Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Come to the Bard and Banker Thursday for my book launch

It’s been a long time between posts.
Lots of good reasons. We’ve had two weddings in October, two daughters marrying two great guys. They’ve been fun and inspiring, and a chance to re-connect with people who matter. 
I’ve been doing interesting work for The Tyee, BC Business and Douglas Magazine. 
We - Jody Paterson and I - have been looking ahead to new Cuso International placements in Nicaragua. 
And there has been ‘the book.’ The real title is Dead Ends: BC Crime Stories, but for a long time, as I laboured away, it was just ‘the book.’
It’s my first, published by the team at the University of Regina Press. I researched and wrote about 40 B.C. crimes from the 1860s to today. I knew the stories would be great, and the characters fascinating. But I didn’t anticipate that the crimes would reveal so much about us and our history. 
The book was released Sept. 29, and I’ve been trying to figure out, as a first-time author, how to get people to read it. (Munro’s Books listed it among more than 1,200 new releases in September, which sets out the challenge rather starkly.)
On Thursday, at the Bard and Banker pub in Victoria, there’s an official launch party. It will be low key. We have the comfy Sam McGee room. I’ll talk a little bit about writing the book. Copies will be on sale for $20, with $8 going to Cuso International and Casita Copan, an amazing project to support homeless kids and struggling families in Copan Ruinas, Honduras, where we spent more than two years. But it doesn’t matter if anyone buys books. There’s a piano, if you want to play.
Mostly, I hope people will show up and talk to each other. I have almost 400 Facebook friends. Jody has 1,805. I don’t know who they are. But it would be interesting if we all got together for a few hours, especially as we head to Managua in less than two weeks.
We have the room from 6:30 pm to 9. Come on down.

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Public might blame both sides, but holds government responsible for inaction on strike

Both sides are losing in the teachers’ dispute. The spin and counter-spin, PR gestures and ad campaigns aren’t moving the parties any closer to a deal.
More and more people - as an informal sampling by The Tyee suggested - are sick of both the BCTF and the government.
Which means the government is going to have to step in and end the strike.
The chances of a negotiated settlement were always tiny. The posturing by both sides and unwillingness or inability even to bargain the key issues has reduced them to about zero.
Each side blames the other. 
But - and it is an enormous but - only one side has an actual responsibility to see that kids get an education, and the ability to make that happen.
All the Twitter ads and press conferences blaming the BCTF don’t change that. Governments are supposed to make sure citizens get the services they need (and are paying for).
The BCTF’s foolish two-week June strike was a nuisance (and self-destructive). The loss of the first week of classes was tolerated by many people.
But the government’s apparent willingness to stand by indefinitely while some 580,000 students are deprived of an education is going to generate more and more public anger. Especially as there is no sign the hard line is going to produce a resolution. 
Each day the government fails to act now adds to the impression that it doesn’t really consider education a priority, let alone an essential service, as Premier Christy Clark once argued.
There are several options. A legislated end to the strike combined with an imposed settlement or a report from an industrial inquiry commissioner, for example, or an appeal to the Labour Relations Board for a ruling that education is an essential service.
Leaving students and parents adrift during a PR war with teachers - will increasingly be impossible.
And the government’s willingness to do nothing despite the damage to students  will increasingly carry a political cost.

