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 learned my lesson.

In 2011, I was duped.  I obtained (they were free) a membership in the Liberal Party of Alberta.  I voted for who I thought would be a great leader.

But all the other free members voted for Raj.

It took me too long to figure out what I'd done wrong.  I even purchased a membership in the PC party.  I voted for who I thought would be a great leader, not once, but twice.  It was at that point I finally figured it out.

51% of the PC members, including the temporary ones, voted for Alison on the third ballot.

This is why I refuse to get involved in this "elected Premier" campaign.  I have no business voting for the leader of a party I don't believe in.

That would be like me voting for the Prime Minister of Australia.  Tony Abbott would not be happy, and neither would the rest of his Liberal Party.

Yet the PCs seem quite happy to hand their entire future over to people who have no vested interest in their policies or beliefs, not once (as with Alison's election), but twice (with either Jim, Tom or Ric as their carrots for the disinterested masses).

Is it because they have no policies or beliefs, and therefore don't care who steps in?

They sell (unless you run into Jim) memberships with the promise that the new members get to pick the next Premier, and that it's their civic duty to do so.  What a great lie!  And it's an amazing fundraiser for the PCs - $10 times even 1000 new members equals a tour bus for the first week of a provincial election.

It is not your civic duty to vote for the leader of a party you don't believe in.  It's your civic duty to vote in a general election for the person you want to represent you.  That's what I did in 2012.

Granted, I still didn't get who I wanted, but the Alberta Party is making great strides to change that, and I believe they will even do it in the next by-election.

Certainly, I have no interest in funding even an air freshener in the next PC campaign bus.  Febreeze won't be able to cover up their issues.  They will not see a single red cent from me.

So if you don't hold a PC membership, don't worry about your civic duty.  If you voted in the 2012 general election, you still retain your right to complain.

But if you happen to hold one of the PC memberships, think long and hard about the value of your vote, especially if you're a "soft" PC, or not even a PC supporter at all.  Keep in mind that we do this all over again in as few as 16 months, but that time you actually get to vote for a party you believe in.

Then do what you believe in.  It will tell me a lot about you.

Me, I believe in voting for someone who will represent me.  The PCs stopped doing that a long time ago.

For those of you who don't know, "tatlo" is the number 3 in Tagalog.

Parents should be freaking out right about now.  Even though we’ve had issues including Jeff Johnson’s insertion into Alberta Education, and the calculated release of the grossly uninformed Task Force on Teacher Excellence, the reason parents should have first started freaking out was introduced to us even earlier.  As one very prolific Edmonton Journal columnist calls it, this reason is/was the “Great Canadian Math Debate”.

Since Ralph Klein was Premier, every four years Education, and particularly Teachers, get attacked.  Interestingly enough, it always happens to land at exactly the halfway point between elections.  Two years after the 2008 election, teachers were in a battle to get the raise they were guaranteed in a province-wide agreement led by the Premier Ed Stelmach.  Then as they approached election season, the government offered some concessions to Teachers in hopes that they have a short memory.  Unfortunately, Teachers do.  Two years after the 2012 election, again Teachers are in a battle against the government, and now the battle even includes the Official Opposition.  What concessions should we expect from the government during the 2016 election that they won’t claw back in 2018?  Is the Wildrose, widely viewed as the next government, any different when they have joined in the attack themselves?

First, Dr. Nhung Tran-Davies expressed a concern in a poorly-worded change.org petition (I originally dismissed it based on this very issue).  It was rooted in the idea that Alberta students perform poorly on international tests in mathematics.  It got a little attention.  Then the Wildrose adopted it for talking points, Dr. Tran-Davies got an editor to correct (although not completely) the petition, and it developed into a “debate” pressed by the Official Opposition and a couple of very outspoken media personalities.  The points of the "debate"; that the Alberta Government is trying to shift all of Education to an unproven “discovery” approach and is forcing instruction to ignore “basics” in math.

"Discovery" and "debate" are in quotation marks, because in actual fact both terms are misleading.  The term "discovery" means to learn something for the first time.  At which point, all learning is "discovery" learning.  The term we should be using is "inquiry", which is more about investigating for understanding.  The term "debate" connotes dialogue.  There isn't much of that happening, mostly it's just a bunch of announcements of opinions.  I should note that this blog does not constitute a dialogue, and therefore doesn't contribute much to the idea of "debate" either, but when in Rome...

