According to local custom, the Chamber of Commerce organizes a forum before each election, where the public can ask the candidates questions. This evening was the candidates for mayor; tomorrow will be candidates for council. This is a report on what the would-be mayors had to say, except that I don't write short-hand so my note-taking is sketchy at times. Only what's in quotes is an actual quote, the rest is what I can make out from my notes. But that's still a lot more of a report than you'll get anywhere else.
Oh yeah, and I added my opinion of their opinion. Because hey, it's my blog. And then I added my own answers to the questions, here.
Born and raised in Hay River.(-1) Three children, aged 6 to 21. (-1) 19 years business experience which gives him experience in business management, team building, accounting and budgeting, building relationships, inventory and asset control. He has volunteered for the Chamber of Commerce a lot and had good attendance there.
Brian objects to the fact that council doesn't question spending, lacks transparency, increases taxes (-1), gives contracts to out-of-town contractors (-1), commissions too many reports and studies (-1). He objects to the health centre being built "on a bog across the tracks." Thinks the firehall cannot afford to go over budget (-1).
His plan: we need a ten-year capital plan. We need to make economic development a priority and be "open for business". We need to support Tamerlane, Avalon and Aurora (the pellet mill development). He is happy about devolution (-1) and decentralization (-1), so long as we get our share. He wants more GNWT jobs in Hay River so more people will move to Hay River so we'll get more government subsidies (-1).
In conclusion, we need to move in a positive new direction.
Andrew Cassidy
Born and raised in the Northwest Territories, has lived in Hay River (I missed that number) (-1), he has a farm, wife and daughter, (-1) and also a consulting business. He has been on Town Council the last three years and deputy mayor since the previous deputy mayor quit. He is executive director of the Territorial Farmers' Association, which under his direction has doubled its program budget and vastly increased its public visibility.
Andrew brings enthusiasm, dedication and commitment to the job. He was part of the team that resolved the Cameron Crescent issue and spearheaded a review of the budget and budget process. He has helped improve relationships with MLAs, the administration and community organizations. He is responsive to concerns.
Hay River needs to build on our situation as a transportation hub. We need to support Tamerlane, Avalon and Aurora, devolution (-1) and decentralization (-1). (At this point I had no idea what he was on about for a bit.) (-1) We are leading the communities in decentralization. We need to support small businesses and the growth of organizations and services that reflect who we are.
In conclusion, he is committed to spending the time as mayor, to economic diversity (-1), and to creating a bold vision (-1).
My opinion of their opinion:
K, first of all, I don't actually care about your kids' ages. REALLY. And more importantly, I think the "I've lived here all my life" line of thought is actually much more a detriment than an advantage. We could use a mayor who has seen the world and how economies operate outside this strange world of infinite government subsidies that we live in.
Two things I've said before: first, devolution is a huge waste of money, we shouldn't be doing it. And second, bringing more GNWT jobs to Hay River is bad. GNWT wages are 80% higher than public sector, which means GNWT jobs are inflationary and make life harder for the working stiffs who don't get GNWT cheques. It does make more people move to Hay River, which raises the cost of government a lot more than its revenues. It puts more demand on our services which are already stretched too thin, and raises housing prices which are already way too high, as the housing bubble hasn't come down yet. What we need isn't to create jobs for people who don't live here: we need to put the people who DO live here in good-quality jobs.
I scored this on a "ten point must" system except they came nowhere close to ten points after I subtracted points for everything that I thought was irrelevant, false, something they won't deliver, or simply something I totally disagree with. So out of ten, the score is Cassidy, 3, Lefebvre, 1.
Question 1: There are many strong personalities running for council. How are you going to build a less fractured council? (Yeah, I thought that too, but so far only Kandis Jameson, Sandra Lester and I have been opening our mouths much. The others stand at the back of the room with nothing to say, if they even show up.)
Cassidy: I've seen how the other mayors did it and what they did wrong, I can do better than that. Nobody I've managed has ever quit on me.
Lefebvre: I have proven leadership at the Chamber of Commerce. You have a dialogue, make a decision, move on. Get things done, don't waste time on squabbles.
My opinion: Hmmmmm... On the one hand, Lefebvre is right about the general concept of leadership, which is to make decisions. On the other hand, the question is not that, but the details of how to get it done. I'm gonna have to give this one to Cassidy.
Question 2 (Father Don): There hasn't been enough good faith with the Youth Centre, which serves more than 200 at-risk teens. Other Youth Centres across Canada receive considerable support from their municipalities. Discuss.
Lefebvre: I've sat in a Town Council meeting where the Youth Centre delegation was treated badly. We need to find where the disconnect is and find a solution, have the discussion in peace.
Cassidy: We need trust, we need to rebuild relationships. I'm committed to sitting down with the organizations.
My opinion: Is there an echo in here? They both just said the exact same thing, which amounts more or less to nothing. This is not the election for Governor General, you know. Have an opinion. You both get dinged a point.
Question 3: What are the three greatest opportunities and three greatest challenges facing this council?
Cassidy: Opportunities: devolution. We need to heal our community, build up the organizations. Also decentralization, where Hay River "has been at the table" with the GNWT, gone to Yellowknife to meet them. Also economic development; we need to build relations with other communities and lead the South Slave.
"Only three challenges?" Infrastructure; we need to trust the administration. Communication; we need to engage the public. And "I'll leave it at that."
Lefebvre: Opportunities: business development opportunities, devolution, decentralization.
Challenges: infrastructure – no reserve. Accountability.
My opinion: Again, they both said the same thing, and the fact that they both identified "opportunities" that aren't and failed to name three challenges is an epic fail. I'm giving this one to Lefebvre for at least mentioning the imaginary infrastructure reserve, but they both sucked on this one.