Thursday, September 04, 2014

Clark's press conference bad news for province's court prospects

The tit-for-tat press conferences by Premier Christy Clark and BCTF head Jim Iker did nothing to advance negotiations, and left most people appalled by both sides.
But Clark’s comments seem especially damaging to the government’s long-term interests.
Assume the union holds out and the government legislates teachers back to work and imposes a new contract. 
Teachers would then challenge the agreement in court, pointing to the failure to negotiate class size and composition issues, as the B.C. Supreme Court has said it must. 
The court didn’t say the provisions, stripped in 2002, must be restored to the contract. But it said there must be good-faith bargaining. (And compensation for the damage done.)
A transcript of Clark’s press conference will be very helpful for the union cause.
Clark said the government would not begin bargaining on class composition until the BCTF reduces its wage and benefit proposals and an agreement was in place on those issues. She didn’t even acknowledge class-size limits as a topic for negotiation.
Clark’s comments indicated the government has made no serious effort to bargain the contentious issues, or address the B.C. Supreme Court ruling that class size and composition issues had been illegally stripped from the contract.
Her public insistence on preconditions before any real negotiation on the issues  makes a strong case that the government has not yet accepted the court ruling - or learned how to avoid another court loss.
It will weaken the government's ability to defend an imposed contract from a new legal challenge.
Footnote: The issue isn't complex. The teachers' union had successfully bargained to have class size and composition limits in contracts. (Composition refers to the number of special needs students in a class.) 
In 2001, the newly elected Liberals thought the limits were too restrictive, costly and properly a matter of education policy. 
So they passed laws in 2002 to strip them from the contract and bar the union from negotiating the issues in future.
The Liberals had a point. Class sizes are matter of education policy, which should be the responsibility of school trustees and MLAs.
But a sensible government would recognize they are also an issue of working conditions. Unions negotiate working conditions. There needs to be some balancing of interests, or at least a good-faith attempt.
The Supreme Court agreed. And it found the law violated the teachers’ rights. They had, presumably, traded off other items in past negotiations to get the clauses in the contracts. Government can not just pass laws to violate agreements without consequences. (The Liberals have accepted this principle in other areas. When it retroactively banned uranium mining, the government agreed to pay more than $30-million to Boss Uranium, recognizing there is a cost to ripping up legal agreements.) 

Monday, September 01, 2014

Teachers' dispute down to public pressure and first to fold

You can tune out all the rhetoric from both sides in the teachers’ dispute at this point. 
It has come down to a simple question - who will fold first.
The government hopes the BCTF will accept a negotiated deal, to avoid - or reduce - the risk of legal challenges. Given its losing record in the courts, that’s understandable.
The union would rather be legislated back if an acceptable deal can’t be reached, for the same reason. (The union leadership, after taking members out in a costly, ineffective strike strategy, also doesn’t really want to try and explain why the result was a mediocre negotiated settlement.)
So they are hunkered down, blaming each other and trying to rally support for their cause.
The government’s brave rhetoric about letting the strike/lockout continue is empty. Parents and the public won’t tolerate a government that fails to use its power to re-open schools. Especially given Premier Christy Clark’s past claims that education is an essential service.
But the Liberals hope the BCTF will cave before it has to legislate an end to the strike. Teachers lose, on average, about $1,700 a week in gross pay as the strike continues. They are already out $3,500-plus, with the losses mounting by the day. And they know that any settlement is not going to recover those losses.
Teacher support for the strike is fading, according to columnist Bill Tieleman. His piece in The Tyee argued that the union should continue the strike. One reason, he said, was that if the BCTF called a pause in the strike members would refuse to go back to the picket lines.
So parents and students wait, the parties wage a PR war and the schools stay closed.
What is most irritating is that the union and government have had five or six years to act on sound proposals to improve this hopelessly flawed bargaining process, but have done nothing.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

RCMP's political response to budget cuts, or give us the money or we shoot the police dog

The only real surprise in RCMP budget cuts in British Columbia was that they didn’t threaten to chop the musical ride. 

The provincial government has reduced its contribution to the RCMP for policing in the province by $4.2 million.
RCMP management has decided to make all the cuts in the budgets of the special enforcement unit, including the squad investigating biker gangs, and the major crimes section, responsible for the missing women file, among other things.
Nowhere else left to cut, says Deputy Commissioner Craig Callens, the top RCMP manager in B.C.
Come on. The $4.2-million cut is less than one per cent of the RCMP budget for the province. The notion that the only areas to cut are two high-profile investigative units is laughable. 
A family with a $60,000 income facing the equivalent cut would have $540 less to spend. I’m betting they could find relatively painless ways to handle the shortfall.
Not the RCMP managers.
It’s a standard ploy to resist budget cuts, in any organization. Find the most visible, valued service and say it will be hurt. Claim cuts in admin, or travel, or overtime, are impossible.
And it’s a reminder that B.C. still has no real ability to set priorities or policies for the RCMP, even though its officers police about 70 per cent of the province.

Monday, August 18, 2014

The weird tale of the deadbeat cop, and the true crime

BC's government claws back $17 million in child support payments from mothers and children living in poverty. 

