It perplexes me that a pumpkin in the place of popular Premier Prentice piques people.  Perhaps the public has a pinhole perspective on political participation.

I worked on that all day.

So skip the alliteration - I really am baffled when people show indignation at the leader of the PC Party of Alberta not showing up to a forum.  They have no good reason to show surprise and disappointment.

This is the norm for the Mr. Prentice.  Voters should have seen it coming.

In August of 2014, he was invited to the Alberta Teachers' Association's Summer Conference.  He didn't show, despite a carrot being offered to get him there.  Thomas Lukaszuk got the stage, and Ric McIver at least made a token appearance.  Granted, there was no pumpkin there that time.

Prentice's reward: the Premiership of Alberta.

What else could he have possibly learned?  He certainly didn't learn that if you don't show up, you don't get elected.  He learned that if he stayed away, he would get elected.  So he did.

And a pumpkin took his place.  I'll bet that pumpkin doesn't get elected.

Maybe he thought the pumpkin would represent him well at a forum sponsored by the Alberta Society for the Visually Impaired.

Prentice was given affirmation of that lesson learned during the PC leadership election itself.  He was elected with less than half the votes cast in the 2011 leadership race, and less than one-sixth of the votes on the second ballot in 2006.  Therefore he learned that if voters don't show up, he gets elected.

So what better way to get into office than to disappoint voters to the point of apathy?

He's counting on voters being thick.  He might be right.

I can only guess that the indignation I see on social media suggests voters didn't see it coming, that they fully expected Prentice to show up.

Mind you, if voters really are thick, it's probably because they keep building up the callus from banging their heads against the wall.

I have hope that voters aren't that thick, though.  After all, they were prepared enough for an absent Premier that they had a pumpkin ready to take his place.

So voters, if you aren't thick, then you shouldn't be surprised.  And should he be elected, you shouldn't be surprised if he doesn't show up to Question Period and lets his Deputy Premier field the tough questions for him.

Sound familiar?  The only thing missing from this prediction is the margarita in Palm Springs.

And, voters, if you aren't thick, then you'll understand why an absent Premier is not a good thing.  And you'll vote for someone who shows up.

So who showed up ready to listen to the constituents at the Calgary Foothills forum?

• Jennifer Burgess – NDP.
• Polly Knowlton Cockett – Green Party.
• Michelle Glavine - Alberta Party.
• Kathy Macdonald - Wildrose Party.
• Robert Prcic – Liberal Party.

I know who I'm partial to, but the point I'm trying to get across is that voters should not let themselves appear as thick; they should be well-informed, and make the best decision for themselves going forward.  So check these candidates out.

I will push one bias though.  I'd rather voters vote for a person, not a pumpkin.

Yesterday, the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta's leader, our unelected Premier, announced a plan to invest $2 billion in school construction projects over the next ten years.

If we ignore the fact that many of the projects announced were already announced once, in some cases twice, I mean thrice, and cancelled or postponed at least as many times, then this is good news.

If we don't ignore that fact, then it's still just wind on a brick wall.  The PC's may huff and puff, but in the end, there wasn't a school to blow down.

But let's look positively at this announcement for a second.  Finally, there is a plan to construct the space that we need for our growing population.  Hopefully each school is going where 10-years-in-the-future Alberta needs it.

But there is something missing in the announcement; the explanation that the PCs are actually using binary math to calculate the real cost.

You see, $2 billion actually equals $10 billion.

(For those who don't understand binary, check my addendum at the bottom for an explanation)

Let me explain why $10 billion in particular, though.

You see, the $2 billion simply announces the construction of 230 empty buildings/modernizations.  It costs a great deal more to actual turn those buildings into service centres of education.  It takes lots of people (teachers and support staff), resources (textbooks, computers, etc.) and services (electricity, heating, internet, etc.) to operate them.

Alberta's operating budget for Education in 2014 is approximately $6.75 billion.  If the province is building an additional 230 schools, that means they'll be adding approximately 10.5% of the current number of schools.  Logic then dictates that it would require an additional 10.5% of the current operating budget to make these schools work.  That would be an additional $710 million required in the operating budget.

