Teachers don't have short memories.  Many people think teachers have forgotten that they voted the PCs in.  In actual fact, teachers did not vote PCs in, Albertans did.  Many people think teachers will forget these most recent contract negotiations come 2016.  In actual fact, it will be the only thing we remember.

Last week my local voted on the proposed framework shoved in our faces by Premier Alison Redford.  To make sure I met the expectation that we not share the results until today, I haven't posted this until today.  Regardless, it was obvious that our local did not buck the trend.

If you read carefully over this Proposed ... pardon me ... Imposed Framework Agreement, it stated that the ATA and the School Boards should work hard to "ratify" the agreement.  This leaves us open to significant interpretation.  One could argue that to ratify an agreement, all you have to do is recognize it as a legitimate document worthy of consideration.  Simply by voting to accept or not to accept it would in effect be a ratification.  I asked about this when our local voted, and the ATA representative there said I was not out-to-lunch.  My question: "so simply by voting on this, we are ratifying it?"  The response: "um, yes."

So the only way to tell Redford, Johnson, and the PCs to shove it was to not vote on it all.

I spoiled my ballot.  I refused to vote on an "agreement" that so blatantly removed democracy as an option.  As is the norm in Canada these days, the guise of democracy covered up an imposition.  This was no "agreement", never has been, and now that we are entering a period of legislated teacher contracts, I would not be surprised if it never will be again.


Tell me it ain't so, that somehow the PCs figured out a way of making me think my democratic duty was best served by not voting!

So now Johnson has introduced legislation telling Boards, the ATA, and Alberta voters to shove it in return.  There was never any intention on Johnson's part to "bargain" or "propose" anything.  Working with teachers is not an interest of his.  Johnson's suggestion that "legislation is the only way" shows an apparent lack of respect for the decades of successful local bargaining this province is used to.  It also shows anything but forward thinking.  It shows dictatorship, a complete reversal from the democracy we claim to espouse.

But don't you worry, teachers don't have short memories.  Teachers will always remember who truly runs the Education system.  It isn't Alison Redford, and it certainly isn't Jeff Johnson.

The problem is, until the PCs realize this, it isn't teachers, either.

Certainly when I heard about Mount Royal University cutting funding for their Arts programs, nobody should be shocked that I was upset.  It took a bit of thinking after my last letter to really discern the big picture, though.

We should have seen this coming.  We should have been fighting against it long before it happened.  Of course, hindsight being 20/20, I shake my head in disappointment at myself for not seeing it before.

Between this article from a 2004 edition of U of C's Gauntlet, the comments from Associate Professor Bill Bunn in this CBC News report, and the MRU's 2012-2017 Academic Plan (check out page 8, it becomes obvious there), the pieces of the puzzle fall into place to show the impending demise of the school's Arts programs.  Arts Advocates should have seen it coming.  They (we) didn't because we blindly believed every corner of Alberta also believed in the Arts.  Now we are staring down the barrel of the gun, seeing the beginnings of the demise of Arts in Alberta.

No matter the warnings, Mount Royal pushed forward, with it's main argument being reputation.  Apparently a degree at a really great college is still only a degree at a college, and therefore graduates cannot compete in the marketplace.  Forget the fact that the programs the college built its reputation on became tertiary the second they adopted the name "University".

Basically, for the sake of a name, Mount Royal has turned its back on its past.  But it's worse than that.  As a result of the finite funding Cooney warned us about, these diploma programs have received the axe, and the wonderful diversity we saw in Calgary's post-secondary institutions got sliced with it.

Certainly the cuts are the fault of mismanagement of our province's funding by the PC government.  But that is not the only place the fault lies.  Mount Royal got itself so pidgeon-holed on the idea of a namesake lending value to their programs that it forgot about the value of those programs.  The PC government has mechanics in place to prevent the loss of those programs, but instead for the sake of having five universities in the province, it still let it happen anyway.

Having five universities does not make Alberta an educational leader.  It makes Alberta an educational elitist.  We claim to have the best schools at any level.  Thanks to these most recent cuts, and the pidgeon-mindedness of MRU and any other school considering cutting programs, we can't claim that any more.  We may be able to claim the best at the highest level, but we leave all else behind.

Alberta should not be considered great because we have the most highly educated people.  Alberta should be great because we respect all people with all interests and all abilities, and we work hard to help each one achieve success and prosperity.  In a PC Alberta, where funding is cut to programs that would open up that diverse prosperity because the government cannot manage their books, we will not see that wholly inclusive Alberta.