Everything about the case of the disgraced RCMP officer who tried to scam a paternity test is weird.
But weirdest and most destructive is the provincial government income assistance policy that led to the crime. The same policy that ensures thousands of children will be raised in government-mandated poverty.
Cst. Greg Doncaster was a rising star in the RCMP, the Times Colonist reported, stationed in the detachment policing the capital's western suburbs.
In 2009, he had an affair. The woman became pregnant. Doncaster told her he wouldn't leave his wife. His marriage was too important.
So the woman agreed to raise the child -- a girl, as it turned out -- on her own. Doncaster offered no support, financial or as a father.
Crappy behaviour on his part, but not criminal.
Then the woman lost her job in 2011. As a single mom of a one-year-old, she applied for income assistance.
She was still committed to the raising of her daughter on her own.
But the Social Development Ministry demanded to know who the girl's father was and why he wasn't paying child support.
Not because the government has any interest in the child's well-being or rights. The government wanted to track down the father, make him pay child support and deduct the payments, dollar for dollar, from the women's income assistance cheque.
The woman gave in and handed over Doncaster's name. You can be cut off benefits if you don't.
The ministry tracked him down and he denied being the father, fearing the revelation would wreck his marriage.
Getting their man
So officials demanded a paternity test. Doncaster stalled and then hatched a plan to send fellow RCMP Cst. Dereck Carter in his place. (Carter pleaded guilty and received a conditional sentence and 12 months probation. If he doesn't mess up, he will have no criminal record. He is suspended without pay and facing an RCMP disciplinary hearing.)
The test results, of course, came back negative. Ministry workers delivered the news to the mother in what must have been an uncomfortable meeting.
Doncaster wasn't the father, they said. Tell us who else it might have been.
Only him, the mother said. So the ministry workers pulled the paternity test file and showed her the photo taken as part of the procedure.
That isn't Doncaster, the mother said.
And the whole thing came unwound. Doncaster was charged with obstructing justice. He quit the RCMP and voluntarily started paying child support, including retroactive support. He avoided jail, but was handed a six-month conditional sentence.
Impoverishment by the numbers
Very bad behaviour, to be sure.
But the government's income assistance policies, including clawing back every cent of child support paid to people on income and disability assistance, does much more damage.
If Doncaster had been paying child support, the family would be no better off. The government would take all the money.
The mother and her daughter would still receive a maximum of $570 a month for rent. It is almost impossible to find decent, safe housing, especially with children, on that budget. MLAs believe they need up to $1,580 a month from taxpayers for a second residence in the capital, almost three times more than they are prepared to allow a parent and child on assistance.
The woman would get about $535 a month to cover all their other living expenses, a rate unchanged since 2007. A family bonus payment would add another $111 a month.
All in, the mom would be raising a child on $14,600 a year. That's $281 a week for rent, clothes, food, transportation, everything.
The poverty line for a single parent and child is $29,000. The government has decided this little family, and thousands of others, should live on less than half that amount.
Some 35,000 children are in families dependent on income or disability assistance. The government has decided they should live in poverty.
And it has made that decision knowing that childhood poverty does lasting damage. It increases the likelihood of illness, educational underachievement and social and employment problems. The children will suffer and society will pay for the decision to deny them a reasonable start in life.
Sending a message
The official government talking points are that it's important to claw back child support so people exhaust every possible option before they collect welfare. The unofficial rationale is that life on assistance should be really unpleasant so people try harder to get a job.
But 80 per cent of the people on assistance have disabilities or other issues -- multiple barriers to employment, in ministry speak -- that make finding work difficult or impossible.
So four out of five people on assistance face a long, maybe permanent, stay.
Which means those 35,000 children don't face a tough few months in crap apartments, underfed and deprived, the poor kids at school, before their parents get jobs and everything turns out fine.
They grow up in poverty.
If Doncaster had acknowledged his daughter and paid up, the money would have been part of the $17 million in child support payments a year the government claws back, money that was supposed to help children.
Premier Christy Clark says the government can't afford to give up the $17 million. She rejected even modest provisions, like allowing recipients to keep the first $200 a month to benefit their children. The message is that this province just is not that interested in equality for kids.
The most recent child poverty report from First Call found British Columbia, once again, had the highest rate of child poverty in Canada (tied with Manitoba).
Simply increasing income and disability assistance supports for families would reduce the child poverty rate from over 11 per cent to under seven per cent. B.C. would rank fifth or sixth among provinces, instead of tenth.
Instead, the government -- on our behalf -- has decided 35,000 children should grow up deep in poverty, because it would be just too expensive to give them a decent start in life