Don't forget, the plan is to take place over the next ten years.  That's $7.1 billion extra not currently included in the budget.  Account for inflation, and suddenly that $2 billion promise ends up adding to over $10 billion.

Would the expected increase in population by 1 million help take care of that burden?  Perhaps.  Is the above example a little simplistic?  Perhaps.  However, it makes clear that simply building schools requires far more commitment than the PCs have undertaken.

You see, each Albertan would have to pay more taxes to cover that commitment.  In order to fund healthcare and other social services to similar levels and similar growth while covering this commitment, the PCs would have to increase taxes by about 2%.  That doesn't sound like much, until you hear that such an increase would be the difference between an average of about $10,000 being increased to $11,000.  For those on a living wage, $1,000 is a lot of money.

Keep in mind, those simplistic calculations are only representative if every Albertan pays taxes.  Don't forget, our kids don't really pay taxes, so the taxes have to be distributed over fewer Albertans.

But such an increase wasn't included in the announcement.  Nor was discussion on changing how we collect royalty income from primary resources.  Nor was there any announcement of some new magical income source for the province (mind you, we are in a by-election, and the PCs love announcements, it could come any day now).

So even if I am optimistic, and truly believe the schools would be built under a PC government, I have no clue how they plan on paying for the buildings and the stuff to go in them.

Thank goodness I'm optimistic about something else; an Alberta Government operated by someone other than the PCs.

Which leads me to the Wildrose Party, as they are the heavy favourites to form the next government.  I am reminded of an announcement they made recently about Education.  Actually, come to think of it, it was less than a week before the PC's announcement.  It's value ... $2 billion dollars.  Announced during a by-election.

Is there an echo in here?

As for the costing of this brilliant plan (I say brilliant, because it really is a good idea to inject that money into Education, regardless of who has the idea), again we are lacking in details.  The timeline is more aggressive than the PC timeline, going for four years instead of ten.  That means their $2 billion announcement becomes only a $5 billion commitment with the operating costs included.

But in four years, we aren't expected to have 1 million new Albertans.  We're expected to have more around 400,000 new Albertans.  That means more of a burden would be downloaded to Albertan taxpayers.  Except that the Wildrose are adamant that taxes not be changed, so they have to find the money elsewhere.  I'm not the first to realize this, Luke Fevin pointed it out clearly after the Wildrose release.

I think putting $2 billion into building schools is brilliant, regardless of who actually enacts it, and especially if they are placed in such a way as to encourage the development of communities.  I think the commitment to operating these empty buildings should be expressed, and so far it hasn't.

So now I must express my optimistic frustration.  I know a party who not only has a plan to fix the infrastructure crisis in Education, but has that plan costed, as well.  However, that party hasn't had the opportunity to have that plan brought forth to their membership, and so hasn't been able to publicize it the way they want, which is hard for me as someone who has worked on it.  So I have to rely on "just trust me, they have a plan, and it includes how to pay for it."  Knowing that plan exists has me very optimistic, but knowing how hard it is for people to trust politicians, especially those who just say "just trust me", has me very frustrated.

So let me put it this way.  You know what you'll get from the PCs.  The Wildrose have explained their position as well, yet it still lacks the detail necessary to trust it.

You might not know Greg Clark or the Alberta Party yet.  But at the very least, I hope you're optimistic.

BINARY EXPLANATION: By referencing binary, I probably just geeked myself out a bit.  Computers, who work in binary, only work with OFFs or ONs, Trues or Falses, represented as zeros and ones.  In order to represent something else, you have to combine zeros and ones, so binary systems use 10 to represent the number two)

I spoke to a former PC supporter recently who voted for the new Premier.  I've also read a blog by a PC supporter as well.  Both indicated that the new Premier has given them hope that the PC party can lead the province again.  These responses, only two weeks into Jim Prentice's Premiership, lead me to ask the question;

Do you like fishing with knots and kinks in your line?

Me, I'd prefer to fish with a good straight line.  I have a better chance of getting the job done without the line breaking ... again.

Make no mistake, anyone who believes in the PC party's ability to govern is fishing with knots in their line.  And there are a lot of knots.

Prentice was silent in his first week as Premier.  He spent that entire week loosening knots so that he could unravel them in public in his second week, as a way of saying "look, I'm fixing things!"

But a trust is broken.  The line is kinked.  That makes the line weak.  And Alberta is a big fish.

Not only that, but he has ignored some fairly significant knots that remain, and have no glimmer of hope that they be untied.

The Disaster Recovery Program, or DRP (which in flood-affected communities is now a three-letter swear word) is not even on Prentice's radar.  He mentioned nothing of it to Diana McQueen, who is now the fourth minister in 14 months to be in charge of the program.  The program is in shambles, and hundreds of people still remain displaced from their homes.

It was one place former Premier Alison Redford tried to keep the line straight, by telling flood victims that they would be helped to full recovery.  Then other ministers like Doug Griffiths, Ken Hughes, and lastly Greg Weadick tied it into the DRP knot.  And this isn't just some shoe-tying knot, this is a Gordian knot, and Prentice is no Alexander the Great.

Another knot made bigger since the 2012 election was patronage appointments.  Starting with Evan Berger, who was ousted in the last election but given a sweet management position in the Agriculture Ministry, this knot was made bigger by the appointments of Stephen Mandel in Health and Gordon Dirks in Education.  Nothing suggests that Mandel and Dirks can't do a good job, it's just that no Albertan chose them.  Prentice might be able to untie the patronage knot, but that kink will always be in the PC line, making voters wonder if they just can't see the trough for the pigs.

A kink sits where the government aircraft knot once sat.  Just because government officials can't take advantage of planes anymore doesn't mean there aren't other ways.  That kink can still knot up again, but it might not be airplanes doing it.

The entire Education portfolio is tied up in knot after knot.  Former Education Minister Jeff Johnson started by bargaining in bad faith (knot 1), compromising teachers' private emails (knot 2), legislating instead of negotiating (knot 3), trumpeting an uninformed taskforce on teaching excellence (knot 4), usurping teacher conduct review unnecessarily (knot 5), and attempting to force Boards to provide information that had no chance of being compiled properly (knot 6).

Prentice had a chance to start loosening these knots back in August at a gathering of some of the most influential teachers in the province.  He skipped it.  Instead, he appointed someone nobody had the opportunity to speak to about Education.  To teachers, that equates to appointing someone with no intention of listening.  Teachers will say they hope that's not the case, but they have no proof.  Not only that, but Jeff Johnson was given another portfolio, but rather than the defenceless youth, now he's in charge of the defenceless seniors.

Prentice also made an attempt at untying a knot when he announced the opening of four starter schools in Calgary.  But have you ever tried to untie a knot using mittens?  That is in effect what he's doing when he builds makeshift schools with no gyms, libraries, music rooms or other specialty spaces.  Taxpayer dollars will be spent on sub-par temporary buildings that will direct resources away from the permanent facilities that are meant to replace them.  That's like using 4-pound test line to fish for tuna ... after dark.

Am I taking the metaphor too far when I say schools of fish will never be caught with this tangled line?Albertans need a hook.  Albertans need a straight line.  And Albertans need a strong angler to reel us in.

The PCs have no hook.  Their line is so kinked and knotted it looks like it's been braided by a four-year-old.  And Prentice is no fisherman.

But let's be honest, it's been in need of a defibrillator for quite some time now.

A week and a half ago, I went to a meeting that discussed the downtown High River of old, the opportunities that the flood presented, and the vision for its future.  Most of the attendees were either downtown business folk, people who have been advising such as myself, or area planners and politicians.  The conversation was frank.

First in the presentation, a slide that showed High River's downtown from decades passed.  Even then it looked more alive than it has ever looked in my near-decade of living here.

Then a photo of 4th Avenue, which looked, as our mayor put it, like a truck lot.  Angle parking all the way down the one-way street.  Storefronts were not visible, nor were shoppers.  Sidewalks were narrow enough that the event-planners rule of being able to accommodate two wheelchairs was barely accommodated, if it was at all.