I don't see MRU changing their mind, without changing years of their priorities.  I don't see the PC's changing their tactics to our finances either.  So what are we going to do to ensure the diversity of education in our province is preserved?

Well, one thing we can do is find someone else to manage the province's books in 2016.

The other is to help schools like MRU understand how important the Arts are by showing up to every performance the school has in support of it.  The next concert is Mount Royal Kantorei on Saturday, May 4 at 7:30 PM.  Show up, and teach MRU how important the Arts are to Albertans.

Dear Board of Governors;

I understand that due to provincial funding cutbacks, Mount Royal University has had to make some difficult choices. I am very concerned about the direction Mount Royal University is taking with regards to its Fine Arts programming, and hope that you find other ways of dealing with inadequate funding from the current Progressive Conservative government

On recommendation from the Vice President Academic, the school will be cutting its entire arts and cultural faculty, effective Spring 2013. This is in complete contrast to comments made previously by government officials about how important fine arts education is.  We respect the difficulty of the decision you are faced with, but we ask that you approach the decision well-informed and with an open mind.

The funding cuts equate to a complete loss for the school’s theatre and music programs. These are Mount Royal's only fine arts offerings.  Of particular concern is the proposed cuts to the MRU Jazz Faculty. Mount Royal University is widely revered as the best two-year jazz diploma in Canada and unique in Alberta.  I have a number of students who have benefitted directly from the Mount Royal University Jazz Program in particular, either as High School students attending camps, or as Post-Secondary students studying for performance.  Many could attribute their success to the incredible leadership of Mount Royal University’s programs.

Upon discussion with Vice President and Provost, Manuel Mertin, members of the Alberta Band Association (of which I am a member) were informed that although the Mount Royal University Program is "exceptional", it is slated to be cut due to its status as a two-year diploma program; although there were other two-year programs that were spared. It was also suggested that students wishing to study jazz at a post-secondary level could move to Edmonton and participate at Grant MacEwan. However, Grant MacEwan is not a jazz school and they do not have capacity to take all of Mount Royal University's students.  In order for Grant MacEwan or any other Alberta institution to be able to accept the would-be-stranded Mount Royal University students, they would need to have seen an increase in funding from the government, which we know to not be the case.  They would also need to adjust their programs to meet the high standard of excellence Mount Royal University has developed as a reputation.

This equates to a loss of 120 student seats in theatre and music programs. Over the next year, this change will result in a loss of five full-time faculty members, two support staff, and nearly 20 part-time instructors, not to mention the programs' performance groups and theatre productions. It will obviously also have a significant impact on the mentorship of emerging artists on Calgary’s mainstages.  It will also have an impact on the Public Education system who relies heavily on Mount Royal University’s leadership in jazz instruction.

I sincerely request that you save the Mount Royal University Jazz program and let it continue to be the globally-recognized program Calgary is known for.  Please note that I will also be sharing my dismay with the Ministers of Advanced Education and Finance as well as the Premier for putting you in this situation.

Sincerely,
[Original Signed]
Joel Windsor, B.A., B.Ed.
Music Specialist, Notre Dame Collegiate, High River, Alberta
President, High River and District Music Festival Association

CC To:
Premier of Alberta
Liberal Party of Alberta Advanced Education Critic
Wildrose Party Advanced Education Critic
New Democratic Party of Alberta Advanced Education Critic
Member of Legislative Assembly for the Highwood Constituency
President of the Alberta Party

On Wednesday this week, I was surprised to find out that Premier Alison Redford had made another provincial proposal to teachers for a framework for their contracts.  The Provincial Executive Council of the Alberta Teacher's Association has sent it on to locals for consideration.  This could mean we'd be entering into another province-wide agreement very shortly.

Two things from this. If it takes the Premier to get involved everytime, such as when Dave Hancock was Education Minister when then Premier Ed Stelmach pitched a 5-year and got it signed, and now with Redford superseding current Education Minister Jeff Johnson, why bother having a Minister of Education at all?

But that's not the biggest thing I get from this. The biggest thing starts from the question "where was the Alberta School Boards Association in all this?"  It seems to me they had no idea this was going down at all, trustees were never informed the conversation between the PC government and the ATA was even happening, and one blogger has even wondered why the ASBA even exist in the first place.

