The Poison Pill in the Wildrose Defection

I'm a traitor, but I don't consider myself a traitor. - Aldrich Ames

“You lose your voice for your constituents and you lose your voice to advocate,” – Danielle Smith – November 26, 2014 (when asked about the defection of Kerry Towle to the PC Party)

“We’re here to just make sure that Albertans are taken care of and that when the government makes mistakes they’re called out on them.  They make an awful lot of mistakes so it keeps us pretty busy.” – Danielle Smith – November 26, 2014 (when asked about the defection of Kerry Towle to the PC Party)

As news breaks of the potential defection of major players from the Wildrose Party to the PC Party, including Opposition Leader Danielle Smith, Rob Anderson, Jeff Wilson, Gary Bikman, Jason Hale and Blake Pedersen (maybe more to be announced), I can’t help but think of the poison pill this represents to the PC Party.

The fact that leaders of a political party could abandon their party when “the times get tough” is a major reflection upon their character and their dedication to their former organization and the people within that organization.

The fact that one of the defectors, Rob Anderson, has done this more than once (having defected from the PC Party to the Wildrose and now is attempting to return to the PC Party) is a damning conviction in regards to his character and his opportunistic nature.  In doing so, he has slammed both parties and therefore is worthy of neither.

When one considers the venomous attacks against the PC Party by this merry band of roving politicians, one has to wonder what exorcism, voodoo or other transformational process was imparted upon them that converted their hate into love.

Do they suddenly believe (or want us to believe) that the party they hated is suddenly worth embracing in order to meet their constituent's needs or should we call it for what it probably is – a selfish or self-serving gesture that suggests that they believe that they cannot beat Jim Prentice in the next election and so it is better to join the winning side early rather than go down to defeat.

Why would the PC Party accept them?

It would make sense if the PC Party were desperate to increase its control of the Legislature but the Legislature is already well in-hand, so the extra votes aren’t needed.

Do the defectors bring any skills to the PC Party that the Party does not currently have?  If the defectors’ public actions are to be used as the litmus test, the answer would be no.

However, absorbing them into a Party that has its future well in-hand opens the door to internal rifts as Wildrose-leaning insiders and original PC Party members begin to clash on policy, platform, candidate nomination / selection, etc.

The rumor that the defectors will be provided with uncontested nominations for their ridings in the upcoming election will also alienate long-time PC supporters and deepen this rift.

To add insult to injury, what happens if some of the defectors are offered plum ministerial portfolios while long-time members of the PC Party who stood by the Party when times were difficult are passed over?

And let us not forget that the existence of a strong opposition (as far as it is) ensures transparency and accountability in government.  The Wildrose Party has created more insight into the workings of the Alberta PC Party than has been seen in the Province for many years.  The fact that receiving the defectors would even be considered by the PC Party is a warning that there would be no solid opposition remaining to question the action, something that should concern the citizens of Alberta.

The Wildrose Party has also contributed to the overthrowing of two Alberta Premiers so their track record is actually not too shabby.

The Bottom Line

Once someone demonstrates that they can’t be trusted with another party, why would you suddenly believe they are trustworthy in your own camp, unless you are so desperate for their support that you can look blindly past the obvious as politicians often do in order to accomplish their objectives.

And so with no obvious upside and plenty of opportunity for downside, the PC Party should reject the Wildrose defectors as being of insufficient character and values for the Party and being a potential poison pill in the future.

If they are rejected and return to take over the helm of the Wildrose Party, it would be justice for that Party to reject them also for once a self-serving traitor’s motives have been exposed, can you ever really trust them in the future?

After all, this is what this event is all about – an evaluation of character, values and trust of both the PC and Wildrose Parties and the question of whether these attributes can be found in the people who serve the Province.

Let us not forget that in the end, the constituents must come first.

Do the elected officials in question remember this?

If the Wildrose Party does take them back (should they be rejected by the PCs), maybe the Wildrose Party should be renamed something more appropriate … maybe something like the Benedict Arnold Party.

Because that name appears to be a more accurate reflection of the character and values of many (not all) of the players leading it.

I think that the people within the Wildrose and PC Parties and the people of Alberta deserve better.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS When I see actions such as those taken by the defectors, I think of posters like this:

or this:

Addendum – Maybe Not What It Seems - December 17, 2014

Watching some PC MLAs say that they can “look beyond the past” implies that said MLAs don’t care about the company that they keep as long as the company that they keep appears to serve their own needs.

I wonder if the backlash against the defectors would be so great that they would go down to defeat in the next election anyway (regardless of the party they serve) and if that were to happen, is acceptance of the defectors just a waste of time and energy or is it part of a masterful plan to skewer the Wildrose Party, using the self-serving nature of the defectors against themselves?

Or …. is this the greatest political takeover in Alberta history, with in fact the Wildrose policies becoming the PC Party policies, bringing true conservatism back to the PC Party and making the Wildrose experiment one of the more brilliant ones in Canadian political history.  This scenario would bode well for the defectors with potential plum ministerial positions being offered to them but would alienate the left-leaning members of the PC Party, thus encouraging them to move on if they don’t like what they see. 

Time will tell.

Final Addendum – The Deal is Done – December 18, 2014

As the dust settles at the time I write this, 9 members of the Wildrose Party have joined the PC Party, simultaneously gutting the Official Opposition, practically wiping out the Party that stood in opposition and providing guaranteed jobs to the 9 self-serving individuals who put themselves above their Party, their colleagues, their friends and the people they serve.  The backlash from both PC and Wildrose Party members has been strong.  However, to the many who donated significant time, energy and money to the Wildrose Party, the feeling of betrayal appears to be especially strong as Ms. Smith and company stabbed them in the back without remorse.

It doesn’t matter to the floor crossers.  They are, after all, politicians.  Should we have dared to expect anything better from the people who dared to insist they were different than the team they have just joined?

Shame on them or shame on us?

While the gushing, positive language in Ms. Smith’s press presentation was all around “like minds coming together”, the words sounded empty and hypocritical.  She carefully evaded providing specific answers to any questions posed by the press and successfully said a lot about nothing (or nothing about a lot, depending on your interpretation).  She is a politician first.

In business and in Life, I believe that a large part of how people perceive me is based on the company I keep.  I personally wouldn’t take anyone on any team of mine whose selfish needs destroy others in the process.  Not only would that person’s character reflect poorly on my own character, but the reality is that I would never know when the person would do the same to me.  Some of these floor crossers have demonstrated such repeat behavior already.

The world of politics is very different.  While people can campaign on things like character and values, such attributes take second place to accomplishing the needs of the politicians, needs that hopefully intersect somewhere with the needs of the people. The Premier didn’t need to accept the floor crossers, having the legislative weight to accomplish his intentions but he did so anyway, accepting people of lesser character into his team.