This is what made downtown High River dead.  People came into town, parked in front of the store they wanted to visit, walked in, walked out, and drove away.  People were not encouraged to walk around downtown much unless they were a visitor coming to check out the murals, which are in desperate need of some resuscitation as well.

This is not what makes a community.  Communities in the physical sense of the word are areas where people gather and commune, sharing the same space for similar reasons.  In the case of downtown, those reasons should be to operate a business, to participate in events and functions, and to have a place to gather and socialize.  In High River, that last point is missing not just in downtown, but in the entire community.  It is for this reason that downtown High River is dying.

Drive through it now, and you'll see that it's dead.  A select few businesses remain open.  Frankly, the 50's style restaurant is likely doing relatively decent business right now because it is located within a stone's throw of the Disaster Recovery office.

Landlords and owners are wondering why they should feel any pressure to rebuild it right now?  It didn't have a significantly large economic function before, it certainly wasn't the town's economic engine (mind you, if it was, then that is a pretty significant indicator that a reboot is required).

Well at that meeting I found out why.  The current town council is applying a significant jolt of energy to get the heart of High River beating again.

The images and descriptions that followed, honestly, scared me.  They discussed Phase 1, which included adjustments to Macleod Trail, 3rd and 4th Avenues.  Parking in these areas will be reduced to a fraction of what existed before the flood and exists right now.  Instead, sidewalks will be widened significantly, any parking that does exist will be parallel, and storefronts will be visible.  Even the roadways will not be paved as they had been before, but will rather have a "walking path" feel to it.  4th Avenue will easily be converted from a road with just enough space for cars to drive through in both directions into a place for any form of community fair, such as the popular Show 'n' Shine.  I was reminded of Stephen Avenue Mall in Calgary, but with a much more small-town atmosphere.  This is a complete and total change from what High River looks like now.  The magnitude of the change itself is scary.

But after thinking about it for a bit, I found myself being won over by the concept.  Imagine a space in High River already built for outdoor community events that will help drive the economy because it is amongst the small businesses in town.  Imagine that the businesses create their own small events because they have the latitude and real estate to do so both inside their building and on the street in front of it.  Imagine a "High River Experience" bringing people off of Highway 2, and not just McDonald's or Tim Horton's.

I am not going to give away all the details.  Honestly, townspeople should come out to the public information sessions and open houses to discuss it with the people planning it.  However, there are a couple of things we should be careful of when it comes to this drastic change.

My first concern; we do not live in the Field of Dreams.  Just because you build it doesn't mean people will come.  There has to be a reason for people to visit.  I'd like to say the "Mom and Pop Shops" will be the reason, but the truth is that it won't be.  This is why, at the meeting, I shouldered up to the town's mayor, gestured at the artist's conception of the future 4th Avenue, and said "I see an Arts Facility complete with theatre, public art gallery and classrooms going right there!"  (To my great delight, he said "I agree")  People need to have a reason to come to downtown to check it out.  If the design is done properly and the businesses are truly as on board as they suggest, then those things combined will keep people wanting to come back.

My second concern; public buy-in, especially when they realize they're going to have to walk a block or two to get to their favourite local shop.  High River has lived in a state of under-exertion for a couple of decades at least, now.  Thankfully, I share the mayor's viewpoint on this.  When asked at the meeting about handicapped individuals, that concern was addressed and evidence that they had been considered and accommodated was in the presentation.  When asked at the meeting about people who don't want to have to walk very far in the dead cold of February to get to a store they need to visit, mayor Craig Snodgrass made a comment that vaulted him near the top of my list of favoured politicians: "thicker coats and liquor".  This tongue-in-cheek comment did not tell me that he would endorse more bars to move into downtown; it told me that High Riverites will no longer have the option of being idle.  I don't think that this will be as difficult of a sell these days as it would have been a year ago, but there will be some people not pleased with this idea.

My final concern; parking.  The one untied loose end discussed at the meeting was parking.  Considering they are planning on reducing downtown's parking by a minimum of 50 spaces, this is a considerable loose end.  Thankfully they are hoping to come upon some arrangement with the real estate historically owned by Canadian Pacific Railways.  I'll buy into this arrangement, but really hope this loose end is tied up quickly.