That's not deep enough.  The ASBA has other purposes, just like the ATA is not simply a bargaining entity.  However, trustees don't have too many other significant duties than good interactions with their teachers.  Well, okay, they give direction to the implementation of education in their area as well.

Trustees have been sidelined for years now, starting most prominently with Stelmach. When he pitched a 5-year deal, ASBA was concerned then about funding, but much worse, trustees were not given the opportunity to bargain as much for local issues.  Some boards didn't even have trustees involved at all, and instead had Employer Bargaining Authorities, like the one that my Board was a part of called the School Boards Employer Bargaining Authority.  That means that trustees have been removed from discussing complete contracts with their employees for over 8 years.  Some trustees have never even been involved in such discussions at all.

So why do we even have elections for them if they aren't given an opportunity to represent us?  Well, okay, they give direction to the implementation of education in their area as well.  However, if you were to ask Education Minister Jeff Johnson, the only direction required should be "Inspiring Education". So again, why do we even elect trustees at all?

Then I recall some of the recent goings on following the latest provincial election. Evan Berger, appointed (without a competition) to a six-figure post in the Alberta Government, despite being dumped by the electorate for a Wildrose MLA in Pat Stier. A police college that was expected to go into Fort Macleod because those citizens elected a mayor that would make it happen got cancelled.  It makes one wonder ... if the PCs are in government, does it matter who we elect?

We want elections to count. We want our voices heard. So we vote for trustees who we think will represent our interests best. We vote for MLAs who we believe will do the same. We vote for mayors who will work to better our communities, but aren't able to anyway because their hands are tied to the Alberta Government's purse-strings.  Our elections don't count.  Considering our elections come up this October, the fact that who I elect doesn't matter bothers me significantly, because I firmly believe we need trustees who are empowered, and councillors and mayors who aren't going to have to worry about the PC boot falling on them.

If we are to see this change, we need to vote for a party who will make elections count. They'll give your vote an opportunity to work. They'll give trustees, councillors and mayors the opportunity to represent our interests to the better of our community.

Do you know of a party who has made it their platform to get elections to count?

This message appeared in the program of the High River and District Lions Music Festival in 2013.

Dear Arts Advocates,

We are pleased you have joined us for this year’s High River and District Lions Music Festival.  We are so pleased to be surrounded by so many passionate musicians, parents, teachers and advocates.  Through an event such as this, it becomes quite obvious the value music has in our society and in our lives.

Thank you to the parents and teachers who advocate for their students so vehemently.  Thank you to the students, for refining your craft and sharing it with us, and for inspiring not only those who follow you, but also those who lead you.  Thank you to the solid foundation of volunteers who organized this festival and made it happen.  Thank you to the Sponsors who put their money where their heart is and by doing so make our Arts community stronger for it.  Perhaps most especially, thank you to the members of our audience, the receptors of our musical communication, for being the most basic and necessary form of Arts Advocates.

True profit in Arts and Culture is not measured in dollars, euros or yen.  It in fact is immeasurable, although its effects can easily be seen in the eyes of every student, teacher or parent who has been exposed to it.  Those who cannot package that experience and sell it have a difficult time understanding what electrifies us.  Yet we press on, knowing that intrinsic value is not always meant to be understood, just experienced.

Music itself is temporal.  Truly emotive music must be performed and experienced; no digital device can emote and express the way a living and breathing musician and audience member can.  With our High River and District Lions Music Festival, we see how that happens in each performance.  It is for this reason we work so hard to produce this festival, to continue to see that every year, and be inspired by it.

It should be noted that we are in desperate need of Arts Advocates, who are willing to put their time where their values already reside.  Our Board is in need of extra support, as in its current state, our Festival organization is not sustainable, and we so desperately want it to be so to the benefit of our young musicians.  As John F. Kennedy said over 50 years ago, “to further the appreciation of culture among all the people, to increase respect for the creative individual, to widen participation by all the processes and fulfillments of art – this is one of the fascinating challenges of these days”.  We ask that you seriously consider helping us take this challenge on.  We need teachers, parents and supporters, young or old, to take this challenge on.  We need you.

Please consider joining us as we seek to provide venue for the inspiration our young musicians offer.  Your life, and ours, will be enriched by your efforts, and you will make a real and lasting impact on the lives of our young musicians as well.

Thank you once again for supporting young musicians simply with your presence, and please continue to share with all those around you how rich you truly are because you have music.

