Let's look at the criteria ActivatED use.
1. A commitment to Sustainable Transit
So, what is "a commitment"? Has Heather MacKenzie shown a commitment? Let's see, now...Candas Jane Dorsey has been working for years on improving the LRT route to cause less disruption to fragile communities that were not consulted. She joined with the south Chinatown community to speak up for them. Did other candidates? A platform is just that - a platform. Actually doing the work is what shows a commitment.
2. Prioritization of an Urban Agriculture Strategy
"Heather values a robust local food system and, in particular, she values the farm land both within and around our city limits. She believes that greater access to local, healthy food will reduce vulnerability to environmental shocks and help bolster the local economy. She supports the proliferation of farmers’ markets, community gardens, and other forms of local agriculture."
But what is her track record of making these things happen? Candas Dorsey, who has also spoken out against the sprawl, has actually been working in the community gardens. The new Boyle Street Plaza, which she had a substantial hand in shaping, was planted with fruit-bearing shrubs for the neighbourhood - understanding that a policy is one thing, but actually putting it in action is better. The Plaza also has kitchen facilities and a muck-and-guck room - great facilities for community harvest and preserving activities.
So do we want someone who says these things or someone who does them? Who will come up with a more workable strategy?
3. A Commitment to Sustainable and Responsible Development - Putting a Stop to Urban Sprawl
Heather MacKenzie has a good position on this, but Candas Dorsey has actually been fighting the battle directly. From championing the urban coop housing initiatives decades ago (including being an active member of one of those co-ops for 17 years) to working on the Boyle Renaissance to putting her feeling about affordable housing in action - giving students a deal on her former rental property in Belgravia and absorbing the cost - in essence subsidizing the housing and allowing appreciation to yield the eventual profit (this came up at the World Cafe reverse forum when a candidate from another ward was saying that as a landlord he would expect to make a profit). Dorsey lives in Boyle Street, an area that has suffered from the past decades of poor planning. She has been speaking out to preserve our remaining heritage buildings, or to have them included in the design of future developments. Her own businesses were housed in some of Ward 6's venerable buildings that have been re-purposed.
So what has Heather MacKenzie done that makes her more progressive on this front? You can say anything during an election, but what has she actually done? Candas Jane Dorsey has been on the front lines of this one for years - even before she chose to move from Old Strathcona to Boyle Street 11 years ago. So why does ActivatED think their candidate is more progressive on this item? Mystifying.
4. Responsible Funding of Infrastructure Projects - Avoiding Public-Private-Partnerships (P3s)
Heather MacKenzie's chief claim to suitability is that she served one term as an EPSB trustee. EPSB, with the province, uses P3s for new schools. I looked through the reports I could find online of the committee Ms. MacKenzie served on - the Moratorium on School Closures Committee. It's a complicated thing when the province is making you build P3 schools and at the same time there is a struggle to keep core schools open. One of the ways put forward by the committee is to lease space in the schools - if that can be done. It would be stretching it to call that a public-private partnership, because the ownership is still with the board. But interestingly enough, there seemed to be no expressions of concern about the proliferation of P3 schools and how they might contribute to the problem. Maybe the reports don't reflect the full discussion, but if avoiding P3s is one of the criteria, how can ActivatED support a candidate whose chief qualification is that she was a trustee for a board that has P3s?
Candas Jane Dorsey has been vocal in her opposition to the P3 approach to the LRT.
But just as the P3 decision was made before Heather MacKenzie got to EPSB and there would have been no benefit to opposing it after the fact, so too will either candidate find themselves facing a harsh reality on YEG city council. The Alberta government did the P3 deal to provide new schools that were needed; the federal government is insisting on the P3 deal if Edmonton is going to get Fed $$ for the LRT.
So on this one, they are both in trouble. The difference is that Heather MacKenzie has been associated with an entity that uses P3s and Candas Jane Dorsey has not. So who should get the endorsement?
But let's not stop there. In terms of the history of trying to do big things on a small budget, Heather MacKenzie has three years with an organization that has a huge, established financial operation. Candas Jane Dorsey has three decades' experience finding creative partnerships (either for the cultural associations she volunteered with or in the companies she ran) and doing her best to keep organizations in the black. She simply has way more hands-on fiscal experience. So why does Heather MacKenzie get the endorsement?
ActivatED repeatedly mentions that MacKenzie has an elected public position. This was not part of the survey they sent to the other candidates, or they would have found out that Candas Jane Dorsey has also held several elected positions - from province-wide organizations to the local community league. The ability to get elected is not an indicator of progressive thinking (look at many of our elected politicians!); it is a talent for being elected. True, Candas Dorsey has not been elected to city council before. Neither has Heather MacKenzie. If it is experience in campaigning that counts, there are several Ward 6 candidates who have a lot of experience campaigning, and the nod would probably have to go to Adil Pirbhai!
