MLA Michelle Stilwell Not OUR Representative!!

   As many of you will remember, British Columbia held a provincial election last May. The BC Liberals 'pulling it out of the fire' was quite a surprise to most people but the pragmatic amongst us believed that the public must see something in the Liberals that would make them better representatives for us. After all, isn't that the basis of the democratic system, the one that millions have given their lives to defend over the years.
   Sadly, I am here to tell you that our rookie MLA, Michelle Stilwell, is failing at the very heart of this concept. I don't remember exactly where it started to go wrong but we haven't had a representative government for a very long time. Instead of taking our viewpoint to Victoria and voting for their constituents, MLAs now accept our salarys, spend our expenses to get to and stay in Victoria and then they vote the way their party tells them to. Then they again spend our expenses returning to their riding to tell us how this is all going to be. What the hell kind of democracy is that?!?
    I thought that I would 'get ahead of the curve' by contacting Ms. Stilwell via Twitter during the election campaign to have her explain to me, and the rest of the 'Twitterverse', what her approach was going to be if she was fortunate enough to be graced with/garner the majority of our votes.
  After only meeting at the Legislature for 36 days in the past year and half, the government set themselves an ambitious calendar for the spring session. One issue that I had personally spent a lot of time on over the past 4 years was that of local government elections' rule reform. After Ms. Stilwell was elected, I resolved that I would make this a test of her commitment to democracy. To that end, I had sent her the following email (14 05 08) referencing 'unanswered' pre-election Tweets to let her know exactly how and why one of her constituents felt:

 Dear Ms. Stilwell,

May 3/13 Tweet to @stilwell2013:
Wut specific experience do u have that makes u my best choice for MLA?

May 7/13 Tweet to @stilwell2013:
U didn't respond 2 prev tweet-so, given there r basicaly 0 free votes in legis, how exactly would u be my "champion"?!

May 10/13 Tweet to @stilwell2013:
Since u don't answr tweets when u need my vote, wonder wut u be like if u were my MLA and I neded ur help?!?

As it has now been 7 weeks since I sent you additional facts on the term-of-office extension for local politicians issue, I am disappointed (but sadly not surprised) that you have chosen not to continue the discussion.

So, this is how that precious and fragile thing called democracy (the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life / the key to democracy is the right to state your opinion, and to have it heard – to place your ideas in the public discourse, for review, discussion, and development / "government by the people"), a concept that hundreds of our fathers/mothers and sons/daughters and tens of thousands of our grandfathers have given their lives for, is supposed to work! The people you promised to represent to the best of your ability present a concern to you as his/her MLA. You look into it, gathering your own set of information and then you enter into a frank and open discussion with the constituent. Through this reasoned process, you jointly arrive at an agreed upon set of facts. This process may well be going on in parallel with a number of constituents, representing various viewpoints on this issue. After careful consideration, you then arrive at a position as to how you are going to vote when the actual legislation is brought forward. It appears that we are stuck at the very beginning in as much as you have chosen not to engage in a discussion of the relevant information. This is very disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising, given your lack of engagement when I sent out the Tweets during the election campaign asking you to explain your approach to the current take on democracy.
   Now, back to the current issue. You have provided nothing to counter the information regarding support (or lack thereof) for increasing local government politicians' terms-of-office from 3 to 4 years which I have researched and provided to you so it appears that you are prepared to vote for this legislation despite the obvious lack of broad support put forward by the government and that the most important element in the democratic system, the public, has not been mentioned at all. Other deficiencies: taking into account only the support of a group which is clearly in a conflict of interest and direct disregard and contravention of the public's majority voice.
   It is deeply troubling to me that, as my representative in the government, you would take such a cavalier approach to such an important issue.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville, B. C.

I live in Lantzville, BC, CANADA and this keeps me busy!!

Of course, even though she continues to cash yours and my paycheque and have us pay for her to attend the Legislature and provide her with a 'Constituency' Office and staff, I received no reply from her! And the Liberal government, in spite of the overwhelming public input favouring the 'status quo', made the change from 3-year to 4-year terms for local government officials. Also, in spite of overwhelming public support for implementing campaign finance limits, the Liberal government chose to 'stand pat'.

Here is a link to a Times-Colonist newspaper Opinion piece by the Executive Director of IntegrityBC in which he criticizes the Liberal government's record on public consultation, i.e., asking the public for their opinion and then listening to the majority. Of course, if you don't ask your constituents for their opinion, you won't know what they want you to do when you get to Victoria!


http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/dermod-travis-liberals-stint-on-public-consultation-1.1119064

How would you rate our very own Parksville-Qualicum MLA on the six principles put forward by the former B.C. Auditor-General?

Have you been 'lucky' enough to receive regular mail-outs (email or otherwise) from Ms. Stilwell? In response to one this summer that was just pure government propaganda, I sent her the following email (14 10 17): 

Michelle,

   If you were actually prepared to participate in discussions and listen to what your constituents had to say on specific issues and to then back that up with your vote in Victoria, I might be interested in receiving unsolicited communications from you/your office. However, absent the ability to influence/moderate your actions on my behalf, I do not see any value in receiving propaganda (telling me how it's going to be) from your government. Therefore, please remove me from your mailing list.

Sincerely,

Hans J. Larsen

Lantzville, B.C.


I should point out that I referred to it as "your ('her') government" since that is the way she refers to it in her missives. Clearly, she doesn't realize that it is actually 'our' government and she is simply our representative in it.

Security Costs Approaching $3/4 Billion; Are Olympics Still Relevant?

When the Vancouver/Whistler 2010 Olympics were first being introduced back in 2004, almost nobody in the mainstream media (TV, print or radio) wanted to talk about security costs, including the two Campbell's - Premier Gordon Campbell and then Vancouver Mayor, Larry Campbell, which at that time were 'estimated' at a 'bargain' amount of $175 million. I even had CKNW talk-show host, Jon McComb, cut me off as I was trying to make the point that this amount flew directly in the face of all recently-held Olympics [Salt Lake City (winter 2002) - $310 million, Athens (summer 2004) - $ 1.5 billion [incl. $312 million for communications 'backbone'], Turino (winter 2006) - $ 1.4 billion, London (summer 2012) - est. $1.7 billion; 3 x bigger Summer games cost more than Winter] and that the taxpayers were the ones who would be paying.
Well, Stockwell Day, Federal Minister of Public Safety recently offered his own 'estimate' for security costs - $400 million to 1 billion (a 228 - 571% increase) and I would still question whether that is even going to be enough. VANOC, which has been missing deadlines for budgets almost since Day 1, now says that their entire, updated and approved budget, including security costs, should be released to the public soon after their next meeting on January 29, 2009 (just over a year before the Games are due to begin). Hang onto your hats for that one, folks!
We really need to ask ourselves (actually we should have done this years ago!) if, in today's dangerous world whether or not holding a 17-day event (plus the much lower profile 10-day Paralympic Games), where the security cost alone could well approach three-quarters of a billion dollars, makes any sense at all. It is expected that the Olympics will be good for a relatively small segment of the population (such as construction, hotels, restaurants and the athletes) but what does it really do for the rest of us, who will have to foot the bill if they blow the budget?
[UPDATE 09 02 19]
Five and a half years after winning the 2010 Olympic games for Vancouver/Whistler, the organizers finally come clean with the projected costs of these Olympics, announcing, on the same day that Obama-mania hit Canada, that the security costs, which they had been carrying on the books at $175 million for all that time (in spite of overwhelming evidence that it almost certainly would be significantly higher - see above), are now most likely to be in the order of $900 million, a five-fold ($725 million) increase!!
It's a little like making the big decision to have a house built and being told by the contractor that the costs of the roof will be $12,000 (but subject to revision), only to arrive at the paint, flooring and fixtures stage and then being told that they are now $62,000, a figure that, had you known at the beginning, you may not have taken that decision. So, the benefactors of the Games now tells us that the Olympic games are here and we should just enjoy them. That's pretty hard to do when you feel like you've been played for a sucker using that time-honoured tradition of understating costs in order to get a publicly-funded project approved. Will we never learn, why do we just keep "bending over"?! Once again, we've been "sold a bill of goods" by those paid to look after EVERYONE'S interests!
I, like the vast majority of British Columbians, will likely never ski the 'Super-G' at Whistler Creekside, fly off the Whistler Olympic park ski jump, experience the thrill of the ice track at the Sliding Centre, rent out a room, sell a meal or guide a tour - no, all I will ever get to do is help pay for it all - for how long, who knows?! Unlike the athletes, many of whom are already professionals earning millions of dollars with even the amateurs being provided the opportunity to earn lucrative contracts as a result of the Games - all at no cost to themselves!If we're going to be spending public money, how about doing it on something that will actually have a chance of benefiting the majority of us?!

Disproportionate Risks Vs. Rewards of B.C. Mega-Projects

The following letter was submitted to the Nanaimo Daily News in response to an article by a regular contributor to that paper in an attempt to show that, while there are always going to be few 'winners' in expensive public projects, the general taxpayer will likely not benefit but accepts all of the risk.

Dear Editor,
It is to be expected that David Lobay, President of the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, would have a very distinct perspective on issues which would affect his membership because that is his 'job'. To that end, he has written a number of pieces for publication in your paper which clearly demonstrate this bias.
Today, I am writing specifically about the latest of these, PNC worth the wait, Harbour City Star, June 14/08. It is all well and good for him to extoll the benefits of government spending, in this case, spending which directly aids/helps their membership (construction, hotels, restaurants, shops, etc.) but what he tries to gloss over is that they represent only a small portion of the population, notwithstanding his exaggerated 'ripple effect' theory ("everyone in the community wins when we factor in the 'ripple effect'). The people who are putting up the money, the general taxpayers, as a group stand to gain very little but they are the ones who are taking on the risk should anything go wrong (cost overruns, partner financing difficulties, less-than-anticipated revenues, etc.). The same can certainly also be said of grand, over-hyped, short-lived 'spectacles' such as the 2010 Olympics. For the 'average working guy or gal', the rewards will likely be small while the risks are great!