The announcement this week that the waterslides need major maintenance work before they are safe to be used by the public, and may not reopen unless a community group or individual steps up with the necessary funds, was a surprise to many people. Once again, council is caught between the proverbial rock and hard place - the demands on our financial resources far exceed our current tax levels, and increasing those tax levels to pay for everything that everybody wants, would place too heavy a tax burden on city residents.
It's starting to seem almost like the movie Groundhog Day - different facility; same story, unfortunately.
While I know that the waterslides are a fun and affordable day in the water for people, especially those who don't have a cottage at the lake (that would be most of us), it's not one of our more affordable facilities, since it's only used for less than three months of the year, and the user revenue isn't enough to cover the costs of having it open, staffed, and maintained. And having it an outdoor facility means that the maintenance costs are higher - there's a reason why there are only two outdoor waterslides in Saskatchewan.
Part of the problem is that council wasn't made aware of the magnitude of the situation until this year - despite what may be alleged by anonymous posters on various websites, we were not informed of the potential safety issues until this year.
One way of preventing this situation from recurring with all our facilities, might be to have an annual report from each facility on what kind of shape it's in, what kind of regular or recurring maintenance is required to keep it functioning, and what the cost would be. We don't get anything like this at present, and I think it would be extremely helpful.
It's kind of like with your car or house - there are things that should be done on a regular basis, and you need to be aware of what these things are and what the cost is going to be so that you can put it into your budget. Even with major expenditures like a new roof or a furnace, knowing the approximate lifespan of these things gives you the chance to build up savings to cover the cost, before it becomes an emergency.
The sad reality is that the waterslides may never reopen. I think that for the investment required, we would be far better off to look into the costs of building a facility that can be used year-round. The challenge will be figuring out ahead of time, not just how much the facility will cost to build, but how much it will cost to operate and maintain. I know that this sort of thing isn't nearly as exciting, but it would prevent such unpleasant surprises in the future. Just like the costs of fuel and maintenance should be considered before you buy a car, and you wouldn't think of buying a car that you could only drive for a few months of the year, we need to think of the whole picture before we invest in another facility.
"Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Monday, May 19, 2014
The Margo Fournier Centre Problem
At last week's council meeting, we had many users of the Margo Fournier Centre show up to voice their concerns about the recent notification from the city to user groups that they may need to find alternative places for their various activities. The notification wasn't something that had been directed by council, and it didn't say that the centre would definitely be closing, but was more of a heads-up. And filling council chambers had the usual result - members of council voted to reverse the notification, even though it hadn't been a council decision. However, the problem remains, and we're just getting a handle on its extent.
Council has been gathering information on the many, many buildings that the city owns and maintains, and it's no secret that we have more facilities than we can afford. In our rush to provide residents with a good variety of recreational and sports facilities, previous councils didn't take the time upfront, before the decision was made to go ahead with yet another facility, to figure out the ongoing cost of maintaining these facilities in good repair, as well as the more boring necessities, like roads and clean water.
This is the inevitable result - our population is not increasing at a rate that can support all of these facilities. Hard decisions have to be made, because we can't continue to support all of our facilities at the levels that people have become used to.
I appreciate the value that the Margo Fournier Centre brings to the downtown. I think that there's great value in having a facility that people who work downtown can walk to on their lunch hour for fitness classes. I realize that the attached Heritage Centre is a good gathering place for seniors, providing essential social opportunities.
I hope that the users also realize that their usage is heavily subsidized by the city - in other words, the tax payers. Users need to recognize that the convenience of being able to walk to a fitness class on their lunch hour should likely carry a greater cost than five dollars a class - or even less, when you realize that people who have a monthly pass to the field house can attend any of the classes at the Margo Fournier Centre for no additional cost.
The other inequity that has been mentioned before, but needs to be mentioned again, is that many of the users of city facilities, including the Margo Fournier Centre, don't live in the city, so their cost is further subsidized, since they're not paying the taxes that city residents do. I found it rather ironic that many of the people who signed the petition to keep the Margo Fournier Centre open had addresses from outside the city - they don't have to worry about their taxes going up to keep city facilities open and safe. I certainly support having different user rates for non-city residents, to help make up the difference.