The myths involved in this “debate” are plentiful.  The problem is, nobody is debunking them completely (although some have approached it).  So here is my attempt, finally, at doing just that.

Myth: 
The title of “Dr.” means that you are an expert in everything.
Fact:
Dr. Nhung Tran-Davies is up-front about pointing out that she is no mathematician nor teacher.  I give her kudos for that.  However, other mathematics professors who have joined the “debate” seem to have forgotten that they profess (which largely means research) advanced math, and are not trained in Education.  That unfortunately limits the value of their input (but to be clear, does not discount their concerns).  Such individuals who can be considered experts of both math and education, such as Dr. Craig Loewen of the University of Lethbridge, have had constructive input into the curriculum.

Myth:
Curriculum determines the approach used to instruct math concepts.
Fact:
Teachers determine the approach used to instruct math concepts.  Teachers are expected to use methods that are best for the students.  There is no one-size-fits-all method to teaching math, but mastery is still expected nonetheless.  Curriculum only informs what is to be taught.

Myth:
Teachers are being forced to ignore "the basics".
Fact:
Teachers are autonomous professionals.  If a teacher feels as though they are not permitted to teach the basics, they should take their issue up with Member Services at the Alberta Teachers' Association.  It is up to teachers how they feel it is best to deliver the curriculum to their unique and varied students, and oftentimes this requires a differentiated approach.  To say that teachers are being force to ignore the "basics" is to say teachers are not autonomous professionals.  If you fear that teachers are not given that autonomy, take your issue up with the Education Minister.

Myth:
PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), carried out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, is a reliable measurement tool for the efficacy of a region’s math instruction.
Fact:
Firstly, the OECD is for Economic, not Educational Cooperation and Development.  This should be our first indicator that something is rotten in the state of ... well in this case, France.
Secondly, PISA is a measurement tool that uses data from different tests in different countries, and different countries report their results differently, almost in a self-selected manner.  Certainly they’ll tell you it’s all the same test, but what they don’t advertise is that regions can also pick and choose various questions to be included in the test.  If a country wants to improve their PISA scores, they simply need to make their math tests easier, or only have the best regions of their country participate.  In Alberta’s case, our PISA score can drop simply because of the increase in our expectations of our math students, or because other countries pick only their best jurisdictions to report.  Using PISA as a standardized test has the same problem as using Provincial Achievement Tests; a standardized test can't work if there are too many variables making each test subject different before you even test them.  China reports only a few jurisdictions, Alberta reports the whole province.  A student who grew up learning Isa, Dalawa, Tatlo writes the same Provincial Achievement Test as a student who grew up learning One, Two, Three.  See the problem here?

Myth:
Teachers have had meaningful input into the curriculum redesign process.
Fact:
Even though the world’s leading regions in education (such as Finland) ask the Alberta Teachers Association for advice, curriculum redesign has kept the ATA at arm’s length.  It hasn’t been until just a few months ago (years after curriculum redevelopment started) that Minister Jeff Johnson has started listening to the ATA and considerably relaxed his deadlines and expectations for the completion of the curriculum redesign and its implementation.  Had teachers had meaningful input into the curriculum redesign process, you would have seen a much larger emphasis on professional development to prepare teachers for the new curriculum.

Myth:
The Western and Northern Canadian Protocol (WNCP) predetermines the direction education will take, so consultation with the public is merely a smoke screen.
Fact:
The WCNP is simply an organization of collaboration, not of predetermination.  For that matter, if the WNCP were in fact predetermining education, then we should also see scores from the Yukon, NWT, Saskatchewan and Manitoba plunge, and that is not the case.  There is ample evidence showing that results from public consultations have been considered in the curriculum redesign process.

Myth:
With the introduction of Student Learning Assessments (SLAs), grades will disappear, and so will accountability.
Fact:
SLAs are completed at the beginning of the year.  They are to be used by teachers to guide their instruction.  Grading strategies for the remainder of the year are determined by the School Board, various curricular departments within the board, School Administration and finally teachers, in that order.  If a school chooses not to use grades, it is not because it is mandated as such from the government.  Furthermore, any assessment strategy employed by a teacher should show that each student matches the SLA at the beginning of the year, and show a trend for the student of either maintaining or improving their understanding of the curricular concepts.  Any student who shows evidence of a reduction in performance should also have documentation to indicate what strategies were used to address that reduction, and should also show evidence of subsequent improvement following those strategies.  All this documentation exists, teachers are required to do it.  Accountability is not a concern here.

