibility for now and the future.
With a fiscal record so bad and now with a trail of broken promises it is easy to see why Redford and the PCs have attempted to obfuscate with their budget to throw the public off the reality of the situation but unlike other years they really had no choice this time; their hand was forced as there is no longer an easy way to hide their incompetence . No longer can the PCs rely on the Sustainability Fund to cover for their fiscal incompetence as they did 5 previous times running deficit budgets; the PCs drained the once near $18 billion dollar fund to almost zero and the jig is up. Oddly enough that Sustainability Fund which has covered the PCs for the last 7 years was started by Ralph Klein, that same Ralph Klein that progressive conservatives including Redford herself have been slamming lately for being fiscally irresponsible by balancing our books and getting us out of debt and of course giving us that PC butt saving Sustainability Fund.
While I am on Ralph here is one of the laws his gov't wrote and was law in Alberta until the PCs rescinded it in 2008: "actual expense for a fiscal year shall not exceed actual revenue for that year."
A far cry from what is in Redford's 2013-14 budget, or at least I think so. It is so hard to tell.
So as we await the start of week 1 of the budget showdown in the legislature, I look forward to not only the great debate but also finding out what heck that thing actually said and what it means to Alberta.
BTW the often politicized Provincial Affairs Bureau, the ones that spin for the government and now on a regular basis flat out attack other political parties for partisan purposes, got an increase in funding. They may claim otherwise because of the creative bookkeeping trick of rolling 2 budget 2012-13 line items together, killing one of them but using that inflated total to claim that there was actually a cut this year, but the truth is the PCs taxpayer funded propaganda arm is this year getting nearly 17 million dollars to spin you when last year they were given a budget of 15 million.
So if your local hospital or school has been delayed or if you have already been told that there is no money to give you a wage increase this year, take heart that the PCs consider you so important that they are spending even more money this year to tell you just how good that they and their policies are.
- Render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
- Bewilder (someone).
Graham Thompson called it "arguably the most opaque, obscure and cynical budget yet delivered in Alberta."
Don Braid wrote: "translating this one (budget) is like trying to decipher the Inca alphabet (clue: they didn’t have one.)"
and Derek Fildebrandt from the Canadian Tax Payer Federation tweeted: "I have never seen an attempt to obscure facts and numbers from the public as blatant and serious as this." (perhaps this is why they tried to keep him out of the lockup)
It is a mess. Nobody can peg an actual deficit and having Doug Horner unsure about the meaning of the word deficit and a Premier who is actually claiming that we don't have a deficit is clouding the matter even more for the average Albertan trying to get a handle on what the hell happened.
The bottom line is as Horner says “we’re in a deficit.” including an almost $500 million dollar operating debt of which Redford promised just 4 months ago "We will continue to ensure that our operating budget is balanced." and we will be $17 billion in debt by the year 2016. That is if you assume their numbers are correct and the PC track record has not been good in that regard and now Redford has had to break almost every election promise that she made not even 1 year ago.
Oh and fair warning to those that are not happy with Premier Redford about this because apparently if you were one of those who believed Redford's promises of a balanced budget and no debt, that she used to win the election, prepare to be called names and mocked if you believed her or if you believe in such extreme ideologies as honesty or fiscal responsibility for now and the future.
With a fiscal record so bad and now with a trail of broken promises it is easy to see why Redford and the PCs have attempted to obfuscate with their budget to throw the public off the reality of the situation but unlike other years they really had no choice this time; their hand was forced as there is no longer an easy way to hide their incompetence . No longer can the PCs rely on the Sustainability Fund to cover for their fiscal incompetence as they did 5 previous times running deficit budgets; the PCs drained the once near $18 billion dollar fund to almost zero and the jig is up. Oddly enough that Sustainability Fund which has covered the PCs for the last 7 years was started by Ralph Klein, that same Ralph Klein that progressive conservatives including Redford herself have been slamming lately for being fiscally irresponsible by balancing our books and getting us out of debt and of course giving us that PC butt saving Sustainability Fund.
While I am on Ralph here is one of the laws his gov't wrote and was law in Alberta until the PCs rescinded it in 2008: "actual expense for a fiscal year shall not exceed actual revenue for that year."
A far cry from what is in Redford's 2013-14 budget, or at least I think so. It is so hard to tell.
So as we await the start of week 1 of the budget showdown in the legislature, I look forward to not only the great debate but also finding out what heck that thing actually said and what it means to Alberta.
BTW the often politicized Provincial Affairs Bureau, the ones that spin for the government and now on a regular basis flat out attack other political parties for partisan purposes, got an increase in funding. They may claim otherwise because of the creative bookkeeping trick of rolling 2 budget 2012-13 line items together, killing one of them but using that inflated total to claim that there was actually a cut this year, but the truth is the PCs taxpayer funded propaganda arm is this year getting nearly 17 million dollars to spin you when last year they were given a budget of 15 million.
So if your local hospital or school has been delayed or if you have already been told that there is no money to give you a wage increase this year, take heart that the PCs consider you so important that they are spending even more money this year to tell you just how good that they and their policies are.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Politicizing Flanagan.The Alberta Edition.
One would expect that the Liberals and the usual crowd of Harper haters would try to politicize Professor Flanagan's comments on child porn for partisan reasons but would you expect so called conservatives to do the same?
Well welcome to Alberta where some conservatives in the PC party have done exactly that and it is making them look silly in the process.
First up Justice Minister Jonathan Denis who on the Rutherford Show today, or as the Alberta Government likes to refer to it; "Wildrose radio", had this to say:
"Interesting comments from the Wildrose today, hey". ( Note how Denis changes the topic and instigates the smear) I also think the Wildrose has some explaining to do because you know, if you go back, he has been publicly described as a mentor, trusted confident, tenured close personal friend, guided Miss Smith's entire political career ( reading from talking points or just a great memory for old quotes?); I think this goes to more of the core of the party than she would let on."
There is no way to call this other than what it is; a blatant and calculated attempt to smear an entire political party because of its association to an individual. An utterly ridiculous assertion made even more pathetic because it was made by someone who also has an association with the same individual. Yes it is true, the same person that Denis used for his smear attempt is the same one with which he coauthored an op-ed piece in the Ottawa Citizen with! Hypocrisy thy name is Jonathan Denis.