I also think that we need to include all costs of maintaining facilities when we set user rates for the public, and that includes utility and water costs - otherwise we're just perpetuating the inequities, and passing the costs on to the tax payers. It also might end some of the misconceptions that certain facilities pay for themselves - this isn't true if all costs aren't involved, and at this point, they aren't.
I've had many interesting and positive conversations with some of the people concerned about the potential closure of this facility, and I have no doubt of their sincerity and appreciation for this facility. I hope that in their continuing discussions with the various interest groups that they put forward alternatives that include establishing a fair cost rate for using the facility, and don't just hope that the current situation will continue.
And please, please, please, let's remember this the next time council chambers are filled with a crowd of people demanding that we need a new facility - we just can't have it all.
"There's no free lunch." - Milton Friedman
Sunday, May 11, 2014
The Option to Save Tax Payers Some Money
Legislation has recently been changed that will allow the city to add unpaid water bills to the taxes for a property - an option that is currently under debate with council. This problem usually happens with rental properties, when the tenant leaves without ensuring that all their debts are paid. It also can be an issue with commercial properties that are leased - the lessee does not always pay their bills either.
Part of the problem is that water bills are only paid quarterly, rather than monthly, so someone could move out of a property leaving the water bill unpaid, and by the time the bill is sent, the person who used the water is long gone, so shutting off the water to the residence isn't possible - someone new is likely living there now, and it wouldn't be fair to make them pay the costs for water that they didn't use. Although the city tries to get repaid by using collection agencies, that doesn't always work, and eventually, the debt is written off.
This may seem like not that big of a problem, but it is. The most recent amount that had to be written off, covering the last four years, was roughly $450,000 - not an insignificant amount. When the debt is written off, then the rest of the tax base, those people who pay their water bills and taxes, ends up picking up the expenses that would have been covered by the unpaid debt. And that's not fair.
I think that the solution made possible by the changes to legislation will make things much more fair. The city will be able to add the amount unpaid to the taxes for the residence or commercial property, and the owner will end up paying.
I know that some landlords feel that this is unfair, as they didn't run up the water bill, or leave without paying it, and I can understand that initial reaction. However, I also know some landlords that include the water bill in the rent, so that they don't have to worry about whether the tenant is paying the bill. I also know that the landlord can write off such additional expenses as part of their business expenses. I think that it's more fair than having tax payers eventually make up the difference.
I also think that moving to monthly billing for water will reduce the problem somewhat. A bill that's only a third the size should be more manageable for those tenants who have to pay their own utilities directly, and the city should catch those who aren't paying more quickly.
In any case, I think that moving to this option, which will reduce the amount of unpaid money that the city ends up writing off will mean that we have more money to take care of our ongoing responsibilities of maintaining this city-run facility - one of our more crucial responsibilities.
"Credit is a system whereby a person who can't pay, gets another person who can't pay, to guarantee that he can pay." - Charles Dickens
Part of the problem is that water bills are only paid quarterly, rather than monthly, so someone could move out of a property leaving the water bill unpaid, and by the time the bill is sent, the person who used the water is long gone, so shutting off the water to the residence isn't possible - someone new is likely living there now, and it wouldn't be fair to make them pay the costs for water that they didn't use. Although the city tries to get repaid by using collection agencies, that doesn't always work, and eventually, the debt is written off.
This may seem like not that big of a problem, but it is. The most recent amount that had to be written off, covering the last four years, was roughly $450,000 - not an insignificant amount. When the debt is written off, then the rest of the tax base, those people who pay their water bills and taxes, ends up picking up the expenses that would have been covered by the unpaid debt. And that's not fair.
I think that the solution made possible by the changes to legislation will make things much more fair. The city will be able to add the amount unpaid to the taxes for the residence or commercial property, and the owner will end up paying.
I know that some landlords feel that this is unfair, as they didn't run up the water bill, or leave without paying it, and I can understand that initial reaction. However, I also know some landlords that include the water bill in the rent, so that they don't have to worry about whether the tenant is paying the bill. I also know that the landlord can write off such additional expenses as part of their business expenses. I think that it's more fair than having tax payers eventually make up the difference.
I also think that moving to monthly billing for water will reduce the problem somewhat. A bill that's only a third the size should be more manageable for those tenants who have to pay their own utilities directly, and the city should catch those who aren't paying more quickly.
In any case, I think that moving to this option, which will reduce the amount of unpaid money that the city ends up writing off will mean that we have more money to take care of our ongoing responsibilities of maintaining this city-run facility - one of our more crucial responsibilities.