Thursday, August 07, 2014

Newspapers: Sponsored content, advertorials and the shifting balance of power

Norm Farrell has a useful post about sponsored content, the new name for advertorials. And The Gazetteer wondered what I thought, as a former newspaper manager.
Farrell says sponsored content is bad. 

“How should readers react when business pages are presented by an industry lobby like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers? I don't care to pay a newspaper that presents promotional pieces of advertisers as news nor do I wish to pay a newspaper that hesitates to publish stories that affect reputations of its sponsors,” he asks.
“If the Vancouver Sun's business pages are presented by the fossil fuel industry, readers are not likely to read that shale gas is "The dotcom bubble of our times." Nor are they likely to read that British Columbia has earned almost nothing from natural gas royalties in recent years.”

The piece raises two separate questions. Are readers being misled by ads masquerading as news, and are newspapers failing to cover stories for fear of irritating big advertisers?
No one pushed Bogie around
Advertorials were always a source of conflict between ad salespeople and the newsroom. Advertorials offered businesses a chance to buy ads that looked sort-of-like a news story, supposedly gaining credibility for the message. They paid a premium for the privilege.
Ad departments wanted the result to look just like a news story. The newsroom wanted the opposite - a different type face, borders and a big label that said ADVERTISEMENT. And the editorial staff didn’t want to produce the material, believing that that could create the perception of conflict in covering related stories. (And because they thought it beneath them.)
Usually, the editorial side won the day. Readers could recognize the ads for what they were.
As long as that’s true, I don’t have a problem with sponsored content or advertorials. In at least two cases, that apparently hasn’t been true of the Postmedia advertorials. They have run on newspaper websites as if they were real content, generated by editorial staff based on their best judgment about what information readers needed or wanted.
There are broader problems. Organizations and individuals are getting slicker and more convincing in developing and distributing sponsored content, in all media. More and more content that looks like or pretends to be journalism is really advertising. (Or clickbait aimed solely at getting people to look at ads.) 
That content comes from people who can pay for it. People who can’t pay have a limited role in the public discourse.
Editors and reporters used to decide what would go in the paper each day. The process was haphazard and shaped by personal prejudices and limited resources, but it was mostly aimed at delivering something useful for readers.Now, people with money can buy sponsored content. They can train their spokespeople and manage the message. There are seven print journalists left in the legislative press gallery. The government has 278 employees in the communications and public engagement department. The spinners have a vast advantage in numbers and resources.
And newspapers, and news media generally, are in a different position in dealing with advertisers than they were in the past.
Newsrooms won the arguments about clearly labelling advertorials in part because the businesses were profitable and seen as essential by many advertisers. 
Today, newspapers are struggling to survive. The advertisers have the edge in negotiations, as companies are looking for any way to generate revenue. The risk is that advertisers will hold too much sway.
A few advertisers have always sought to influence content. My position, while managing newspapers, was that it was in the long-term best interests of advertisers to accept that they had no special sway. Readers bought newspapers because they believed the information was selected based on their needs. If that was no longer true, readership and credibility would fall and ads would be less effective.
It was easy to say no to an unreasonable request - nicely - because the newspaper could cope with some lost revenue and be reasonably confident that any boycott would be short-lived. 
That has changed. Struggling businesses are more easily pressured. That’s not a slam on the people who work there, simply an acknowledgement of reality. When shareholders and analysts are awaiting quarterly results, or hedge funds are looking to get their money back, it’s harder to make decisions, in grey areas, that risk revenue.
Newspapers were sometimes accused of arrogance in the past. But arrogance brought with it a certain independence. 
It’s interesting that we are having this discussion. Newspapers, for all their stunning faults, have at least established a code of ethics around their relationship with readers. If they hadn’t, there would be no possible breach to consider.