Myth:
David Staples provides no useful feedback.
Fact:
David Staples shows a bias because that is his job.  He is very good at his job, somehow finding justification for writing 42 columns on this supposed “debate”.  In fact, many people across Canada are now equating his name with this whole "debate".  This is the time of stardom a columnist dreams of, so to maintain this high-profile status that sells his column, he must write prolifically.  And write he does.  His viewpoints are based on the idea that “basic math” is needed for every child.
Personal anecdote; when I was learning math, I didn’t not learn it because I could memorize things.  My father, in fact, taught me math using a very “discovery”, or rather an "inquiry" approach.  This was 20 years ago.  So to go back to “the way we used to do it” might just mean going back to “discovery” ... *ahem* ... "inquiry".
Nonetheless, Mr. Staples does provide an insight that allows us to identify issues that require rectifying.  Taken with a grain of salt, it can be very useful.  But make sure you take it with a grain of salt, because much like the first myth debunked, a columnist does not a journalist make; see Joe Bower for more discussion on this thought.

Myth:
The Wildrose are representing the concerns of all Albertans in this "debate".
Fact:
The Wildrose, rather than representing concerns, are telling Albertans what to be concerned about.  In a telephone town hall that I can only describe as a “push poll”, the majority of individuals whose questions were aired were those that were speaking against teachers, math instruction, or curriculum redesign.  Of 15 questioners that I noted, 1 educational aide got through long enough to praise teachers on their balanced instruction, 1 parent got through to do the same, and no teachers were aired.  When I pressed them about how they chose which questions got through, it became evident that their town hall had not only self-selected data, but also inaccurate data.  They couldn’t even find the question I had asked.
That question was “Danielle, when a parent comes to you expressing concern, do you ask first if they have approached their child’s teacher, and if they haven’t, do you direct them there?”  I have never received a follow-up as they promised in the teletownpushpollhall.

Myth:
Being an Education Critic makes you an Education Expert.
Fact:
The Wildrose are seemingly unware of the fact that they are arguing about one thing when the issue is something completely different; similar to arguing about how clouds are formed when the discussion is actually about acid rain.  The Wildrose are caught in a problem in that they confuse the “what” of teaching with the “how” of teaching.  For example, if you need to transport oil, there are many ways you can do it.  You can pipe it, drive it, put it on a train, break it down into other products that are easier to consume like gasoline and ethanol, etc.  So if you don’t want the oil on a train, what should you do?

By Wildrose logic, don’t use oil, use canola instead.

Certainly that would change the transport options, and moving to “greener” solutions is a noble goal, but we would lose all the value that exists in oil.

Curriculum defines “what” teachers are expected to impart to students, not “how”.  Certainly “how” to teach something depends on what is being taught, but if parents are displeased with “how” teachers teach, asking them to try a different “how” makes far more sense than trying a different “what”.

In a meeting with Wildrose Education Critic Bruce McAllister and Leader Danielle Smith, I was told that they believe strongly in a “return to teaching the basics.”  At first that sounds like a “what” item.  But when they explain what they think the basics are, they suggest things like memorizing times tables, methods of long division, vertical addition and formula memorization.  These are not the “what”, but rather the “how”.  As I’ve learned, there are more than a few ways to skin a fish.

When I asked them how they know what the basics were, the response from Ms. Smith was “the easiest way for a student to learn.”  Again, a “how”.  My response and question was “what if the easiest way for a student to learn divisibility by 9 is by summing up the digits, not memorizing the times table?”

The two seconds of stunned silence was telling.  So was the response from Mr. McAllister when it finally came; “we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this.”

So we did.

I’m not saying don’t change curriculum, because in many cases a good curriculum update and overhaul is well overdue.  I’m saying if you want to change the “how”, go to the person who actually make those decisions; go to the teacher.

However, who would want to go to a teacher now to discuss their child’s successes in school?  After all, we are self-serving people who care more about our own then your children.  But don’t worry, government has your back.  They will ensure, from their offices in downtown Edmonton, that your child’s classroom is perfectly managed, and that teachers have so much oversight as to not have to think for themselves, or for your child, anymore.  The government knows best.

