Public Budget Consultation Meeting

Budget Head-Banging (One More Time . . . .)

The following is a verbatim transcript of Brian Clavier’s presentation to the budget “public consultation” meeting of city council on March 24, 2010. It’s instructive to compare these comments with the March 27 and March 31, 2009 posts, titled “Budget Consultation Presentation” and “Public Budget Consultation Meeting,” respectively. Click on the photo below to enlarge his speaking notes.
-------------------------------------------

I hope, uh, people have had a chance to take a look at the notes that I submitted yesterday afternoon. As you might expect, I do not have enough time to mention everything on those notes, but I will try and hit the high points.

This is the ninth time that I have made a presentation or attended a budget consultation meeting, and I think only Councillor Atkinson and the City Clerk have attended that many. And I find that I’ve had to repeat myself on many of those occasions, and so I’m going to do that today, for the people who haven’t been to as many budget consultation meetings as I have.

I’ve never asked the city to adjust its budget to benefit a specific organization. I’ve never asked the city to adjust its budget to benefit myself personally. I have asked the city to adjust its budget to benefit everyone in the city of Prince Albert - in fact, visitors as well - and that specific request (this is the sixth time I’m making it) is to paint the crosswalks at the intersections that have traffic signals. Four years ago I did a cost estimate, and it was around fifty-one hundred dollars then. It’s probably up to about six thousand dollars now. When I ask you to spend that amount of money painting the crosswalks, I’m asking because it’s a safety issue for everyone involved.

The traffic markings on most of our busy streets get painted twice a year. The traffic light intersection crosswalks have not been painted since 2007 [sic- 2006], and in fact those were done on Central Avenue, 1st Avenue West, 1st Avenue East that year, and they were done about twelve hours before it rained. So the markings didn’t last very long. The paint wasn’t very durable.

When I ask you to do it again - and I would not ask you to do that if I didn’t think that you could find the money somewhere else - and every time I’ve spoken I’ve always found savings in two particular locations. You’ll see those later on, under the category that I’ve described as “Disturbing,” and it’s disturbing because it’s always these two: it’s the golf course and it’s the police department, and it’s really difficult this year with respect to the police department because there are absolutely no numbers available to the public. This is the first year that’s happened.

The last time I spoke at this podium about a city budget I was amazed that I had to say that the city’s budget for fuel for its police vehicles was under one hundred dollars - for the entire year 2008. [See the March 27, 2009 verbatim transcript post - which may explain why the 2010 budget documents available to the public do not contain any breakdown of police expenditures: zero information equals zero potential for criticism.]

You’ll notice that I have a reference here to the fact that the Police Board decides the budget: city council does not get to make any changes to the allocations therein. On the other hand, city council does have the ability to say, “We are-- this budget is unacceptable right now, we are returning it back to you for revision.” You have that ability.

Last year it was the Dragonfly [remote-controlled] helicopter; this year it’s purchases of vehicles that really should be kept on the road a lot longer. It’s already been mentioned in previous discussions of the police budget at council meetings that surely, these police vehicles should be lasting longer than they do.

The other place - the golf course - and I’m going to specifically refer to “wetting agent, fungicide, and fertilizer,” four thousand, nine hundred and fifty dollars. If we have to have a golf course, then surely we shouldn’t be using chemicals on it to make it look pretty. There are golf courses in the world that are actually “green” - they don’t use water, they don’t use chemicals. I think that’s something that needs serious consideration.

The other thing I want to remind people about is the 3.5% cap that administration asked the departments and external agencies to adhere to. And it’s really important to note that only two have actually met that. The library - JMC - is 5% under last year’s request, and Wapiti [Regional Library] is 2.8% over. Everybody else - the previous speaker, for ins-- for-- for example: their organization is asking for . . . an increase of 31% compared to 2009. PADIDA [Prince Albert Downtown Improvement District Association] - and I think the councillor for ward four should actually excuse herself from this discussion [her day job is Executive Director of PADIDA. . . .] - is asking for 24% more this year. Even the Community Service Centre, for its two budgets, seniors’ transportation and special needs transportation, is asking for four-and-a-half and 3.6% increases. Apparently the request for holding the line at 3.5% gets ignored by everybody except the two institutions that have the most highly-educated staff.