I heard an interview on the CBC with some of the ActivatED brain trust. They said they looked at things like whether or not the candidate had a campaign manager. How is that progressive? Both MacKenzie and Dorsey have had campaign managers - so what? Campaign managers are not a sign of being progressive - even the most regressive candidate can have a campaign manager. They also said they were looking at whether or not someone was "electable". Wake-up call to ActivatED: look at the worst of the federal Conservatives - that person was electable. Sometimes being electable is about pandering. For example, this race between McKeen and MacKenzie for "endorsements" or "look who I know" tweets strikes me as two people with less-than-full records of public service desperately trying to borrow credibility from others. I suppose it makes them seem more electable to some people, but my vote will go to candidates who are more secure than that.
5. Prioritization of Equity and Proven Ability for Community Consultation
The work Heather MacKenzie did to pass LGBTQ inclusiveness and anti-bullying policies must not be underplayed - it was excellent.
And it was made possible because people like Candas Jane Dorsey spent decades doing the legwork. Contrast a short stint on the EPSB in a climate where same-sex couples are allowed to marry with Ms. Dorsey's 17 years on the Edmonton Police Service Liaison Committee and then the EPS Chief's Advisory Committee on Hate and Bias Crime (which was then renamed and expanded).
Dorsey received the Todd Janes Award for community service to the LGBT community and an EPS award for her work with the EPS committees. She was also a recipient of the YWCA Women of Distinction Award. She was awarded the international Tiptree Award, which is given annually to an author for "a work which best explores or expands gender roles."
As a publisher, she invested in the voices of authors from LGBTQ communities, from people struggling with mental illness or developmental issues. She used her position to bring their stories to light. She marched in the early Pride Parades - in the days when to do so was to invite scorn, ridicule, and the threat of violence. She was one of the writers who worked on the province's IRPA Review Panel Report. Her work has intersected with First Nations communities and artists. She insisted on bringing forward the needs of the underhoused and economically disadvantaged in the Boyle Renaissance consultations (actually writing the policy for BSCL), objecting to the proposed removal of the bottle depot because it is the main source of income for her destitute neighbours. She fought to get the voices of the Chinese seniors heard when the City's transportation department decided to put an LRT tunnel between the seniors' residence and their cultural society buildings. She has been a tireless advocate for women, for visible minorities, for the economically disadvantaged.
Many Edmontonians know that. Dorsey has been building community and creating connections on a local, provincial and national level for decades.
For all the things she has done as an artist and as a community advocate, she was awarded an Alberta Centennial gold medal.
That's not even touching the personal actions: providing a year-round source of water for the homeless after hours, caring for the transient population that springs up on the empty lot most summers, applying her social work training and her keen awareness of people as individuals to every interaction in one of the most diverse neighbourhoods in Edmonton.
So why does ActivatED think Heather MacKenzie is more progressive? Is it because she has volunteered for Engineers Without Borders, a charity of particular interest to one of the ActivatED members?
Now, maybe it's not fair to compare Dorsey's decades-long history of deep commitment to equality - equality not just as a concept but as a reality - with someone who is too young to have racked up that degree of accomplishment. But there it is - Dorsey meets this criterion better than MacKenzie.
MacKenzie will be a Dorsey some day. She's smart, principled, and genuine. Give her time. But right now, ActivatED has made a mistake in putting MacKenzie's accomplishments ahead of Dorsey's.
6. A Commitment to Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure of Funders Prior to E-Day
Well, this is a tough one - because I have seen the list posted by Heather MacKenzie and I have seen the list that has not yet been posted by Candas Dorsey.
Here's what ActivatED said they want to see going forward:
- lower the maximum campaign donation from $5000 to $1500-2000
- require that all candidates disclose their finances prior to election day
- ban corporate and union donations
- ensure that financial surpluses after the campaign are given back to the donors, to the municipality, or to a charity
- Only allow donations to be made during election years
- Limit the candidate’s spending to 50-65 cents per ward resident
She has not disclosed, at this date on that page at any rate, the names of the corporations and unions that have contributed to her campaign.
Those donations to MacKenzie from business and unions total 32% of her campaign donations. That is NOT what ActivatED seemed to think would be progressive.
With about 72,000 people in Ward 6, ActivatED would like to see the spending capped for this ward at $36K to $46.8K. I don't know how much Heather MacKenzie is spending, but I am seeing billboards and print ads and a huge number of signs. And unions are making phone calls.