If it is a reflection on the Premier and the PC Party, at this point it doesn’t matter.  He has a legislative juggernaut that doesn’t need to pay attention to the people and is no longer faced with the challenge of answering to an opposition. 

These events also send a message to the members of the PC Party who stuck it out when times got difficult.  The message is two-fold:

1. Your ongoing support is appreciated but may not be rewarded as the floor crossers secure plum positions in lieu of those who worked hard for the Party.
2. Character and values are optional, except when being promoted to the electorate at election time as essential attributes that differentiate the Party from others.

While people insist that this is not a merger of two parties, I have read confidential documents from unhappy participants in this event that suggest that the PC Party is about to move much further to the right.

Where does that leave Red Tories, both candidates and the people who support them?

Time and the level of electorate amnesia that is common with such events will prove to be very revealing.

And finally, while I was never a fan of the Wildrose Party, I did admire their tenacity in being a strong opposition despite their small size.  Their ferocity and perseverance accomplished a lot within the Legislature that benefitted the people of Alberta.  Are the days of someone holding the Government accountable and responsible gone for the people?

Time will tell.

Kindness–The Ultimate Antagonist

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain

Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend to them all the care, kindness and understanding you can muster, and do it with no thought of any reward. Your life will never be the same again. - Og Mandino

Those who know me well know that I often end conversations, whether it be in person, on social media or in emails, with one of several phrases:

Create a great day (or weekend).

Create a great day (or weekend) for yourself and others.

Create a great day, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

Create a great day for yourself and others, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

The phrases often draw interesting responses from people.  As my friend Sara K. noted today on LinkedIn:

I like it when you say that. Makes me feel powerful.

My friend Steve B. had this to say about the phrase:

I like the invitation to create something meaningful. You are giving credit to me for having talent and capability.

My friend Mark C. suggested in fun that perhaps I should offer a different, less intimidating variant such as:

Today is a gift. Don’t screw it up.

However, some people exhibit a different response to the phrases.  As an example, I am inviting a guest writer to share his thoughts on the phrase.  This person, a resident of Calgary, shared his musings on Twitter in crisp, poignant form today in response to my request to create a great day.

As a long time Wall St’er, I’ve never been accused of being a hippie before. Other than that, name calling on Wall St. is quite common although he missed some of our favorite phrases.

As background, I had responded to a remark by Danielle Smith, head of the Wildrose Party and the Official Opposition in the Alberta Legislature, when she claimed that she never blocks anyone on Twitter unless they are disrespectful.  When I remarked that people like myself had been blocked by her for asking for data to support assertions made by her, I was blessed to have an interaction with this gentleman.  After a few exchanges with him, I expressed my usual signoff and the afore mentioned tweets were his response.

Explaining “Create a Great Day”

When I ask people to “Create a great day”, I am sincere about it.  My greatest desire for those around me is that they have the opportunity to create the greatest experience possible for themselves and for others.  Merely “having a great day” implies that one will wait for a good day to arrive (hopefully) whereas creating one increases the odds of experiencing a great day or if a great day is already being experienced, then perhaps there is an opportunity to make it even better.

So my use of the phrase could be considered to be equivalent to Namaste (the divine in me honors the divine in you), God be with you, have fun, have a blast, good luck, best wishes, aloha, serve others, love Life, grab a pizza with friends and whatever else you wish to embrace …. all rolled into one.

Friends of mine observing this interaction today had some interesting things to say about it.  My friend Doug P. had this observation when people were discussing the possibility of an underlying, hidden issue within some people (my emphasis added):

Yes, there are probably some hidden issues. I think those same issues would come into play with "have a good day" if it were not a ubiquitous, empty platitude. Your formulation is uncommon. People have to think a little about it. When angry people think, their anger goes on display.

Some people don’t like kindness or don’t know how to deal with it.

There are, sadly, people who don’t know how to respond to respect, civility and kindness.  Many such people miss some of the greatest joys in Life because they are too busy being unhappy and they are content to bring others down to share in their darkness.  While it is unfortunate that they should be so unhappy, it is unfair and inappropriate that they choose to impose their lack of joy, respect and civility onto others.

They go through Life steamrolling over others until they run into people like me.  Unfortunately for them, while I don’t seek trouble, I do not step aside when trouble is before me, since I know that if I step aside, the trouble that stands before me will continue their agenda of steamrolling and destroying others.  In such situations, some soften their approach when their attempts to intimidate and bully are met with respect and an interest in exchange. Others exhibit behavior like my guest writer above.

Sometimes you find such people in clusters

I find it intriguing that oftentimes when I ask for clarity from the Wildrose Party or I challenge an assertion made by them (requesting data to back up their assertion) I am often beset upon by someone like the person noted above.  Curiously enough, when I challenge other parties for clarity, I am not beset upon in the same way.  It was my experience with such angry people in the past that inspired me to write Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

Now in fairness, I have had some GREAT interactions with passionate supporters of the Wildrose Party, including people like Vitor M., Rick N. and Dave W. (you know who you are) and others.  They are passionate, intelligent people who, while possessing different political beliefs than I do, can listen, share, object, agree and give and take respectfully and intelligently.  They are as passionate about creating a better future for themselves, their families and their province as I am and this, above all, means that we agree and disagree our way towards a common goal – the creation of a greater tomorrow!

But there remains many people out there who are on simmer all the time and when respectful people like me come along with no agenda other than to learn, to share, to verify information (mine and others) and to collaboratively create a better world, they assume there MUST be an agenda and so they go on the offensive.

And sadly, the Wildrose Party, often referred to as the “angry party”, still has a number of such people circulating within and around the Party.  And while there is something to be said about the company that one keeps, the difficulty of being surrounded by such people and not discouraging their attacks on others is this:

Attacking reveals your weaknesses as well as your strengths.
Choose your battles carefully.

The Bottom Line

We must always strive to meet obstinance, intimidation, bullying and the like with as much kindness, civility and respect as we can muster. That being said, for some bullies, turning the other cheek or ignoring their presence will not solve the situation at-hand and may inadvertently condone or strengthen their forceful nature.  Force must sometimes be met with equal force or be gently redirected – always respectfully and kindly.

Eventually the bullies will see a better way and will change.

Or they will pick up their toys (and their negative intentions) and go home.

Or someone else (maybe you) will take their toys (and their power) away from them and send them home.

In all cases, kindness, civility and respect will still carry the day. 

Anger, when redirected, refocused and retasked into energy intent on making positive change can produce great results.  Anger when uncontrolled or misdirected merely hurts randomly or creates confusion.

It’s like splitting an atom.  Doing it well can produce relatively clean energy for a Lifetime. Doing it poorly can kill thousands or millions in a single flash.

It all comes down to personal choice of intention and execution.  Being separated by the distance and perceived anonymity that social media affords should not be a licence or excuse for people to treat each other with less respect than if they were standing face to face nor should one strive to be the twit in Twitter.