"Credit is a system whereby a person who can't pay, gets another person who can't pay, to guarantee that he can pay." - Charles Dickens
Sunday, April 27, 2014
The Need for More Debate
One of the things that I find lacking at council meetings is real debate. I don't mean the repetitive spouting of stances, or making personal comments on the characters of those we disagree with (for example, dismissing someone's comments because "they're always so negative"), rather than responding to the substance of the comment, or the frequent wish to just move on.
I mean that we need to do more serious discussion about options, and the pros and cons of them, with actual facts attached. We need to forget the personal stuff, or trying to look better than the other people around the table, or jockeying for favourable positions for the next election. We're less than halfway through this term, and we need to concentrate on making good, informed decisions now, rather than worrying too much about the future.
In fact, I'd venture the opinion that focusing on our decisions at every opportunity now will actually be seen positively by the residents of Prince Albert, when they see that we're looking at the whole picture, long term, rather than short term.
I have a couple of specific examples, one finished, the other with the opportunity still available.
At our final budget vote, I raised the ongoing issue about removing the flat tax that was put in place by the previous council. I raised the same issue last year, and was told that it would be looked into. It wasn't. What was raised in place of debate was the rather specious argument that it was too late to consider this, and in any case, people were pretty sure that it would then raise the proposed tax increase by several percentage points. Unfortunately, pretty sure without any facts to substantiate shouldn't cut it, and it wasn't like it was a surprise - it was supposed to be looked at a year ago, and if that had happened there would have been plenty of time to bring facts to the table. Instead, the decision went ahead without real debate, again, and again most of the residents of the city will be paying more than they would if the original flat tax was removed.
The opportunity to have real debate will come up when we discuss the water utility budget increase. A few years ago, we went forward with a sizeable increase, for the next several years. Since that time, we have new information about the state of the water treatment plant, but we aren't revisiting the decision made at that time, although it is certainly within our mandate to do so. But it seems as though many of my fellow members of council would rather just stay with the decision that was made, rather than reconsidering it in the face of new information and more recent changes.
I often think that, especially when we discuss money, we're hesitant to change, almost as if we're worried that doing so will attract unwarranted attention from the taxpayers. I also think that in many cases, rather than figuring out how much money we need to do the amount of work that can be done in a year, we instead focus on what number we think will be acceptable to residents, whether that amount is sufficient to do the necessary work or not. In these cases, I wish that our debate would focus on the reality of what can be accomplished, not on the more ephemeral what we think will fall within the mysterious realm of acceptable, even though we know that we can't please everyone.
Let's spend less time worrying about what image we're presenting, and more time putting some substance into our discussions, and I think that the overall result will be positive for everybody, including the taxpayers.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." - Joseph Joubert
I mean that we need to do more serious discussion about options, and the pros and cons of them, with actual facts attached. We need to forget the personal stuff, or trying to look better than the other people around the table, or jockeying for favourable positions for the next election. We're less than halfway through this term, and we need to concentrate on making good, informed decisions now, rather than worrying too much about the future.
In fact, I'd venture the opinion that focusing on our decisions at every opportunity now will actually be seen positively by the residents of Prince Albert, when they see that we're looking at the whole picture, long term, rather than short term.
I have a couple of specific examples, one finished, the other with the opportunity still available.
At our final budget vote, I raised the ongoing issue about removing the flat tax that was put in place by the previous council. I raised the same issue last year, and was told that it would be looked into. It wasn't. What was raised in place of debate was the rather specious argument that it was too late to consider this, and in any case, people were pretty sure that it would then raise the proposed tax increase by several percentage points. Unfortunately, pretty sure without any facts to substantiate shouldn't cut it, and it wasn't like it was a surprise - it was supposed to be looked at a year ago, and if that had happened there would have been plenty of time to bring facts to the table. Instead, the decision went ahead without real debate, again, and again most of the residents of the city will be paying more than they would if the original flat tax was removed.
The opportunity to have real debate will come up when we discuss the water utility budget increase. A few years ago, we went forward with a sizeable increase, for the next several years. Since that time, we have new information about the state of the water treatment plant, but we aren't revisiting the decision made at that time, although it is certainly within our mandate to do so. But it seems as though many of my fellow members of council would rather just stay with the decision that was made, rather than reconsidering it in the face of new information and more recent changes.
I often think that, especially when we discuss money, we're hesitant to change, almost as if we're worried that doing so will attract unwarranted attention from the taxpayers. I also think that in many cases, rather than figuring out how much money we need to do the amount of work that can be done in a year, we instead focus on what number we think will be acceptable to residents, whether that amount is sufficient to do the necessary work or not. In these cases, I wish that our debate would focus on the reality of what can be accomplished, not on the more ephemeral what we think will fall within the mysterious realm of acceptable, even though we know that we can't please everyone.
Let's spend less time worrying about what image we're presenting, and more time putting some substance into our discussions, and I think that the overall result will be positive for everybody, including the taxpayers.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." - Joseph Joubert
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Correcting a Misconception
For some people, when they get what they think is a good story, they'll keep repeating it, with embellishments, until they forget what the actual truth is. That's how rumours get started, and grow.
There's one story about me that I hear occasionally, that I want to set the record straight on. And I'm sure that I'll hear it again, even after I've set the record straight, but at least I'll know that the truth is out there.
The misconception that has been voiced more than once is that I've never, in all my fourteen years on council, voted in favour of an annual budget. This is not true. I have voted to support the budget three times, when I felt that the budget process had been fair and open, and that the result was fair to all city residents. They weren't perfect budgets, but I felt that they did the best job possible of addressing the various issues of the day.
But I haven't supported several budgets, and always gave my reasons for doing so. I did not vote to support, for example, the budget that took money from the road maintenance budget, and directed it towards Neat and Clean, the slush fund that was used for such things as painting light standards as high as the painter could reach, and no higher, and putting new furniture in the mayor's office and in council chambers. I did not vote to support the budget that had a tax increase of 0%, because that resulted in our falling even further behind in infrastructure maintenance, and was only set because it was an election year - an extremely short-sighted and obvious tactic.
There are people on the current council that voted to support both of those budgets, but nobody ever asks them to explain why. I find it interesting that, when people go along with the majority, it doesn't seem to get questioned, but those of us who aren't afraid to voice different opinions get questioned, and the implication is definitely made that we're not good team players.
This year, I think that the budget process was better than it has been for several years, although there still is much work to be done in questioning the status quo. The difficulty that I have is with the continuation of the initial $60 flat tax, that was created four or five years ago so that the rate increase could be smaller, and then immediately used to balance the budget. I voted against that flat tax, and continue to do so. When I objected last year, a commitment was made that this year, council would look at removing this undirected tax, as we had brought in the flat tax directed towards road repairs. But that didn't happen, with no explanation.
I have less problem with taxes directed toward capital expenditures - last year's tax was set to cover the amount of work that we thought could be done, and we were trying to make up for several years of past neglect. At some point, when we've caught up, I expect that tax to be removed. As for the initial $60, undirected tax, I don't agree with the current proposal to direct half the $60 towards snow removal - that is an operational expense that varies widely from year to year, and we don't know if the $30 will be enough, or too much. And it still leaves $30 undirected.
I'm surprised that so many members of this council support flat taxes, since they are considered regressive by most cities. Low and middle value homes proportionally pay more under a flat tax than higher value homes. Most of us represent far more lower and middle income citizens, and yet, we're quite okay with an unfair tax for most of those who elected us. It doesn't make sense to me.
The so-called flat tax is applied differently to commercial properties. For those, it ranges from $300 to $3000. Somehow, we recognize that a small business cannot afford to pay as large a tax as a large business, but we don't apply the same logic to small homes compared to large homes. I'd love to hear a coherent explanation of that inconsistency.
I have a problem when people suggest that I should vote against my better judgement just so that council can appear to be united. Council isn't some old boys' club, and being on council isn't a game. We're each elected to represent our constituents and their interests, as well as consider the well-being of the city as a whole, and we can only move ahead and change if we're not afraid to question and at times disagree, not just with the status quo, but with each other. And I will continue to vote in the way that I think is right.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
There's one story about me that I hear occasionally, that I want to set the record straight on. And I'm sure that I'll hear it again, even after I've set the record straight, but at least I'll know that the truth is out there.
The misconception that has been voiced more than once is that I've never, in all my fourteen years on council, voted in favour of an annual budget. This is not true. I have voted to support the budget three times, when I felt that the budget process had been fair and open, and that the result was fair to all city residents. They weren't perfect budgets, but I felt that they did the best job possible of addressing the various issues of the day.