Contrapuntally yours,
Joel Windsor

Click here to see the letter in PDF Format.

Dear Mr. Johnson,

I would like to thank you for your message, but it does raise some concerns for me.  I am concerned about how you collected the email addresses of teachers you sent this letter to.  Certainly you sent this to my school board email account which is public domain, but your reference to a “list” of email addresses concerns me, and makes me wonder how you came to get my email address.  It suggests that you had access to some unknown database of emails and used it without the consent of the owners of those emails.  The suggestion that you are taking ownership of this “list” also concerns me.  I know I certainly did not provide any email address to your office for the purposes of this communication, and had I actually been invited to do so, I would not have provided you with my work email address.

However, in the spirit of keeping a constructive and collegial relationship with you, I would like to invite you to continue to communicate with me.  I would prefer you use my personal email, so as to separate my political discussions from my professional discussions.  I am sending this email using that address.  It is my expectation that you develop a new database where permission has been given to you to communicate with teachers as citizens through private emails, and that I am included in that new database.  It is also my expectation that my privacy is assured, and that no person other than the Minister of Education (or their representative) uses that database, and by extension, my personal email account.

Aside from my concerns of Privacy, I do have some other concerns I wish to raise with you.  First, due to the projected losses in Budget 2013, it seems that every department is looking at cuts, including Education.  It is my view that any budget cuts were fully preventable, and that many budget cuts could be deemed unnecessary should the revenue and tax structure of the province be adjusted or changed, but that is for discussion with the Finance Minister.

It has been rumored that the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement is one of those significant programs facing the chopping block.  I hope that this is indeed just rumor and nothing more.  However, if AISI is cut, many of the province’s best innovations in teaching will disappear with it.  If you truly value the innovations we have brought to classrooms around the province (as you suggested in your email to teachers), you will also value the AISI projects, and continue to fund them.  If you cut AISI, you are looking at as many as 350 teachers losing their jobs.  These teachers were hired specifically for the AISI projects their divisions are undertaking, and therefore have no classrooms waiting for them should their jobs disappear.  AISI funding cuts will also remove Professional Development funding for every other teacher in the province as well.  You can almost guarantee that with that many teaching jobs lost, remaining teachers will not be allocated time to innovate and improve their practice, and with their Professional Development funds drying up, those innovations may all but cease.  This is not the way to encourage our Education system to remain among the best in the world.

Another concern I have is that in your email of December 12, 2013 to board chairs, you seem to be trying to subvert the local bargaining process.  Local bargaining participants are the locals of the Alberta Teachers Association and their respective School Boards.  The Minister has no role in such negotiations, and to insert yourself into such discussions could easily make it difficult for teachers or School Boards to feel as though you are supportive of that process.

Your suggestion that our province should consider merit-pay for teachers is also troublesome.  Being a co-chair of Inspiring Education, where discussions have occurred surrounding incentive pay, you have undoubtedly been exposed to piles of research indicating the ineffective and destructive nature of merit-pay in Education.  Mentioning it now inserts questions that have no place in our Education system.  It is confusing as to why an Education Minister would do this.

With regards to the prescriptive curriculum, you are absolutely right, it does need to be addressed, but this is old news.  Since 2007, your department has been working on updating and improving the Arts Education curriculum.  The new curriculum under the original proposal was set to be rolled out this year, and even though your department went back to the drawing board in 2009, it seems as though you are still at that drawing board.  It used to be that teachers had significant input into curriculum development, but the reason this curriculum review went back to the drawing board is because they were not involved appropriately in the process.  While I agree with your statement that prescriptive curriculum must be reviewed, I would love if that statement were converted into action.  The Arts Education curriculum review needs get back underway again in a fully transparent way, so as to avoid having to go back to the drawing board again, and teachers must have significant involvement in the development of the curriculum, as we are the professionals in both Arts Education content and Arts Education pedagogy.  In many areas, Arts Education is the reason some of our students come to school.  The Arts breathe of life, culture, character, peace and community; all the things in the “unwritten curriculum”.  We need an Arts Education curriculum that provides the time, space and opportunity to explore these aspects of our society and our students’ lives.  By extension, we need our Education Ministry to set curriculum and resource development as a priority to ensure that such a curriculum exists.

