Q and A: The struggles of getting answers from Lethbridge City Council (Part 1 of ?)

I posted a question for @LethbridgeCity council on X. The response was, "Talk to 311."

I hit up 311 on the chat on the City of Lethbridge website with the same question. The response was, "Send your question to Mayor and Council using the online form." (Available here: https://www.lethbridge.ca/council-administration-governance/mayor-and-councillors/)

I sent my question via the form.

I waited.

That was February 7th, 2024.

While I was waiting, I had more questions. @LethbridgeCity on X.com referred me to 311 who referred me to the Mayor and Council Form where I submitted my seven questions and a request for an answer.

Your worship and council,

With regards to the proceedings of the February 27^th, 2024 council meeting, I watched the broadcast of the meeting (those portions that were broadcast) and I have consulted the published agenda and subsequent minutes. I find that there are discrepancies between what I saw and what constitutes the official record:

·         Council moved to go into closed session at 12:30pm before the meeting was called to order at 1:30pm

·         The motion at 12:30pm to go into closed session references 3 items that were not on the published agenda.

·         When the agenda was adopted the three additional items presumably discussed in closed session were added to the agenda. These three added items were the only noted amendments to the agenda.

·         On the item of the Consent Agenda, the chair stated that the items in the consent agenda were those that were published in the agenda package, but there were two additional items added (and displayed on the screen) that were not on the published agenda nor on the amended agenda.

·         The minutes of the motion by Councillor Crowson at 2:47pm to go into closed session have more specific wording different from what was provided on the floor to the public in attendance.

·         There was no motion for nor mention of an amendment to OBM 6.1 nor to passing it as amended, but the motion in the minutes differs from the motion presented on the floor and in the agenda package.

Given that the “Agenda means the items of business of a meeting and the associated reports, bylaws or other documents and includes the order of business and time for said meeting” (Procedure Bylaw s.5(d) ), and that “If the agenda has been published, a Member may present an item as Urgent Business at the beginning of a meeting for inclusion on the Agenda” (Procedure Bylaw s.107(b)), and that “If a Council Member wishes to make change to the order of the agenda at the Meeting, the Council Member may, before the Agenda is adopted, make any such alteration by General Consent” (Procedure Bylaw s.110):

1)      Which Council Member presented items 14.3, 14.4 and 14.5 as Urgent Business at the beginning of the meeting? What was result of the vote to allow those items?

2)      Which Council Member wished to change the order of the agenda to consider items 14.1 through 14.5 earlier in the agenda? Was there general consent?

3)      Which Council Member wished to change the agenda to move items 14.1 and 14.2 into the consent agenda?

Both the MGA and the Procedure Bylaw give clear direction about holding meetings in closed session. From the Procedure Bylaw s.131: “Before holding a Closed Meeting, Council […] must adopt a motion, in a Meeting open to the public, that part of the Meeting be a closed meeting and the Motion must include: (a) the title of each item to be discussed; and, (b) the applicable provisions of the Act and/or FOIP.” From the MGA “197(4). Before closing all or any part of a meeting to the public, a council or council committee must by resolution approve (a) the part of the meeting that is to be closed, and (b) the basis on which, under an exception to disclosure in Division 2 of Part 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the part of the meeting is to be closed.”

4)      Did council pass a motion in an Open Meeting at 12:30pm to go into closed session for the stated purposes? Was the wording on the floor the same as that in the minutes?

5)      Did council fail to follow the requirements of the MGA and the Procedure Bylaw at 2:47pm when a non-conforming motion was put forward to go into closed session, which motion was passed and acted upon?

Given that the role of the Chair of any meeting includes the responsibility to preside over meetings and enforce the rules of the Procedure Bylaw, and that all Members having committed to the Council Code of Conduct Bylaw:

6)      Will the Mayor (as Chair) and any other Council Members commit to following the Procedure Bylaw in “the spirit of fairness, equality, and common sense”?