And just in case you thought that was only a PC government, allow me to correct that misconception.  Jeff Johnson believes the ATA cannot manage their own, which is why he has claimed himself savior of our discipline process.  However, the Wildrose’s Rob Anderson jumped on the Johnson bandwagon.  So, if the political pundits are correct and the blue and orange banners are replaced with green and pink ones in 2016, don’t expect any change to how they approach Education.

The only way to avoid that is to have an alternative.  Kent Hehr had a dream of being a teacher cut short, but his passion cannot be ignored.  Deron Bilous has been a teacher, so understands the profession.  The Alberta Party is currently working on its Education Policy among other policies, soliciting input from all stakeholders.  Ask each of these people about the Great Math "Debate", you will find a hugely different response than the one in the media.

Parents should be freaking out right about now.  Regardless of which of the conservative parties take power in 2016, it won’t be professional educators making decisions about Education.  It will be some elected official whose only adult experience in our schools was either delivering a Xerox machine, broadcasting a special interest segment on a morning news show, or spending 10 months bickering instead of running a school board.

Votes for the Conservative nominee in the Macleod riding byelection are tabulated today, and the story of the campaign is not "hopefuls listen to residents."

The entire campaign has been usurped by the National Firearms Association, Canada's version of the National Rifle Association south of the 49th parallel.  It has also been grabbed by right-wing media outlets trying to make a name for themselves in a new market.  No surprise, as the agenda had already been pushed by right-wing provincial opposition leader Danielle Smith, who represents a section of Macleod provincially.

In the middle of it all, the residents of Macleod seem to have been left out in the frigid cold of February.

The main topics discussed should have been the backlog of our bumper crops due to rail competition, oil and gas markets, and flood mitigation.  Other topics could have included innovations in our area in agriculture and small enterprise, the geographical and demographical diversity and "how can you represent people in Okotoks beside people in Crowsnest Pass or Lomond", or even the value the Conservative government places on veterans.

But they weren't.  The "High River Gun Grab" was.  And it was the only thing some candidates were talking about.

This seems odd, as every gun owner affected by the actions of the RCMP have never been unhappy about how the guns were handled, only the violent invasion of their privacy.  A valid point and an important issue, but by no means is it the only issue nomination hopefuls should be discussing.  It is also in stark contrast to the gun-toting whackadoodle image the NFA is portraying Macleod conservatives as.  Perhaps the NFA forgot about the story of the "Nose Hill Gentleman"?

Scott Wagner spoke with me twice, and seemed to have a decent grasp on the issues, and although I didn't fully agree with them, kudos goes to him for making a concerted effort to connect with me (he is a very intelligent fellow).  Phil Rowland's wife bombarded me with robocalls in the last week.  Melissa Mathieson never once contacted me.  I can't tell if I prefer Mathieson's or Rowland's tactic.

I was concerned about John Barlow at first, recalling that he ran as a Progressive Conservative candidate in the 2012 Alberta election.  I also recalled how he presented himself in those forums.  He was strong, articulate, and didn't shy from confrontation.  He did, however, leave me wondering if he could be a positive force, or if he would fall victim to the childish bickering that we now see in both provincial and federal houses.

When he called me, I asked him about how he felt the tone of his provincial campaign went.  He explained to me he was disappointed with how the Progressive Conservative party lowered themselves to the point where issues were no longer their focal point.

He hit the nail on the head.  The issues must be forefront.  And Barlow knew the major issues, and also knew some less obvious issues that matter to our residents.  Barlow is the only one of these four nomination hopefuls who did not bow to the whims of a lobby group and right-wing media.  He has his thumb on the pulse of the constituency, and stuck to talking about the issues, not just in person, but also in the media.  With regards to the NFA's focal point, he stuck to his word; he said if new information came out suggesting an inquiry was warranted, he'd stand behind it, so when it did, he stood behind it.

A politician that stands by his/her word should be considered a valuable asset.  But even more valuable is one who refuses to let lobbyists dictate the agenda, and rather let constituents dictate it.

And as a side-note, if you knew the level of discourse Barlow and his family was exposed to on his campaign Facebook page on the matter of the guns in High River, you would understand why I use the term "gun-toting whackadoodle".

So today is the last day for Conservative members to cast their ballots for their nominee.  After today, we will know if Macleod conservatives really are the gun-toting whackadoodles the NFA paints them as, or if they thoughtfully consider more than just a single issue with an eye to the future.