In a world of ever-increasing complexity and beauty simultaneously where technology often trumps humanity, I think there is still a strong need for some basic human values.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood.  Create a great day for yourself and others, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

Harry

PS For those who struggle with others merely because they resent or envy them in some way, I offer this amusing poster from the great folks at Despair.com.

Why Alberta Political Parties Remind Me Of My Old Girlfriend

If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics. - Will Rogers

There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you. - Will Rogers

I once had a girlfriend with whom many conversations often went like this:

What would you like for dinner?
Anything is fine.
Eat in or eat out?
It’s all good.
Ok. Let’s go out. What would you like?
Whatever you want.
Pizza?
Not in the mood.
Steak?
Not really.
Fast food?
Too greasy.
Chinese?
No.
So what would YOU like to eat?
Anything is fine – whatever you want.

I could never tell if she didn’t know what she wanted or just didn’t know how to communicate what she wanted and as a result, I eventually clearly articulated what I didn’t want.

Being Unable Or Unwilling To Offer Solutions

Watching the Wildrose Party this week reminds me of that old girlfriend as the Alberta Legislature once again resumed sitting.  After the Speech from the Throne was delivered, the Wildrose Party tweeted this message:

Intrigued, I followed the link to this press release (click to see a larger image):

It says absolutely nothing about what they like or how to make things better – just what they don’t like.  If you ask them about the strategy behind this approach, they will tell you that they don’t want to give solutions to “the other side”. Yeah – right.  They were elected to serve their constituents first and maybe then their party, not the other way around.

Along a similar vein, when Wildrose MLA Heather Forsyth outlined her concerns about Premier Redford’s family care clinic model, she noted the following (click to see a larger image):

This quote stands out:

“Once again this government is pushing ahead on health care decisions with no consultation from communities or health care professionals,” Forsyth said. “Now that it’s clear that something is broken, it’s up to Redford to fix it. When half of the doctors abruptly quit, it should send a message to the government. Things just aren’t working.”

Again, it says nothing about producing a solution and merely complains that things aren’t working without offering anyone any insight into what would work better.

Sadly this is the role of an opposition party.

Opposition parties in democracies have become less of something that offers a better solution than what a government has and more of something that merely complains, gripes and nit-picks about what they don’t like.  It doesn’t exist to solve the problems of the people but rather to establish a message that carries the opposition party into power.  You, the voter, and your needs don’t matter.

Sadly, the average voter falls for such ploys and dutifully elects opposition parties into the role of government based entirely on the opposition party’s ability to say what is wrong without offering any iota of what is right.

Is it any wonder that with each successive government in the world, debts and deficits grow larger, world peace becomes more elusive and solutions to poverty, climate change, health care and other areas of concern continue to wait for someone with the courage to solve them?

The Bottom Line

When Will Rogers noted that “A fool and his money are soon elected.”, I wonder who the bigger fool is - the person who plays on the feelings of others without offering any kind of measurable solution or the person who elects them anyway.

I think our history books have an answer to this question.  But then again, there don’t appear to be many informed historians circulating through the electorate these days.

In fairness, it’s not all on the opposition ….

Sometimes the fool may not be the political wannabe who misleads with vague promises or emotion-laden rhetoric but in fact may be the incumbent (or incompetent strategy and/or communication “experts” advising the incumbent) who don’t know how to communicate success or whose ego is a run-away train.

Most of the communication experts I see who are active within the Alberta political scene across all of the parties should be fired or retired for being unable to communicate anything effectively, whether it’s spreading good news or countering bad news. 

It is up to those “experts” to manage public perception of optics as generated by their “client”, no matter how intelligent or stupid, ego-filled or humble, their clients are.  If these experts are not smart enough to get it done, then the incumbent (or their party) have to be smart enough to correct the issue.

It doesn’t matter how intelligent you are,
how pretty you are or
what results you think you have created.

Optics and voter perception are about
how you touched the heart of the voters
in order to influence their mind …
and their ballot.

As with the case with my old girlfriend, if you want a relationship that lasts (whether it’s a new one or a long-standing one), you need to tell me more of what you like, be clear, forthright and articulate about it and moan less about what you don’t like.

Otherwise, just like my old girlfriend, I won’t take you seriously either.

Fortunately for the politicians, most voters don’t think this deeply about who they are voting for.

I wish they did.

How about you?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS A little fun from the good people at Despair.com.

Addendum – March 5, 2014

While I was referring to politicians in my blog post, the same holds true for the supporters, followers and minions of those politicians.  As an example, this apparent Wildrose Party supporter tweeted the following in voicing his intent to prove my post wrong:

In response to my wish for him to create a great day in the service of others, he concluded our dialog with this final tweet:

Four claims that I am lying with nothing else offered of substance or value outside of a personal attack on my character is disappointing.

My blog post suggests that a significant issue in politics is that people rely on vagueness, misdirection and avoidance of specifics in order to counter the problem that clarity, data and facts introduce.  Many people in such situations have nothing to fall back upon outside of taunting, bullying, name calling and the like in order to drive their agenda.

When one wishes to refute the assertion that specific solutions are intentionally avoided, the best way to successfully accomplish this is to bring facts and data to the table.  Weak responses such as “stop lying” (without backing up the request with data) merely reinforce my assertion instead of accomplishing the desired intention of disproving it.

How can we expect specifics from our elected representatives when we are unable or unwilling to provide the same (and vice versa)? 

As for the person above who shared his views, the inability to differentiate between an opinion post and a statement of fact and the inability to discuss or debate appropriately is a reflection of where societal dialog is not functioning at levels necessary for societal improvement – a useful fact for politicians who have few facts themselves.

Addendum – Closing Thoughts - March 5, 2014

I offered the person noted previously an opportunity to counter my assertions with evidence or facts and if I received them, I would amend this blog post appropriately.  My request was rejected with the notion that he should not have to prove I was a liar.

The defense rests. :-)

The Alberta Government, Privacy and the Weakest Link

The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool. - Stephen King

Learning to trust is one of life's most difficult tasks. - Isaac Watts

The Wildrose Party of Alberta, the Province’s official opposition, revealed an email today written by Darren Cunningham, the Director of Operations for the Premier of Alberta.

Here is the content of the email:

In Question Period today in the Alberta Legislature, the Wildrose Party attempted to make issue of this email and the costs that allegedly resulted from the request made by Mr. Cunningham (as explained on their website here).

Frankly I don’t think cost is the issue.  A few thousand here, a few thousand there – it’s all chump change when it comes to government budgets and in truth, the Wildrose Party (and any political party for that matter) can be dinged for wasting money just as easily.

As for the notion of piggybacking political gain on the backs of the people who were wiped out by the floods this year in Alberta, it is a terrible thing to do but politicians have done this since the beginning of time.  If you don’t like stuff like this, then turn your back on most politicians.