Question 4 (Tom Lakusta): In the past every candidate talked about "team-building" but we still got autocratic decision making. So seriously, what are you gonna do about it?
Lefebvre: There are outstanding issues that keep not being dealt with. I'm approachable, come and have a dialogue. We need to create solutions and move on. Talk, decide, move on.
Cassidy: I reach out to community members. The mayor has to make sure Council moves forward. I will meet with the SAO Tuesday mornings to make sure that there is a plan to implement the Council's decisions from the night before.
My opinion: I guess this one goes to Cassidy for saying something concrete.
Question 5 (myself on behalf of a citizen): Taxes in the corridor: are they going down, and when?
Cassidy: That's a challenging file. The residents had an agreement with the Town which they feel the Town did not live up to. I was the liaison but no agreement was reached, there was poor communication for example no explanation of why taxes increased. The ball was dropped. We need to get back to the table with them.
Lefebvre: I can't answer this today, but I wasn't the one who dropped the ball. We have to get together and put this issue to rest, stop kicking things into the long grass. We need to stop having permanently disgruntled groups.
My opinion: Again, not much difference between the two, but I'll give it to Lefebvre on account of the "permanently disgruntled groups." We sure have enough of those.
Question 6: Regarding the IT contract, the consultant said that the current service is excellent and is good value, and recommended signing a long-term contract with ArcTech, a local employer. Do you support that recommendation?
Lefebvre: I was at that meeting but I don't have all the information so I can't speak to that right now.
Cassidy: The primary role of the Council is to spend money efficiently. The alternative to this contractor is to hire someone in-house. That review has not been completed, so we cannot make the decision right now.
My opinion: Cassidy, not only for having something to say, but something that is a good point. There are always alternatives.
Question 7 (Sandra Lester): (I didn't quite get the details but it was about hiring local contractors rather than out-of-town.)
Cassidy: The Town has a process for evaluating RFPs, this is done on a point system by the administration and passed on to Council with a recommendation. One time we had to go to a third party for a second opinion. The Council now reviews RFPs before they're sent out. For technical matters expertise is weighed above location, for less technical ones local contractors are given the advantage.
Lefebvre: We send out a lot of RFPs instead of tenders. I know which one you're talking about and it went to an out-of-town contractor who bid $15,000 more, on top of the $145,000 that could have stayed in the community. Engineers can't cut corners, they have a designation to maintain, of course we should hire the lowest, local tender.
My opinion: Surely you cannot be serious? I can assure you people with professional designations cut corners every bit as much as the rest. As for the local contractor in question, they have a bad reputation, and above all, you should never hire the lowest bidder. It's called "winner's curse": if you're the lowest bidder, almost guaranteed you've under-estimated the project, which means you'll either go over or do an especially lousy job. You lose three points for saying three absurd things.
Question 8: If there is a majority on the two ballot questions, what happens? (For those who don't care, the questions are whether we should have a full-time mayor and six instead of eight councillors.)
Lefebvre: I can't make Council make a decision, but yes we should listen to the public.
Cassidy: It will be up to the new Council.
My opinion: Hard to have an opinion of their lack of opinion. I'm docking Lefebvre for reversing his "proven leadership" stance and because I bet he won't listen to the public either – he'll listen to a loud minority.
Question 9 (Jane Groenewegen): When there is a mandatory reassessment, why doesn't the mill rate go down? That was just a $600,000 cash grab. And why don't we use a zero-based approach to the budget?
Cassidy: I voted against the last two mill rates. We need to make the community more affordable, but we've got big expenses coming up such as the sewers.
Lefebvre: It was incumbent upon the Council to drop the mill rate. Zero-based budget would be great, I'd be happy to try it. I don't think we need tax increases, we just need to be smart in spending our money.
My opinion: They're both wrong. Cassidy is wrong because we need to make the people wealthier by creating real growth i.e. by redressing the ridiculously imbalanced balance of payments. Lefebvre is wrong because he thinks he can create a capital reserve without raising taxes or cutting services (personal communication). I'm gonna stalk his house until I figure out where he's keeping the money tree. But seriously, we have to have some combination of raising taxes, cutting services, and deferring projects. We're gonna have to pay for that non-existent capital reserve sooner or later. Cassidy wins this round.
Question 10: (Sandra Lester) The Wright Crescent sewer was supposed to be replaced in 2007 and that never got done. Why? Why isn't the capital plan followed?
Cassidy: The five-year plan is based on projections, but then reality happens and plans change. The administration has the best knowledge and we have to listen to them.
Lefebvre: We need a strategic plan and we need to follow it.
My opinion: As the Lorax said, it's nice to see someone so undeterred by things like "reality". But seriously: reality happens, and the reality is, our capital spending right now is essentially reactive because that's all we have cash for. For example, the firehall got approved because the Fire Marshall was about to condemn the old one. Until we have a capital reserve, we don't get to decide what to do next – it gets decided for us by things falling apart when we didn't plan for it. Therefore we need more money, therefore we're gonna have to raise taxes and/or cut services. Unless someone can find us a big sewer-replacement grant somewhere. Cassidy wins again.
Question 11: (myself, speaking for myself) You keep telling us the administration knows best, so why don't we listen to the Bylaw Officer and his proposal of the ATV Bylaw?
Cassidy: I didn't say the administration knows best (yes you did) but anyway the administration is one thing but the public didn't support it so we didn't do it. It wasn't about the administration, it was about the public.
Lefebvre: That's a loaded question. Hay River is a lifestyle. We're thirty seconds away from somewhere fun with our toys. We don't want to pass bylaws just to pass bylaws. We like our toys, it should be safe but more importantly (he literally said "more importantly"), we can't have bylaws for the sake of bylaws.