And I, for one, am no gun-toting whackadoodle.

I only know I'm a good man because my wife is incredible.  Nobody as amazing as her would stick around with a guy like me unless she thought I was worth it.  Therefore, I'm worth it.

Which leads me to introduce you to a wonderful lady who will be more in the spotlight in High River than ever before.  While my amazing wife was giving birth to our second child (who is now 3 and a half years old), there was one nurse there who was the most incredible support for her throughout the labour. I was extremely humbled, as a father during childbirth should be.  My wife took the process like a typical farm girl with all her strength, resolve, and work ethic.  Very much "just get it done".  And the nurse had such compassion and fed my wife such strength, it was as if she were family, encouraging her all the way.  Both women made me realize how little a good man could possibly be without a good woman beside him.

That nurse's name is Lindsay Snodgrass.  Wife to High River's new mayor, Craig Snodgrass.

That's how I know our town is going to be okay.  Because behind every good man is the support of someone just as amazing (or in my case, someone even better).

Many people know I did not support Craig for Mayor.  I was extremely concerned about someone with little experience taking the reigns of our town.  Honestly, I'm still concerned about that, but I'm putting those concerns aside, because those concerns are for elections.  The concerns we must deal with now are how a new council is going to help us recover and rebuild.

I know that Craig could be great for our town, if given the right support.  And if it's one thing I've learned about High Riverites, they are strong and resolute, and can be the best support an individual can hope for.  However, you certainly don't want to cross High Riverites, either.

Lindsay is a great woman, and with her I'm confident that Craig is a great guy.  However, Craig needs to be a great Mayor.  So he needs a great town council, town organizations, and townspeople to stand with him.

Town Council will have to shift from campaigning in opposition to campaigning as a unit.  It will take work, but they can do it.

I'm so pleased to have a colleague of mine, Bruce Masterman on council.  I'm confident that his passion for High River will mean that not one individual gets left behind.  He is a genuinely kind and caring man, and has an amazing "big picture" view.  I truly hope he brings the balance to council that it will need right now.

I was very impressed with Cathy Couey's platform, in the fact that she had one.  Not only that, her platform had multiple issues covered.  I know she's put some thought into a vision for the town.  She will carry it forward without a doubt, but as we were able to find with previous councillor Betty Hiebert, a lone woman on the council has challenges ahead.  There was no shortage of good, strong female candidates, yet only Couey got in.  She's going to have to be even stronger, more informed, and ready to speak the language of the common person to truly help council out.

I honestly know very little about Peter Loran, except for the casual conversations I've had with him during the campaign.  I'm truly hopeful that his personality matches his abilities as councillor, because if that is the case, he might just be the peacemaker.  More importantly, however, is that the new council's first job will be to deal with the new budget, and this is where we need Loran most.  Loran's experience in banking and investments will be crucial, but must be backed up with vision.  I didn't hear much about his vision for High River, so if he is lacking in that department, let's hope he can put his investment experience into play using others' vision.

Dragan Brankovich has an eye for engineering, but he's going to need to bring more to the table than just his ability to "speak engineering".  If he keeps his eyes on the flood, I'm afraid that little else will move forward.  He has shown that he might actually have a vision for things like the arts, culture, heritage, and recreation, but it is vague at best.  I'm concerned he will get tunnel vision and ignore the long-term needs of the community.  Perhaps time will prove me wrong; it would be wonderful to be wrong in this case.

Don Moore has been a very pleasant man for me to work with, and I have enjoyed my interactions with him.  He has always had a vision for the community, and that vision has always progressed and changed along with it.  He is meticulous in his work, and council could use that attention to detail and experience. My only concern for him is how he will work with this new team.  It is my hope that he is ready to be part of a collaborative effort to get this town moving forward, and I'm sure he'll do it.

There is an advantage, and yet a danger, to having Emile Blokland on council.  The advantage is that all those promises the Province of Alberta gave the town will still be in the memory of the council.  Snodgrass will have Blokland in his court to remind the Province what they promised, and so the whole council will be able to make good on their campaign promise to "hold their feet to the fire."  However, having the old mayor in one of the policy-makers chairs might be enough to pause growth in our town.  Potential business owners might see it as being regressive, not progressive.  I would hope that's not the case, but only Blokland's actions will prove to them otherwise.