So High River's downtown is dead.  The Town Council is giving it a much needed jolt to get its heart beating again.  We as High Riverites must encourage them not only to give it the jolt it needs, but to keep working to help it live, thrive, and grow.  Council needs to deal with the issues of the Field of Dreams, public buy-in, and parking.  Let's push Council to deal with these issues, and give them the high five they deserve for figuring out how to get the heart beating again.

We've lost focus. We are talking about the wrong things.

Don't get me wrong, the things we are talking about need to be discussed.  Raj Sherman is exactly right asking about how contracts are being distributed.  Danielle Smith is exactly right to call for a public inquiry.  The PCs are right to get started on mapping and mitigations, they just don't know how to do it.

None of this matters to many Albertans right now.

We must focus on the disaster at hand, and get the recovery taken care of.  The PCs aren't getting that job done, but they are right to focus on it.

There are still hundreds of people, maybe thousands, who have no idea where their insurance coverage stops and the Disaster Recovery Program starts.  This is not specifically a High River problem, even though they dominate the news.  There are people in Exshaw, Bragg Creek, Medicine Hat, Black Diamond and Calgary still in limbo waiting for answers from their insurance company.  Companies are not necessarily at fault; they are trying to protect their bottom line, and they do so by saying "the Disaster Recovery Program will cover that for you".  But the job of the government is to protect their citizens, and they aren't doing it.

There are still hundreds of people who also have no place to live.  Again, this is not specifically a High River problem, although most of the people in this boat live there.  However, there are those who live in Exshaw, Bragg Creek, Medicine Hat and Black Diamond who, because they weren't in the floodplain but were rather in the flood fringe or no zone at all, are unable to relocate.  Some of those people are unable to build on the former site because, as could be expected with flood waters, the ground their home used to be on is now very far downstream.  Soil contamination is preventing homeowners from returning.

An exemplar; George Lane Park, a beautiful park and campground in downtown High River and just on the flip side of a berm from the river, was heavily flooded; at least 6 inches of silt covered the land.  Today, grass grows through the silt.

However, if you drive through the northeast end of the town, almost 60 days after the flood, no grass grows.  Not even a weed.

You cannot rebuild a home where grass won't even grow, and expect families to let their kids play there.

The Town of High River's Downtown Core is nothing but empty shell after empty shell.  If small business doesn't come back right away, there won't be a reason to rebuild High River.

Residents across southern Alberta know they need help transferring from insurance coverage to Disaster Recovery Funding, and many also know they need help determining how to live anywhere when they can't rebuild where they are.  And all they are hearing from opposition parties is stuff they couldn't care less about ... yet.

So congratulations PCs, you are focusing on the right thing.  However, that's where my congratulations stops.

Under the leadership of Doug Griffiths (not Alison Redford, she has been woefully silent on everything), we have seen flood victims treated like children under his "father knows best" mentality.

At a meeting in High River, Griffiths' numerous "I know how you feel" statements showed he knows anything but how High Riverites feel.

When the official Disaster Recovery Program email is shown to have an autoresponder that says "we will not respond to your email" and is admonished for it, Griffiths responds with "It was fixed already. Try to keep up".  Yes father, I will understand that even though you did wrong, I should not expect an apology, but rather will be scolded like a child.

My favorite Griffiths quote (insert sarcastic tone here): "taxpayers cannot be on the hook just because you're scared."  I now understand that being scared precludes me from being a taxpayer, thanks for the education, Mr. Griffiths.

The problem is that when Griffiths sees a gymnasium stuffed to the point of being called an illegal assembly full of people who are trying to tell him his government is not doing enough, he patronizes them instead of coming up with solutions.

The solutions are easy.  They are in the best interests of PCs, just to get the mob to be quiet, if not to actually help them.

Fund an ombudsman who will help individuals with their insurance, and once they're insurance is completed, have that same ombudsman guide them into the Disaster Recovery Process.  The sooner people get into the DRP system, the less Mr. Griffiths will have to hear gripe from flood victims because, get this, he has actually helped them.