7)     Will the Mayor and other Council Members hold each other accountable to the Bylaws in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct Bylaw?

I look forward to your timely answers to these seven questions.

Regards,  

Stephen Graham

Lethbridge Alberta

And I waited.

That was March 5th, 2024.

On March 11th, I had an online chat with 311.

On March 12th, I submitted some more questions. This time directly to the Mayor and Council Form.

And I waited.

On March 25th, I was on a chat with 311 and did a follow-up on my 3 outstanding requests for information from Mayor and Council.

And I waited.

On March 28th, 2024, I happened to be in City Hall so I enquired at the 311 desk about this. The person at the desk referred me to call 311. I did.

The 311 person on the phone forwarded me to another person. I left a voicemail.

And I waited.

On April 8th, 2024, I phoned 311, I was transferred to the person tasked with resolving my questions. She apologized for the delay but there were some internal things happening. She was working on it and had to confer with colleagues. It would be 2-3 more days.

And I waited.

But today, April 18th, 2024 at 7:54 a.m., I received an e-mail from 311 Inquiry Resolution:

That's it. Not answers, just thanks for being interested, your concerns have been noted and forwarded.

I wonder how long I will have to wait to chat with the Mayor, City Manager, or City Clerk about this?

Is my next stop Municipal Affairs? The Ombudsman? Court of King's Bench?

I'm beginning to think council and administration don't want to be questioned.

Lethbridge Performing Arts Centre

Worshipful Mayor and Councillors,

Communities — whole and healthy communities— need a balance of culture and sports that include opportunities for all us. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in much needed sports facilities in the past decade. These crucial investments have been disproportionate, and performing arts investments have been continually pushed to the back-burner to accommodate them. It is beyond time to balance the scales.

There are many financial reasons to continue to move forward with a performing arts centre in Lethbridge. There is direct employment benefit in the construction, and lasting economic contribution from the space. StatsCan Provincial and Territorial Cultural Indicators, 2017, provides an estimate of the GDP of sports industries at $828 million, or 0.2% of the Alberta’s GDP. The contribution of culture at $5.3 billion is almost 6.5 times larger than the sports contribution. 

There are also important social reasons to continue moving forward. The impediment to building the performance arts center seems to be a misunderstanding of who it’s for. The argument tends to be along the lines of “hockey players need ice to play hockey”. That becomes dancers need a floor to dance. The problem is a hockey player goes out and plays hockey for the sake of playing hockey. They’re out there to do the thing they are doing. If someone’s watching them, that’s great. If they’re out there just playing hockey to play with their buddies, that’s also great. When a ballet company is out there to put on a ballet, it actually matters if there’s an audience or not. 

Unlike sports, performance of any kind is almost all about interacting with the audience. Performers need the right space, the right equipment, the right auditorium to interact with the audience. The spaces are not about the performers, they are about the interaction between the performers and the audience. The audience needs to be there for the performance to take place. If there is no audience, there is no performance.

The comparison between an athlete and a performer is strong to the extent that they both want to do well and be supported. A performance without an audience is NOT like a hockey player without a rink… it’s a hockey player without a team. 

The focus on performance arts spaces is often on those perceived as using them… the actors, the dancers, the singers, the bands, the orchestras, the performers. However, that’s NOT who the primary users of these spaces is… it’s the audiences who come to see the performances. That’s who we’re really cutting off every time any performance arts space in Lethbridge is postponed. There have been no additions of any dedicated performance-only spaces in Lethbridge since the Sterndale Bennett Theatre was added to the Genevieve E. Yates Memorial Centre…. nearly 30 years ago. 

I challenge you to think honestly and deeply about these points, and I urge you vote to maintain the drive and funding for a new performing arts centre in Lethbridge.