My opinion: You guys both suck. You don't have a clue what a government is supposed to do, you don't have a clue what the public wants, and you haven't got the guts to do the right thing if you might take flak for it. I'm voting for Sandra Lester.
Question 12: Comment on the organizational review.
Lefebvre: I haven't looked at it in depth but I was deeply troubled by the price tag. I do not support the changes to the mayor's job or the number of councillors.
Cassidy: I think it will make for a stronger mayor and a stronger team.
My opinion: I'm with Lefebvre on this one. We need eight councillors because half of them either don't show up or have nothing to say. And we need a part-time, non-voting mayor because it would be a waste of money to pay twice as much for the mayors we've been getting, and they certainly shouldn't vote. (I know I said the opposite before, that we'd attract better mayors if it was full-time. Now I'm doubting that better candidates are even available.)
Question 13: (Wayne Keefe) What are you gonna do if there's a jerk on Council?
Cassidy: That's a reality. We don't browbeat or put people on the spot, you have to address it privately and try to bring them back on board. We rebuilt the relationship with the Chamber of Commerce.
Lefebvre: Robert's Rules of Order. Point out they're out of order and move on, then have the private discussion after.
My opinion: Once again they both said the same thing, but I'm giving it to Lefebvre for mentioning the Rules of Order. I do love the Rules of Order.
Question 14: The recommendations from the 2005 organizational review weren't followed. Are you gonna do something about this one?
Lefebvre: We need "shovel-ready projects" (he likes this term –used it twice) and not these reviews and reports, which didn't even include core services. Let's vote on the recommendations one by one. I don't want to spend money on reports, we need value for our dollars.
Cassidy: Some of the recommendations are already implemented. The SAO is very keen on implementing them. Next time if something hasn't been followed, we will know the reasons why.
My opinion: Cassidy hands-down on this one. We're probably paying too much for these reports, but it certainly beats groping around in a fog of ill-thought-out "shovel-ready projects" . Also, the SAO is cool. We must listen to the SAO.
Question 15: (Tom Lakusta) What kind of things are you gonna promote to make Hay River an even better place to live?
Cassidy: We live here for the lifestyle, plus it's part of our strategy. (My mind wandered.) We need to encourage development for us first, not just for tourists and visitors.
Lefebvre: Partnerships and relationships get things done. That's what makes a community.
My opinion: Um... Honestly, I didn't really pay attention to this part. I was waiting for my turn to talk and I also didn't really care about this topic. Sorry. But I'm dinging them both because neither actually had anything concrete to say.
Question 16: (myself, speaking for myself) As a follow-up to my previous question, I don't know what part of the public you were listening to, but there was lots of support for the ATV bylaw. So how are you gonna make sure you actually hear from ALL the public and not just those who want a bylaw kiboshed?
Lefebvre: Yeah, we need to engage the public.
Cassidy: No, the amount against was overwhelming. It would make it inconvenient for families to use their ATVs. It's not the council's problem to deal with safety.
My opinion: They missed the point of my question, but I guess that's the way I worded it. The point wasn't "tell me more about why you dropped the ATV bylaw" but "how are you gonna listen to the public". Lefebvre had nothing concrete to say, Cassidy gets an epic fail for saying something this fracking stupid. It IS the council's problem to deal with safety, and yes there is massive support for the bylaw, including from the riders' associations.
Since we're on the topic of "it's inconvenient", let's recall once more the previous mayor's idiotic objection to the bylaw, namely that his three kids each have a snow machine and a quad and he'd have to load them on the truck to take them to Super A to gas them up and that's stupid. Apparently, the previous mayor never heard of a "jerrican". In any case, the convenience of families who don't like noise, pollution, their lawns ruined, and trails made unusable, far outweighs the convenience of the few rich asses who like their kids to ride their ATVs in the wrong places. Again, you both suck. But especially Cassidy.
Question 17: Exactly what method would you use to improve communications? (That's what I just said!)
Cassidy: We have newsletter... Mailings... Um... I'll have set hours for my functions as mayor. We'll host more public forums, get people's opinion.
Lefebvre: Communication is key to success. We have the newsletter and the website, that's pretty basic. The mayor could have a blog, use social media. I have an open-door policy.
My opinion: You know what we don't have? A balcony. Great politicians need balconies. There is actually nowhere in this town for a politician to stand up and give a rousing speech. Also, billboards. There are no billboards whatsoever in this town. The anti-drug campaigns puts 8.5 x 11 posters at the pool, the library and the clinic. Completely ineffective. And you know what else? All this is about the mayor talking to us. How about something for the mayor to listen to the people? Like say... surveys? Or some kind of activity where the working class and the poor would actually show up? Notice how these meetings are always made up of the rich and favoured? You can talk about vision, but yours brings the word "tunnel" to mind. You both lose.
Question 18: The kids at the skateboard park use foul language.
Moderator: That wasn't a question. How about "what do you see our youth doing"?
Cassidy: I didn't like the skateboard park at first (it's a temporary location anyway) but it's sure taken off, the kids like it.
Lefebvre: (My mind wandered again.) We need to take a leadership role, develop partnerships. Cater to youth programs.
My opinion: Another epic fail. You both fail to address the deeper issue of why are children using foul language? Oh right, I remember, you can't tell people what to do. Because you're busy creating magic money from no new taxes and no spending cuts. And after all, safety isn't our concern. I think I'm just gonna eat my ballot.
Question 19: (Jane Groenewegen) The Council spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prevent people having outdoor pellet stoves. Will you try not to limit people's options in controlling their cost of living?
Lefebvre: Yeah, WTF? I burn biomass. We should burn biomass. Pellets are great.
Cassidy: That bylaw wasn't about preventing outdoor pellet stoves but about making sure they're not creating safety concerns such as noxious fumes. It was under the initiative of the Fire Chief. We certainly aren't prohibiting them.
My opinion: Cassidy, obviously, for being informed. The incumbents always have the advantage in these things.
Question 20: (myself for a citizen) I'm surprised no one has said this yet: what about the flooding? You know, what are you gonna do about the fact that the river floods in the spring?
Cassidy: We're working on many recommendations, including some small dredging try-outs, but we don't want to get into spending tons of money on something that won't work.
Lefebvre: There's gotta be a report about that somewhere. We want this annual event not to happen at all.
My opinion: So Lefebvre likes reports all of a sudden? WTF? But he's right about that much: we need a report. From someone competent, such as a real engineer. Not a local engineer, an engineer from a place where flood control has so far not failed catastrophically. Like say, the Netherlands (no catastrophic failure since 1959, if memory serves). But you know what would actually make it go away? Move out of the flood zone. Problem solved! So this one goes to Lefebvre.
That being said, if I had to propose some ad hoc contrivance to deal with the flood, I'd say we should build a huge wall of ice along the parts of the shore where the water has been known to come in. We have lots of snow; we could pile it there all winter (instead of on the trail accesses), then flood it with water in the spring so it freezes solid instead of evaporating. Then when the crest is past, knock it all down into the water so it melts away quickly. The only thing is, being not engineered, we'll have no way of knowing what its breaking strength is until it breaks. But hey, that was good enough for New Orleans, right? Or something.
Question 21: (Father Don) What about all those NTCL barges in the river? Don't they affect the flow of ice?
Lefebvre: We should certainly talk to NTCL.
Cassidy: We HAVE talked to NTCL, though maybe not about that exact issue. We can ask the flood committee.
My opinion: Meh. I'm not docking either one for this.
Question 22: (Sandra Lester) Why is my water bill higher in the corridor than in town? Do you support a uniform water rate?
Cassidy: I'd have to see the impact across the board first, but we need to resolve it. We've started some of that analysis.
Lefebvre: I'd need to look at the numbers.
My opinion: You both lose. Have an opinion already. I support uniform rates in principle, unless someone can show me very good reasons against. "People will be pissed off if we make this change" is not a reason not to act.
Question 23: (Wayne Keefe) Lots of talk about long-term vision. Do you have something stunning or semi-interesting to say? Rather than just tearing trees down along the river? (I'd totally hit on Wayne if he ever got single. Just sayin'.)
Lefebvre: We need forward thinking and a plan.
Cassidy: I wish I had something stunning, but I don't. There are plans from back in the eighties that forecast Hay River having 10,000 people by now, but that never happened. There are many ideas. Let's implement some.
My opinion: You make bunny cry. All this talk, and you really don't have the faintest idea. Epic fail on both of you.
Question 24: (Kandis Jameson) How will you hold councillors accountable for their attendance and portfolio work?
Cassidy: Darn right, that's exactly the mayor's job, we have to supervise them and draw out ideas.
Lefebvre: Yeah, that is the mayor's job, but the candidates should also have that level of commitment before they even put in their nomination papers.
My opinion: Lefebvre has a point, but I can give you an idea: there are three candidates so far who are at political meetings with something to say: Jameson, Lester and myself. So vote for the three of us. We'll have some epic disagreements, but at least we'll be there. Nonetheless I'm giving it to Cassidy, because he actually knows the rotten dynamics of Council first-hand and I believe he's more likely to make it work than Lefebvre.
Question 25: (myself, speaking for myself) The Minister of Finance was here last week asking for suggestions for his upcoming budget. Given that the GNWT spends 17 times as much per person as the Town of Hay River, what would you tell the Minister to do with his budget in order to improve our quality of life?
Lefebvre: Why was the $200 million (for core services like operating the Legislature) not on the table? I wanted to take some of that money. Also accountability in the departments, and are the programs working?
Cassidy: I was out of town. We should tell them our priorities and make them align theirs with ours. We've developed good relationships with our MLAs.
My opinion: Did I ask this question because I care about the answer, or to remind the audience that some candidates went and some didn't? Hmmmmmm... Oh well. They both had bad answers anyway. None of that improves the lives of the poor and the working class. Kthxbai.
Lefebvre: If you have any more questions, talk to me. And I don't have to have permission from my employer to work part-time, because I'm my own boss – I can do this full time! Hay River FIRST!
My opinion: They're both wrong. Cassidy thinks he has a vision, but he doesn't really. Lefebvre doesn't have a vision and he doesn't have a plan, either. I give this round to Cassidy.
If I had to vote, I'd still vote for Cassidy, for a few reasons. First of all, he has worked in government, and therefore can be hoped to have some concept of socio-economic policy. Second, he did a term as councillor, so he has a much better idea of how this works, he has momentum, and very importantly, he's been "paying his dues", which Lefebvre hasn't. People should work as councillors before they run for mayor, in my opinion. Third, I don't like Lefebvre's theory that he can create money out of nothing. Because he can't. Most people know that. And finally, Cassidy has more natural talent and is still probably the best councillor we've elected since I've been here, and I don't think we should throw that away. But I think I'm just gonna spoil my ballot.
You know what else? Where were the other candidates for Council? There was me, Lester, and Jameson. I think one of the other candidates asked two questions but having never seen him before, I wasn't sure if that was him or not. Otherwise I saw Dohey, Mapes and Coakwell skulking around the back with nothing to say, and Latour sitting toward the front with nothing to say. So after all this should be a pretty quiet term on Council.
That being said, I'm going to bed. Vote for me!
Oh yeah, and I added my opinion of their opinion. Because hey, it's my blog. And then I added my own answers to the questions, here.
Opening remarks
Brian LefebvreBorn and raised in Hay River.(-1) Three children, aged 6 to 21. (-1) 19 years business experience which gives him experience in business management, team building, accounting and budgeting, building relationships, inventory and asset control. He has volunteered for the Chamber of Commerce a lot and had good attendance there.
Brian objects to the fact that council doesn't question spending, lacks transparency, increases taxes (-1), gives contracts to out-of-town contractors (-1), commissions too many reports and studies (-1). He objects to the health centre being built "on a bog across the tracks." Thinks the firehall cannot afford to go over budget (-1).
His plan: we need a ten-year capital plan. We need to make economic development a priority and be "open for business". We need to support Tamerlane, Avalon and Aurora (the pellet mill development). He is happy about devolution (-1) and decentralization (-1), so long as we get our share. He wants more GNWT jobs in Hay River so more people will move to Hay River so we'll get more government subsidies (-1).
In conclusion, we need to move in a positive new direction.
Andrew Cassidy
Born and raised in the Northwest Territories, has lived in Hay River (I missed that number) (-1), he has a farm, wife and daughter, (-1) and also a consulting business. He has been on Town Council the last three years and deputy mayor since the previous deputy mayor quit. He is executive director of the Territorial Farmers' Association, which under his direction has doubled its program budget and vastly increased its public visibility.
Andrew brings enthusiasm, dedication and commitment to the job. He was part of the team that resolved the Cameron Crescent issue and spearheaded a review of the budget and budget process. He has helped improve relationships with MLAs, the administration and community organizations. He is responsive to concerns.
Hay River needs to build on our situation as a transportation hub. We need to support Tamerlane, Avalon and Aurora, devolution (-1) and decentralization (-1). (At this point I had no idea what he was on about for a bit.) (-1) We are leading the communities in decentralization. We need to support small businesses and the growth of organizations and services that reflect who we are.
In conclusion, he is committed to spending the time as mayor, to economic diversity (-1), and to creating a bold vision (-1).
My opinion of their opinion:
K, first of all, I don't actually care about your kids' ages. REALLY. And more importantly, I think the "I've lived here all my life" line of thought is actually much more a detriment than an advantage. We could use a mayor who has seen the world and how economies operate outside this strange world of infinite government subsidies that we live in.
Two things I've said before: first, devolution is a huge waste of money, we shouldn't be doing it. And second, bringing more GNWT jobs to Hay River is bad. GNWT wages are 80% higher than public sector, which means GNWT jobs are inflationary and make life harder for the working stiffs who don't get GNWT cheques. It does make more people move to Hay River, which raises the cost of government a lot more than its revenues. It puts more demand on our services which are already stretched too thin, and raises housing prices which are already way too high, as the housing bubble hasn't come down yet. What we need isn't to create jobs for people who don't live here: we need to put the people who DO live here in good-quality jobs.
I scored this on a "ten point must" system except they came nowhere close to ten points after I subtracted points for everything that I thought was irrelevant, false, something they won't deliver, or simply something I totally disagree with. So out of ten, the score is Cassidy, 3, Lefebvre, 1.
Questions from the public
Question 1: There are many strong personalities running for council. How are you going to build a less fractured council? (Yeah, I thought that too, but so far only Kandis Jameson, Sandra Lester and I have been opening our mouths much. The others stand at the back of the room with nothing to say, if they even show up.)
Cassidy: I've seen how the other mayors did it and what they did wrong, I can do better than that. Nobody I've managed has ever quit on me.
Lefebvre: I have proven leadership at the Chamber of Commerce. You have a dialogue, make a decision, move on. Get things done, don't waste time on squabbles.
My opinion: Hmmmmm... On the one hand, Lefebvre is right about the general concept of leadership, which is to make decisions. On the other hand, the question is not that, but the details of how to get it done. I'm gonna have to give this one to Cassidy.
Question 2 (Father Don): There hasn't been enough good faith with the Youth Centre, which serves more than 200 at-risk teens. Other Youth Centres across Canada receive considerable support from their municipalities. Discuss.
Lefebvre: I've sat in a Town Council meeting where the Youth Centre delegation was treated badly. We need to find where the disconnect is and find a solution, have the discussion in peace.
Cassidy: We need trust, we need to rebuild relationships. I'm committed to sitting down with the organizations.
My opinion: Is there an echo in here? They both just said the exact same thing, which amounts more or less to nothing. This is not the election for Governor General, you know. Have an opinion. You both get dinged a point.
Question 3: What are the three greatest opportunities and three greatest challenges facing this council?
Cassidy: Opportunities: devolution. We need to heal our community, build up the organizations. Also decentralization, where Hay River "has been at the table" with the GNWT, gone to Yellowknife to meet them. Also economic development; we need to build relations with other communities and lead the South Slave.
"Only three challenges?" Infrastructure; we need to trust the administration. Communication; we need to engage the public. And "I'll leave it at that."
Lefebvre: Opportunities: business development opportunities, devolution, decentralization.
Challenges: infrastructure – no reserve. Accountability.
My opinion: Again, they both said the same thing, and the fact that they both identified "opportunities" that aren't and failed to name three challenges is an epic fail. I'm giving this one to Lefebvre for at least mentioning the imaginary infrastructure reserve, but they both sucked on this one.
Question 4 (Tom Lakusta): In the past every candidate talked about "team-building" but we still got autocratic decision making. So seriously, what are you gonna do about it?
Lefebvre: There are outstanding issues that keep not being dealt with. I'm approachable, come and have a dialogue. We need to create solutions and move on. Talk, decide, move on.
Cassidy: I reach out to community members. The mayor has to make sure Council moves forward. I will meet with the SAO Tuesday mornings to make sure that there is a plan to implement the Council's decisions from the night before.
My opinion: I guess this one goes to Cassidy for saying something concrete.
Question 5 (myself on behalf of a citizen): Taxes in the corridor: are they going down, and when?
Cassidy: That's a challenging file. The residents had an agreement with the Town which they feel the Town did not live up to. I was the liaison but no agreement was reached, there was poor communication for example no explanation of why taxes increased. The ball was dropped. We need to get back to the table with them.
Lefebvre: I can't answer this today, but I wasn't the one who dropped the ball. We have to get together and put this issue to rest, stop kicking things into the long grass. We need to stop having permanently disgruntled groups.
My opinion: Again, not much difference between the two, but I'll give it to Lefebvre on account of the "permanently disgruntled groups." We sure have enough of those.
Question 6: Regarding the IT contract, the consultant said that the current service is excellent and is good value, and recommended signing a long-term contract with ArcTech, a local employer. Do you support that recommendation?
Lefebvre: I was at that meeting but I don't have all the information so I can't speak to that right now.
Cassidy: The primary role of the Council is to spend money efficiently. The alternative to this contractor is to hire someone in-house. That review has not been completed, so we cannot make the decision right now.
My opinion: Cassidy, not only for having something to say, but something that is a good point. There are always alternatives.
Question 7 (Sandra Lester): (I didn't quite get the details but it was about hiring local contractors rather than out-of-town.)
Cassidy: The Town has a process for evaluating RFPs, this is done on a point system by the administration and passed on to Council with a recommendation. One time we had to go to a third party for a second opinion. The Council now reviews RFPs before they're sent out. For technical matters expertise is weighed above location, for less technical ones local contractors are given the advantage.
Lefebvre: We send out a lot of RFPs instead of tenders. I know which one you're talking about and it went to an out-of-town contractor who bid $15,000 more, on top of the $145,000 that could have stayed in the community. Engineers can't cut corners, they have a designation to maintain, of course we should hire the lowest, local tender.
My opinion: Surely you cannot be serious? I can assure you people with professional designations cut corners every bit as much as the rest. As for the local contractor in question, they have a bad reputation, and above all, you should never hire the lowest bidder. It's called "winner's curse": if you're the lowest bidder, almost guaranteed you've under-estimated the project, which means you'll either go over or do an especially lousy job. You lose three points for saying three absurd things.
Question 8: If there is a majority on the two ballot questions, what happens? (For those who don't care, the questions are whether we should have a full-time mayor and six instead of eight councillors.)
Lefebvre: I can't make Council make a decision, but yes we should listen to the public.
Cassidy: It will be up to the new Council.
My opinion: Hard to have an opinion of their lack of opinion. I'm docking Lefebvre for reversing his "proven leadership" stance and because I bet he won't listen to the public either – he'll listen to a loud minority.
Question 9 (Jane Groenewegen): When there is a mandatory reassessment, why doesn't the mill rate go down? That was just a $600,000 cash grab. And why don't we use a zero-based approach to the budget?
Cassidy: I voted against the last two mill rates. We need to make the community more affordable, but we've got big expenses coming up such as the sewers.
Lefebvre: It was incumbent upon the Council to drop the mill rate. Zero-based budget would be great, I'd be happy to try it. I don't think we need tax increases, we just need to be smart in spending our money.
My opinion: They're both wrong. Cassidy is wrong because we need to make the people wealthier by creating real growth i.e. by redressing the ridiculously imbalanced balance of payments. Lefebvre is wrong because he thinks he can create a capital reserve without raising taxes or cutting services (personal communication). I'm gonna stalk his house until I figure out where he's keeping the money tree. But seriously, we have to have some combination of raising taxes, cutting services, and deferring projects. We're gonna have to pay for that non-existent capital reserve sooner or later. Cassidy wins this round.
Question 10: (Sandra Lester) The Wright Crescent sewer was supposed to be replaced in 2007 and that never got done. Why? Why isn't the capital plan followed?
Cassidy: The five-year plan is based on projections, but then reality happens and plans change. The administration has the best knowledge and we have to listen to them.
Lefebvre: We need a strategic plan and we need to follow it.
My opinion: As the Lorax said, it's nice to see someone so undeterred by things like "reality". But seriously: reality happens, and the reality is, our capital spending right now is essentially reactive because that's all we have cash for. For example, the firehall got approved because the Fire Marshall was about to condemn the old one. Until we have a capital reserve, we don't get to decide what to do next – it gets decided for us by things falling apart when we didn't plan for it. Therefore we need more money, therefore we're gonna have to raise taxes and/or cut services. Unless someone can find us a big sewer-replacement grant somewhere. Cassidy wins again.
Question 11: (myself, speaking for myself) You keep telling us the administration knows best, so why don't we listen to the Bylaw Officer and his proposal of the ATV Bylaw?
Cassidy: I didn't say the administration knows best (yes you did) but anyway the administration is one thing but the public didn't support it so we didn't do it. It wasn't about the administration, it was about the public.
Lefebvre: That's a loaded question. Hay River is a lifestyle. We're thirty seconds away from somewhere fun with our toys. We don't want to pass bylaws just to pass bylaws. We like our toys, it should be safe but more importantly (he literally said "more importantly"), we can't have bylaws for the sake of bylaws.
My opinion: You guys both suck. You don't have a clue what a government is supposed to do, you don't have a clue what the public wants, and you haven't got the guts to do the right thing if you might take flak for it. I'm voting for Sandra Lester.
Question 12: Comment on the organizational review.
Lefebvre: I haven't looked at it in depth but I was deeply troubled by the price tag. I do not support the changes to the mayor's job or the number of councillors.
Cassidy: I think it will make for a stronger mayor and a stronger team.
My opinion: I'm with Lefebvre on this one. We need eight councillors because half of them either don't show up or have nothing to say. And we need a part-time, non-voting mayor because it would be a waste of money to pay twice as much for the mayors we've been getting, and they certainly shouldn't vote. (I know I said the opposite before, that we'd attract better mayors if it was full-time. Now I'm doubting that better candidates are even available.)
Question 13: (Wayne Keefe) What are you gonna do if there's a jerk on Council?
Cassidy: That's a reality. We don't browbeat or put people on the spot, you have to address it privately and try to bring them back on board. We rebuilt the relationship with the Chamber of Commerce.
Lefebvre: Robert's Rules of Order. Point out they're out of order and move on, then have the private discussion after.
My opinion: Once again they both said the same thing, but I'm giving it to Lefebvre for mentioning the Rules of Order. I do love the Rules of Order.
Question 14: The recommendations from the 2005 organizational review weren't followed. Are you gonna do something about this one?
Lefebvre: We need "shovel-ready projects" (he likes this term –used it twice) and not these reviews and reports, which didn't even include core services. Let's vote on the recommendations one by one. I don't want to spend money on reports, we need value for our dollars.
Cassidy: Some of the recommendations are already implemented. The SAO is very keen on implementing them. Next time if something hasn't been followed, we will know the reasons why.
My opinion: Cassidy hands-down on this one. We're probably paying too much for these reports, but it certainly beats groping around in a fog of ill-thought-out "shovel-ready projects" . Also, the SAO is cool. We must listen to the SAO.
Question 15: (Tom Lakusta) What kind of things are you gonna promote to make Hay River an even better place to live?
Cassidy: We live here for the lifestyle, plus it's part of our strategy. (My mind wandered.) We need to encourage development for us first, not just for tourists and visitors.
Lefebvre: Partnerships and relationships get things done. That's what makes a community.
My opinion: Um... Honestly, I didn't really pay attention to this part. I was waiting for my turn to talk and I also didn't really care about this topic. Sorry. But I'm dinging them both because neither actually had anything concrete to say.
Question 16: (myself, speaking for myself) As a follow-up to my previous question, I don't know what part of the public you were listening to, but there was lots of support for the ATV bylaw. So how are you gonna make sure you actually hear from ALL the public and not just those who want a bylaw kiboshed?
Lefebvre: Yeah, we need to engage the public.
Cassidy: No, the amount against was overwhelming. It would make it inconvenient for families to use their ATVs. It's not the council's problem to deal with safety.
My opinion: They missed the point of my question, but I guess that's the way I worded it. The point wasn't "tell me more about why you dropped the ATV bylaw" but "how are you gonna listen to the public". Lefebvre had nothing concrete to say, Cassidy gets an epic fail for saying something this fracking stupid. It IS the council's problem to deal with safety, and yes there is massive support for the bylaw, including from the riders' associations.
Since we're on the topic of "it's inconvenient", let's recall once more the previous mayor's idiotic objection to the bylaw, namely that his three kids each have a snow machine and a quad and he'd have to load them on the truck to take them to Super A to gas them up and that's stupid. Apparently, the previous mayor never heard of a "jerrican". In any case, the convenience of families who don't like noise, pollution, their lawns ruined, and trails made unusable, far outweighs the convenience of the few rich asses who like their kids to ride their ATVs in the wrong places. Again, you both suck. But especially Cassidy.
Question 17: Exactly what method would you use to improve communications? (That's what I just said!)
Cassidy: We have newsletter... Mailings... Um... I'll have set hours for my functions as mayor. We'll host more public forums, get people's opinion.
Lefebvre: Communication is key to success. We have the newsletter and the website, that's pretty basic. The mayor could have a blog, use social media. I have an open-door policy.
My opinion: You know what we don't have? A balcony. Great politicians need balconies. There is actually nowhere in this town for a politician to stand up and give a rousing speech. Also, billboards. There are no billboards whatsoever in this town. The anti-drug campaigns puts 8.5 x 11 posters at the pool, the library and the clinic. Completely ineffective. And you know what else? All this is about the mayor talking to us. How about something for the mayor to listen to the people? Like say... surveys? Or some kind of activity where the working class and the poor would actually show up? Notice how these meetings are always made up of the rich and favoured? You can talk about vision, but yours brings the word "tunnel" to mind. You both lose.
Question 18: The kids at the skateboard park use foul language.
Moderator: That wasn't a question. How about "what do you see our youth doing"?
Cassidy: I didn't like the skateboard park at first (it's a temporary location anyway) but it's sure taken off, the kids like it.
Lefebvre: (My mind wandered again.) We need to take a leadership role, develop partnerships. Cater to youth programs.
My opinion: Another epic fail. You both fail to address the deeper issue of why are children using foul language? Oh right, I remember, you can't tell people what to do. Because you're busy creating magic money from no new taxes and no spending cuts. And after all, safety isn't our concern. I think I'm just gonna eat my ballot.
Question 19: (Jane Groenewegen) The Council spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prevent people having outdoor pellet stoves. Will you try not to limit people's options in controlling their cost of living?
Lefebvre: Yeah, WTF? I burn biomass. We should burn biomass. Pellets are great.
Cassidy: That bylaw wasn't about preventing outdoor pellet stoves but about making sure they're not creating safety concerns such as noxious fumes. It was under the initiative of the Fire Chief. We certainly aren't prohibiting them.
My opinion: Cassidy, obviously, for being informed. The incumbents always have the advantage in these things.
Question 20: (myself for a citizen) I'm surprised no one has said this yet: what about the flooding? You know, what are you gonna do about the fact that the river floods in the spring?
Cassidy: We're working on many recommendations, including some small dredging try-outs, but we don't want to get into spending tons of money on something that won't work.