Since we are on the topic of campaign managers Susan Elliot, the PC campaign chair in the last election and who has a previous history of attacking conservatives, decided to also get into the act by tweeting thissmear nonsense:
"Did Danielle know before the 2012 election when she hired Flanagan? 2009 story: http://www.themanitoban.com/2009/11/flanagan-speaks/500/ …#ableg #pcaa #abpoli"
Yes, because everyone knew about Flanagan's 2009 comments before today, which is why we heard the PCs use them against the WRP during the election. Oh wait, we didn't see the PC's use those comments did we. (and you know we would have had they in fact known about them) So in other words Elliot is 'upset' that the WRP didn't know about comments that neither the PC party, their operatives or her had any idea had existed before today. Seems logical to me. Not. More like just another example of how the PC's will say and do anything to stay in power.
There of course were others as well. My friend Stefan Baranski had to get his smear attempts in and the ableg Twitter feed was awash sock puppet accounts with 2-10 followers as well as some of the usual WRP haters who were busy smearing away. Including a certain attention seeking one who gave a textbook example of smear (and possibly libel), blamed someone else, was proven wrong, played the hurt bunny routine rather than admit she was wrong, and even though she claims to be against hate, bullying, lowering the political discourse etc etc went straight into the gutter (you know, all the stuff she claims to be against) in an attempt to smear someone else. As the kids say on the Twitter it was an #epicfail.
Typical and expected from this crowd of haters but from conservatives who will be crying next week about how the Wildrose are bottom feeders and are lowering the political discourse in Alberta, not so much.
But that is now how 'conservatives' in Redford's PC party like to operate.
Well welcome to Alberta where some conservatives in the PC party have done exactly that and it is making them look silly in the process.
First up Justice Minister Jonathan Denis who on the Rutherford Show today, or as the Alberta Government likes to refer to it; "Wildrose radio", had this to say:
"Interesting comments from the Wildrose today, hey". ( Note how Denis changes the topic and instigates the smear) I also think the Wildrose has some explaining to do because you know, if you go back, he has been publicly described as a mentor, trusted confident, tenured close personal friend, guided Miss Smith's entire political career ( reading from talking points or just a great memory for old quotes?); I think this goes to more of the core of the party than she would let on."
There is no way to call this other than what it is; a blatant and calculated attempt to smear an entire political party because of its association to an individual. An utterly ridiculous assertion made even more pathetic because it was made by someone who also has an association with the same individual. Yes it is true, the same person that Denis used for his smear attempt is the same one with which he coauthored an op-ed piece in the Ottawa Citizen with! Hypocrisy thy name is Jonathan Denis.
Since we are on the topic of campaign managers Susan Elliot, the PC campaign chair in the last election and who has a previous history of attacking conservatives, decided to also get into the act by tweeting this
"Did Danielle know before the 2012 election when she hired Flanagan? 2009 story: http://www.themanitoban.com/2009/11/flanagan-speaks/500/ …
Yes, because everyone knew about Flanagan's 2009 comments before today, which is why we heard the PCs use them against the WRP during the election. Oh wait, we didn't see the PC's use those comments did we. (and you know we would have had they in fact known about them) So in other words Elliot is 'upset' that the WRP didn't know about comments that neither the PC party, their operatives or her had any idea had existed before today. Seems logical to me. Not. More like just another example of how the PC's will say and do anything to stay in power.
There of course were others as well. My friend Stefan Baranski had to get his smear attempts in and the ableg Twitter feed was awash sock puppet accounts with 2-10 followers as well as some of the usual WRP haters who were busy smearing away. Including a certain attention seeking one who gave a textbook example of smear (and possibly libel), blamed someone else, was proven wrong, played the hurt bunny routine rather than admit she was wrong, and even though she claims to be against hate, bullying, lowering the political discourse etc etc went straight into the gutter (you know, all the stuff she claims to be against) in an attempt to smear someone else. As the kids say on the Twitter it was an #epicfail.
Typical and expected from this crowd of haters but from conservatives who will be crying next week about how the Wildrose are bottom feeders and are lowering the political discourse in Alberta, not so much.
But that is now how 'conservatives' in Redford's PC party like to operate.
Monday, February 11, 2013
"Leading by example" Premier Redford's history on MLA compensation.
This past Thursday the Premier announced, on Twitter no less, that MLA pay and their housing allowance would be frozen. Ignoring the fact that this type of thing is decided by what is supposedly an independent committee who Redford has said of in the past that it was NOT her "role to direct the members of the committee to do anything.", which is not in the least bit true as you will see in examples below, the PC spin team are trying to play this as 'leading by example'. So ignore the impropriety of announcing on Twitter what a committee would do in the future and lets concentrate on Redford's record on MLA compensation and leading by example.
Elected in March 2008 and in cabinet when the PC's, in a closed door cabinet meeting, gave themselves a 34% wage increase where Redford's salary went up $42,000, to $184,000, and the Premier's by $54,000, to $213,450 (making Stelmach the highest paid Premier in Canada). This raise coming just months after MLAs gave themselves a 4.7% increase in their pay.
Leading by example: There is no record of Redford speaking out against either pay increase.
Resigned from cabinet in Feb 2011 but continued to accept her MLA pay cheque while running for the PCAA leadership which she won in Oct 2011 and was subsequently sworn in as Alberta's 14th Premier a week later.
The Justice Major report. In January 2012 retired Supreme Court Justice Major began his review of MLA compensation which would be presented to the Legislature in early May 2012, conveniently timed for after the provincial election. While an independent look into pay and perks should be considered a good move, Redford's handling of it was just the opposite.
Leading by example: Redford: "I’m not going to dither. What he says, will go. Whatever Jack Major says is what we’re going to do. I’ve been very clear on that." Without having any idea what the report contained Redford is on the record numerous times saying that she would "implement the Major Report recommendations on MLA compensation" sight unseen (who does that?) and even went so far as to chastise the other leaders in the televised leaders debate for questioning the idea of implementing a report which nobody had any idea of what was written in it.
And what happened when the report did come out? Redford did in fact dither and she did not accept all the recommendations, doing exactly what she promised numerous times that she wouldn't do. Also of note the government did say they were going to implement recommendation # 15 of the report but it turns out that too was just another broken promise and MLA's will continue to set their own pay in the future.
The no-meet committee (NMC). Perhaps the best example of Redford's poor record on the MLA compensation file was her dismal handling and multiple flip flops during the infamous no-meet committee fiasco where MLAs were paid thousands for being on a committee which had not met in 39 months.
Leading by example:
March 8: Story breaks and the public is outraged while Redford claims that she "was unaware" of the situation.
March 9: It is revealed that Redford sat on that very committee.
March 11: Redford says "It's a personal decision." if PC MLAs want to refund the money or not.
March 12: Redford calls opposition MLAs returning pay from the NMC a "convenient stunt to try and polarize an issue".
March 20: PC MLAs under fire from the public say they will return 6 months of NMC pay. Questioned why only 6 months worth, Redford replies "I can't revisit the past,"
March 26: The writ dropped and the election called.
March 27: Redford tries some revisionary history and says: "And I say again, I was the first person to identify (the committee) as an issue, and as soon as I became leader I took steps to correct it." (see 'unaware' March 8th)
March 29: Under immense public pressure and with the election possibly in the balance Redford finally does the right thing and orders PC MLAs to return all of the NMC money or be removed from the PC caucus: “Any MLAs who do not, will not have a place in our Progressive Conservative caucus,”
Sept 25?: The PC caucus passes the hat to collect the remaining money owed from the NMC. Meaning that at least some of the 39 PC MLAs who were ordered to repay the NMC cash did not do so as it required 61 PC caucus members to pay $2,700 each to cover the short fall. Contrary to Redford's promise no PC MLA was ever removed from caucus for not delivering on Redford'sflip flop promise.
(related blog posts with links)
Transition pay & RRSPs: In spite of promising an end to transition pay for MLA's during the election, a motion to bring it back was put forward at the Member Services Committee (MSC) by the PC Party whip Steve Young (For those who do not know it is the party whips job to make sure that party MLAs follow the party line) who clearly tweeted that his motions in committee were done on behalf of the PC caucus! Leading by example!
Links: Alberta MLAs move to enrich retirement pay. Alberta Tories revisit transition allowance.
Links from after the fallout: Young says he misunderstood Premiers marching orders. Whip back peddles.
Tories scrap new transition allowance.
Remember in the first paragraph where I quoted Redford saying it was not her role to tell the Member Services Committee (who decide compensation) anything? If that was true why on earth would the PC members on the 'independent' MSC withdraw their motion which all 6 of them voted in favour of and had spoken out in favour of (see links) immediately after Redford said it was a non starter? So much for independence and please ignore how Young tweeted that his motions were that of the PC caucus because if you don't it makes the rest of the PC spin pretty much unbelievable. In the end the transition pay motion was made to dissapear (it had too as the public would have none of it) but you and I as taxpayers will now pay 100% for MLA RRSP's up from the previous 50%.
A pay freeze after a pay raise. While it was a prudent move to freeze MLA pay it would have been better if Redford (or the independent, ya right, MSC) had done so before they raised MLA compensation in November 2012.
Now I know the PC's will swear up and down that they had a pay cut but the fact is that after the 2012 election MLA compensation was $145,000/yr ( $134K salary + $11K in RRSPs) per the Major report recommendations accepted by the MSC but was raised to $156,000/yr ($134K salary + 22K in RRSPs) in November 2012. To use any other base figure purposely ignores Redford's election campaign promises which every PCs ran on to end committee pay transition allowances. They won running on those promises so now to use them to claim a pay cut is disingenuous at the very least. I half expect some PC spin doctor to claim the Premier Redford has taken a 1 million dollar pay cut because that is what former Premier Stelmach received in transition pay and which Redford now cannot. It is the same flawed reasoning which the PCs use daily to claim that the poor dears actually received a pay cut. Ridiculous but that is how Redford and the PCs lead by example.
Elected in March 2008 and in cabinet when the PC's, in a closed door cabinet meeting, gave themselves a 34% wage increase where Redford's salary went up $42,000, to $184,000, and the Premier's by $54,000, to $213,450 (making Stelmach the highest paid Premier in Canada). This raise coming just months after MLAs gave themselves a 4.7% increase in their pay.
Leading by example: There is no record of Redford speaking out against either pay increase.
Resigned from cabinet in Feb 2011 but continued to accept her MLA pay cheque while running for the PCAA leadership which she won in Oct 2011 and was subsequently sworn in as Alberta's 14th Premier a week later.
The Justice Major report. In January 2012 retired Supreme Court Justice Major began his review of MLA compensation which would be presented to the Legislature in early May 2012, conveniently timed for after the provincial election. While an independent look into pay and perks should be considered a good move, Redford's handling of it was just the opposite.
Leading by example: Redford: "I’m not going to dither. What he says, will go. Whatever Jack Major says is what we’re going to do. I’ve been very clear on that." Without having any idea what the report contained Redford is on the record numerous times saying that she would "implement the Major Report recommendations on MLA compensation" sight unseen (who does that?) and even went so far as to chastise the other leaders in the televised leaders debate for questioning the idea of implementing a report which nobody had any idea of what was written in it.
And what happened when the report did come out? Redford did in fact dither and she did not accept all the recommendations, doing exactly what she promised numerous times that she wouldn't do. Also of note the government did say they were going to implement recommendation # 15 of the report but it turns out that too was just another broken promise and MLA's will continue to set their own pay in the future.
The no-meet committee (NMC). Perhaps the best example of Redford's poor record on the MLA compensation file was her dismal handling and multiple flip flops during the infamous no-meet committee fiasco where MLAs were paid thousands for being on a committee which had not met in 39 months.
Leading by example:
March 8: Story breaks and the public is outraged while Redford claims that she "was unaware" of the situation.
March 9: It is revealed that Redford sat on that very committee.
March 11: Redford says "It's a personal decision." if PC MLAs want to refund the money or not.
March 12: Redford calls opposition MLAs returning pay from the NMC a "convenient stunt to try and polarize an issue".
March 20: PC MLAs under fire from the public say they will return 6 months of NMC pay. Questioned why only 6 months worth, Redford replies "I can't revisit the past,"
March 26: The writ dropped and the election called.
March 27: Redford tries some revisionary history and says: "And I say again, I was the first person to identify (the committee) as an issue, and as soon as I became leader I took steps to correct it." (see 'unaware' March 8th)
March 29: Under immense public pressure and with the election possibly in the balance Redford finally does the right thing and orders PC MLAs to return all of the NMC money or be removed from the PC caucus: “Any MLAs who do not, will not have a place in our Progressive Conservative caucus,”
Sept 25?: The PC caucus passes the hat to collect the remaining money owed from the NMC. Meaning that at least some of the 39 PC MLAs who were ordered to repay the NMC cash did not do so as it required 61 PC caucus members to pay $2,700 each to cover the short fall. Contrary to Redford's promise no PC MLA was ever removed from caucus for not delivering on Redford's
(related blog posts with links)
Transition pay & RRSPs: In spite of promising an end to transition pay for MLA's during the election, a motion to bring it back was put forward at the Member Services Committee (MSC) by the PC Party whip Steve Young (For those who do not know it is the party whips job to make sure that party MLAs follow the party line) who clearly tweeted that his motions in committee were done on behalf of the PC caucus! Leading by example!
Links: Alberta MLAs move to enrich retirement pay. Alberta Tories revisit transition allowance.
Links from after the fallout: Young says he misunderstood Premiers marching orders. Whip back peddles.
Tories scrap new transition allowance.
Remember in the first paragraph where I quoted Redford saying it was not her role to tell the Member Services Committee (who decide compensation) anything? If that was true why on earth would the PC members on the 'independent' MSC withdraw their motion which all 6 of them voted in favour of and had spoken out in favour of (see links) immediately after Redford said it was a non starter? So much for independence and please ignore how Young tweeted that his motions were that of the PC caucus because if you don't it makes the rest of the PC spin pretty much unbelievable. In the end the transition pay motion was made to dissapear (it had too as the public would have none of it) but you and I as taxpayers will now pay 100% for MLA RRSP's up from the previous 50%.
A pay freeze after a pay raise. While it was a prudent move to freeze MLA pay it would have been better if Redford (or the independent, ya right, MSC) had done so before they raised MLA compensation in November 2012.
Now I know the PC's will swear up and down that they had a pay cut but the fact is that after the 2012 election MLA compensation was $145,000/yr ( $134K salary + $11K in RRSPs) per the Major report recommendations accepted by the MSC but was raised to $156,000/yr ($134K salary + 22K in RRSPs) in November 2012. To use any other base figure purposely ignores Redford's election campaign promises which every PCs ran on to end committee pay transition allowances. They won running on those promises so now to use them to claim a pay cut is disingenuous at the very least. I half expect some PC spin doctor to claim the Premier Redford has taken a 1 million dollar pay cut because that is what former Premier Stelmach received in transition pay and which Redford now cannot. It is the same flawed reasoning which the PCs use daily to claim that the poor dears actually received a pay cut. Ridiculous but that is how Redford and the PCs lead by example.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Busted: CTV Edits tape of Senator Brazeau.
CTV News has been caught editing an audio clip of Senator Patrick Brazeau that it used for a story on the Jan 31st edition of CTV National news, and it isn't the first time that CTV has been caught selectively editing either.
CTV denies editing the audio: “CTV News was supplied the audio recording in question by Metroland Media Group. CTV News made no alterations to the audio that was provided,”
But in what must be only a 'coincidence' the 1st segment of the Jan 31st CTV National News, which the story appeared in, has been sent down the memory hole and is not available to be viewed. Oddly enough the remaining segments are available.
APTN has both the actual audio and the edited CTV version here. (updated: link went 404 so video was added to protect all involved.)
It is obvious that the CTV version of the audio has been edited as pauses, crowd laughter and almost a complete sentence, "And I'm sorry, I am not a comedian but" is completely missing from the CTV audio.
This is not the first time either: From the archives: CTVGATE: CTV cuts 2 seconds out Ignatieff's answer.
And there is this: CTV News gets caught again.
Good work CTV.
Updated: BC Blue on the edited audio.
CTV denies editing the audio: “CTV News was supplied the audio recording in question by Metroland Media Group. CTV News made no alterations to the audio that was provided,”
But in what must be only a 'coincidence' the 1st segment of the Jan 31st CTV National News, which the story appeared in, has been sent down the memory hole and is not available to be viewed. Oddly enough the remaining segments are available.
APTN has both the actual audio and the edited CTV version here. (updated: link went 404 so video was added to protect all involved.)
It is obvious that the CTV version of the audio has been edited as pauses, crowd laughter and almost a complete sentence, "And I'm sorry, I am not a comedian but" is completely missing from the CTV audio.
This is not the first time either: From the archives: CTVGATE: CTV cuts 2 seconds out Ignatieff's answer.
And there is this: CTV News gets caught again.
Good work CTV.
Updated: BC Blue on the edited audio.
Friday, February 01, 2013
Tone deaf: Alberta PC Party does not want to repay illegal donations.
The executive director of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta saying perhaps the most tone deaf and arrogant statements I have ever heard from a political party. "We're of the mind, as a party, not to repay the voluntary amounts," & "Repaying the money does us no good in the court of public opinion" (You can listen to the words yourself at this link at approx the 2 min mark) All in regards to Alberta's Chief Electoral Officers recent disclosure that the PC party was found to have accepted 45 illegal donations. ( The tip of the iceberg)
Think about that for a minute. The Alberta PC Party does not want to pay back the money that was given to them illegally, as determined by the CEO of Alberta, and they believe that the Alberta public does not care if they do pay back their ill gotten gains.
I am almost speechless as it seems that the PCs have not learned any lessons at all from their handling of the no-meet committee fiasco of last year where the Premier was forced into multiple flip flops due to very obvious public outrage on the matter.
Of course it matters; only a fool would believe that it didn't.
Updated: The PC spin that they were unaware of the donations takes a nose dive.
(Metro) Leaders of the two municipalities named in a new report as having made the largest amount of illegal, “indirect” contributions to the Progressive Conservative party say party officials advised them at the time they were doing nothing wrong.
Mayor Bill Robertson of the Town of Okotoks: “They knew what was going and they were saying, ‘Oh yeah, you can do it that way, because it’s legal,’” he said. “And it turns out it wasn’t legal.”
Foothills Reeve Larry Spilak told a similar story: “Absolutely, it was from the party,” he said. “The message that was sent to our council and our administration was that this was allowed and consequently we went ahead with it.”
More here from the National Post on how municipalities felt pressure to donate to the PC party.
Calgary Herald: "the PCs are ready to fight an election with illegal contributions."
Business as usual in Alberta. At least until 2016 when we get another chance to show the Alberta PC's that in the court of public opinion, ethics do indeed matter.
From the archives: Many more examples of illegal PC donations can be found here.
From the CBC: How the PC party not only accepted an illegal donation but also orchestrated it from the inside! Tell me again how 'they didn't know'?
Think about that for a minute. The Alberta PC Party does not want to pay back the money that was given to them illegally, as determined by the CEO of Alberta, and they believe that the Alberta public does not care if they do pay back their ill gotten gains.
I am almost speechless as it seems that the PCs have not learned any lessons at all from their handling of the no-meet committee fiasco of last year where the Premier was forced into multiple flip flops due to very obvious public outrage on the matter.
Of course it matters; only a fool would believe that it didn't.
Updated: The PC spin that they were unaware of the donations takes a nose dive.
(Metro) Leaders of the two municipalities named in a new report as having made the largest amount of illegal, “indirect” contributions to the Progressive Conservative party say party officials advised them at the time they were doing nothing wrong.
Mayor Bill Robertson of the Town of Okotoks: “They knew what was going and they were saying, ‘Oh yeah, you can do it that way, because it’s legal,’” he said. “And it turns out it wasn’t legal.”
Foothills Reeve Larry Spilak told a similar story: “Absolutely, it was from the party,” he said. “The message that was sent to our council and our administration was that this was allowed and consequently we went ahead with it.”
More here from the National Post on how municipalities felt pressure to donate to the PC party.
Calgary Herald: "the PCs are ready to fight an election with illegal contributions."
Business as usual in Alberta. At least until 2016 when we get another chance to show the Alberta PC's that in the court of public opinion, ethics do indeed matter.
From the archives: Many more examples of illegal PC donations can be found here.
From the CBC: How the PC party not only accepted an illegal donation but also orchestrated it from the inside! Tell me again how 'they didn't know'?
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Communication fail. Stefan Baranski, Premier Redford's Director of Strategic Communications, shows us how it's done.
I am not a paid professional communications person but it seems to me that having a Director of Strategic Communications who selectively edits someones tweet without informing anyone they did so and then flat out lies about the original tweet being deleted after being called out on their hackery, is not exactly the best way to add credibility to either the person, their position, or the communications of the premier and the government.
Stefan Baranski. Imported from Ontario as part of Redford's doubling of her communications staff help to helpspin communicate with Albertans got himself in some hot water on Wednesday evening when he posted a heavily edited tweet (without notifying anyone that it was edited) from Danielle Smith and then subsequently lied about the original tweet from Smith having been deleted.
Original tweet from Danielle Smith: (Dec 12, 2012 6:43am)
"Alberta is not a democracy, it's an oligarchy. Cooper: Redford spending spree just tip of the iceberg http://bit.ly/TUu1zn#ableg #wrp"
Note the linked article written by Barry Cooper in the Calgary Herald where Cooper uses the word "oligarchy" at least 2 times.
Baranski's tweet: (Dec 12, 2012 7:22pm)
"In other words Albertans: your votes didn't count. RT@ElectDanielle: Alberta is not a democracy, it's an oligarchy. #ableg #wrp #pcaa"
Note that it was posted as a "RT" (re-tweet) and not a MT (modified tweet) and of course that he purposely edited out any mention of the linked article where 'oligarchy' came from. Also note the added #pcaa hashtag to the tweet which was not there in the original.
Now before someone claims that this is nothing more than a twitter etiquette thing that Baranski may not be familiar with; I refer you to his nearly 6000 tweets and his billing as "social media expert". Not many social media experts or even people who have used twitter for more than a week would make such an obvious mistake; but than again this was not a simple mistake, it was a deliberate smear attempt.
Making it worse with a lie: After being called out for the obvious manipulation of Smith's original tweet he took it a step further by wrongly claiming, twice, that Smith had deleted the original tweet.
( A tweet which he had just found and edited for the smear and which is linked to above and remains on Danielle Smith's twitter account)
Dec 12, 2012 7:31pm:@ireneerutema Since deleted it seems!
Dec 12, 2012 7:33pm: .@mattsolberg Why did she delete the tweet then? #oops #GetSolbergSomeCommsLessons #pointlesshashtags
You have to love the arrogance of that last tweet where he adds the 'Get Solberg Some Comms Lessons' tag to his own tweet which itself is a flat out lie made in response to his other tweet which was an edited smear attempt.
But he is a paid professional and I am a part time blogger, so what would I know about the world of professional communications, the truth, or credibility of comms people and how that effects the communications of the organizations which they serve.
Dec 15th update: Rob Harvie writes his thoughts here and makes a great point about how ridiculous the notion is that Danielle Smith doesn't believe that Alberta is a democracy having just recently gone through an election herself were she was elected MLA and became leader of the opposition. Communication fail.
Stefan Baranski. Imported from Ontario as part of Redford's doubling of her communications staff help to help
Original tweet from Danielle Smith: (Dec 12, 2012 6:43am)
"Alberta is not a democracy, it's an oligarchy. Cooper: Redford spending spree just tip of the iceberg http://bit.ly/TUu1zn
Note the linked article written by Barry Cooper in the Calgary Herald where Cooper uses the word "oligarchy" at least 2 times.
Baranski's tweet: (Dec 12, 2012 7:22pm)
"In other words Albertans: your votes didn't count. RT
Note that it was posted as a "RT" (re-tweet) and not a MT (modified tweet) and of course that he purposely edited out any mention of the linked article where 'oligarchy' came from. Also note the added #pcaa hashtag to the tweet which was not there in the original.
Now before someone claims that this is nothing more than a twitter etiquette thing that Baranski may not be familiar with; I refer you to his nearly 6000 tweets and his billing as "social media expert". Not many social media experts or even people who have used twitter for more than a week would make such an obvious mistake; but than again this was not a simple mistake, it was a deliberate smear attempt.
Making it worse with a lie: After being called out for the obvious manipulation of Smith's original tweet he took it a step further by wrongly claiming, twice, that Smith had deleted the original tweet.
( A tweet which he had just found and edited for the smear and which is linked to above and remains on Danielle Smith's twitter account)
Dec 12, 2012 7:31pm:
Dec 12, 2012 7:33pm: .
You have to love the arrogance of that last tweet where he adds the 'Get Solberg Some Comms Lessons' tag to his own tweet which itself is a flat out lie made in response to his other tweet which was an edited smear attempt.
But he is a paid professional and I am a part time blogger, so what would I know about the world of professional communications, the truth, or credibility of comms people and how that effects the communications of the organizations which they serve.
Dec 15th update: Rob Harvie writes his thoughts here and makes a great point about how ridiculous the notion is that Danielle Smith doesn't believe that Alberta is a democracy having just recently gone through an election herself were she was elected MLA and became leader of the opposition. Communication fail.
Monday, December 03, 2012
Premier Redford in conflict of interest, but not for the reasons you may think.
There has been a lot already written in the media on the subject of Alison Redford and conflict of interest; but all of the stories seem to approach the issue from the exact same perspective.Whether Alison Redford's actions as Justice Minister in the tobacco litigation case were a conflict of interest and how/if those actions could benefit her ex-husband whose law firm (JSS) was chosen.
And as per usual the media missed it again.
It is not so much Redford's decision that was the problem it was that she was involved in the selection process at all. Quite simply she should have recused herself the second that she learned that JSS was involved.
A true no win situation:
We all know the kerfuffle caused by what Redford did; the optics are simply terrible and for that reason alone she should have never been involved in the process as the perception of a conflict of interest was very much real.
But what about what Redford did not do?
Imagine what could have happened had Redford perused another of her options and disqualified her ex-husbands firm? While it would eliminate the 'benefit' issue from the equation it adds another as it could be argued that she had made such a decision because of animosity towards her ex! Which is not an uncommon thing when ex-spouses are involved and it would not be a stretch to suggest that a smart group of lawyers, say JSS for example, could easily make such a case opening up the possibility of a damage suit against the Alberta Government for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars ( remember this could be worth billions to the winning firm) all because Redford could not see the obvious conflicts and stepped away from being involved in the process.
Do you think there is a judge in Canada who would ever sit in decision over an ex-spouse for something even as simple as a parking ticket? Or if in the remote chance that something like that did happen that any such decision could ever withstand an appeal? Not a chance.
The conflict of interest was not Redford's particular decision to award JSS the contract, although that itself is arguable, it was that she was involved in the process to begin with. As Justice Minister, Redford's 'interests' were not merely those of herself but also those of Alberta; not only should she have voluntarily recused herself, I believe that she was obligated to do so.
A few comments on thespin notion that Redford did not make the decision to go with JSS.
Based on documents found at the CBC it is quite clear that she did make the decision and unless somebody has a reasonable explanation as to how an acceptance letter and 2 separate rejection letters were sent out to the law firms involved BEFORE the government claims that the decision as to which firm to go with was made, only those that choose not to face reality are going to buy Redford's or the governments story. It simply doesn't make sense.
They may try to parse words and try to use tight legal definitions but to say that the 'decision' was not made until the contract was signed would be the same as if the Edmonton Oilers claimed that they didn't actually draft Taylor Hall until his contract was signed. Total nonsense.
And as per usual the media missed it again.
It is not so much Redford's decision that was the problem it was that she was involved in the selection process at all. Quite simply she should have recused herself the second that she learned that JSS was involved.
A true no win situation:
We all know the kerfuffle caused by what Redford did; the optics are simply terrible and for that reason alone she should have never been involved in the process as the perception of a conflict of interest was very much real.
But what about what Redford did not do?
Imagine what could have happened had Redford perused another of her options and disqualified her ex-husbands firm? While it would eliminate the 'benefit' issue from the equation it adds another as it could be argued that she had made such a decision because of animosity towards her ex! Which is not an uncommon thing when ex-spouses are involved and it would not be a stretch to suggest that a smart group of lawyers, say JSS for example, could easily make such a case opening up the possibility of a damage suit against the Alberta Government for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars ( remember this could be worth billions to the winning firm) all because Redford could not see the obvious conflicts and stepped away from being involved in the process.
Do you think there is a judge in Canada who would ever sit in decision over an ex-spouse for something even as simple as a parking ticket? Or if in the remote chance that something like that did happen that any such decision could ever withstand an appeal? Not a chance.
The conflict of interest was not Redford's particular decision to award JSS the contract, although that itself is arguable, it was that she was involved in the process to begin with. As Justice Minister, Redford's 'interests' were not merely those of herself but also those of Alberta; not only should she have voluntarily recused herself, I believe that she was obligated to do so.
---------------
A few comments on the
Based on documents found at the CBC it is quite clear that she did make the decision and unless somebody has a reasonable explanation as to how an acceptance letter and 2 separate rejection letters were sent out to the law firms involved BEFORE the government claims that the decision as to which firm to go with was made, only those that choose not to face reality are going to buy Redford's or the governments story. It simply doesn't make sense.
They may try to parse words and try to use tight legal definitions but to say that the 'decision' was not made until the contract was signed would be the same as if the Edmonton Oilers claimed that they didn't actually draft Taylor Hall until his contract was signed. Total nonsense.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Premier Redford digs herself deeper. Denies she's lied minutes after those lies were exposed
Alison Redford stood before the cameras earlier today and said that she stands behind her words yesterday that it was not her who made the decision as to which legal firm would get the contract for litigation against the tobacco industry. The only problem is that minutes before government documents were revealed that indeed prove that it was Alison Redford who did make that decision.
Link to Premier Redford's brief presser ( not the first one that was cancelled 17 minutes before it was scheduled, but another one that she was forced to hold due to the criticism for cancelling the first: Media availability Nov 29.
Link to CBC article with the damning documents ( be sure to read all 7 pages at bottom of page) CBC Story.
Dec. 21, 2010 email: "Hi Barb, can you confirm with Jeff and modify as needed — get the letters to the losers confirmed and ready to go. You can sign for me. Speak to Lorne about the winners and the timing with the letters."
Dec. 22, 2010, departmental email states: "Attached are the scanned signed memos that have just been emailed to the unsuccessful candidates." Those memos contained a letter signed by Sprague titled, "Letter to unsuccessful party," which states: "I regret to advise that your proposal was not successful."
Jan. 13, 2011, briefing note, assistant deputy minister Sprague states: "Shortly before Christmas, Minister Redford selected the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers (the Jensen consortium)."
A July 5, 2012, email from Justice spokesman Dan Laville to CBC states:
"On December 14, 2010, then justice minister Alison Redford determined that TRL consortium [sic] provided the best 'made in Alberta' litigation plan. The decision was communicated to the consortiums and law firm shortly thereafter."
Be sure to read see copies of the originals at the CBC article linked to above! 7 pages that prove Alison Redford lied and misled the Alberta Legislature and all Albertans.
If Redford would have simply went with the 'this was not a conflict of interest' argument she might have been fine, but she didn't do that. Instead she chose to go with the 'I didn't make the decision' route and now it is coming back to bite her and forever taint her in the eyes of Albertans.
This is going to stick.
Link to Premier Redford's brief presser ( not the first one that was cancelled 17 minutes before it was scheduled, but another one that she was forced to hold due to the criticism for cancelling the first: Media availability Nov 29.
Link to CBC article with the damning documents ( be sure to read all 7 pages at bottom of page) CBC Story.
Dec. 21, 2010 email: "Hi Barb, can you confirm with Jeff and modify as needed — get the letters to the losers confirmed and ready to go. You can sign for me. Speak to Lorne about the winners and the timing with the letters."
Dec. 22, 2010, departmental email states: "Attached are the scanned signed memos that have just been emailed to the unsuccessful candidates." Those memos contained a letter signed by Sprague titled, "Letter to unsuccessful party," which states: "I regret to advise that your proposal was not successful."
Jan. 13, 2011, briefing note, assistant deputy minister Sprague states: "Shortly before Christmas, Minister Redford selected the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers (the Jensen consortium)."
A July 5, 2012, email from Justice spokesman Dan Laville to CBC states:
"On December 14, 2010, then justice minister Alison Redford determined that TRL consortium [sic] provided the best 'made in Alberta' litigation plan. The decision was communicated to the consortiums and law firm shortly thereafter."
Be sure to read see copies of the originals at the CBC article linked to above! 7 pages that prove Alison Redford lied and misled the Alberta Legislature and all Albertans.
If Redford would have simply went with the 'this was not a conflict of interest' argument she might have been fine, but she didn't do that. Instead she chose to go with the 'I didn't make the decision' route and now it is coming back to bite her and forever taint her in the eyes of Albertans.
This is going to stick.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The apology, Wildrose AGM, prostate health and more.
An end of the week roundup of what I have been following in the political world over the last few days.
The apology:
I don't know; maybe it is because I have long held the belief that an apology should come from the person and not their handlers ,but somehow I am just not feeling it. It was nothing other than pure political theater that exposes just how fake his self titled 'non divisive' campaign really is.
Deer in the headlights look as Trudeau is asked not about his Alberta bashing but why he said Canada would be better off with a Quebec PM. (Watch it yourself: approx 4 min mark of this CBC video)
Linda Duncan said it well: "He (Trudeau) insulted ALL Albertans, not just the conservative Albertans." Yes, that Linda Duncan.
The media reaction has been more interesting including a CTV British Columbia reporter tweeting her 'luv'.
This video of perhaps the most unprofessional thing I have seen from the Parliamentary Press Gallery. How Jason Kenney ever kept his cool I will never know. (If you have not seen this video it is a must watch)
The media's bizarre reaction to SUN News, who broke the story, is perhaps the most confusing to understand. The press seem to be pissed off at Sun News for what essentially is that the rest of them didn't do their damn jobs and find this 2 yrs ago when itwas hidden away was shown on television! The failure is theirs, not Sun news' for doing their job and finding something that was hidden in plain sight. But as Dean from BC Blue mentioned over the weekend: "You would first have to believe that the Quebec media thought anything wrong with what Trudeau said." Ha!
This certainly is a lot of fuss to make over an "out of context smear". Isn't it?
The Wildrose AGM:
Posting couple of links on this but for a very good overview Cory Morgan does a great job here.
And from the 'professional media', who were actually allowed into the Wildrose AGM as opposed to the recent PC AGM, we have:
Don Braid in the Herald
and Rick Bell in the SUN for your reading pleasure.
I should note that while I was at the Wildrose AGM, that it was only for a brief couple of hours late on Saturday afternoon. Contrary to popular belief I am not a card carrying member and only dropped in after learning that well known NDP activist Lou Arab was going to be in attendance. If they let Lou in, they would let anyone in. Okay, that is not 100% true. I did check with an organizer and got green light to attend.
It was nice meeting up with a few old friends, meeting new ones and putting faces to names of many others. The future of the Wildrose looks bright.
Which brings me to prostate health.
Lou was sporting quite the dapper mustache which reminded me that November is prostate awareness month, also known as Movember, please take the time to make a donation for a very worthy cause.
The Argonauts win the 100th Grey Cup.
I knew the horse wanted in. I just didn't know that 'in' meant in as the Stampeder offensive coordinator.
Enjoy your week.
Late additions:
Rob Ford loses his job as Toronto mayor.
Mark Carney gets a new one as head of the Bank of England.
The apology:
I don't know; maybe it is because I have long held the belief that an apology should come from the person and not their handlers ,but somehow I am just not feeling it. It was nothing other than pure political theater that exposes just how fake his self titled 'non divisive' campaign really is.
Linda Duncan said it well: "He (Trudeau) insulted ALL Albertans, not just the conservative Albertans." Yes, that Linda Duncan.
The media reaction has been more interesting including a CTV British Columbia reporter tweeting her 'luv'.
This video of perhaps the most unprofessional thing I have seen from the Parliamentary Press Gallery. How Jason Kenney ever kept his cool I will never know. (If you have not seen this video it is a must watch)
The media's bizarre reaction to SUN News, who broke the story, is perhaps the most confusing to understand. The press seem to be pissed off at Sun News for what essentially is that the rest of them didn't do their damn jobs and find this 2 yrs ago when it
This certainly is a lot of fuss to make over an "out of context smear". Isn't it?
The Wildrose AGM:
Posting couple of links on this but for a very good overview Cory Morgan does a great job here.
And from the 'professional media', who were actually allowed into the Wildrose AGM as opposed to the recent PC AGM, we have:
Don Braid in the Herald
and Rick Bell in the SUN for your reading pleasure.
I should note that while I was at the Wildrose AGM, that it was only for a brief couple of hours late on Saturday afternoon. Contrary to popular belief I am not a card carrying member and only dropped in after learning that well known NDP activist Lou Arab was going to be in attendance. If they let Lou in, they would let anyone in. Okay, that is not 100% true. I did check with an organizer and got green light to attend.
It was nice meeting up with a few old friends, meeting new ones and putting faces to names of many others. The future of the Wildrose looks bright.
Which brings me to prostate health.
Lou was sporting quite the dapper mustache which reminded me that November is prostate awareness month, also known as Movember, please take the time to make a donation for a very worthy cause.
The Argonauts win the 100th Grey Cup.
I knew the horse wanted in. I just didn't know that 'in' meant in as the Stampeder offensive coordinator.
Enjoy your week.
Late additions:
Rob Ford loses his job as Toronto mayor.
Mark Carney gets a new one as head of the Bank of England.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk swings and misses on illegal donation allegation.
Alberta Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk was back in the muck yesterday as he put forward what could only be called a incredibly weak allegation that Wildrose MLA Rob Anderson attempted to solicit funds from Olds College.
So weak in fact is the allegation that he isn't even going to follow his own advice which he offered numerous times over the past week whilePremier Redford dodged questions answering questions in the Alberta Legislature to take any such allegations of wrong doing to the Chief Electoral Officer so they may be properly dealt with. Something you know that he would do in a heartbeat if there was something actually there. In fact in an interview with the Edmonton Journal Lukaszuk changed his tune on the original solicitation allegation and instead went with an even weaker one that 'Anderson made use of government resources for his partisan activities,
since the college office staff who handled the letter are paid with
taxpayer dollars.' For a guy trying hard to deflect from the at least 50 known incidences where the PC party received possibly hundreds of thousands in illegal contributions, worrying about the cost of handling a single letter, which they must do multiple times each and every day at any college, is more than just weak it is completely asinine.
Let's look at the evidence.
The front page of the letter sent to Tom Thompson, President of Olds College and a constituent of Anderson's, at his office. Note the salutation is addressed to an individual 'Dear Tom' and not 'Dear Olds College', the organization which Thompson works for, as that would be soliciting funds from a prohibited organization and probably be in violation of the Election Act.
Now the issue has been raised that the letter should have been mailed to Thompson's home and not his office but that is a red herring because if the allegation is soliciting funds from a prohibited organization, does it really matter if the President of that organization receives the letter at his office or his home? It is addressed to a person who happens to be President no matter where they may open up that letter and the 'solicitation' certainly doesn't change depending on the location it was opened either.
Also in this day and age of cell phones how easy is it to obtain someones home address if they are not listed in the phone book or in the case of municipal politicians, towns and cities also being a prohibited group, may be unlisted for security or many other reasons. It is simply easier to obtain someones work address than it is their home address but the bottom line is that the invitation was sent to an individual and not the prohibited organization for which they may work. If it ever does become illegal to send out invitations to people based on their employer, I suspect that future Premier's dinners will become very lonely affairs.
But all of this is really moot because included in this so called evidence is a copy of an internal memo from an Olds College VP who was forwarded the letter to review and which reads in part as follows (highlighting mine)
Thanks for your January 18, 2012 forwarding of correspondence from the MLA for Airdrie-Chestermere to President Thompson for advice as to dispensation or response.
This letter is an invitation to purchase and attend a partisan fundraising event. We are obliged to adhere to Olds College Administrative policy A24 (attached) which precludes Olds College employees from using College monies to attend. Tom ought not to attend the expense of the College but would be free to do so at his own expense.
And there you go. Per Olds College policy and Alberta Elections law President Thompson may attend as long as it is his money used and not that of Olds College. So much for Lukaszuk's smoking gun when it is that very gun that shoots down his own allegation and clears both Thompson and Anderson of wrongdoing.
Nice try Thomas but there really is nothing here. Now if you do want to see an example of a political party actively seeking donations from colleges and universities I suggest you read the following linked story from Charles Rusnell of the CBC to see how the pros solicit tens of thousands.
CBC STORY
and be sure to check out all the internal links such as this one, being that you seem to be such a fan of letters, documents and such. It is a real eye opener and you may recognize a few name too.
So weak in fact is the allegation that he isn't even going to follow his own advice which he offered numerous times over the past week while
Let's look at the evidence.
The front page of the letter sent to Tom Thompson, President of Olds College and a constituent of Anderson's, at his office. Note the salutation is addressed to an individual 'Dear Tom' and not 'Dear Olds College', the organization which Thompson works for, as that would be soliciting funds from a prohibited organization and probably be in violation of the Election Act.
Now the issue has been raised that the letter should have been mailed to Thompson's home and not his office but that is a red herring because if the allegation is soliciting funds from a prohibited organization, does it really matter if the President of that organization receives the letter at his office or his home? It is addressed to a person who happens to be President no matter where they may open up that letter and the 'solicitation' certainly doesn't change depending on the location it was opened either.
Also in this day and age of cell phones how easy is it to obtain someones home address if they are not listed in the phone book or in the case of municipal politicians, towns and cities also being a prohibited group, may be unlisted for security or many other reasons. It is simply easier to obtain someones work address than it is their home address but the bottom line is that the invitation was sent to an individual and not the prohibited organization for which they may work. If it ever does become illegal to send out invitations to people based on their employer, I suspect that future Premier's dinners will become very lonely affairs.
But all of this is really moot because included in this so called evidence is a copy of an internal memo from an Olds College VP who was forwarded the letter to review and which reads in part as follows (highlighting mine)
Thanks for your January 18, 2012 forwarding of correspondence from the MLA for Airdrie-Chestermere to President Thompson for advice as to dispensation or response.
This letter is an invitation to purchase and attend a partisan fundraising event. We are obliged to adhere to Olds College Administrative policy A24 (attached) which precludes Olds College employees from using College monies to attend. Tom ought not to attend the expense of the College but would be free to do so at his own expense.
And there you go. Per Olds College policy and Alberta Elections law President Thompson may attend as long as it is his money used and not that of Olds College. So much for Lukaszuk's smoking gun when it is that very gun that shoots down his own allegation and clears both Thompson and Anderson of wrongdoing.
Nice try Thomas but there really is nothing here. Now if you do want to see an example of a political party actively seeking donations from colleges and universities I suggest you read the following linked story from Charles Rusnell of the CBC to see how the pros solicit tens of thousands.
CBC STORY
and be sure to check out all the internal links such as this one, being that you seem to be such a fan of letters, documents and such. It is a real eye opener and you may recognize a few name too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