However, there is something important here that I am surprised the Wildrose Party didn’t appear to catch and presents a larger concern to me.

It is the fact that this email identifies a number of people inside the inner circle of the Premier of Alberta, one of the most influential politicians in Provincial / State politics in North America.

And it reveals that one of the people identified in this email, the staffers of one of these people or someone within the IT infrastructure of the Government cannot be trusted with the confidential information that they are privy to.

Why it matters.

The Premier of Alberta has partaken in many government and corporate sessions where the details are private for a number of reasons – either politically, diplomatically, national security-wise or some other perfectly legitimate reason, including the protection of corporate or personal information.  Much of this information could be very damaging if it were released inappropriately or to inappropriate recipients.

What this leak reveals today is that someone within this inner sanctum or someone attached to them cannot be trusted to honor the trust bestowed upon the Government and the safekeeping of the complex myriad of information that the Government requires in order to be effective.

Until we discover who is responsible for the leak, any piece of information communicated to or within the Premier’s Office must be considered as a candidate to be leaked if the leak serves someone’s need.

It’s like whispering secrets to the local busybody.  It’s not a matter of if the information will be shared but when – if the gossip is juicy enough, of course.

That’s the great challenge in regards to protecting sensitive information in the modern era.  We can wrap as many layers of technology and legislation around it as we want but it only takes one individual with an ulterior motive to undermine all of it.

The money allegedly misspent as a result of the aforementioned email can be recovered somewhere and in the grand scheme of things, doesn’t even register.

However, I think trust, once misspent, is not so easily recovered and therein lies a warning for all of us to strive harder to protect it.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Surviving Climate Change–The Elephant in the Room

If we stop all greenhouse gas emissions, will global climate change stop?

Industrial activity has already pumped billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and we have yet to see the full effect of warming from those gases. A great deal of excess energy imbalance is stored in the ocean and will be released gradually over time, continuing to warm the planet.

In other words, some degree of climate change is irreversible. Scientists call this the "committed warming," and estimate that the Earth would continue to warm about 1 degree Fahrenheit (.6 degrees Celsius) even if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere stopped growing immediately. That is, if all human greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow, the Earth would still warm for at least a half-century. – NASA (emphasis added)

As I listened today to Alberta Government Minister Diana McQueen poke jabs at Opposition Leader Danielle Smith’s personal beliefs about climate change versus what Ms. Smith’s official party policy will be, I couldn’t help but notice the elephant in the room.

As we all argue about whether it is a natural cyclical phenomenon or a man-made one (or both), whether we are warming or cooling, whether someone’s data is accurate or exaggerated, what reasonable reductions in greenhouse emissions are needed, what carbon tax regimens will work best to expedite reductions, etc., we face a reality that I never hear any politician speak about.

It is the reality that if, as opined by NASA, we could stop all greenhouse emissions tomorrow, we have at least 50 years of climate change inertia before us where we will continue to experience significant events in the environment.

Events like ….

- the droughts in Australia

- Hurricane Sandy

- flooding in Calgary and High River

- insert personal event experience here

These are events that are likely to increase in frequency and intensity.

And so as I listen to people argue about melting versus freezing ice caps, whether sea levels will rise an inch or a yard, whether the changes are natural or artificial or I see personal attacks to score political points, I would like to ask a question that doesn’t seem to get much airtime.

What do we intend to do to survive larger, more frequent floods, hurricanes, droughts and everything else?

I’m not saying that research into our contribution to climate change is not important.

But finally identifying our contribution will offer little comfort if we continue to be steamrolled by it because we put more of our focus into stopping what may be unstoppable or if stoppable, not stoppable in a heartbeat … or my personal favorite …. what company, industry or country is mostly to blame.

I wonder if we have secretly thrown in the towel, finding it more satisfying personally, professionally, politically, reputationally and economically to pretend that preventing it is within our reach and that on the day that the magic pill is found, everything will simply reverse to pre-climate change levels?

Are we willing to bet our survival on it?

Climate change will always be with us, regardless of the reason.

Are we able to demonstrate our ability to change with it or are we going to continue to act surprised when events steamroll over us, followed by the inevitable political rhetoric of how we “rose to the occasion yet again”?

Because if we aren’t able to provide better strategies regarding surviving climate change, I would posit that we are more like ostriches than humans.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – November 2, 2013

An interesting item – President Obama passes an Executive Order to prepare the nation to survive the effects of climate change.

The Alternate Reality of Politicians

Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation. - Adlai E. Stevenson

I have always been fascinated by the alternate reality that politicians live in.

Take for example, The Minister of Municipal Affairs in Alberta, the Honorable Doug Griffiths.

When asked to comment on Opposition Leader Danielle Smith’s plans to hold a town hall to once again express anger over the RCMP and their seizure of weapons in flood-ravaged High River, Alberta, he made an interesting faux pas when he said:

“I am sick and tired of people like her going around trying to blame people when we’re still trying to rebuild the community. It’s fucking embarrassing.”

One of the rules of politics (and business) is that you never let your opponent see you sweat.  As the Opposition Leader, Ms. Smith is paid to represent her constituents, lead her party AND get under the skin of the government.

When a member of the government drops the f-bomb as a result of her actions, the Opposition Leader can only think “mission accomplished – what else can I do to to continue this momentum?”

In addition, in the business world, such words issued against a colleague would immediately motivate HR to investigate – requiring an apology at best or other disciplinary action, including termination.

This rarely happens in the political world.  Even when an Alberta member of government was found to be using his government influence for the benefit of his own company, he was found to be guilty of unethical behavior but not illegal.

I guess it comes down to realities and rationalization. :-(

And finally, we are always loudly trumpeting anti bullying / anti intimidation legislation, especially legislation designed to create a better world for children.

But it doesn’t matter how much legislation we pass to encourage people to treat others with respect.

People model what they see

Unfortunately, politicians can pass legislation that promotes one idea while living another and not see the difference between them.

Meanwhile in High River …..

Ms. Smith held another town hall in High River where angry residents had another opportunity to vent the anger they have vented repeatedly, the only difference being that this time, they had an opportunity to vent it towards representatives of the RCMP.

The reasons for their anger have been documented and expressed many times since June so I’m not certain that another round of yelling and screaming “moves the ball”.

In the real world, upon first capturing the essence of a problem, a problem solver says “I hear you loud and clear.  I will do what it takes to get this resolved and will report periodically on progress or ask for your opinion should we reach a point where decisions needs to be made”.

But in the political world, while Ms. Smith may have taken some actions on behalf of her constituents, she is still focused on the importance of whipping up anger.

The time for anger has passed.

What matters now is focus on execution and results that benefit the people of High River.

Continued anger and outrage in lieu of results only benefits the politician who encourages it.