But I haven't supported several budgets, and always gave my reasons for doing so. I did not vote to support, for example, the budget that took money from the road maintenance budget, and directed it towards Neat and Clean, the slush fund that was used for such things as painting light standards as high as the painter could reach, and no higher, and putting new furniture in the mayor's office and in council chambers. I did not vote to support the budget that had a tax increase of 0%, because that resulted in our falling even further behind in infrastructure maintenance, and was only set because it was an election year - an extremely short-sighted and obvious tactic.
There are people on the current council that voted to support both of those budgets, but nobody ever asks them to explain why. I find it interesting that, when people go along with the majority, it doesn't seem to get questioned, but those of us who aren't afraid to voice different opinions get questioned, and the implication is definitely made that we're not good team players.
This year, I think that the budget process was better than it has been for several years, although there still is much work to be done in questioning the status quo. The difficulty that I have is with the continuation of the initial $60 flat tax, that was created four or five years ago so that the rate increase could be smaller, and then immediately used to balance the budget. I voted against that flat tax, and continue to do so. When I objected last year, a commitment was made that this year, council would look at removing this undirected tax, as we had brought in the flat tax directed towards road repairs. But that didn't happen, with no explanation.
I have less problem with taxes directed toward capital expenditures - last year's tax was set to cover the amount of work that we thought could be done, and we were trying to make up for several years of past neglect. At some point, when we've caught up, I expect that tax to be removed. As for the initial $60, undirected tax, I don't agree with the current proposal to direct half the $60 towards snow removal - that is an operational expense that varies widely from year to year, and we don't know if the $30 will be enough, or too much. And it still leaves $30 undirected.
I'm surprised that so many members of this council support flat taxes, since they are considered regressive by most cities. Low and middle value homes proportionally pay more under a flat tax than higher value homes. Most of us represent far more lower and middle income citizens, and yet, we're quite okay with an unfair tax for most of those who elected us. It doesn't make sense to me.
The so-called flat tax is applied differently to commercial properties. For those, it ranges from $300 to $3000. Somehow, we recognize that a small business cannot afford to pay as large a tax as a large business, but we don't apply the same logic to small homes compared to large homes. I'd love to hear a coherent explanation of that inconsistency.
I have a problem when people suggest that I should vote against my better judgement just so that council can appear to be united. Council isn't some old boys' club, and being on council isn't a game. We're each elected to represent our constituents and their interests, as well as consider the well-being of the city as a whole, and we can only move ahead and change if we're not afraid to question and at times disagree, not just with the status quo, but with each other. And I will continue to vote in the way that I think is right.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
Sunday, March 30, 2014
More Water Woes
Once again, past neglect of infrastructure maintenance and replacement is costing us far more than the investment in these basic responsibilities would have. This long cold winter is causing problems with water - broken water mains and frozen water pipes mean that one of the basic requirements of life hasn't been available for some city residents for weeks. It has also illustrated that our ways of dealing with these disruptions need to be revised.
We thought that it was bad two years ago when the whole city was under a boil water order for six weeks. While the current problem doesn't affect the whole city, for those affected, it's much worse. At least with the boil water order you could still flush your toilet and have a shower. For homes with no water or sewer, all their routines, throughout their day, have to be adjusted. And for seniors, or those housebound for reasons of poor health, it's even more difficult.
I have received more phone calls about this problem than any other in recent memory. Most people understand that with the number of breaks, the city can't fix them all at once (although there is the occasional caller who feels that they should be at the top of the list). But most people would just like to know when they can hope to have water again. If you know that it's going to be weeks, then maybe you'll make plans to move in with friends or family for the duration, but if it's only going to be a few days, perhaps you'll tough it out. And the phone calls I'm getting are to see if perhaps I can find out how long it's going to be. I'm not having much luck in finding that out, but when I checked on Friday, we were up to more than 90 homes without water.
While I appreciate that city crews and the extra contractors we've hired are doing their best to get the situation resolved, from an administrative perspective, I think we need to provide more support. Finally, we have taken the step of providing residents with access to showers at the Kinsmen Arena (which also highlights the oversight in the design of the field house when showers weren't included). Drinking water is being provided to homes without water, but rather sporadically, and not in very large quantities. We need to have a set schedule for delivering water, so that people can arrange their lives to be there at the right times. Or perhaps have cases of water available at City Hall for affected residents to pick up.