If Snodgrass is going to be a successful mayor, he needs the support of every person on council.  This does not mean that every idea he presents needs to be accepted unilaterally.  Rather, it means that council must work together, something that was lacking a bit last time around.

Every councillor must voice their ideas, and no idea should be ignored.  Each idea must be considered on its own merits.  Each councillor must work with the best points of each idea to achieve consensus.  With consensus, we will truly see a council working together. Snodgrass, who will be our town's main salesperson, will be the face of that unified council, and the town, province, and country will see it.

If at any time a member of council feels as though their ideas were ignored or ridiculed, the unity of council will fail, the town will lose faith, and Snodgrass' support will be gone.

Council is supported by many others as well.  The various boards in town such as the Recreation Board, the Sheppard Family Park Board, the Arts and Culture Board, the Library Board, the Heritage Board and more all need to be included in the process.  If at any time these boards feel as though their ideas were ignored or ridiculed, their support of council will diminish, and that will filter up all the way to the mayor's chair.  This also applies to the many other volunteer organizations such as Minor Hockey, Foothills AIM Society, the many service organizations and many more.

Sounds like a lot, right?  That's what High River needs, though.  High River needs everyone to pull together, to put their two cents in, to know their two cents are being considered, and only then can they trust that council is truly moving forward.

Then Snodgrass will have the support he needs to be mayor.

Lindsay is the woman behind the man.  High River, let's be the town behind the mayor.

Congratulations, Craig!  Let me know what I can do to be a support for you.

---

I can't do a wrap-up to the municipal election without mentioning the man who I chose to stand behind.  Richard Murray, it was a pleasure to work with you on this.  I'm obviously disappointed that you didn't get in, but I'm very pleased with what you accomplished.  The Minister of Culture has seen a vision for Arts and Culture in High River.  The Emergency Management Act will be reviewed, and I'm positive you will be a part of making it better and more effective.  And I know the new (and experienced) faces on council have been influenced by your passion.
You may not have gotten in, but you made one heck of a difference.  I know that I have learned a lot, and am a better man for it.  Keep moving forward, sir!

I've been doing a lot of research for this municipal election.  I gotta tell you, I'm not as impressed as I think I should be.

With 23 active council candidates and 2 mayoral candidates in High River, each of them with a deep pool of talents, skills and experience, you'd think there would be some well-developed platforms.

Again, that's my youthful naivety showing through.

So begins my rants of what I can't stand this election.  The first thing I can't stand ...

"When it comes to [insert issue here], I believe we need to listen to [insert list of stakeholders here] to see what their needs are, and how it will affect [insert list of related topics here].  Only then can we make strides that will be the best for the town."

Well, d-uh!

Thank you for just describing the role of council.  I forgot what job it was you were applying for.

Here's the word you must be careful of in an election: Listen.  When you say "I'm going to listen to ...", what you're telling me is you haven't a freaking clue what those stakeholders want, need, or in some cases, who those stakeholders are.  The word "listen" is a cover for your lack of understanding.

Don't get me wrong, listening is a skill that I believe every councillor should have.  It's part of the job.  If you don't do it, don't expect to be re-elected in four years.

But please don't use "listening" as a crutch for not understanding the needs your community.

In High River, I've heard the "listening" argument from a mayoral candidate (in the mayoral forum, and not just once, but 5 times), and I've seen the "listening" argument published on Facebook and discussed in the councillor forum more times than I can count on my extremities.

It disgusts me.  It shows to me how much you don't understand our town, or the job you're applying for.

The ones who make listening a habit aren't going to tell you they are going to listen.  You'll never hear them say it.  They just do it.  Better yet, in the future those candidates ARE going to listen, it's part of who they are, and they recognize that it's part of the job they are applying for.  In many cases, those candidates don't even need to say they are going to "listen", because they've already done it.

It's how they came up with their ideas.  It's how they've come to understand our town and they job they're applying for.

It's really hard to vote for someone who has no ideas.  Unless you don't have any ideas of your own.

Oh, now I get it.

Well, here is one voter who is informed.  Now, voters, I beg of you, everywhere, but most especially in High River: unless you want a council who is a vacuous hole for ideas, don't elect a self-professed "listener".  Elect someone who already has a clue, because they've already done that listening.  In High River, it's those people we need, because we need our town back on track.

And don't worry, they'll keep listening.  Because that's what they do without having to be asked.