In the real world, anyone who has their marching orders but continues to convene meetings to revisit their marching orders will cause people to think:

• Did this person not hear us the first time?
• Does this person not know how to solve this problem?
• We have already expressed our anger over this – why does this person want us to keep revisiting our anger instead of solving the problem?
• Why are we wasting our time rehashing everything we already know?
• If we meet enough times, maybe we need to turn our attention to the person who keeps reconvening us.

But this is not the real world.

This is politics, where anger and obfuscation are often more useful than results, as I posited here - Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

Ms. Smith knows what the issues are, she knows the anger that is simmering amongst the citizens and she knows what is at stake.

All that is left are measurable results that benefit citizens – the bane of many politicians.

And speaking of producing measurable results that benefit citizens ….

President Obama is insisting on the need to perform a military strike against Syria when he, John Kerry and their many political and military advisors cannot publicly identify the actual threat to America, the benefit to America in carrying out the attack or the downstream ramifications of what might happen should an attack be launched.

And as I listen to them play chess with our safety and our lives yet again, I think of the 15 close friends that I lost in the World Trade Center almost 12 years ago and the thousands of loved ones who were lost on that day and in the wars that followed.

When politicians use our security, our well being and our lives in the grand scheme of the strategy game they are engaged in, they do it with lots of upside and little downside … for themselves.

My friends cared little for the political, diplomatic and military tit for tat exercises that ultimately produced their death.

Meanwhile, the people who participated in the events that led up to 9/11 have moved on to bigger and better things, safe behind the security only available to those who play God with the lives of others.

The bottom line

The greatest challenge in our world is that the definitions of reality in the real world and the political world will continue to diverge until all politicians are forced to live the realities that they create for others.

Only then will they realize what needs to be done and how quickly it needs to be done in order to create a better world for everyone.

As James Freeman Clarke once said:

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

Minister Griffiths has apologized for his use of the f-bomb as noted earlier.

Disaster–The Best Thing That Ever Happened

As a strategy guy, I have taken an interest in how the post-flood recovery is being handled in Alberta and I have come to a realization.

The flooding may be the best thing that ever happened to Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party. 

While the party would deny that they are taking advantage of the situation on the backs of citizens who got wiped out, any political strategist would call them foolhardy for not taking advantage of the situation.  That’s the way the game is played and historically, the common man has always born on their own backs the burden of those in power, whether it be a local event or a global war.

In a time of fiscal challenge in Alberta, Ms. Smith is walking the difficult walk of demanding that the government not spend money it doesn’t have while simultaneously insisting that citizens demand the right to be relocated by the government at the government’s expense.

Watching her in action at a town hall, it could be debated whether she is merely supporting the anger and frustration being experienced by the citizens or if she is actually fuelling it.  Anger is a very useful tool as I wrote about here Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

However, her seemingly two-faced strategy is strategically brilliant and demands an equally brilliant response from the current government.

To influence the mind, one must touch (or torch) the heart.

Is Ms. Smith ….

…. a hypocrite or a hero?

…. astute or asinine?

…. politically savvy, politically stupid or politically suicidal?

We will only know upon historical reflection.

The history books are written by the victors and within those pages, it will be revealed for whom the disaster really was the best thing …. or the worst.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

 

Addendum – July 29, 2013

A few readers reached out to me privately and asked if my comment “history books are written by the victors” was a veiled reference to Wildrose Party Press Secretary Vitor (Victor) Marciano and a future victory for the Wildrose Party.

I don’t make veiled references.  Nice try, though! :-)

Finding Answers–Less Emotion and More Data

I wrote a blog over the weekend entitled Politics and the Fortuitousness of Calamity where I discussed the unfortunate habit of some politicians to use disaster as an opportunity to promote their own brand.  In the process of doing so, most politicians like this are smart enough to mix in some benevolent actions in order to keep their followers blind regarding their leader’s intentions.

While I haven’t had an opportunity to respond to the 843 emails I have received as of the posting of this blog, there is one thing that I have noticed.

Of the approximately 8% who disagree with me, 95% of those, including public dissenters such as Vitor Marciano, the Press Secretary for Opposition Leader Danielle Smith, have responded with taunts, insults and attempts at intimidation to convince me to take the blog down.

I could have directed them to blogs such as Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation, Asking Questions That Get Answered or Solving Puzzles–Follow the Breadcrumbs but such blogs only make emotion-laden / fact-less taunters more angry. :-)

It appears that they believe that strong (ala intimidation-based), emotion-laden actions are enough to convince someone to change their actions or to take different actions.

It reminds me of this story.

A teacher was giving visiting parents a demonstration of the acumen of his students and selected a student named Billy for the demonstration. 

“Billy”, said the teacher, “If Jane gives you two cats, Bob gives you two cats and Fred gives you two cats, how many cats do you have?”

Billy responded quickly by saying “I will have seven cats.”

The teacher smiled patiently and then repeated the scenario to Billy, to which Billy gave the same answer.

The teacher cleared his throat, somewhat embarrassed before his audience and then said “Billy, if I give you two apples, Jane gives you two apples and Bob gives you two apples, how many apples will you have?”

“Six”, replied Billy.

“Correct”, replied the teacher, now speaking sternly “and so why ….”

At that moment, one of the exasperated parents yelled out “For God’s sake, kid, why do you think you have seven cats then?  Are you an idiot?”

“Because”, replied Billy calmly, “I already have a cat at home.”

Such stories serve as a reminder that when we seek answers to questions, kindness, respectful dialog and seeking to understand the facts will go a lot further than merely assuming we know all the answers (or that the other person is automatically wrong) and subsequently using intimidation tactics to prove it.

When anger or other emotions rule the day we also tend to make additional mistakes.  Mr. Marciano made the additional error of attempting to guess my motivation for writing the blog by attempting to extrapolate an intention from my business background instead of looking at some glaringly obvious data points.  If he had conducted his research into my background in a methodical, fact-based manner (with the necessary data plainly described on my website here , here and in other places) instead of in a rushed, anger-laden manner, he would have uncovered some insight as to why I wrote the blog and how to approach me about it.

And there’s nothing more frustrating to an emotion-laded person than a fact-based person who won’t rise to respond to taunts and intimidation. :-)

Guessing or totally ignoring the facts rarely produce desirable outcomes unless one is incredibly lucky or the target in the dialog is susceptible to being bent by the intimidation of others.

When seeking to understand the intention of another, do you engage that person with fact-based dialog in a respectful way or do you assume you already know the answer and attempt to bend the other person to fit your “answer”?

And … what happens if you “win” and then suddenly discover you are wrong?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Explanation:

In my line of work as a strategy advisor, very large-scale IT architect and investment capital generator, I am highly sensitive to the importance of authenticity, transparency, character, strategy and legitimacy in leadership.  However, I am most sensitive to these attributes when it comes to political leadership regardless of political stripe. 