Lefebvre: There's gotta be a report about that somewhere. We want this annual event not to happen at all.
My opinion: So Lefebvre likes reports all of a sudden? WTF? But he's right about that much: we need a report. From someone competent, such as a real engineer. Not a local engineer, an engineer from a place where flood control has so far not failed catastrophically. Like say, the Netherlands (no catastrophic failure since 1959, if memory serves). But you know what would actually make it go away? Move out of the flood zone. Problem solved! So this one goes to Lefebvre.
That being said, if I had to propose some ad hoc contrivance to deal with the flood, I'd say we should build a huge wall of ice along the parts of the shore where the water has been known to come in. We have lots of snow; we could pile it there all winter (instead of on the trail accesses), then flood it with water in the spring so it freezes solid instead of evaporating. Then when the crest is past, knock it all down into the water so it melts away quickly. The only thing is, being not engineered, we'll have no way of knowing what its breaking strength is until it breaks. But hey, that was good enough for New Orleans, right? Or something.
Question 21: (Father Don) What about all those NTCL barges in the river? Don't they affect the flow of ice?
Lefebvre: We should certainly talk to NTCL.
Cassidy: We HAVE talked to NTCL, though maybe not about that exact issue. We can ask the flood committee.
My opinion: Meh. I'm not docking either one for this.
Question 22: (Sandra Lester) Why is my water bill higher in the corridor than in town? Do you support a uniform water rate?
Cassidy: I'd have to see the impact across the board first, but we need to resolve it. We've started some of that analysis.
Lefebvre: I'd need to look at the numbers.
My opinion: You both lose. Have an opinion already. I support uniform rates in principle, unless someone can show me very good reasons against. "People will be pissed off if we make this change" is not a reason not to act.
Question 23: (Wayne Keefe) Lots of talk about long-term vision. Do you have something stunning or semi-interesting to say? Rather than just tearing trees down along the river? (I'd totally hit on Wayne if he ever got single. Just sayin'.)
Lefebvre: We need forward thinking and a plan.
Cassidy: I wish I had something stunning, but I don't. There are plans from back in the eighties that forecast Hay River having 10,000 people by now, but that never happened. There are many ideas. Let's implement some.
My opinion: You make bunny cry. All this talk, and you really don't have the faintest idea. Epic fail on both of you.
Question 24: (Kandis Jameson) How will you hold councillors accountable for their attendance and portfolio work?
Cassidy: Darn right, that's exactly the mayor's job, we have to supervise them and draw out ideas.
Lefebvre: Yeah, that is the mayor's job, but the candidates should also have that level of commitment before they even put in their nomination papers.
My opinion: Lefebvre has a point, but I can give you an idea: there are three candidates so far who are at political meetings with something to say: Jameson, Lester and myself. So vote for the three of us. We'll have some epic disagreements, but at least we'll be there. Nonetheless I'm giving it to Cassidy, because he actually knows the rotten dynamics of Council first-hand and I believe he's more likely to make it work than Lefebvre.
Question 25: (myself, speaking for myself) The Minister of Finance was here last week asking for suggestions for his upcoming budget. Given that the GNWT spends 17 times as much per person as the Town of Hay River, what would you tell the Minister to do with his budget in order to improve our quality of life?
Lefebvre: Why was the $200 million (for core services like operating the Legislature) not on the table? I wanted to take some of that money. Also accountability in the departments, and are the programs working?
Cassidy: I was out of town. We should tell them our priorities and make them align theirs with ours. We've developed good relationships with our MLAs.
My opinion: Did I ask this question because I care about the answer, or to remind the audience that some candidates went and some didn't? Hmmmmmm... Oh well. They both had bad answers anyway. None of that improves the lives of the poor and the working class. Kthxbai.
Closing remarks
Cassidy: I am committed to the community and to this job. I have permission from my employer to work part-time so I can put in the hours as mayor. We have lots of work ahead of us, we need a strong mayor with a vision.Lefebvre: If you have any more questions, talk to me. And I don't have to have permission from my employer to work part-time, because I'm my own boss – I can do this full time! Hay River FIRST!
My opinion: They're both wrong. Cassidy thinks he has a vision, but he doesn't really. Lefebvre doesn't have a vision and he doesn't have a plan, either. I give this round to Cassidy.
Conclusion
My scorecard ends up as Cassidy, 8.37, Lefebvre, 8.07. Honestly I'd have thought it would be lower, but I did say it was a ten point must. That's a pretty meager difference, which is not surprising given that they mostly stuck to both saying the same non-committal stuff. Either one of them is less bad than the ones we've had the last six years, insofar that they're probably both capable of moderating the Council. But they've got no ideas and no courage.If I had to vote, I'd still vote for Cassidy, for a few reasons. First of all, he has worked in government, and therefore can be hoped to have some concept of socio-economic policy. Second, he did a term as councillor, so he has a much better idea of how this works, he has momentum, and very importantly, he's been "paying his dues", which Lefebvre hasn't. People should work as councillors before they run for mayor, in my opinion. Third, I don't like Lefebvre's theory that he can create money out of nothing. Because he can't. Most people know that. And finally, Cassidy has more natural talent and is still probably the best councillor we've elected since I've been here, and I don't think we should throw that away. But I think I'm just gonna spoil my ballot.
You know what else? Where were the other candidates for Council? There was me, Lester, and Jameson. I think one of the other candidates asked two questions but having never seen him before, I wasn't sure if that was him or not. Otherwise I saw Dohey, Mapes and Coakwell skulking around the back with nothing to say, and Latour sitting toward the front with nothing to say. So after all this should be a pretty quiet term on Council.
That being said, I'm going to bed. Vote for me!
No comments:
Post a Comment