The police are asking for 7.6% more, and ultimately the taxpayer’s being asked - the last number that I recall seeing when I went through the over-five-hundred pages of documents - was 6.6% from the taxpayer.

If you have any questions, I’d be pleased to answer, because my time is up.

Last Civic Election Commentary

Ward 2 Election Result Analysis

Voter turnout in 2009 was down throughout the city by 22.2% compared to 2006. In ward 2, the drop was almost identical (21.9%). The final count for the two candidates in ward 2 was 682 (or 66%) for the incumbent, Guy With Money (GWM), and 352 for me (34%).


How Can a Challenger Win in Ward 2?

There are 14 polls in ward 2, at eight polling places. I won only one poll (number 8), and one polling place (the Ukrainian Catholic Hall - 68 to 60). In order to beat GWM, I needed to win the two polls at the Ukrainian Catholic Hall and the three polls at Sacred Heart Cathedral by large margins (gaining at least 66% of the total votes cast - a feat achievable only with a large turnout, of primarily disgruntled citizens, since this area is neglected by GWM); lose by less than 10% at the two polls in Hazeldell and Nordale; win both the (small) poll at the YWCA and the advance poll; and get at least 45% of the votes at the six polls split equally among Northcote Manor, Carment Court, and Sherman Towers. [There’s no way for a challenger to beat GWM at these large PA Housing Authority apartments, simply because GWM has lavished their senescent residents with free meals, fruit, small appliances, and elaborate Christmas parties for many years, and he effectively courts the executive members of the three residents’ associations by attending as many of their meetings as he can.] Although these six polls include the surrounding neighbourhoods, turnout among the neighbours is minimal.


Failure on Every Front - Incumbent Wins

The advance poll was an accurate predictor of the final result: 66% for GWM to 34% for me. The [tiny] window of opportunity I thought I saw slammed shut an hour before the polls closed, when I realized the combined turnout at the west side churches was down over 30% from the last election. At the same time, there was very little change in the participating electorate at the six polls in the three Housing Authority buildings. In short, my potential supporters failed to show, while GWM’s core supporters did. The slim win at the Ukrainian Catholic Hall (8 votes) was easily negated by a 24-vote loss at the Cathedral (96 to 72, representing 43% support for me). Hazeldell and Nordale were disaster zones: I got 35% in Hazeldell, and just 27% in Nordale. Although the latter area’s landed gentry could hardly be expected to prefer an egalitarian, participatory democratic environmental crusader over a GWM who manages three shopping malls, I had not foreseen that the positive response I received at Hazeldell doorsteps had a severely diminished impact on people’s election-day activities. As if that wasn’t bad enough, I lost the YWCA poll 22 to 9 (giving me just 29% there), and the voters at the Housing Authority buildings (who turned out to be 40.8% of all ward 2 voters) favoured GWM over me by overwhelming numbers: 72% to 28% at Northcote Manor [where the highly vocal, totally-biased, energetic sycophant who presides over their residents’ association was surely instrumental in producing that numerical debacle], 74% to 26% at Sherman Towers [stunning because those two polls also include voters living on my home street], and 76% to 24% at Carment Court [whose residents received so many boxes of peaches from GWM in September they still hadn’t disposed of the empties by the time I got to their annual general meeting on October 1]. Most of the residents in these apartment buildings are seniors (the remainder are physically disabled), with their rent geared to their income, so the regular appearance of GWM doing his Daddy Warbucks philanthropic routine is a potent retained image when municipal election day rolls around.


Would I Do it Again . . . .

Yes - but I’d spend more time separating the truly undecided voters from the overwhelming number who refused to cast a ballot, then go back to the former at least two more times; find the money for some radio and weekly print ads; and save my pamphlets for people who actually intended to vote, rather than leave them at every household.