In earnest,

Stephen Graham

Lethbridge, Alberta

Responses from Council

So, in an effort to be fair, I decided to hold off on posting the responses I received until some time had passed. It is summer and people may have been busy with things. It has now been a week (or 5 business days) since I sent my email and I have now received responses from the Mayor and some council members.

I received responses from:

• Jeff Coffman - Immediately with an auto-responder promising response in 3 days.
• Jeff Carlson & Joe Mauro - Same day with answers!
• Rob Miyashiro - Next day with indicating a thoughtful response would follow.
• Mayor - response by e-mail. Arranged a face-to-face.
• Rob Miyashiro - A thoughtful response.
• Mayor Spearman - Face-to-face meeting with answers.

I expect I have not heard from Jeff Coffman again (probably since he was just in the cc and it wasn't specifically addressed to him.)

In an effort to be concise I will present some excerpts from the answers. Where I have answers in writing, I will copy and paste them. Where the answers were from conversation Mayor Spearman, I will paraphrase as fairly as possible (sorry if I didn't catch the full meaning). I assume that all the answers provided were done so earnestly and honestly, and I feel that no one is intentionally trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Here goes...

Question:
How did the Leisure Centre build-out bypass the master plan requirement of a business plan?

Answers:
"I share your concerns about the CIP process, and how this project seemed to get unequal consideration.  I backed a motion to defer any debate until ALL unfunded projects could be considered, but that motion unfortunately was defeated. [...] Ultimately, I voted in favour of the project, which I believe will serve our community well into the future." (Carlson)

"I have many similar concerns.  Had I been at the meeting I would have voted NO because of the many unanswered questions but most important, it was done out of process, came back door and over the wall last minute.  This is a push for administration although they had no interest in this when we discussed fully all projects and voted to establish our 10 year CIP (capital improvement projects)." (Mauro)

"I would assert that the business plan requirement of the Master plan was not bypassed. A detailed business plan is required under “Resource Development” in the flow chart. I believe that the requirements listed in the flow chart have been met. In addition, the market feasibility and business case analyses were undertaken and completed in 2012 within Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Lethbridge Leisure Centre Needs Assessment & Concept Design, which you can access at the following link: http://www.lethbridge.ca/Things-To-Do/Documents/LLC%20Funct%20Program%20Needs%20Assess%20Report_Final_2012_May_02.pdf" (Miyashiro)

The motion to amend the CIP now contains a provision to get the business plan before council. The urgency was expressed by city administration to avoid construction delays and maximize the advantage of a full build vs. a phased build. (Spearman - paraphrase)

Question:

What factors separate ready projects from un-ready projects?

Answers:

"[...] we can combine work already begun on the site with the newly approved work, which should save time, and design and construction costs." (Carlson)

"Major considerations of “what is ready vs. what is not” are site, funding and progress to date. [...] The argument about which projects to proceed with, begins and ends with the priorities set by the previous council. The Leisure Aquatic Centre was given the green light to be added to the Crossings ice complex (which was the first phase of the conceptualized full leisure centre) while the Performing Arts Centre and Convention Centre had financial conditions required to be met to trigger the City’s financial support. The full build of the Leisure Centre is possible due to capacity created by keeping the 2014 tax increase to the expected 2.8% rather than implementing a reduction. This allows for financing of the project with no new tax increases required. There is also some dollars available from the Alberta Community Partnership grant. " (Miyashiro)

This project is ready because there is already a part of the project underway and there is "no dissent" in the sport community about building the leisure centre. (Spearman - paraphrase)

My response: 

The leisure centre is already started BECAUSE it already received funding. Your funding argument is basically: we aren't funding other projects because we didn't fund them before.

The argument that other projects can't be funded because triggers were not met seems vacuous to me. Previous council absolutely said NO to a full leisure centre with no contingency for the field house in the most recent CIP. The same council provided for contingent funding for some other projects. If council can amend one project in the CIP it can amend any of them, but chose not to consider that option at this time.

Question:

Specifically what factors indicate the Field House expansion of the Leisure Centre is ready to proceed and what factors are missing from the Performing Arts Centre proposal and Lethbridge Exhibition proposals that have them classed as un-ready?

Answers:

"The Crossings ice centre is being built now, on land the City has designated for the Leisure Centre. A site for the Performing Arts Centre has not been selected. The Convention Centre proposed by the Exhibition Board will occur at Exhibition Park." (Miyashiro)

There is no common ground about location or size of a performing arts theatre. There is no proposed site. The sports community is completely behind the leisure centre and it was built based on a plan created and presented by a city committee. The sports community will be consulted about needs and configuration before construction. (Spearman - paraphrase)

My response:

The proposal for a performing arts theatre was proposed in a plan created and presented by a city committee. The performing arts community was consulted about needs and configuration before requesting funding. That proposal was doubly-reviewed to ensure accuracy and appropriateness for our community. A site was selected and was approved for contingent funding by council.

Question:

How can we know, or at least have a high level of confidence, that the new projected costs are correct?

Answers:

"Future costs are always difficult to define with any great degree of accuracy, but our administration has typically done a very good job in that regard. I have faith that over the last year, our staff was able to refine the costs, and that we will be able to complete the project within the budget." (Carlson)

"As with many sectors of our economy, the construction industry is market driven, based on supply versus demand. At the time of the previous cost estimate there were several competing projects in our province scheduled to begin last year or this year. A late 2015 start and late 2018/early 2019 completion would have fewer competitors for the specialized work required for projects of this nature." (Miyashiro)

Question:

"Will the city be able to finish Métis Trail in time for the opening of the Leisure Centre to avoid congestion? Further, and generally, why is the city not immediately working toward a 4 lane road to support the demand for such a civic hub?"

Answers:
"Metis Trail is high on our list of priorities.  Not only will it further support the new facilities, it will provide the West Side of our community with another much needed North-South connection." (Carlson)

"Metis Trail is scheduled for an expansion this year (Jerry Potts Blvd. to Garry Drive) at a cost of almost $10 million. The continuation of Metis Trail to Whoop Up Drive is expected in 2020." (Miyashiro)

I'm concerned about Metis trail as well. This will be a busy area. I also don't know why we aren't twinning Whoop-up Drive past the fire hall. I'm not an engineer, but I will be asking those questions. (Spearman - paraphase)

So... That is what I know so far. I am thankful to those who replied for their time and consideration. I am thankful to all of council for working, to the best of their abilities, for the betterment of our community.

I am also thankful for the support I have received for asking questions. It's our role as citizens in a democracy to choose leaders who we believe will make the choices we would have made and to understand the choices that those leaders make.

Ask questions. Get answers.

And as I tell my kids, "Make good choices, honey!"

I'm insisting...

Who actually decides what Lethbridge will build?

I have calmed down somewhat since the City Council meeting of August 4th wherein, after a presentation and lengthy Q&A session, our council did vote to amend the mostly immutable and sacrosanct CIP to add a field house to the already funded leisure centre (hockey ice, curling ice, and aquatic facilities). I believe this is ultimately a wonderful thing!

Firstly, the full-meal-deal leisure centre will be used by families and individuals in Lethbridge for 40 years to come (based on historical replacement of facilities). We want it and we got it!

Secondly, it demonstrates that council can make changes to the CIP when it is good for the city and as money becomes available.

Thirdly (and here my bias may show a bit), it checks off so many Recreation and Culture facilities on the community want list that the next round of CIP may actually green-light a Performing Arts Theatre!

On the bleak side, the railroad fashion in which the Leisure Aquatic Field House complex thingy has been pushed at council by administration causes me some concern. I did attempt to use Twitter to get quick answers to my questions, but it takes more than 140 characters to explain why this horse is getting backed.

It was also suggested by a councillor that people asking these questions on Twitter were "trolls" and we were invited to e-mail our questions directly.

So I did and I cc'd the Mayor and all the other councillors.

Councillor Miyashiro,

Further to my twitter questions and to your request for "trolls" to e-mail, I ask you to please consider and respond to these questions regarding the Leisure Centre full build-out and its funding.

The Recreation and Culture Master Plan states: "No major ($1M+) public investments in recreation or culture infrastructure should occur without undertaking market feasibility analysis and business planning. This applies not only to initiatives championed by the City, but also to those projects led by not-for-profit groups and associations wherein public funds are required for the capital and/or ongoing operations of facilities." When asked about the business plan for the Leisure Centre, you equated a business case to a business plan. I assert that they are different. The business case is a demonstration of how it has worked somewhere; a business plan is how we intend it to work here. How did the Leisure Centre build-out bypass the master plan requirement of a business plan? 

The city manager, and others, asserted that this project is "ready to proceed" and others are not. What factors separate ready projects from un-ready projects? Specifically what factors indicate the Field House expansion of the Leisure Centre is ready to proceed and what factors are missing from the Performing Arts Centre proposal and Lethbridge Exhibition proposals that have them classed as un-ready?

I have some difficulty reconciling some answers regarding project costs. The city manager asserted that costs for projects will go up over time, but after 16 months the projected cost of the full build is about 20% less expensive than the original proposal. The only answer I can recall about this difference is that more research was done and the facilities were going to be less expensive than originally estimated. This suggests that insufficient planning was done originally. How can we know, or at least have a high level of confidence, that the new projected costs are correct?

Given the assertion that the Leisure Centre is needed and will be extensively used, will the city be able to finish Métis Trail in time for the opening of the Leisure Centre to avoid congestion? Further, and generally, why is the city not immediately working toward a 4 lane road to support the demand for such a civic hub?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Stephen Graham

I will post & discuss the replies I receive.

If I get any.

I'm just sayin...

In favour of the skate park

02 August 2012

Members of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board,

My name is Stephen Graham and I live at 1410 Aspen Place South. I am in support of the development permit for the Henderson Lake Skatepark at 2599 Parkside Drive South (Permit number DEV04402). I believe that providing a venue for a relatively low-cost, all-ages, physical activity in a visible and accessible location is an excellent decision. 

I take exception to some of the objections raised by the appellants, namely the objections about policing, parking, traffic congestion, activity density, and noise.

Regarding policing, I believe that placing a public skate park in full public view of a primary artery will aid in deterring unwanted behaviours. LRPS and the public will be able to see the site and, together with the park users, we will be able to keep an eye on the park.

Regarding parking and traffic congestion, I believe that the majority of the skate park users will not drive to the park, but rather will use their boards. A few will be driven by parents and friends, but I believe that will be a very small minority. Certainly any overflow from the odd concurrent usage may spill onto public streets, but those times will likely be few and far between and not in excess of current on-street parking. For similar reasoning, there should not be any noticeable increase in traffic congestion.

Regarding objections to activity density, I think that creating a skate park in this area will move any skateboarding activity off the main park paths. This will improve safety and enjoyment for pedestrian, bicycle, and skateboard users of this park zone. I do object to some residents claiming ownership or provision of some activities in the Henderson Lake area, and more so for the seeming characterization of these community building events as a burden.

Finally, regarding noise. The sound of people enjoying a park is a good thing. As one document  from Herndon, VA notes, "Studies show that at 100 feet from a skate park, little noise rises above the surrounding ambient noise no matter what surface is used." Most of the appellants live more than 500m from the zoned site or about 16 times that distance. It would be akin to someone in London Road Neighbourhood being concerned about noise from Park Place Mall.

I think that skateboarding is not for me. I lack the coordination to do the tricks and I lack the stamina to use it as transportation. Skateboarding is exercise. It builds strength and coordination. It doesn't require a team or a lot of equipment. Kids and adults can participate solo or concurrently. It doesn't use electricity. It doesn't, to my knowledge, contribute to obesity or delinquency.

It does require some contiguous hard surfaces and some space. Like a sidewalk, rail, curb, quarter-roll, or other similar features. The features you'd find in a skate park. The thought of having a highly-visible, public, maintained, and endorsed place for my kids, and others in the city to conveniently exercise and play makes me happy. It is the kind of thing that taxes are for, yes?

In light of what I have said here, I urge the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board to deny the appeal and uphold the original permit for the benefit of our city.

Thank you,

Stephen Graham, B.Sc., I.S.P, ITCP

1410 Aspen Place South

Lethbridge, AB   T1K 3V4

smgraham@nucleus.com

Coffee shops...

One of the best inventions ever.

I was sitting in a coffee shop and working on a programming problem when a woman with an interesting tattoo sat down at the table next to me. The tattoo was of three mathematical functions the Möbius function, the omega function representing distinct prime factors, and another function which escapes my recall. I asked her about it/them and she explained that, with the provided arguments, the three functions represented her date of birth. We proceeded to talk about number theory, math, and the lack of teachers with a math specialty. She is involved with some exciting research related to the Riemann Hypothesis. If that goes smoothly, she may have time for a second publication for her Masters.

Next, a business consultant friend of mine arrives and suddenly I'm embroiled in a conversation about customer service, and getting the customer to put a value on IT service. Keen insight gained.

I'm just saying: $1.87 well spent!

How Taxes Work: A primer for civic election.

I was reading through another raft of candidate questions this evening and I saw this socially relevant question: "...do you support existing social housing programs and initiatives to end homelessness?"

One mayoral candidate said: "These programs should not be a burden on tax payers, but a government responsibility."

And now, the short version of how taxation works.

Citizens pay taxes to some common pool. That common pool is managed by (in Canada) an elected government. That elected government spends the money on behalf of (and presumably to the benefit of) the citizens. The government is of the citizens; it IS the citizens. And the citizens are the taxpayers.

And that is the tidy little loop.

Even if that candidate meant "civic tax payers" and "another level of government's responsibility" the answer really doesn't show full comprehension of how taxes work. If another level of government is providing funding, it STILL come from our pockets!

Probably won't vote for that one, nor for anyone who doesn't understand the basic concept.

I'm just saying.

Fiscal plans for Lethbridge?

Suppose I wanted to win the hearts and minds of Lethbridge voters (all 14,896 at last count), my opening volley might be "Read my lips: No new taxes!". I might strongly imply that we need to be fiscally responsible in terms of spending on capital projects. Not cheap, but frugal. I might say we have to get our priorities straight. We shouldn't have to pay extra taxes just for a , we should just lobby harder to the provincial and federal governments for more funding.

But wait?!? If the provincial government funded more projects for all communities, our provincial taxes might need to go up. If the federal government funded more projects for all communities, our federal taxes might need to go up. Whether I pay it to the city, the province, or the Receiver General for Canada it is STILL my tax dollars. The real difference (and the reality) is that local tax dollars stick around for local projects. Provincial tax dollars may end up in Leduc, Legal, and Lloydminster but not in Lethbridge. Similarly with federal tax dollars.

Project funding is a bit of a red herring anyway. We either save up a little over time until we can afford it (the basic way Lethbridge does it now) or we borrow money and pay it back with interest over time (also a sound financial tool; anyone else have a mortgage?) Doesn't necessarily mean as much because in essence it is a one-time expense.

But we can pay more taxes at other levels and maybe get that back if some other level of government needs to win votes instead of effectively and fairly serving the needs of our community with well spent local tax dollars.

Do the 2010 candidates have some actual solutions or plans or ideas for guiding our community? Or are they throwing up the smoke-screen of we shouldn't raise civic taxes if we could get it elsewhere? Go to a forum. Ask good questions. Demand good answers.

And VOTE!

Stephen

The prompt reply from Lee Cutforth

Thank you for your prompt reply:

Greetings Mr. Graham:

Thank you for your e-mail. I will try to answer your questions as fully as I can, in the order presented:

1. "Major" is not a precise number, or even a scientific concept. Rather, it is more of an admittedly subjective judgment, considering the scope or impact of a given decision. For example, in making that judgment (as to what is a "major" decision and proper for deferral), we would need to look at the degree to which a decision would bind the discretion of future Councils (perhaps by committing to a major spending project). We need to look at the degree of controversy generated - is public opinion stirred so that we need a greater measure of debate or fuller consideration of the measure under consideration (as well as citizens' opinions). We would have to consider the direct consequences of the proposed measure, and degree to which a Council decision would needlessly interfere with peoples' lives and be difficult to reverse.

2. The proper time frame for deferral of major decisions also is something of a subjective value judgment. However, a primary consideration in making that judgment call is the degree of urgency in making a decision. For example, the sudden collapse of a water line may require an immediate decision by a lame-duck Council, simply because the situation is urgent and must be dealt with as a crisis situation. On the other hand, committing many millions of dollars for a non-urgent project, whether it is a sports facility, or a new bridge or even an arts centre, might be best left for a new Council, especially if it is apparent that people have strong opinions, and the election process would allow for that opinion to be expressed and registered through voting. The concern is more with making major decisions without due consideration for the opinions of people whose money Council is spending.

3. It is not a matter of cutting off Council's decision-making power. No one would argue against Council remaining active on administrative matters or emergency situations for the full term of its life. Rather, it is a matter of a Council, in the exercise of its decision-making, having the proper respect for: (a) the opinions of its citizens, and allowing those opinions to have full voice, as much as possible, before Council chooses to act; and (b) the degree to which a Council will bind the discretion of future Councils. In this regard, I am reminded of a statement by then Mayor Dave Carpenter (from the 28 October 1997 issue of the Lethbridge Herald, as reported by the Elect Lethbridge website), to the effect that a Council has to be respectful of allowing the following Council the discretion to set its own priorities.

4. In theory, most Council decisions can be reversed by subsequent votes. However, there may be practical limitations on that ability - for example, if contractual obligations on behalf of the City were entered, penalties or other legal liability for cancelling it, may make overturning that decision prohibitively expensive and impratical.

5. My objection to major decisions being made by a lame-duck Council is not rooted in whether opposition may exist, but rather in making sure that the opposition (or opinion of any degree) is given due consideration. The time frame in which an outgoing Council operates does not always allow for that.

The "supporters of the project", whose identity you have questioned, are various people I have met and spoken to through door-knocking or other venues for talking to folks over the past two months. Whether or not you agree with them, they do raise fair questions, that deserve respect and consideration. Even if one accepts the need for a community arts centre (as many I have heard from do), one still can ask whether it needs to be as grand as proposed, or whether it needs to be on prime commercial property (with all of the negative consequences on the property tax structure that would follow). Had we not spent over $ 4 million for prime commercial land, there could have been more money to put into the facility itself. Another example - it did not make sense to spend over $ 30 million renovating Enmax Centre without completing the ring of seats around the ice surface (something that now will be much more expensive to accomplish - that seems like short-sighted planning).

You know, my wife and I belong to the Lethbridge Folk Club, which holds its performances in a former second-floor pool hall on 5th Street - it is not fancy, but it gets the job done. Now, I am not proposing that Bowman Centre patrons make do with second-rate, under-used commercial sites like the folk club does. However, I would suggest that however worthy the public project we may advocate, we should never lose sight of the fact that we are spending other peoples' money, and therefor need to get the best value possible for its use. We cannot just treat the taxpayers like a money tree that can be shaken whenever we need more money to run the City or pay for discretionary projects.