The only reason the government would not do this is because of the fear of the cost of paying these ombudsmen.  I suggest spending a comparatively small amount on the salaries of these ombudsmen, as it will almost definitely save the DRP administrative costs, and will streamline the process, making it more cost effective and efficient.

Adjust the Disaster Recovery Program criteria to help those where rebuilding is simply not an option.  Griffiths has already explained that each DRP claim will be treated on an individual basis.  Why not just tell these people that if rebuilding is not an option, steps will be taken to either make it an option, or to relocate.  Then Mr. Griffiths will not have to hear gripe from these flood victims because, get this, he has actually helped them.

The only reason the government won't do this is because they are afraid that once they start relocating even just one resident, they've set a precedent.  It's a more dangerous precedent to make residents feel as though they have no choice but to walk away from everything they've worked for.  Once you do that, the government is going to need to start increasing funding for homeless shelters, because that's where all these flood victims will end up.

Do whatever it takes to get small and mid-sized businesses back in their buildings.  Intervene on rental/landlord disputes for a temporary time, and get the repair process expedited in business-places immediately.  Help retail outlets purchase stock right away, they are already passed the point of ordering for Christmas.  Do what it takes.

The only reason the government hasn't done this, as Doug Griffiths has explained, is that they are still focused on residents, and they'll get to businesses later.  Not good enough.  No business means no residents.  He of all people should know this.

It has become obvious that fatherly Doug Griffiths will not listen to the children. He can't see the forest for the floodwaters.

It also became obvious long ago that the Associate Ministers in charge of Recovery and Reconstruction are not in the position to make these decisions, being relegated by the father to the back of the room or even further outside the hall, as was the case with Rick Fraser in High River last week.

So where is the leader of our province in all this?  Nowhere.  She doesn't run this province.  Even when she said "we will return all to what it once was", the rest of her caucus isn't following through with it.  She is not leading.  Such a shame that she isn't even willing to consider what her late mother's neighbours are suggesting.  Even her constituents in Calgary-Elbow can't get in touch with her.  I wonder if the PCs will be willing to allow a non-leader to allow the caucus to continue to run amok?

I hope she steps up to the plate.  She needs to show up to her own party.  But she needs to do it now, because we're starting to lose focus on the needs of right now.

The floods in late June of 2013 were unlike anything our province has every experienced before.  It should come as no surprise that challenges and conflict arise when our livelihoods are at risk.  The most recent communication between residents of High River and Heather Mack, Director of Government Relations with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, received from @okotoksNow is a great example of one set of challenges that we must face.

Insurance Providers are expected to be, in the common vernacular, "the good guys".  We rely upon our Insurance Provider in times when we need it most, and we expect them to come and "save the day".  When this doesn't happen, it is no surprise we leave the interaction very wounded.

It is obvious from this communication and the nature of the forum at the Flood Information Night on July 18, 2013, and many other meetings I’ve had since across Southern Alberta, that there are some very wounded people as a result of confusion with regards to insurance.  There is a lot of uncertainty as to what is supposed to be covered, what impact independent adjusters have, why some receive coverage and others don't, what procedures are appropriate for adjusting a claim, and other issues of communication.

The Alberta Party endeavours to focus on common sense solutions, and believes it can govern this way.  One such solution that would best serve Albertans is to appoint an independent Event-Specific Ombudsman, paid for through the Disaster Recovery Program, selected by the Superintendent of Insurance in Alberta, and given a strict set of parameters in their job description.  Those parameters would include meeting with those who experience confusion with their insurance policies and helping to educate those individuals as to what their policies cover; assisting individuals in claims appeals processes where necessary; educating and advising individuals as to what the next steps should be once the claim process has been completed (whether covered or not) including Disaster Recovery Program applications.

Individuals with insurance questions remain in limbo.  Any effort the Alberta Government makes in helping individuals through the insurance process and into the Disaster Recovery Program processes means less limbo for residents.  It also means less overall cost on the Disaster Recovery Program; the sooner residents receive the assistance they need, the less cost they will need to incur to return to normal.  The cost of employing an Event-Specific Ombudsman would easily be made up in the savings in reconstruction, should that reconstruction happen sooner rather than later when the destruction is even worse.  It only makes sense to help this process get completed quickly.