Why?  It is because when we get it right in the political arena, most of society thrives but when we get it wrong, everyone in society suffers.  I believe that how well our politicians are enabled (or not) is far more pervasive, important and impactful than is the case with most business leaders.

Politics and the Fortuitousness of Calamity

Many have conjectured that Hurricane Sandy was the best thing that could have happened for President Obama’s re-election bid.  Some claim that his committed support to help the hurricane victims just as the national election in the US was rolling around tipped many on-the-fence voters over to the Democrat side.

People forget that this is what Presidents should do – show support in the time of need.

And if it serves a political need without making it look overly obvious, I’m sure some political pundits would say “Life does have its bonuses”.

The one thing that I appreciated about the President at the time was that he didn’t make his support a Democrat versus Republican thing.

It was the right thing to do as an American and as a human being.

I’m not so certain I see the same level of magnanimity in the actions of Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party.

The town of High River is in the middle of challenges, heroics, difficulties, frustrations and the complexities of rebuilding.

The official website for High River has been an excellent source of information for the residents as they rise again and move past the disaster that knocked them down momentarily.

The official disaster recovery website for the Alberta Government is also an excellent source of information, providing both its own information as well as links to other sources of information such as the High River site.

And yet I find it intriguing that Ms. Smith is promoting a different site as shown by a tweet she issued yesterday.

When one clicks on highriverflood.info (at least at the time this blog was written), one is redirected to Ms. Smith’s political page.

Now it’s true that when one scrolls down, one can see some of the same information that is available on other official sites.

However, the first thing one notes when going to the page Ms. Smith promotes is that it is heavily branded as a Wildrose site whereas the other official sites are politics-neutral.

Also, one’s eye is immediately drawn to the menu on the left.

Now one could assume that the links are for donating to the victims, volunteering to help out people in need during the flood, etc.

However, the donate link takes you here, requesting donations to the Wildrose Constituency Association:

And the volunteer link invites you to volunteer for the Wildrose Party for party events.

I guess people could click on the “reserve a sign” link, to reserve a lawn sign for the next election, but that implies that people have a lawn in High River to stick a sign on or that such things matter at a time when some people face a total loss, including irreplaceable items of family importance.

Ms. Smith is also suggesting on her Facebook page  that people should check out her coverage on Instagram  ….

so I popped over there.

The scrolling images at the top of her Instagram page included some for High River and two criticizing the government and Alberta Health Services as shown above.

Perhaps a new, fresh Instagram account would have been more appropriate that wasn’t bashing the government trying to help the people in need (note the comment on the Facebook page from a Facebook user concerned about Ms. Smith promoting a political and personal agenda and “Danielle Days”).

There’s a dirty little secret buried in this technique

It is a known psychological phenomenon that when one exposes people to specific information when those people are under duress, they are more susceptible to the information they are receiving and can be convinced to be in resonance with said information when they may not have been before.

Variants of this phenomenon, including capture–bonding psychological mechanisms, Stockholm Syndrome, military basic training and other concepts  illustrate the power of this type of technique.

Is the Wildrose Party intentionally using one of these techniques or a variant of them?

I guess it depends on how much credit one wishes to give them.

Maybe they just don’t know the difference.

Neither choice is very complimentary.

What’s sauce for the goose ….

Some Wildrose Party supporters have cried foul when their leader’s actions have been criticized in the last week.  Some have claimed that when she has taken actions that appear politically motivated and other people have pointed this out, that the people pointing it out should be criticized for making this a political event.

I don’t buy that at all.

It’s like saying that when a bully picks on a victim, the victim stands up to the bully and the bully runs around exclaiming that now they being picked on as a result.

Challenges doesn’t change people’s character – it reveals it

Events such as what is happening in Alberta and in especially hard hit areas like High River demonstrate the type of character that our society’s leaders are made of.

When I see grandstanding against groups like the RCMP when they were doing the best they could at the moment, when I see promotion of “the political colors”, etc., I see the creation of divisiveness and the promotion of self over service to others.

And I don’t think that is what anyone needs right now.

For people who claim that for me to say this is in fact creating divisiveness, I refer them back to my bully analogy.

I think that regardless of what a person tells us about their potential as a leader and what their ability / capability to lead is, the truth of the matter is that their actions speak so loudly that we often can’t hear what they say.

I think such actions clearly demonstrate whether a leader actually serves their constituents or pretends to with the intention of self-promotion / self-realization.

I also think these actions and not the words we are spoon fed during election campaigns are what we should use as the basis for choosing the leaders of our society.

And finally, I think that when people fall for empty words instead of making choices based on the actions of others, it  may also be a poor reflection on the people who follow their “leader” blindly.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – Canada Day - 2013

My final observation on Ms, Smith, leaving her to her self-promotion in the midst of the suffering of so many.  People can and should make their own informed decisions regarding the leadership potential of Ms. Smith.

Checking her tweets this morning produces this fascinating mix of tweets.

From top to bottom:

- a bashing of Alberta Health Services for doing their job of ensuring that proper food handling practices are in place (a violation of which could create a MUCH bigger problem in an already bad situation)

- a celebration of Canada Day to show she is patriotic

- a bashing of the RCMP for doing their job of confiscating firearms left abandoned and unsecured (and complaining to the Prime Minister about it)

- a tweet telling people that the website highriver.info contains today’s important announcements (along with a promotion of the Wildrose Party and an opportunity to donate financially to the Wildrose Party).

While she would never admit it publicly, the disaster in Alberta will serve Ms. Smith nicely when the legislature reopens for its next sitting.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure if the gains for her constituents in High River will be as personally satisfying or useful for them as the gains will be for Ms. Smith personally and professionally.

And when people don’t see the connection between a politician’s personal opportunity development on the backs of one’s constituents, it proves the old adage that voters get the representation that they deserve.

Today, we Canadians celebrate our freedoms and our democracy.  Actions such as hers, anti-police, anti-government (including when she suggested to striking corrections officers earlier this year to defy a government back-to-work order) and other such actions look like democracy to some but in some nations appear as an attempt to promote a different form of government.

But I’ll leave that to the conspiracy folks.

Happy Canada Day – better days are ahead for the great people of Alberta!

Addendum – July 4, 2013

I am delighted to see that Ms. Smith’s recent social media posts are now focused on recovery and rebuilding for the great people in High River and less on self promotion.  Whether she changed her messages for political reasons or she and / or her staff realized that earlier messages were inappropriate, the focus has returned to helping the people of High River build a stronger future.  Either way, my concerns as well as the concerns expressed by others probably had some influence, a demonstration that exercising one’s voice in a democracy still works.

Addendum – July 28, 2013

The flooding may be the best thing that ever happened to Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party.  While the party would deny that they are taking advantage of the situation on the backs of citizens who got wiped out, any political strategist would call them foolhardy for not taking advantage of the situation.