Special Post

Blog Reflections

Churches request, financial planners plead, and the media unceasingly demand that we think about what happened in the previous year as we prepare to decorate our homes with the new pictures on the wall that will accompany the passage of the next twelve months. In response to the dictates of the season, then, I offer these thoughts on my experience writing this blog for the past year.

I expected some angst poring over the keyboard on a regular basis, ostensibly donating to the public record, but three unwelcome surprises stand out: creating the posts was NOT easy, it wasn’t much fun, and the locals were under-represented in the reader statistics.


First - Blog Software Stinks!

This lesson [in theory, learned early on] whacked me over the head every time I tried to ensure that the visual aspects of the postings were as meaningful as the text. I’ve finally decided composing has to be done on word processing software - with the result printed, then copied into the blogspot composing window, since it takes far too long to go back and forth between the preview screen and the composing window to make sure that spelling and grammar are correct, line spacings are what was intended, highlighting is in the right places, and the type sizes give prominence to headings and subordinate status to photo captions.

Notwithstanding the headaches it caused, the software wasn’t nearly as annoying as the age-old phenomenon we call ‘writer’s block’: the best of intentions, material that Hollywood hacks would drool over, and oodles of available time still had to battle with the frequent inability to just sit down and type. Summer was difficult because I travelled every weekend for four-and-a-half months, and December was a total loss [the big “0” last month means I’m obliged to compensate by pummelling readers with at least six posts this month]. Still, I did succeed in creating 41 posts last year - most of them much longer, and way more time-consuming, than was originally intended.


And where’s the fun?

I never thought that blogging would be “FUN!” fun [like winning the $1000 from OrangeCrush/MuchMusic in an online contest in September], but I had hoped that the half-dozen bursts of genuine laughter that escaped my mouth as I carefully composed over two hundred pages of material would not be such isolated events. Trying to be fair to people helps explain why the phrases I created weren’t that humourous [even though much of what I write about falls into the I-can’t-believe-he-said(did)-that! category of pure nonsense], as does the need to avoid libel litigation. Deriving pleasure from writing tends to come from other people relating their experience with the text, but this shouldn’t preclude solitary chuckling [of the sane and sober variety] when the words and images are strung together. I’m not asking to be entertained by every second sentence, or to successfully mimic The Colbert Report, I just want to write something that keeps my eyelids separated until my eyes get to the end of it. Remember that the problem exists because city council meetings do get painfully boring [which is why I’m altering the blog format, to include only the 'noteworthy' items].


Local Readers: 140-character maximum?

It truly amazes me that less than 30% of the hits on the blog come from computers in Prince Albert [and almost 20% come from the United States. . . .] Granted, my family, friends, former colleagues, and acquaintances [plus people I just want to irritate] are spread out across the Americas and Europe, but I thought larger numbers of PA residents would show an interest in knowing more about this city’s politics and the farcical decision-making that dominates council meetings - especially since this was an election year, and my campaign literature [delivered to over 1600 Prince Albert residences and businesses] made multiple references to this blog.

While the blog’s content is accurately portrayed by the title at the top of each web page, you don’t have to look hard to see that it has subtexts to its subtexts; direct and oblique allusions to popular culture and historical events; diverse literary and academic references; and photographs that have been painstakingly composed and edited. This should [and does] make the blog appealing to a wider audience than if it presented dumbed-down, lowest-common-denominator quotidian drivel in one size of black ink. On the other hand, perhaps the limited local readership means there’s an issue with short attention spans that I’ve failed to adequately address. In any case, this possibility will not affect the blog’s future content. Look for more interesting, spicier stuff here in 2010.

Campaign Pamphlets

Who Reads This Stuff Anyway?

To be precise, only “type four” voters (the rare breed who study the contenders thoroughly before voting) can be counted on to actually read election flyers - and there aren’t many of those. [“Type one” votes against one candidate by marking an ‘X’ for someone else; “type two” voters (my nemesis) support the candidate who will provide them with a personal benefit (for example, a job, tax reduction, recreation facility, microwave, toaster, peaches, or a meal); and “type three” supports an individual they identify with - because they belong to the same political party, club, or church, or with whom they share an occupation, hobby, alma mater, viewpoint, or something else deemed important.] For these dedicated individuals, I provide the following analysis of Greg Dionne’s 2009 civic election pamphlet, followed by an analysis of Brian Clavier’s main Ward 2 campaign flyer. Click each image to enlarge it.
-------------------

















General Impression

This is an expensive flyer. Never mind the glossy (coated) paper stock, it’s in colour. The viewer first sees a picture [not a very recent one, since it was also used on the fridge magnet/note pads he gave away three years ago] that makes the guy look REALLY big. That’s helpful if people need a city councillor to wrestle for them - or, in this case, act as a personal on-call security guard [Nordale residents lap that up]. The photo imagery is thus directed at the type two constituency - seniors, specifically, who want personal security - and is reinforced by the double reference below the photo to his close association with the police function of the state, as well as the lengthy, prime-position “Community Safety” section on the back of the flyer.

Although the back of the flyer repeats the wavy banner we see above the photo on the front, its impact is diminished by the monotonous grey colouring. What’s worse, the overall graphic design easily surpasses the criteria required for entry into the ‘Extremely Boring’ category of election literature.

Fortunately, the front of the pamphlet has minimal text. This visual plus is overwhelmed, however, by the wordy, ungrammatical, over-wrought text crammed onto the back. Reproducing excessive verbiage for public consumption is meant to create a positive impression on type four voters, but even they can’t be asked to read this much. Remember, the majority of voters don’t read election pamphlets, so giving them an essay-length text is pointless.

Individually-Numbered Items

1. This is a perfect example of writing so inept that it totally misconstrues the thought it tries to express. If “Police Service call volume showing approximately 40% from outside our city” was truly a fact, then the PA Police Service should have handed those calls to the RCMP, since the PA Police Service has no jurisdiction “outside our city.” What the writer means [and I know this from having attended multiple PA Police Service presentations in the past five years, and reading the local daily newspaper] is that 40% of the calls that the PA Police Service members attend to involve police interacting with people who are not residents of Prince Albert. Of course, we can’t bill their home towns for having to deal with them, so the statement is meaningless - other than as justification for continuing the tradition of giving annual police budget increases that are larger than those given to any other city department [9% in 2009, when everyone else was restricted to 2%].

2. It would be helpful if this member of the Prince Albert Board of Police Commissioners knew the correct name of the body he sits on [as one of three city council members appointed to the five-person Board, itself just one of 63 committees, boards, and commissions that council members were appointed to in 2008]. Citizens should personally thank the councillor for advocating and approving increases to the police budget that total over 25% since 2006 - for a department whose budget shamelessly shows spending of less than $200 on fuel and oil for its fleet of gas-guzzling Chrysler and Ford vehicles in both 2007 and 2008 [a miracle of biblical proportions].

3. As President of the Canadian Association of Police Boards [odd, that the President of the CAPB doesn’t know the name of the organization he’s supposed to lead - see http://www.capb.ca], the councillor is supposed to ensure the Association works “diligently to achieve the highest standards as the national voice of civilian oversight of municipal police.” Apparently, being a cheerleader for federal legislation to create a new class of crime against seniors constitutes “oversight.”

4. Sibilants saturate this sloppy sentence. Is it really that difficult to write “so that the transit system services the needs of the community”? By the way, he didn’t “speak on behalf of the residents” when the new busing contract was approved at the November 23, 2009 council meeting.

5. Even at the municipal level of government, election advertizing is supposed to be authorized by a candidate’s official agent - not the candidate. If no one wants to do that simple job for the candidate, it usually means he’s a one-man show. The post office box referred to here is the only contact information in the pamphlet: no street address, e-mail, web site, or phone number is provided. The subliminal message to the reader? I don’t want you to contact me.

6. It’s fairly obvious that his lack of language skills is compensated for by his desire to please, provide, and protect. As for his time, it is amazing how he can manage a mall in Prince Albert, one in Saskatoon, and a third in Regina and still attend to all his council duties.
















7. In Prince Albert, “perfect attendance” by council members is an abused concept: from 1980 until the November 23, 2009 council meeting, every council member was permitted to miss meetings during three weeks each year, and still have their attendance record publicly reported as “100%.” Naturally, this policy generates more fiction than fact. While the average number of regular, special, and committee meetings of council is two per week, there are fewer of them in June, July, and August. So if a council member was away for three weeks in March, he could miss seven or eight meetings, while a colleague who was away for three weeks in August might only miss two or three meetings. Nevertheless, if they didn’t miss any other meetings, both would have “100%” recorded [and publicly flogged] as their official attendance record. This ridiculously self-serving policy was finally terminated by a motion passed at the November 23, 2009 council meeting.

As for the councillor’s “perfect attendance,” his meretricious claim neglects to account for or explain the three-week-absence policy, or specify the time period for which he claims to have had perfect attendance - all omissions that devalue his claim. In fact, he was absent from the January 12 and May 25 regular council meetings in 2009, and missed the special meetings of council held on January 19, 2009; December 17, 2008; and August 23, 2007 [the City Clerk still keeps meeting minutes].

8. Again, there is no such thing as the “Canadian Board of Police Commissions.” Being elected President of the Canadian Association of Police Boards brings no benefits to residents of the City of Prince Albert; it does award the officeholder with additional meetings to attend and chair [and the opportunity to engage in self-aggrandizement].

9. A big “Please don’t say that!” for this all-too-common error: the correct expression is “In regard to . . .” [Think about it: the speaker doesn’t need multiple looks at the one item being presented.] This “Quick Look at the Voting Process” is truly condescending . . . read in its entirety, the section reveals self-reflection at its most banal.

10. Apologize? Okay. But tell people what you will do differently if elected!

11. Pray tell, on which motions did the penitent pontificator cast an “imperfect” vote? Was he, in fact, “unsuccessful” in voting “correctly”? Unless people attend council meetings, they don’t know how a councillor voted on every issue, since the Shaw cameras don’t show how everyone votes; recorded votes are rare [and have to be researched on the city’s web site]; and this councillor sometimes abstains from voting [famously, on the Northern Spruce housing project on 22nd St. and 5th Ave. West, in August 2009].

12. I guess everyone just knows that he manages the Gateway Mall, and they phone him there; otherwise it’s impossible to make this claim. [It’s hard to find his home phone number, since it’s not in the paper phone book or online directory. You can get his number by calling 411 - and pay 75¢ for the privilege, as noted on the phone bill below - or searching the City of PA web site.]













Given how fast and loose the pamphlet is with the truth, I’d feel better if we could see a summary of the complaints he’s received, one that includes the issues that were resolved. [A spreadsheet, such as the one I designed this year for use by MLAs, could easily convey such detail.]

The Loser’s Campaign Flyer (generally speaking)


This is what you’d expect when the candidate has limited campaign funds: while it’s printed on heavier paper (24-pound, 96 brightness), which alleviates the see-through problem that often arises from printing on both sides of a sheet, the inkjet printer used to print these gives a product whose ink runs when wet, and it just doesn’t have the cachet of three-colour offset printing.

You can tell that the itinerant councillor has worked on election campaigns, since the text is brief; the front photo shows intensity, and is mildly flattering (in front of a recognizable landmark in the ward, taken on August 23, 2009 ); it borrows, alters, and repeats a slogan from a successful campaign [Barack Obama made more headway with “Change you can believe in,” but he had the financial backing needed to get his message drilled into the electorate]; and the visual presentation is simple yet full of (straightforward) graphics [evidence of the De Stijl art movement’s influence on the candidate]. The use of four typefaces, in at least five different sizes, works because of the carefully segmented text and the large areas of empty white space [just like any good résumé].

Type four voters would be pleased to see that this guy is educated, can write a meaningful, grammatically-correct sentence, and doesn’t blather on about anything. Directed specifically at type four voters, he has to repeat the reference to more information being available on his blog. Actually, there’s also ample messaging directed at type one and type three voters, with a lack of consideration for the needs of type two voters clearly the pamphlet’s weakest element.

The inside of the pamphlet is less coherent than the exterior. On the interior, the visual presentation dominates the content. For example, the check-mark boxes are tacky, and awkward (because there are so many). At least the reader can readily see that the candidate cares enough to regularly attend council meetings, and puts in extensive, unpaid time and effort speaking at them about a variety of topics. [Most people elected to council have never spoken at a council meeting, and all those elected in the past ten years attended only a handful of such meetings (at best) before being elected].

Individually-Numbered Items

1. It sounds trite, but the most-asked question on a municipal campaign doorstep is “When’s the election?” This flyer reminds you of the date front, back, and inside - thoughtful, and smart. Using three different typefaces for the date was a good idea.

2. The candidate’s name should appear as many times as reasonably possible in a flyer [the worst excess in respect to this guideline is having the candidate’s full name at the beginning of every bullet point or sentence], and it should stand out from the text around it. Putting the name directly under the photo is ideal; it’s bad form, however, to scream at the reader. (In other words, using all upper-case lettering adjacent to a photo is a no-no, but elsewhere it’s okay).

3. The slogan is a simple twist on Obama’s 2008 campaign theme. It loses impact if the “you” is not visually differentiated from the rest of the phrase.

4. The candidate mentions his environmental bent on the front, the back, and the inside of the flyer, so including the plea to recycle in all three locations should be expected. Unfortunately, only election flyers that I have designed plead with voters to do the responsible thing with paper campaign material. It should be standard wherever paper recycling exists.

5. References to educational background are purely for the benefit of type three and type four voters - a distinct minority of the electorate. Types one and two don’t care if a candidate’s most noteworthy scholastic achievement was dropping out of Okeefenokee Junior High in the first week of September. This litany of learning laurels is useless on a campaign flyer (though it does lend credibility to the ambition expressed in the sentence that follows it).

6. Here we finally have a goal statement, the achievement of which is plausible given the introductory phrase. The problem is, Prince Albert voters don’t care about “sustainability.” [It could easily be argued that they care about, and are motivated by conspicuous consumption, distancing themselves from “the unwashed masses,” and guaranteed redemption at Armageddon.] The mention of financial health is good, but should have gone on to directly refer to property taxes and the city’s long-term debt.

7. This is a comprehensive listing of contact information for the candidate. [No one can say this guy’s hiding in a post office box.] It gives everyone, regardless of technological capacity, an opportunity to contact him with the technology they are most comfortable using. Locating this summary on the back of the pamphlet is the best place for it.

8. These numbers show the candidate is indeed dedicated to monitoring city council’s activities. It means more when you realize that he spoke at the podium at the meetings he attended, based on his prior reading of documents available to the public. Unfortunately, this type of intellectual philanthropy is irrelevant to all but type four voters. [Had he promised a Wal-Mart or Co-op gift card for every residence in the ward - or beer and pizza, as requested by a couple of electors - that would have generated some positive buzz.]

9. Again, the candidate indicates he does something that is of limited interest to type one and type two voters. Types three and four appreciate this work, but it does require some effort from them to verify the candidate’s claim. [If voters could be convinced that there is entertainment or educational value to be derived from reading the blog, that would be a plus. Perhaps he should have added, “Read it - and be prepared to be entertained, enraged, enlightened, and/or enthralled.”]

10. In municipal ward campaigns, it’s supposed to be important to actually live in the ward. Mr. Clavier’s emphasis on both living and working in Ward 2 means he works out of his home, so probably knows what’s happening in [and important to people living in] this geographic area. This should resonate with the electorate, except that only a select few know where the ward boundaries are, and this ward is both the largest and most diverse one in the city. Ultimately, voters want their councillor to know what’s happening on their street, in their back yard, so every candidate has to proclaim his intimate familiarity with the ward [even if he works in two other cities, and spends countless hours each week travelling between his home, multiple workplaces, and cottage].

11. Aside from providing the details for contacting the candidate, this downsized phrase gently blurts out a request for assistance (of any kind). Impoverished campaigns have to ask (as often as possible), and this four-word footnote is a tactful way of doing so. [The other guy’s financially-flush campaign doesn’t need this type of invitation on his pamphlet, which invites only an “X” on a piece of paper.]

12. In municipal councillor contests, the candidate is the campaign - not volunteers, or the broadcast or print media ads, stories, or articles. At the same time, I think it’s preposterous for a candidate to present himself on his election signs or literature as the official agent for the campaign. My official agent was the same this year as in 2006 [though the presence of his absence was particularly noticeable this year].

17th Regular Meeting of 2009 - November 9

Pomp, Yes, Circumstance, No.

It took about forty minutes to swear in the new city council on November 9. This included a speech by the re-elected mayor, in which he asked councillors to accept "social and environmental responsibility for the generations that follow." [This might mean that city council will finally adopt a Green Plan, but I doubt it: the mayor is fixated on his Green Energy Industrial Park in the airport area. Other than that, it's unsustainable business as usual - except that there's new skin for the old ceremony (with my apologies to Leonard Cohen . . . .)] He also seemed confused about how many years there are in a decade, when he said, "Council, this is your next decade, three years of service . . . ." Even after checking the speech against the pre-delivery text it was hard to tell why "decade" was mentioned.

Surprisingly, the formal council meeting - held after a 15-minute break for congratulations from and kibitzing with the new council's family and friends -actually lasted 23 minutes.

Deputy Mayor Appointments Show Failure to Consult (or "Who's on first?")

In an unusually frank (and easily avoidable) exchange, problems with the six-week deputy mayor appointments were the subject of the new council's first foray into the forbidden land of needless commentary. No one had bothered to consult with the returning councillors, so it was necessary for Councillor Dionne to switch with Councillor Atkinson [so Dionne can indulge in his usual Hawaiian winter holiday without civic worries], and Councillor Ring to switch with Councillor Zurakowski.

Ring noted that the mayor usually "skips the country" in February - and this is Winter Festival month, so he was thankful to be able to hand off the multitiude of deputy mayor duties to Zurakowski.

"Special" Means 'We Don't Want Anyone to Come'

Councillor Dionne felt the need to editorialize about a perceived misconception with respect to "special" meetings of city council. He said this came up during the election campaign, and he wanted to make it clear that these "public" meetings are not "secret." He wanted to know if they could be re-named "Special Public Meetings." City Clerk Cliff Skauge replied that the wording in provincial legislation has to be used.

While ostensibly trying to clarify council meeting types (to make himself look diligent and forthright), the Ward 2 councillor misled people, as explained below. [When it comes to full disclosure, the councillor and the concept are perfect strangers . . . .]

The issue was especially confusing to people who do not know that there are two types of special meetings; and there have been 21 more "special" meetings in the past three years than "regular" meetings [76 "special" meetings, versus 55 "regular" meetings, were held by Prince Albert City Council from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2009. Prior to 2005, there were 24 "regular" council meetings a year, and short-notice "special" meetings were rare.]

The problem is that "special" meetings are usually held with less than 48-hours' notice [and often just 24-hours' notice - if the mayor can find the four councillors he needs to hold such a meeting], so Shaw Cable and Rawlco Radio aren't there. Even the Daily Herald can't always find someone to attend these (from a building that's less than 100 meters from the council chamber). Brian Clavier rarely finds out about them, so there is no one from "the public" at them. These are the "special" meetings that people (voters and council candidates) complain about, which might as well be called "secret" because only some members of council and administration can adjust their schedules on exceptionally short notice to fit the mayor's need for a "special" meeting on something he deems urgent.

There is another type of "special" meeting - of which almost no member of the public is aware. These are always held after an in camera Committee-of-the-Whole meeting, and they are "public." They're held earlier in the day when a "regular" council meeting is scheduled for either 4 PM (July and August) or 7 PM (the rest of the year). Their purpose is to ratify motions made at the in camera (yes, "secret") meetings - motions, in theory, that are restricted to "land, legal, and personnel matters - and the motions at them are famously bland, repetitive, and uninformative.

Both types of "special" meetings have been used to pass bylaws and motions - without public or press scrutiny, on topics that are both lacking in urgency and controversial, as detailed below.

Here's a summary of 24 "special" meetings of city council since November 2006.

2006

November 9: to deal with "land and legal" matters, items that missed the November 6 special meeting - duration 5 minutes.

November 27: "land and legal" matters were cited on the notice, but the only business conducted was ratification of committee appointments, plus the establishment of a PAGC-City Liaison Committee and the [perpetually-urgent-and-important] Golf Course Advisory Committee.

2007

March 19: to address replacement of the roof at the PA Golf & Curling Club - an item missed at the March 12 special and regular meetings, which could not wait until the March 26 regular meeting.

June 5: rezone A1 land to R5 - which could not wait until the June 11 meeting - plus two other items added (literally) at the last minute.

July 9: bylaw to ratify water utility budgets and rate changes, which could not wait until the July 16 meeting.

August 23: to discuss PA Golf & Curling Club roofing options - which missed the August 13 meeting, and could not wait until the September 10 meeting.

October 15: to authorize the Request-For-Proposals (RFP) for installation of underground utilities - which missed the October 9 meeting, and could not wait until the October 22 meeting.

November 19: to create new ground rules for information requests from elected officials [specifically, to reduce the opportunities for Councillors Atkinson and Williams to have their questions answered] - which could not wait until the November 26 meeting.

December 31: a noon-hour meeting on New Year's Eve, to hire a field house architect, and give operating budget pre-approval to transfer $35,100 to Economic Development & Planning Travel and Accommodation - duration 15 minutes.

2008

May 5: to discuss additional revenue-sharing money, school mill rates, the tender for the Riverside Drive overpass, and (added at the last minute) the farmer's market on Central Avenue, as well as "Summer in the Square" - none of whihc could wait until council's May 12 meeting.

May 20: to approve a retail store on 6th Ave. East and a condo development on 1st St. East, neither of which could wait until council's May 26 meeting - duration 5 minutes.

August 5: to deal with "land and legal" matters that could not wait until the August 11 meeting - duration 2 minutes.

September 2: to approve the law office at 1200 Central Ave. and 2007 financial statements, which could not wait until the September 8 meeting - duration 10 minutes.

October 6: to deal with "land and legal" matters" that could not wait until October 15 - duration 5 minutes.

December 17: to deal with issues that were missed at the December 15 meeting.

2009

January 5, 4 PM: advertised as dealing with "land and legal" matters (that could not wait until the January 12 meeting), but only addressed the Olympic Torch Relay Task Force - duration 1 minute [but urgent!]

January 5, 4:40 PM: to deal with "land and legal" matters.

April 8: to pass the property tax bylaw, which could not wait until the April 27 meeting.

July 6: to allow a new Carlton High School sign, review the status of the bridge cameras (a $41,800 expense), traffic light controls, a day care centre, and hockey rink specification tender - none of which could wait until the July 20 meeting.

July 27: to approve SaskPower easements and the 2009 land fund - both of which were missed at the July 20 meeting.

July 31: [the finale of "Special Meeting Month". . .] to deal with the water treatment plant, a Request-For-Proposals for sewer cleaning, the transit system RFP, and a development on Kernaghan Cres. - none of which could wait until the August 18 meeting.

September 14: to deal with a development permit for 211-20th St. West [to which Brian Clavier had previously objected, since the hand-made drawing looked like it was copied from a napkin, whereas this meeting's drawings were bought off the internet] and a Green Energy Park press release, neither of which could wait until the September 21 meeting.

September 28: to purchase golf carts (28 gas-powered, and 30 electric) and other assets (driving range equipment, pull carts, clubhouse shelving, and 19 cairns) from Danny Jutras, the departing professsional at Cooke Municipal, for a total cost of $326,200, and add that to the operating cost of the golf course, as well as approve downtown defibrillators - neither of which could wait until the October 5 meeting of council.

October 15: to approve a fish and seafood store on River St. West, missed at the October 5 meeting - which could have been addressed at the October 19 meeting (that council cancelled at the end of its October 5 meeting . . . .)