My point in what I have written and said during this campaign is not to criticise the Arts Centre (or any other project). Rather, it is to emphasise that in any public undertaking, we have to spend the money wisely and make it go as far as we can. We also have to be mindful of our duty to provide core services (like the unglamorous infrastructure of roads and water delivery, etc.). I have concerns about the state of the economy, and believe that we have to be cautious about the level of expenditures we commit ourselves to, both personally and as a community. It is more a matter of determining the proper balance - the degree that government (as opposed to non-profit entities) should be involved in driving public projects; the degree to which we can require taxpayers to foot the bill for discretionary facilities (as opposed, perhaps, to looking for a measure of corporate support); the degree to which we should raise taxes go to pay for both the core services and discretionary spending - higher property taxes hurt everyone (they do get passed on to renters). All of this involves a balancing of priorities, and when a lame-duck Council makes significant commitments, it not only binds the discretion of future Councils, it limits the opportunities that voters have in the election process to speak as to what those priorities should be.

I appreciate that you have brought your concerns to my attention, and for the opportunity to respond. I look forward to seeing my remarls posted to your site.

Sincerely,

Lee Cutforth

Candidate for Alderman

City of Lethbridge

Council should be allowed to do its job

A recent blog post from Lee Cutforth suggests that Council should delay "major votes" until after the new Council is elected. This idea raises several questions:

1. How major is "major"?

2. How long before the election would this limitation come into effect?

3. If we don't let Council make decisions in the last, say, three months of their term, why have a three-year term at all? Why not a 33-month term?

4. Are Council decisions permanent or un-revisitable?

5. Given that the decisions of any elected Council will have dissenters, should any Council be allowed to make major decisions?

Separate from the practical shortcomings, I'm also left idly wondering which "supporters of the project have questioned the grandiosity of its scale". At the moment we are talking about new facilities to replace and enhance functionality of the Bowman Arts Centre. That building (a recycled school) was barely sufficient when it was re-purposed originally. The city has more than doubled in size since 1963.

Soon (I hope) we will be talking again about a Performing Arts Centre to increase public performing arts facilities beyond the what the Genevieve E. Yates Memorial Centre can provide. It was opened in 1966 and seats under 500 people (the addition of the Sterndale Bennett Theatre is a separate 180 seats). By the time that a new facility is built the population of Lethbridge will likely have TRIPLED. A 1500 seat theatre is not out of the question.

Perhaps we should put enhancement of our sports facilities on hold for 45 or 50 years?

I'm going to ask Mr. Cutforth to answer these questions and I will post his response when I get it.

Go vote.

People who want to get elected...

...seem pretty quick to boldly and publicly criticize the incumbents and the administration to make their platforms seem bold and critical.

...seem to position themselves as different from other candidates, often crafting their platforms to have a contrary or at least noticeably different opinion of how things should be.

...seem to forget that, if elected, each person is only one voice in a council of 9 and will have to compromise on something and that the next election is only 3 years away.

Three More Years

So, Jeff didn't get elected... he placed 15 out of 16 running (well ahead of 16 I might add). So his campaign is starting now.

Apparently, 22% of Lethbridge stuck its head out, saw something that might resemble progress and now we can expect three more years of the same, old "same, old".

Hurray for majority rule in our democratic society.

Jeff Graham for Lethbridge City Council

The "Jeff Graham says... just vote" campaign is well underway for the 2007 Lethbridge Civic Election. Jeff's website has his contact information (see http://www.jeffgraham.ca/)

The city has its information here http://www.lethbridge.ca/election

Wikipedia has a page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethbridge%2C_Alberta_municipal_election%2C_2007
and I wish that outbound links from candidates names to corresponding websites were not persistently removed as "advertising". Links to url's in support of wikipedia documents are encouraged.

UPDATE!
Having had some discussions on the related discussion page, the outbound linking has been fairly and equitably resolved. Thanks for your hard work, KmSiever!