In a time of fiscal challenge in Alberta, Ms. Smith is walking the difficult walk of insisting that the government not spend money it doesn’t have while insisting that citizens demand the right to be relocated by the government.

Hypocrite or hero?

Astute or asinine?

Politically savvy or stupid?

We will only know upon historical reflection.

And the history books are written by the victors.

Leadership–When the Rules Don’t Apply To Us

** See below the original post for important updates to this blog , particularly the revision from the Canadian Press.**

I was in a business establishment this morning and and observed an event that started out as curious (almost humorous) but could have ended up being more more serious.

An individual parked a very long pickup truck / trailer combination in front of the business and went inside.  I guess he assumed that the “No Parking – Fire Lane” signs that he parked in front of didn’t apply to him.

A customer inside the business establishment watched the driver enter, shook his head with an obvious sign of agitation and then got up and went out to the vehicle (which was still running).

He entered the vehicle, put it in gear and pulled it ahead to the parking lot and got out.

Meanwhile, the returning driver saw his truck moving and ran over to the other person, cursing and swearing profusely.

While I won’t repeat the profanity laced argument that ensued before the driver got in his vehicle and drove away, it could best be summarized as this:

Driver: You have no right to move my vehicle. That is theft and is against the law.

Customer: You have no right parking a vehicle in a fire lane and so I moved it.

Driver: That has nothing to do with anything. Driving my truck is theft of private party.

The argument went on for about five minutes and just as I realized that a call to 911 might be warranted to prevent a violent act, the driver drove off.

While the customer who moved the truck may not have been in the right by taking the law into his own hands in moving the vehicle, the driver did not see how his actions were wrong either.

Meanwhile on a more serious level

And then I thought of the devastating disaster in High River.  With the town under a mandatory evacuation order for flooding, Danielle Smith, Official Leader of the Opposition of the Alberta Legislature, defied the order “in order to save pets”.

Some folks on Twitter called her on this ….

To which Ms. Smith replied ….

Just as the driver of the vehicle in the incident that I observed believed he was above the law for his own reasons, it appears that Ms. Smith, a senior politician, was also able to rationalize how she was above the law.

It wouldn’t have been so funny if suddenly she were in danger and first responders had to put their Life on the line in order to rescue her.

It also wouldn’t have been so funny if hundreds or thousands of residents of High River had followed her lead and stayed behind, potentially turning a very bad situation into an even worse situation.

If Ms. Smith had been Premier, helping establish the laws of the province instead of breaking  them, I don’t think she would have been amused if someone else had defied the evacuation order.

Given that a leader is commonly defined as someone who influences others, we are all leaders in society, no matter how wide or deep we believe our influence to be.

As a result of this, we need to make sure that our actions are commensurate with what others expect of us and what we expect others may do as a result of observing our actions.

Otherwise, the leadership we are exhibiting may fall far short of what others need and expect of us or it may create a world of trouble for others.

When it comes to leadership, challenging times don’t change or form our leadership abilities – they reveal them.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum:

It is not my interest to make “political hay” in the middle of a disaster.  However, Ms. Smith has chosen to transform this event into an opportunity for personal political gain by criticizing others and therefore also opens the door to being critiqued.

During difficult times as Alberta is experiencing right now, we count on people to follow the guidance and direction of those who are in charge of our safety.  It is not the time to challenge those directives, especially when someone challenging those directives is a member of the provincial legislative body that is issuing those directives in the first place.

After all, when Ms. Smith demands on June 25th that people be allowed to return to High River as she does here and she complains about how the government in Edmonton is covertly determining the future of High River residents as she does here (comments made without respect for the importance of due process) she is not helping restore order. 

The Town of High River announced on June 26th that High River is too dangerous to enter and the announcement below shows that a mandatory evacuation order still exists as of the time this blog was posted.

What is also fascinating is how she is demanding that some residents be allowed to return to High River while at the same time, she is retweeting (as noted in the Twitter capture earlier in this blog) the AB Emergency Alert that asks all people to stay out of High River.

I guess that’s what’s called “covering your bases”. :-)

Due process exists for the safety of all residents and has few if any shortcuts.

It could be posited that Ms. Smith is whipping up frustration and hysteria instead – actions which serve her needs but not the needs of the people of High River.

What kind of leader who claims to serve the people does this?

Addendum 2 – June 26, 2013

I have been contacted by Wildrose Party officials who have offered to provide me with information that will, according to those officials, clarify specific items referenced in this post.  If and when I receive such information, I will review it and take appropriate actions if warranted.

Addendum 3 – June 28th, 2013 – Canadian Press Revision

I reached out to the Canadian Press directly to ask them about their reports that Ms. Smith was in High River in violation of the mandatory evacuation order (information that myself and others in part based our observations on).  They offered this clarification to correct their original reporting:

“The Canadian Press sent by email Thursday to online clients a full version of the original story, with the appropriate changes made to take out the incorrect information.

…….

She was actually in High River for four days after the flood helping rescue pets. She worked through the emergency operations centre under a pass that let her come and go from the community”

In addition to the incorrect reporting by the Canadian Press initially, this confusion would have been defused quickly if Ms. Smith, when queried about allegedly violating evacuation orders, had replied that she was in High River with permission instead of insulting people by saying things like “you obviously don’t have pets”.  To provide clarification days after the event is too late to have avoided the initial confusion and reflects poorly on the Opposition Leader’s communication skills.  It wasn’t  a question of not having the time since she had plenty of time to tweet pictures of people’s pets.  Communication in regards to this event and the choices she made as to what she communicated come down to a question of priorities and not time availability.

This is what happens when someone is used to communicating for incendiary purposes and not for the purposes of clarity.  For this reason, the blog remains as a warning of the confusion that ensues when leaders don’t communicate well (for whatever reason).

Tweets exchanges like this ….

and this ….

in regards to the firearms seized by RCMP are also poorly worded, not defusing the anger regarding incidents as described here where some residents compared the RCMP actions with Nazi Germany.

A more appropriate wording would have been along the lines of “I’m sure the RCMP did what they thought was the right thing to do at the moment and we will endeavor to have firearms returned to their owners as soon as possible.  There are many important things that need to be prioritized at this time.” 

Even the Premier has expressed concern about how this incident is being blown out of context in comparison to more important things that need to be addressed.

Ms. Smith has a considerable ways to go in order to create calm in a population desperate for it.

High River has begun the process of allowing people back in their homes.  Clarity, collaboration, communication and community spirit will carry them through a difficult time.  Better days lay ahead for the wonderful people of High River.

Alberta Bureaucracy - Spending Versus Productivity

Danielle Smith, Leader of the Official Opposition for the Alberta Legislature, has been consumed lately by some recently discovered executive expenditures and has spent a LOT of time drawing attention to them.