Candas Dorsey? When I saw the list as of this date, no unions. No businesses. Just individuals, and none near the maximum. No potential to be influenced post-election.
Now, Dorsey has not posted her list yet - but then, it only has to be posted before E-day to qualify. So people would have to take my word for it that I have seen the list. But I bet several of the candidates running in Ward 6 would meet ActivatED's criteria better than MacKenzie.
MacKenzie's willingness to take union and corporate money is contrary to what ActivatED says their criteria were about. So there is that question again: why endorse a candidate who, good as she is, is not the best at meeting the stated criteria?
So, now what?
In a direct comparison on all the stated criteria, ActivatED has actually NOT endorsed the right candidate according to their own philosophies. How did this happen?
Well, for one thing they chose before many of the candidates had even indicated they were going to run. Having chosen, it would be a huge loss of face to say "Oooops! We have to back someone else now." Their website said they would change their endorsement if new information came up during the election, so let's see if they will do the right thing.
For another thing, their survey did not ask for full information from the candidates. The reasoning they give for MacKenzie is not all based on the survey - they have taken the time to find out more (or perhaps they already knew more because of the prior association of one of their members). Did they take the time to find out more about the other candidates? Ummm...well, we could ask those other candidates but I am pretty sure what the answer would be. ActivatED did not - or they would have realized how off-base they were to discount Dorsey.
Another possibility is that they do not think anyone of Dorsey's age could be progressive. The ActivatED team is young; MacKenzie is young. Could there be ageism at work here? Candas Dorsey doesn't appear progressive to them, perhaps, because she is mature. They need to spend some time in committees with Candas Dorsey.They also need to understand that just because someone hasn't shown up on the radar of their peer group doesn't mean the person hasn't been working in the broader community.
I like Heather MacKenzie. She is thoughtful and smart and if she is elected I believe she will do a good job. On ActivatED's criteria, though, she does not beat Dorsey. Dorsey will do a better job, and she brings decades of progressive action as well as her experience. MacKenzie is my second choice.
So what will ActivatED do now? They have been putting out Twitter calls to join them in a final blitz for Heather MacKenzie (they don't seem to be blitzing for other wards). Will they show integrity and endorse the candidate who better meets their criteria, or will they continue to work for MacKenzie?
Of course, there is no obligation for ActivatED to be impartial or fair - they are self-appointed and they don't have to answer to anyone. If they want to work for MacKenzie because they like her, why not? My issue is that they claim to be doing it because she is more progressive than the other candidates, and that is simply not true even by their own criteria.
So this week leading up to the election is where they will have to prove to me that they are either people of integrity who will re-assess their choice...or they are people who wanted to work for MacKenzie all along and have no intention of sticking to the principles they said they espoused - in which case they need to come clean and say they recognize Dorsey is the better candidate but they want MacKenzie anyway because they like her and they are prepared to vote for feelings over principles. Do they have the courage to do this? If they don't, how transparent and progressive is ActivatED being?
Meanwhile, voters should weigh the facts for themselves.
UPDATE October 17: A Twitter exchange and a posted reasoning from ActivatED2013 has revealed a couple of things.
First, they clarified that Heather MacKenzie was not a volunteer for Engineers Without Borders at the same time as one of their own members. Fair enough.
In their explanation, they said they took into account whether or not the person was electable - could they run a good campaign. When I suggested this was not a sign of being progressive - that even an unprogressive candidate could run a good campaign - they referred me back to their initial criteria where they said that running a good campaign was not a sign of being progressive. Ummm. So running a good campaign and being electible is not progressive UNLESS you are a candidate they want to endorse?
They seem to like the fact that she was able to spring money from unions and businesses, despite that being contrary to their criteria. So there's another paradox - it's bad UNLESS you are a candidate they want to endorse?
So if ActivatED is going to adjust or ignore their criteria to make sure they fit the candidate they chose (and in their refutation they again pointed out MacKenzie's handful of very real and positive accomplishments but did not take the trouble to research the other candidate more fully - my argument is not with MacKenzie's accomplishments, only that they do not stack up to equal a better candidate), there's not much point engaging with them.
Maybe they need to spend some time thinking about whether or not personal biases are affecting their interpretation of their own criteria. I can't imagine why an ability to get and spend money from unions and businesses is at all "progressive". All those endorsements from people you haven't worked for, who don't really know you... It's borrowing cred. That whole campaign is slick like...well, like the status quo campaigns of the people they won't endorse.
Despite their protests, ActivatED is still wrong. Only now they are determinedly wrong. I hope they can get some clarity in their processes before the next election, because I think they are genuine in their desire to effect public good. For this election, though, I find them not credible.
No comments:
Post a Comment