No More Virtual Meetings!

I was invited to another virtual event. 

I figuratively snapped at the invitation, "THIS IS A REAL EVENT! It just happens to be online!"

In these modern times of actual remote workers (telecommuters, we used to be called) let's just acknowledge that online interaction with other humans is real. It may just be the most real experience we get with our colleagues/students/families. It is different, but still real.

My Teaching Experience

Teaching is challenging at the best of times. I think I'm doing okay with my online teaching at Lethbridge College. I don't even know how anyone even teaches elementary school at all, never mind online! 

I log in to my [very fast sounding platform] class and sometimes I have a few students arrive before me. They actually chat about their day and their classes. It almost feels like a regular, in-person class. Most, however, have their cameras and microphones off. I do ask them to share A/V because it helps them connect with each other and with me, but I cannot make it compulsory.

I say that it helps me. I'm sure that any other teachers would agree that the micro-feedback you get from a student's face will alway help guide the pace and direction of a class. If I can't see you with a blank look, I can't know that you are lost. I absolutely cannot differentiate between stunned silence and "mute". I even miss the cues I get from the old "You must have questions at this point-- Ask away!". In person, I can see who is trying to formulate questions and who is playing tower defence. I miss it.

My Employee Experience

Coffee. Going to the copier. Going to the loo. Lunch. Moving between classes. These are all things that I miss. These are the ephemeral opportunities to build community, solve problems, share successes (and failures), and generally engage in human interaction.

My area has done a fair job of trying to emulate that with the Centre Coffee chat on [another platform that is closely related to my operating system]. The few times that they have the meeting when I am available, it has been great to just hang out in the same "room" as my co-workers.

On the other hand we have back to back meetings--the bane of my online work experience. Everyone assumes that since there is no travel time required, we can always fill in all the time with a meeting. On the surface this seems like an efficiency-nut's dream-come-true! The sinister side is that a flurry of meetings does not leave time for any decompression or introspection before the next thing crashes in. I fear it encourages us to do "other work" during meetings. And that is bad because it takes us out of the moment.

My Personal Experience

I had opportunity to attend a networking/recruiting event a few nights ago, and I was pleasantly surprised by the platform that HackerX used to host. It provided a main stage, break-out rooms, networking, and the ability for one person to perform the technical support. I want to use this to bolster our business networking and experiential learning components of some courses in our program.

Games night is also a big thing for me. With one of my gaming groups, we meet every 2nd Wednesday online using [a search-engine related meeting platform] and play a selection of games on BoardGameArena.com. I also play Gloomhaven with another friend with the board and bits set up on my table and the [speedy] app sharing the visual. Not quite the same as being there (with the billion little things to do), but it beats NOT doing it.

We've had some shared meals with family (less successful since we all tend to talk at the same time). We've had some shared drinks with friends (more successful since we can drink while others are talking).

Not the same as "in person", but in some cases that is a blessing ;)

My Opinion

The technology is still lacking. 

Internet bandwidth and availability varies wildly around the world, across the country, and even across the city. So many problems might be reduced if we had consistent throughput. And if we didn't have to share with everyone else trying to cram video up and down congested "last-mile" loops.

Not everyone has a laptop. (Although I think the last stats I read suggested everyone has 1.75 phones...) Getting the compute power to crunch the video (and/or de-crunch the video) is crucial for this new meeting space to be seamless and appear real-time.

I wish we could have concurrent audio. Something that would pre-process incoming audio streams and present some kind of aggregate in real time. Conversation is already difficult: we use verbal and non-verbal cues to meter our conversations. When our apps choose to garble or mute overlapping conversations, we lose some of those cues. Our brains seem to be surprisingly good at differentiating speakers (from each other), so maybe the software could let us do that?

Ultimately, all of these experiences and opportunities are real. They happened to me, with me, near me. They affect my life and the lives of my friends, family, students, colleagues, and beyond. This is not "The real world gone virtual". This is just "the real world with some still-fledgling communication tools".

TLDR: This is reality. It isn't virtual.

Just sayin'.

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

Edinburgh - 5 days in

I'm not yet a local, but I do have a bank account and an account with Scottish power (so I can have electricity and heat and such). Ah! the minutiae of foreign student life. If nothing else, it will give me some more appreciation of what my foreign students go through.

The city appears to be slowly returning to normal... about 10% of the foot traffic from Fringe, and I'm beginning to see the buildings behind the hoardings and the truss-work. 

Tomorrow is a big day for me. I will (probably) get my student card so I can use the library and go into buildings and meet people. For now, however it is a bit of boredom... maybe I will go get a few more things for the flat...

...like a coffee press...and some coffee.

Going to Scotland - Leaving Lethbridge

With about 26 hours to go before I leave, I'm having mini-panics. Do I have all my paperwork? Checked 4 times. Flights? 6 times. Clothes? Just twice. 

The restless sleep and waking to dreams of missed flights is not helping, either. 

I know it will be great, but it is also like the great unknown... Adventure awaits!

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...

Bawdy House of Commons

What is wrong with sex? Seriously! How is it magically different than other things we do?

Substitute any personally provided service for sexual service in the prostitution related criminal code and see if it still makes sense.

“advertisement of accounting services” means any material — including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material — that is used to advertise accounting services contrary to section 286.4.

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the accounting services of a person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of, [...]

That being said, some of it makes sense: we should not force or coercion people of any age to engage in accounting services. We should not entice or coerce persons under the age of 18 to engage in accounting services? 

We are talking about making it non-criminal to sell accounting services but criminal to purchase accounting services. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Lastly, I suspect we would find it contrary to public standards of decency to suggest that adults should be denied freedom of the person to have sex accounting with whomever they choose, provided it is agreed, consensual, and free from coercion.  If my suspicion is confirmed, Bill C-36 would make the House of Commons into a common bawdy-house.

(2) The definition “common bawdy-house” in subsection 197(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“common bawdy-house” means, for the practice of acts of indecency, a place that is kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons;

And considering some of the other legislation being passed, I'd say those are some indecent acts.

Just thinking.