Certainly changes to the Insurance industry is not a common sense solution. While competition within the industry is one reason why there are such varied issues, it is also a way of ensuring the best services are available to Albertans.  An insurance company who treats its clients poorly and does not make appropriate coverage affordable will not likely be retained following this flood.  What is needed, therefore, is a method of speeding the recovery process.

Flood victims need to get through this recovery process quickly.  Their livelihood and Alberta's economy depends upon it.  It is easily seen in the best interests of residents, Insurance Providers and the Province to go through these processes quickly and efficiently.  The Alberta Government is in the perfect position to make this happen.

As a member of the Alberta Party in the Highwood constituency, I have written this letter to our Premier, the Honourable Alison Redford, asking her to work with the Insurance Industry by funding the appointment of an Event-Specific Ombudsman to effectively complete the insurance claim process for those affected by the flood.  This will help the Alberta Government show to Albertans how much they truly value rebuilding Alberta after the flood.

I'll give the Alberta Government credit for being forward thinking.  However, they are leaving a lot of Albertans behind in the present while they focus on the future.

This is not unusual, as our province is dealing with chronic symptoms of this approach.  There are homeless people being left behind, mentally ill not being cared for, and senior citizens being ignored.  As many of us have heard before, the quality of a society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable.  Today's example of vulnerable Albertans being left behind are those still trying to get back into their homes after the 2013 flood, 32 days later.

This past weekend, the Government of Alberta announced a volunteer panel of experts in flood mitigation who would work to come upon solutions for the future.  Their intent is to take into account the knowledge, experience, and opinion of everyday Albertans.  This is a fantastic concept, and I'll congratulate the Alberta Government on this project, as it is necessary for us to move forward.

However, the Government is missing out on one key thing; flood mitigation does not matter in the slightest in the minds of Albertans who can't even get into their homes as a result of this flood.

I thought the Government already set themselves out a framework of priorities for response to this flood.  It seems they forgot them already.

For many Albertans in High River, the Siksika Nation, Exshaw and Calgary (among other places, I'm sure), they are still in the "Stabilization" phase of that framework; some could even argue they are still in the "Response" phase.  This panel is only applicable to the "Intermediate Recovery", arguably the "Long Term Recovery" phases.

Yes we need to discuss how to prevent this from happening again to the best of our ability.  But not at the expense of those who are waiting to be helped back into their homes right now.

These people need answers to questions of what they should do now.  These questions aren't "what should we do in the future to prevent this?"  These questions are "what do I need to do to be able to go home?"

A lady at a Flood Information Night in High River called the residents who haven't gotten home yet the "sacrificial lambs".  Announcing a flood mitigation panel is not likely to change that viewpoint.

Please share this Open Letter addressed to Rick Fraser.  These are the questions we need answers to immediately, before anybody should care about flood mitigation for the future.

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

Calgary is all abuzz with the Canadian Progressive Conservatives selection of Joan Crockatt to represent their party in the Calgary Centre byelection. Many are expounding the "slam dunk" victory long before the byelection even gets underway. This is a marketing ploy for the Conservatives. They are marketing Voter Apathy.The Conservatives and their supporters want a low voter turnout. They want to make it so that the only people who vote are the 800 who just voted for Crockatt. In fact, they are counting on it.

And why not? It follows along the same line of contempt the Conservatives have shown for democracy this year. They attacked democracy with their omnibus budget bill, bringing sweeping changes to many laws without the appropriate opportunity for parliamentary review. Why not attempt to malign democracy by convincing non-supporters to simply give up?

Voter Apathy is a plague of our politics. It is perpetrated, as expected, by those with the power. We, as voters, must ignore this marketing ploy. We must not relinquish the right of governing to any individual. We must make each candidate earn their right to represent us.

Any provincial party that claims to value democracy would not lend themselves to this marketing ploy. Not one party, the Alberta Progressive Conservatives, the Wildrose, the Alberta Liberals, the Alberta NDP, nor the Alberta Party, should ever support Voter Apathy without due recourse.

Remember those who would attack democracy by predicting "slam dunks", and hold them accountable.