And we need to figure out an approximate timeline for when people will get this basic service back, so that they can plan how they will deal with the difficulties. We should be able to estimate how long it's taking to fix each problem, then extrapolate from that to set out timelines. It's a basic part of providing good customer service that we need to get better at.
I also think that we shouldn't be charging people for a service that they're not getting. I know that it will be difficult to adjust the water bills of these residents, but I know that if I had gone without water for several weeks, I wouldn't expect to have to pay for a service that I didn't receive. More than one resident has said that this adding insult to injury better not happen.
Going forward, I think that council has to take a similar approach as we started for road repairs last year, this time looking at our underground infrastructure. Not surprisingly, the problems are in the east and west flats and midtown areas - those areas where improvements have not kept pace with the newer parts of the city. Council's decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on picking up grass clippings, rather than investing that money in water pipe replacement so that people can rely on having drinking water - I know which one I think is more important, and I think that most people would agree. And that's why I keep arguing every year, both during the budget process and after, that we need to look at everything that we spend money on, and make sure that we're covering the basics, before we spend money on the nice to haves.
It's just unfortunate that it takes things like the current water crisis to drive the point home.
"Water is the driving force in nature." - Leonardo da Vinci
We thought that it was bad two years ago when the whole city was under a boil water order for six weeks. While the current problem doesn't affect the whole city, for those affected, it's much worse. At least with the boil water order you could still flush your toilet and have a shower. For homes with no water or sewer, all their routines, throughout their day, have to be adjusted. And for seniors, or those housebound for reasons of poor health, it's even more difficult.
I have received more phone calls about this problem than any other in recent memory. Most people understand that with the number of breaks, the city can't fix them all at once (although there is the occasional caller who feels that they should be at the top of the list). But most people would just like to know when they can hope to have water again. If you know that it's going to be weeks, then maybe you'll make plans to move in with friends or family for the duration, but if it's only going to be a few days, perhaps you'll tough it out. And the phone calls I'm getting are to see if perhaps I can find out how long it's going to be. I'm not having much luck in finding that out, but when I checked on Friday, we were up to more than 90 homes without water.
While I appreciate that city crews and the extra contractors we've hired are doing their best to get the situation resolved, from an administrative perspective, I think we need to provide more support. Finally, we have taken the step of providing residents with access to showers at the Kinsmen Arena (which also highlights the oversight in the design of the field house when showers weren't included). Drinking water is being provided to homes without water, but rather sporadically, and not in very large quantities. We need to have a set schedule for delivering water, so that people can arrange their lives to be there at the right times. Or perhaps have cases of water available at City Hall for affected residents to pick up.
And we need to figure out an approximate timeline for when people will get this basic service back, so that they can plan how they will deal with the difficulties. We should be able to estimate how long it's taking to fix each problem, then extrapolate from that to set out timelines. It's a basic part of providing good customer service that we need to get better at.
I also think that we shouldn't be charging people for a service that they're not getting. I know that it will be difficult to adjust the water bills of these residents, but I know that if I had gone without water for several weeks, I wouldn't expect to have to pay for a service that I didn't receive. More than one resident has said that this adding insult to injury better not happen.
Going forward, I think that council has to take a similar approach as we started for road repairs last year, this time looking at our underground infrastructure. Not surprisingly, the problems are in the east and west flats and midtown areas - those areas where improvements have not kept pace with the newer parts of the city. Council's decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on picking up grass clippings, rather than investing that money in water pipe replacement so that people can rely on having drinking water - I know which one I think is more important, and I think that most people would agree. And that's why I keep arguing every year, both during the budget process and after, that we need to look at everything that we spend money on, and make sure that we're covering the basics, before we spend money on the nice to haves.
It's just unfortunate that it takes things like the current water crisis to drive the point home.
"Water is the driving force in nature." - Leonardo da Vinci
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Saying Good-bye to a Good Man
Thursday marked the last day of Cliff Skauge's career with the city. For about the last ten years he was the City Clerk; when I was first elected, he was the Assistant City Clerk. It's hard to imagine what City Hall will be like without him - for most of us on council, he's always been there, guiding us through our agenda every week.
Cliff understood his job, and the responsibility that goes along with it. He was the one who had to guide council through the correct procedures, so that whatever we did was done legally. He understood the importance of following process, even though some members of council did not appreciate his assistance, preferring doing things their way rather than doing things right. Explaining that when you are a democratically elected government, you have to follow rules that don't necessarily apply when you're running your own business, must have been something that he got tired of explaining, but he seemed to have infinite patience, even with veteran councillors who had heard the message over and over, but still thought that they could take short-cuts.
In fourteen years, I never heard Cliff raise his voice. I've never seen him angry. I have seen him get frustrated, usually when his repeated respectful reminders of the need to follow process were being ignored. But he carried on, and was always willing to answer questions and accept suggestions.
For the last election, he coordinated the preparation of an excellent voters' guide that was distributed to all households in the city. If you recall, the last election featured changes in ward boundaries that had to be explained, as well as changes in the requirements for voters, particularly the requirement to bring proper identification to the polls, and he put it all together in an easy to understand document. He also coordinated the first ever election results on-line, so that people only had to log into the city web-site to find out the results. These are background things that contributed greatly to the smooth running of the election, and I'm not sure that people truly appreciate how important these background things are.
What I will most remember about Cliff is how he treated all members of council with respect, both inside and outside council chambers, whether rookie or veteran. Whenever he had to call me for a council matter, he always apologized for disturbing me at home, even though he had no other option.
And there was a time, with previous councils, when I was not exactly in the inner circle, as it were. I used to joke that if I dropped into a staff member's office with a question, they would probably get in trouble for talking to me. During this time, Andrea and I were at a fund-raising pancake breakfast, as were other members of council. Andrea and I were sitting alone; Cliff came over and asked if he could join us, and we had a very enjoyable breakfast together. This small gesture of kindness when I was reminded frequently by the actions of my colleagues that I was an outsider, speaks volumes about the kind of man that he was.
All of us who work for the city, in whatever capacity, would do well to emulate his practice of working hard, understanding his job, and treating people with respect and kindness. He led by example, in the truest sense of the word, and I will miss seeing him set that example every Monday evening.
"People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." - Maya Angelou
Cliff understood his job, and the responsibility that goes along with it. He was the one who had to guide council through the correct procedures, so that whatever we did was done legally. He understood the importance of following process, even though some members of council did not appreciate his assistance, preferring doing things their way rather than doing things right. Explaining that when you are a democratically elected government, you have to follow rules that don't necessarily apply when you're running your own business, must have been something that he got tired of explaining, but he seemed to have infinite patience, even with veteran councillors who had heard the message over and over, but still thought that they could take short-cuts.
In fourteen years, I never heard Cliff raise his voice. I've never seen him angry. I have seen him get frustrated, usually when his repeated respectful reminders of the need to follow process were being ignored. But he carried on, and was always willing to answer questions and accept suggestions.
For the last election, he coordinated the preparation of an excellent voters' guide that was distributed to all households in the city. If you recall, the last election featured changes in ward boundaries that had to be explained, as well as changes in the requirements for voters, particularly the requirement to bring proper identification to the polls, and he put it all together in an easy to understand document. He also coordinated the first ever election results on-line, so that people only had to log into the city web-site to find out the results. These are background things that contributed greatly to the smooth running of the election, and I'm not sure that people truly appreciate how important these background things are.
What I will most remember about Cliff is how he treated all members of council with respect, both inside and outside council chambers, whether rookie or veteran. Whenever he had to call me for a council matter, he always apologized for disturbing me at home, even though he had no other option.
And there was a time, with previous councils, when I was not exactly in the inner circle, as it were. I used to joke that if I dropped into a staff member's office with a question, they would probably get in trouble for talking to me. During this time, Andrea and I were at a fund-raising pancake breakfast, as were other members of council. Andrea and I were sitting alone; Cliff came over and asked if he could join us, and we had a very enjoyable breakfast together. This small gesture of kindness when I was reminded frequently by the actions of my colleagues that I was an outsider, speaks volumes about the kind of man that he was.
All of us who work for the city, in whatever capacity, would do well to emulate his practice of working hard, understanding his job, and treating people with respect and kindness. He led by example, in the truest sense of the word, and I will miss seeing him set that example every Monday evening.
"People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." - Maya Angelou
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)