I can understand your frustration with the fact that tripartite agreements broke down in November of 2012.  I am quite frustrated with this too.  It seems to me that the ATA proposal was more than reasonable, and considering the pinch you are currently experiencing with a poor projection of Budget 2013, a 0% raise this year and next would look rather favorable (especially when looked at through the lens of our previous contract, which would have teachers receiving an approximately 4% raise this year alone).  However, with the concerns I’ve already mentioned it is understandable how a person can have a difficult time taking you at your word.  You explain that you would like to try to reduce low-importance administrative tasks to deal with teacher workload, but it is hard to believe that will actually happen.  I hope you can understand that, from my perspective, hard caps on time is a perfectly reasonable trade-off for not having to worry about your budget in a time when you have to consider cuts.

However, none of that matters now, as we are in local bargaining, where you can almost be guaranteed that hard caps will be discussed, and so will raises.  As such, your involvement in the bargaining process is not appropriate, no matter how frustrated you are with the past.

I would prefer to work constructively with you.  To that end I ask that you remove yourself completely from the local bargaining process, giving the School Boards the autonomy they have earned through the electoral process, and giving teachers the opportunity to focus on classroom conditions, not politics.  I also ask that you review any consideration you have given to cutting AISI funding, and really evaluate AISI’s long-term benefits.  Lastly, I ask that you re-double or re-triple efforts to improving the curriculum of all Arts Education.  I would be happy to provide you with input at each of step of these processes.

Sincerely,
[Original Signed]
Joel Windsor

You need to care about the Alberta Party's fortunes. Even if you don't agree with their policies, or think they're just another fringe party, the Alberta Party's viability is an indicator of the level of discourse in Alberta politics.

Let's be honest. The Alberta Party is small. It has no MLAs. If it is to be relevant, it is only because the level of discourse in Alberta politics has not improved.

Right now, the Alberta Party's fortunes are entirely dependent on the discourse in other circles of Alberta politics.  As long as the Alberta Party does not direct its own conversation and depends on others, it will be the actions of others that shape its future.

So in 2013, these are the different actions that would need to take place to make the Alberta Party irrelevant in Alberta politics, and the people who will be the biggest indicators (with links to their Twitter feeds);

7) The PCs collaborate. With anyone. The reason why "41 years is enough" is because the PCs sense of self-entitlement is so deep, it has become the culture of Alberta politics. It's a major reason why the Alberta Party started up. If the PCs start making a history of collaboration with others, that self-entitlement culture will dissipate.  The one to watch on this will be Fred Horne (@FredHorneMLA), because the Health portfolio is where the idea of collaboration is most needed, and least likely to occur.

6) The PCs finally produce a transparent, costed and complete budget with realistic projections. Borrowing for the future is not a bad idea when used sparingly, but plunging into debt because you used a pie-in-the-sky projection of revenue is unacceptable. When the PCs stop doing this, that is step 1. Watch Doug Horner (@DougHornerMLA) for this one.

5) The PCs take action on diversifying the Alberta economy. Adam Legge alluded to this need in his article about the need for the Alberta Advantage to evolve. It's something the Alberta Party has been saying for quite some time, and have even come up with some suggestions, such as the creative industries, or reinvesting in agriculture. Alison Redford has proven that she can't steer a ship, so watch the Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk (@LukaszukMLA) for this, if it ever happens.

4) The Wildrose Party manages somehow to shake the chains of the "Lake of Fire" history, and actually makes measurable and progressive changes to their social policy. I have doubts about the measurable changes to their policy. I have even more doubts that, even though they may want to, they will ever shake the unfortunate comments made by a few poorly vetted candidates. Danielle Smith will not be the one to watch for on this, because if there is one person in the Wildrose who fits that bill, it is her. It will be the most conservative and vocal on the Wildrose bench to be the indicator of a shift in social policy, and that person is Rob Anderson (@RAndersonMLA).

3) The Liberal Party sorts out its mess of an organization.  It will do this by admonishing its upper brass for hanging one of its most respected Members of the Legislative Assembly out to dry (see letter written by Todd Van Vliet about Kent Hehr).  It will clear up its marketing issues by actually choosing one of its brands, and ramming it down the throats of Albertans until they know what it means to be Liberal. Interestingly, the one to watch for on this will be Kent Hehr (@kenthehr).  If he continues to fly the Liberal flag (whatever colour they end up choosing), it will either be because he really doesn't believe in collaboration amongst progressives, or because the Liberals have fixed their issues and welcomed him back into the fold.

2) The Alberta New Democrats lose the sarcasm and add a willingness to collaborate. In the last sitting of the Legislature, there were very few comments that I heard during Question Period from the Dippers that were anything different from what the Wildrose came up with, with an added turn-of-phrase or clever quip. It seems odd that with the amount they seem to agree with other opposition parties that they would flatly refuse to collaborate with anyone to make positive change happen. There is nothing wrong with their policies, they are well-formulated, but their approach to doing politics is fundamentally flawed. The guy to watch on this will be Deron Bilous (@DeronBilous), as he is the future of that party, and will be the one to set the standard of behaviour for those who follow him.

1) The Alberta Party doesn't do anything. At all. In order for it to be truly irrelevant, it must never do anything that will make itself visible to the rest of Alberta. It must never make any attempt at providing more definition to its policies. It must never try to listen to Albertans, and create innovative solutions to the problems they hear. Unfortunately, there isn't really any truly visible individual on this, as there is a group of people who will be the indicators on this.  The current board, led by William Munsey as President (@AP_President), will be the identifiers here.

If you see four of these things happen, I would suggest that the Alberta Party would no longer be relevant, and seeing as only one of them is within their own control, their fortunes are very much tied to others.

But in all honesty, I don't see the PCs collaborating, costing out their budget, nor diversifying the economy. I don't see the Wildrose shaking the chains of their past candidates (although I do see them trying). I don't see LiberAlberta sorting out their mess. I also don't see the New Democrats changing their approach.

I have a very big concern, as an Alberta Party Member, about whether or not my party will do anything. They are updating their constitution on February 23, and that will be a big indication to me of the party's directions. I do, of course, have high hopes.

However, 2013 will be the true litmus test for the Alberta Party, and Alberta politics on the whole. Let's hope it starts representing all Albertans, and soon!

A Twitter friend of mine, best known as @ManitobAlex, posted a view that I share with him, but requires more than 140 characters to explain.  I’ll share this tweet later, but suffice it to say it refers to the decorum of the Alberta Legislature, most specifically Question Period.

The behavior in the Legislature has been appalling.  Insults, innuendo, and accusations are viewed as the norm.

Just ask Wildrose MLA Pat Stier of Livingstone-Macleod. In an article printed in the Gateway Grassroots on November 26, Stier explains that even though it looks like the Opposition is “lashing out” or “attacking” the government, that it should be expected in order to hold the government to account.

But what is happening in Question Period is not “lashing out” or “attacking”.  It is daily slander and libel.  And it’s on record.

When it is acceptable for MLAs to interject out of turn, and shout and scoff at other members who already have the floor, or even for an MLA to charge that a Minister is “full of you-know-what” (Heather Forsyth, November 26, 2012, Hansard Page 989), then the party of MLAs represented by such comments lose all their credibility.

When it is acceptable for an MLA to table tweets of citizens neither present nor informed (Richard Starke, November 26, 2012, Hansard Page 993), or to even consider calling other members “bottom-feeders” (Thomas Lukaszuk, November 19, 2012, Hansard Page 698), then the party of MLAs represented by that unprofessional conduct lose their credibility.

Any MLA who chooses to participate in such behavior loses their “Honourable” distinction, and that such a title becomes nothing more than ink on a page.

The common view seems to be that in order to hold either the government or the Opposition to account, you must use such inflammatory language.  However, if you review the number of changes in behavior or policy on either side of the House that have occurred, you will find a whopping zero.

So obviously holding each other to account in this way is either ineffective, or a colossal waste of tax-payer money.

I believe this too, but not because the Alberta Party would bring butterflies and puppies into the legislature (thanks for the idea, @JoeAlbertan, but we would both agree how useless that would be).  I believe this because the Alberta Party, whether on the government side or on the Opposition side, would ask tough questions without the accusations or insults.  You can get tough on election finance without calling each other criminals.  You can get tough on senior’s care without calling into question another person’s grooming habits.  You can discuss difficult budget questions without dropping F-bombs (Premier Alison Redford today).

The way it should look is an MLA would question a Minister on a particular aspect of governance, and get a well-reasoned non-insulting response.  The MLA would then ask if the Minister would consider their alternative, and the Minister would say yes or no with reasoning.  What happens following this should only be for clarity, or to provide avenues for solutions to be implemented.

This would mean that any particular issue of governance would come to Question Period once.  But it requires appropriate input from both the government side AND the Opposition side.

You can scoff at this idea, saying that it would be a pie-in-the-sky, supremely ideological concept.  Perhaps it would be.  But if you try to argue that it would be ineffective, you should keep in mind that it would be no moreso than what currently exists.

Why don’t MLAs of today try this Alberta Party concept?  The worst that could happen is that something could actually get done.

It's similar to "liking" your own Facebook status, or laughing at your own joke, when nobody else does.

The High River Times printed in yesterday's paper an article about the Alberta Liberals efforts in touting their new brand, or wordmark, or whatever they wish to call it.  It stated that people (all 30 of them that came out to hear about it) were generally pleased with the brand.  Had they known how the green logo came about, they would likely change their viewpoint to match that of a number of Alberta Liberal Party insiders.

Jody MacPherson, former Alberta Liberal Party VP of Communications and President, raised the alarm over how grassroots the organization truly was.  In the same Executive meeting the logo was endorsed, the decision to not cooperate with other political parties was made, contrary to the wishes of the general membership of the party.

Alex MacDonald, an Alberta Liberal policy wonk, explained to a number of Twitter followers, including blogger Dave Cournoyer that the new brand was not focus-group tested.  It was just the brainchild of the Executive, who approved it quickly like a fashion model giddy with a new Versace.

And the President, Gerald McEachern, touts the party's grassroots and transparent nature?

A party whose Executive flouts the wishes of the general membership, and then does a massive rebranding without public consultation sounds neither transparent nor grassroots to me.

And with the backdoor decisions made by the PCs of late, we know that we can't expect transparent, accountable grassroots policy from them.

The Wildrose and the Alberta Party are the only two parties who can truly lay claim to representing average Albertans; the Wildrose from within its party membership, and the Alberta Party through its Big Listens.  There are some fundamental differences in how the two groups work, but they both develop their viewpoints from a grassroots base.

If the people of Highwood are to truly value grassroots politics, I hope they seriously consider where examples of grassroots actually exist.  Explore the Wildrose and the Alberta Party, and support the party that best represents your views.

And I would be happy to answer questions about the Alberta Party.

Obviously the election campaign would have looked much different had the parties not had any corporate backing. Removing corporate backing would be to no party's benefit. Unless the party didn't even bother starting with it.

Imagine a party that doesn't pander to corporations. That party will only seek to connect to the individuals that could actually vote for them. Some people say I have a vivid imagination, but I hope this one is not so far-fetched as to never see it happen.

We've heard the outcry from opposition parties looking for electoral finance reform. However, if you truly want to make a difference, do as Ghandi suggested. Be the change. Any party who truly believes in the need for a ban on corporate donations needs to start with themselves, and not accept corporate donations. Not now, not ever.

Honestly, it's not the only change in our electoral financing that require change. We also need fixed election dates, not this ridiculous 90-day window thing. Along with those fixed election dates should be fixed MLA raises. Any raises that MLAs vote for could not apply to them, but must apply to the next group of MLAs. It provides stability of funding, and incentive to work hard so they can come back in 4 years.

We also need to get rid of the first-past-the-post system in favor of a system that makes every vote count, not just half of them. I know that my vote didn't elect my current MLA (Danielle Smith), nor did it have much influence on it except to say "I'm in the 48% of my constituency who didn't want you." If we had proportional representation across the province, we'd be looking at 38 PC seats, 30 WRP seats, 9 seats for each Liberal and NDP, and 1 Alberta Party seat – a minority government. Given that only 57% of Albertans voted, PCs really only won the support of one-quarter of Albertans. We could easily assume that more than 25% of Albertans' votes would actually be heard if we had proportional representation, or some model thereof.

Alberta's current electoral system is built for controversy. It's built so that the tail can wag the dog, so that issues that matter to the governance of the province get marginalized while the media buzzes around the latest filibuster. Even worse, the Speaker, thus far, seems to have little interest in keeping party politics out of the legislature, meaning that we actually delay even more productivity in the government's operations. If the Speaker did care, he wouldn't have waited four days to tell MLAs spouting off party rhetoric to shove it.

It's time to fix it.

And the party that will actually have a chance to do so is the one who starts modeling it now. I am calling for all parties to support significant electoral reform, not just electoral finance reform. Of course, I have a political party of preference, but if every party jumps on this, it will guarantee the change we need.

However, you can't just say you support it. You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Now, which political party will stop accepting corporate donations first, proving themselves to really be for the people?