If I could put my Newfoundland accent on (long lost on the streets of New York), I’d say to her – “Give it up, gurl.  Sure, yur lookin’ in da wrong direction, by”.

In fact, if you end up spending a dollar or more looking for every dollar you can claw back, are you really winning?

There’s a much larger pot of gold to be discovered within the Alberta bureaucracy and any bureaucracy for that matter but it takes audacity and courage to root it out.

That pot of gold is in the areas of human productivity and effective resource utilization.

Many studies have been conducted to analyze productivity in public and private sectors around the world and can often be boiled down to the following scenarios.

Scenario 1 – Self Assessed

Very few people will ever assess themselves as underutilized or even utilized at optimal levels (for fear of being removed or having their friends removed) so we can discount all of these assessments. Period.

Scenario 2 – External Assessment

These break down into two sub groups.

2a. Friendly Assessment

Some assessments are at the request of a “friend on the inside”.  They are set up to produce a desirable result much in alignment with scenario 1 but under the guise of an objective, external assessment.  These results can be discarded.

There are other assessments that didn’t start out as “friendly” in the same fashion but the people conducting the assessment discovered that they get paid faster or their journey is less confrontational when their approach is considered friendly to those being assessed.  Please see scenario 1.

2b. Objective Assessment

There are a few objective assessments where the people conducting the assessment call it the way they saw it.  Few of these studies get acted upon or are acted upon in a diluted fashion so as to not offend anyone (especially unions) but which can be referenced as a “strong effort to make things better”.

It also happens that the few assessments that produce positive, measurable results (but which are in the minority) are highlighted and presented as the majority of the results when in fact they represent a small portion of the true effort.

Now … before I continue, I must make two observations:

1. Many large-scale private sector organizations have tremendous issues in the areas of productivity and utilization also.

2. There are many public sector workers who are committed to their job, are proud of their service to their municipality, state, province or nation and are doing an amazing job.  In fact, if it weren’t for them, we’d be toast.

However, having been in a number of public sector areas over the years, as a consultant to different groups, as a consumer of their services and as a long time provider of productivity assessment / enhancement services, I can state without fear of condemnation that the public sector has a long way to go when it comes to discovering where the money is really being lost.

A small example

While one data point doesn’t make a study, I remember a couple of years ago having the need to be in a blood testing center twice in the same week in a hospital.

The first time I was there, I was one of two people there for the hour I waited.

The second time I was there, I was the only person there for the hour I waited.

At one point during the second visit, the receptionist, who had an amazing high score going with her computer-based solitaire card game, picked up the phone and called a colleague to complain about how she was run off her feet with her busy day.  She spent about half an hour on the phone complaining about it.

I was amused by the event until a few days later when the hospital produced a self-assessment of the work load of that particular area, citing how the workers there could not be expected to cope with such pressing workloads for much longer.

I contacted someone in the hospital who had worked in the noted area and she indicated that the workload I observed was typical for any given week.

I guess the hospital (or the union) had embraced Assessment Scenario 1 in order to get a few more people in there.

Cash Outlay Is Not the Only Source of Expense

So when I think of Danielle Smith making a fuss about a $7,000 expense here or a $10,000 expense there, my thought is “chump change”.

Not only should she (and others) care about what is being spent but we should spend more time examining how we spend it.

After all, what we get for what we spend is often equally if not more important than the actual amount spent.

I wonder if too many people think that ROI, KPI and other forms of measurement are actually four-letter words.

The challenge I lay before any politician is this

Do you, Mr. or Ms. Politician, have the courage and the audacity to get to the real core of not only how much is spent but how we spend it, because I can assure you that there is a REAL pot of gold out there waiting to be discovered?

Be forewarned that such a pot of gold is only available to those who have the guts to go after it – those who are not afraid to acknowledge the productivity/utilization-centric economic elephant in the room.

Those who have the courage to set out on that journey of discovery are the real heroes amongst the political corps.

But if you as a politician are afraid to go after that pot of gold and prefer instead to hide behind the safety of criticizing an executive’s expense here or there (or you do nothing at all), then I realize that you’re not really serious about making a difference.

You just want us to believe you are.

The question for the rest of us then becomes ….

Have we been fooled or do we dare to demand better?

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Focusing on What Unites or Separates Us

People who know me well know that I have a fascination for politics at all levels and can often be found monitoring various in-session legislatures in Canada and the US while I am working.

If I hear something that sharply resonates with me or disturbs me, I have been known to make an observation or two in social media, observations that often draw a variety of responses and yesterday was no exception.

Some of my observations about the Alberta Legislature drew some comments from a number of people including Rick Newcombe (@RickNewcombe) and we had a light exchange before our dialog grew a little more serious, including appearing to lean towards becoming slightly contentious.

I’m not afraid of nor do I shy away from such dialog and most times after such dialog takes place, I move on, either because I’m busy, the conversation doesn’t seem to be going anywhere or the person I am chatting with is unable to conduct an intelligent, respectful conversation.

However, this exchange seemed different.  I figured out where Rick lived and despite a heavy schedule, I did the improbable in a world that prefers to send (or hide behind the safety of) emails, Facebook messages, tweets and texts.

I called him.

I’m not sure what he expected when he saw my name appear on his caller id but he answered the phone.

What resulted was a great, positive, respect-filled conversation between two men passionately committed to improving the nature of political discourse and with the ultimate intention of creating a better world for the generations that are following ours.

I was intrigued by our conversation since I have repeatedly asked Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith for answers to various questions, statements and assertions in the past and she has responded by blocking me and others who dare to demand truth, transparency and accountability (even though she demands such things of others).

For this reason, it would be easy for many to believe that a former Wildrose Party election candidate and I couldn’t have a positive conversation and yet we did.

Why?

Because people passionate about the creation of a stronger future for our young people find that they have more in common than not and that intelligent, respect-filled, mature individuals can always find a way to collaborate to build such better futures.

Conversations like the one between Rick and I prove that despite initially perceived differences in political stripes, there are many opportunities for dialog – dialog that is healthy, respectful, intelligent, mature, built upon facts and evidence and that recognizes that we all thrive or die together as a society.

Oftentimes we only become aware of our commonalities when we lay aside the sterile, emotionless (or emotion-mistaking) environment of social media and we actually reach out and make human contact.

It is at that point that we discover that our common foundation in the grander human context unites us and calls us to work together to create a stronger future.

I wish some political leaders, including Danielle Smith and others, could understand this and practice the art of sharing, listening and understanding more than the art of shouting and posturing and start focusing more on citizen solutions and less on government failure / replacement?

I think this is critical if we are going to create the stronger future we have the potential to create and which we must create if we really care about future generations.

I also think we need more leaders like Rick Newcombe in the world, providing role models that our young people and some of our political leaders can learn from.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry