Thus you have Olympic housing rolling through Abbotsford on its way to provide affordable housing in Chilliwack. And the opportunity of $11 million dollars of financial funding for affordable housing from the provincial government lost to city council’s inaction and ineffective, inappropriate actions.

You have the Warm Zone on the verge of closing their doors despite support from the police department and concerns the police have about the repercussions should the Warm Zone close its door.

Mayhap if the woman of the Warm Zone were to re-organize into a hockey based operation, put together a franchise and join the Canadian Women’s Hockey League, they could gain access to the millions of dollars City Council has to subsidise profession hockey franchises?

With City Hall’s latest ethnic cleansing campaign against the homeless in full swing and destroying what shelter the homeless have to provide some protection from the elements, members of the homeless community find themselves soaking wet, cold and faced with the need to find a place to warm up in order to survive.

Finding oneself watching a soaking wet human being huddled into himself  and shivering uncontrollably, desperate for warmth to avoid dying of ‘natural causes’ – as if there is anything natural in our wealthy society about a homeless person dying of hypothermia – brings you face to face with society’s thoughtless indifference.

It is the experience of living with the consequences of City actions that had the homeless, the poor, the hungry and other members of Abbotsford’s growing underclass questioning whether city council was expanding its ethnic cleansing to include the hungry poor among the ‘unworthy’ to be cleansed from Abbotsford when the signs suddenly appeared along Gladys Avenue.

The disquieting growth in the number of seniors, families and others needing to avail themselves of the food distributed and meals served at noon means vehicles spill along Gladys Avenue. No parking meant being unable to park along Gladys Avenue because a parking ticket represents a disaster they cannot afford. No parking meant being forced not to come for food, to go hungry.

The City stated their reason for the appearance of the no parking signs along Gladys Avenue……..but the City’s ‘reasons’ have often been indistinguishable from excuses.

On the other hand the City has a long and well established history of failing to think its actions through with costly, often very costly, consequences for Abbotsford citizens.

Fortunately the appearance of the no parking signage was noted immediately, brought to the City Hall’s attention and resulted in ‘No Parking’ becoming ’2 Hour Parking’ in the ‘Food Zone’. Which should ensure that ‘No Parking’ does not turn into ‘No Food for You!’.

Unresolved however is the appearance of ‘No Parking’ signs raising fears that this was the opening move to add the hungry poor to those the City feels need to be cleansed, and what that fear signifies about city council, Abbotsford and its citizens.

I really don’t care enough about the Heat as an organization to be either negative or positive about the Heat.

On the other hand I am intensely negative about Abbotsford City Council using taxpayer dollars to pay yearly, multi-million dollar subsidies to the owners of the Heat.

If the ownership group of the Heat want to own a professional hockey team, that is their right. However, a professional hockey team is a business and it is the owners of a business who are suppose to assume the risks associated with a business.

Who is it at City Hall and/or around Abbotsford who thinks it is a good idea for the taxpayers of Abbotsford to assume all the risk for the Heat, rather than the owners assuming the risks involved?

If the Heat ownership felt the probability of multi-million dollar losses was too certain to invest in the Heat and move them to Abbotsford without guaranteed protection from multi-million dollar losses – City Council had no business agreeing to cover the Heat’s losses in order to indulge their egos.

Yes indulge their egos. City Hall turned away the Chilliwack Chiefs when they approached City Hall to partner in building a new home for the Chiefs because “Abbotsford didn’t need a new arena or a new hockey team” – until Langley said yes to the Chiefs. Then suddenly Abbotsford needed a new arena and a hockey team.

Perhaps Ms Patterson thinks it makes sense to subsidise the owners of a professional hockey team…… but it seems loony to me to raise fees/costs and deny participation in athletics to increasing numbers of young amateur athletes as part of raising the millions of taxpayer dollars required to allow a few – paid – professional athletes to play hockey in Abbotsford and subsidise ownership of a professional hockey team.

As it is with the Heat, so it is with the Abbotsford Entertainment and Sports Complex building. I am neither positive nor negative about the building itself.

I am negative about the fact that based on the construction costs of arenas built in other BC cities at the time AESC was built, the AESC should have cost taxpayers half of what it did.

Adding to the insult and injury of taxpayers paying 100% more than construction should have cost, carelessness and arrogance cost the taxpayers of Abbotsford millions of dollars from provincial or federal government funding. Funding that every other city – except Abbotsford – got.

And when citizens dared to suggest that council needed to line up funding from senior levels of government before plans were finalized, council told the citizens to run along and let those who “knew what they were doing” handle the matter.

Abbotsford City Council does not have $50,000 to build a handicapped accessible playground, it does not have money to make city sidewalks navigable to citizens in wheelchairs so they do not have to wheel along on the roads of Abbotsford, it does not have the money to paint lines on the roads that would be visible in the rain or do other road work needed to make driving, walking and cycling safer in Abbotsford.

Abbotsford City Council does not have money to meet the needs of the City’s most vulnerable or to address safety concerns and issues. But when it comes to City Councillor’s ego projects, the city has millions of dollars a year to squander to subsidise Heat ownership for the millions of dollars the Heat lose and millions more to subsidise the losses of operating the AESC for the Heat.

While it is nice that Ms Patterson enjoys the Heat games, it would be a lot more enjoyable for taxpayers if the ticket price Ms Patterson and others pay included the $30 subsidy that taxpayers pay per person attending a Heat game.

While those attending Heat games may not find them as enjoyable if the ticket prices for Heat games included/covered the $30 per fan per game subsidy,  taxpayers would find the change a positive development.

*****************************************************************************************************************

I have read too many negative remarks about the Abbotsford Heat. I wonder if the people complaining have ever gone to a game and felt the community spirit there.

I am not a real hockey fan, but I really love the atmosphere at the Heat games. I recently attended the game with my dogs. It was fabulous. The great thing was that $5 from each dog ticket  was donated to the SPCA.  As I walked through the lobby the SPCA was there with information about their programs, and there were other freebies for pet owners.

The national anthem is an awesome event in itself. Local talent sing, and they are exceptional. When they finish, the crowds roar. Clayburn Middle School students are producing broadcasts, young hockey players are out on the ice playing a game, parents selling 50/50  tickets, and kids even get a chance to ride on the Zamboni.

I love seeing all the red in the audience! People catching T-shirts, bags of chips, winning jerseys, playing the Tim Horton game. Great music, Hawkey, friendly people, yummy popcorn, The Kiss Cam, it is all so much fun. It isn’t just about the hockey. Families are there. Lots of happy children dancing and cheering in the stands. I challenge you to come out and see for yourself.

Shelley Patterson

It would seem to me that if Black Press is concerned about inferences being drawn (or suggested) that The News is bias in favour of or had lost objectivity about the City of Abbotsford as a result of undue influence resulting from a) the City of Abbotsford spends all its advertising dollars in the Abbotsford News which, if it doesn’t make the City the newspaper’s the #1 advertiser, makes it a crucial contributor to the health of the bottom-line and b) it is the City, where advertising is not affected by the economy or the competence of management, which would multiply the extent to which these advertising dollars are indispensible to the financial health and/or continued existence of The News, The News should simply focus on consistently demonstrating “The Abbotsford News … long history of independence and integrity with respect to its editorial content”

This does not mean I expect or demand The News to agree with me and disagree with the City’s actions, claims or view point. I too am “acutely aware of the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and freedom of the press…” for organizations as well as people. I consider public discussion and debate of issues to be vital to good governance. Indeed, given the current economic and financial realities of all levels of government discussion and debate is imperative if the voters are to have a say in the direction of our economy and our financial futures.

No, all that is required for the News to demonstrate their commitment to the “… long history of independence and integrity with respect to its editorial content” is to provide an explanation and cite reasons and evidence as to why the News supports a particular action or position. In the same manner as do I and others when we feel the behaviour, actions or positions of Abbotsford City Council are not only less than wise, but financially irresponsible, even ruinous.

The News has every right, a right I would defend, to think the young athletes of Abbotsford should be helping to subsidize professional athletes. The News simply needs to provide an explanation and cite reasons or evidence to as to why they have take the position they have..

For example: I feel that if any subsidizing of sports occurs in Abbotsford it should be directed to the youth and young athletes of Abbotsford, not professional hockey players. The chief reasons that I feel this way are the Canadian Government studies that show a) kids today have a shorter life expectancy than their parents (meaning that for the first time in generations life expectancy is going down not up) and b) kids today are falling far short of the hour of exercise per day they require for healthy living.

So what are the reasons, the evidence that has The News supporting the subsidizing of professional athletes?

It does not seem unreasonable to ask that The News explain and cite reasons and evidence  as to why they support actions taken by Abbotsford City Council. It would also be beneficial to addressing any questions of City influence or independence if The News were to ask/address the obvious questions about issues and situations that any reasonable person would, as well as take any obvious actions associated with articles, the position and coverage by the News.

Which brings us back to the question of panhandling and why an article on panhandling led to thoughts on the clarification on Abbotsford Today’s website..

Right across the street from The News building one would find one of the new No Panhandling signs touted by the City in The News front page story.

CITY COUNCIL’S SOLUTION

I would think it only reasonable that those who are responsible for the content of The News to cast an eye across the street and see how City Council’s panhandling solution was working.

It is taking simple actions such as looking through a window and applying some thought to matters that has led many citizens to consider it wise to question the efficacy of City Staff and Council’s actions.

REALITY

Except of course the squandering of millions of taxpayer’s dollars, behaviour Staff and Council have demonstrated complete mastery of.

Change is uncomfortable, conspicuously so in instances necessitating changing one’s mind.

It is far more comfortable, far more the usual human way, to let inertia keep us bogged down in what we know – no matter how inaccurate that ‘knowledge’ is.

“Gibson said he worries Abbotsford could end up being a centre for drug treatment programs that support continued addiction without addressing the deeper problem.”

If Abbotsford council were to repeal the bylaw there would be NO flood of people into Abbotsford. For the simple reason that harm reduction is part of healthcare everywhere in BC except Abbotsford, and since people everywhere else in BC already have access to these services they have no need to come to Abbotsford.

While the health of Abbotsford’s citizens should be of concern to Abbotsford City Council, council’s actions make it clear the health of Abbotsford’s citizens is not a matter of concern to council, at least not in the manner an Arena or professional hockey team or paying million dollars subsidies are..

Still, City Council’s anti-harm reduction bylaw is consistent with Council’s policy of profligate mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. Because of the bylaw, dollars for Fraser Health programs containing even the tiniest amount of harm reduction are spent in every Fraser Health community BUT Abbotsford.

“Needle exchange, safe injection sites and free-standing methadone clinics will perhaps be desirable for some addicts but without a full detox facility, they could almost certainly create an environment of social acceptance [for drug addiction],” said Gibson.

Hmmm. I had not realized that there was an environment of social acceptance of alcoholism – despite alcohol being legal. I was also under the impression that cigarettes being legal did not preserved the environment of social acceptance that existed prior to public knowledge of the serious negative health consequences of smoking. Nor did legal status stop the development of an environment of social disapproval/non-acceptance of smoking.

Leaving me wondering how Mr Gibson could conclude that heath care services to address the serious negative health consequences of addiction would in any way encourage social acceptance?

Indeed, would not a focus by the health authorities on the negative health consequences of drug use serve to decrease social acceptance of drug use?
Would not a public focus by the health authorities on the serious negative health consequences discourage drug use period?

Harm reduction could act as a disincentive for addicts to seek treatment, he [Simon Gibson] added“

The evidence makes it clear that drug users involved with harm reduction programs such as Insite get into treatment faster. I know it seems counterintuitive, but then substance use is a people issue and people are contrary.

The reality that substance users involved with harm reduction programs seek recovery and wellness sooner is why David Portesi, director of public health for Fraser Health, stated.

“[The bylaw] drives clean needle distribution into the shadows, increases the value of used needles on the street and increases the risk of HIV and Hep C infection.”

“And at the same time, it reduces our ability to engage users in treatment discussions.”

This outcome, people seeking recovery and wellness faster with harm reduction, is consistent with the fact that stable, safe, supportive housing results in people seeking recovery and wellness sooner.

Councillor Gibson went on to state “Harm reduction will do little to make Abbotsford a safer and more secure community.”

It doesn’t really matter whether the above statement arises from philistinism or from the wilful ignorance of a closed mind, sealed tight to prevent a single new thought entering and disturbing the mind. What matters is the blindness reflected in the statement and the negative consequences for ALL citizens of Abbotsford.

Harm reduction is not about drug treatment programs it is about healthcare – for the individual substance users/abusers and the other members of the community the users/abusers live in.

The women selling themselves for money for drugs depend on upstanding citizens purchasing sex because those good citizens are the ones with the money they need to feed their addiction.

Have you seen the advertisement for the vaccination against Hepatitis A & B if you are travelling? An advertisement that uses how easy it is to be infected with Hepatitis A or B to scare you into using their product? You don’t have to go to a foreign country to get infected with Hepatitis A or B.

This sobering reality is why I was/am sure to be vaccinated against Hep A & B.

Unfortunately there are no vaccinations for Hepatitis C or AIDS.\

Should you suggest that perhaps we should build some housing for these vulnerable members of our community, given the clear evidence that providing housing gets people into treatment quicker and supports them staying in recovery instead of relapsing, the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over needles, needles, needles begins.

Given the litany of citizens worries about dirty needles and the potential negative health consequences of dirty needles, how does council justify refusing to allow programs that reduce the number of dirty needles left lying about?

Negative health consequences do not discriminate, do not play favourites, their nature is to spread everywhere they can.

I suppose it is only to be expected that Councillor Gibson and council gave no thought to the fact that their bylaw would negatively impact healthcare in Abbotsford. Or that Councillor Gibson sees no benefit in council no longer interfering with the providing of healthcare to Abbotsford’s citizens.

“Harm reduction will do little to make Abbotsford a safer and more secure community.”

I am driven to abjure any association with the above statement.

The indifference to, the callous disregard for, the state of our fellow citizens, the wellness of our neighbours, evidenced by that statement is anathema.

‘If there ain’t nothing in it for me, then there ain’t no reason for me to care or be benevolent or have concern for the welfare of my neighbour’

While it is not easy, is in fact most times a struggle, both ethics and spirituality mandate an approach to those abusing substances (of any description) based on:

‘………….. The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’

The ethical challenge applies not just to those directly involved but included the governments whose actions have created the conditions in which these behaviours can or will occur. It also included all of us who have created the ethos [the fundamental character or spirit of a culture] of British Columbia and Canada.

The ethos of a community, a province and a country are not created by words or piously beating our breasts and declaring to the world how wonderfully pure we are and impure others are. No, the ethos of our society results from our actions AND our inactions. The ethos of Canada is the sum total of the behaviours of ALL of us, not some mysterious them.

Mr Dix, before you begin blaming the Liberals and declaring how innocent you and the NDP are – you are at least as culpable, as blameworthy, as the Liberals. It was you Mr Dix who ran around the province taking the politically popular position of extinguishing the HST and ignoring the devastating negative consequences extinguishing the HST who have on the most vulnerable, those most in need of help in BC. An ethical opposition would be focused on speaking for the most vulnerable for they have no voice that will be heard to speak for themselves. An opposition focussed on scoring political points so it can gain power and form the next government is an ethically challenged Political Party.

I originally met George shortly after becoming homeless. At least at one point I was the homeless one and George the housed person. I cannot say who the real George was because I did not met George until after he suffered a traumatic brain injury. Yes at the time I met him George could be a little crusty. And yes, George did use illegal substances.

Flash forward to the first half of 2011 where George and I had a conversation, with George speaking about his feeling that after more than a decade he was starting to get to where he was before his brain injury.

The next time I ran into George, he was fresh from the hospital where he had just lost some toes to circulation problems. Regular meals at the Salvation Army, nagging by the Salvation Army’s parish nurse and others who knew George, led to him turning up at the Salvation Army almost dancing. He was so happy he was nearly dancing because he had just come from a check-up where he was told that his physical health had improved so much they would not have to remove more toes as expected.

When I saw George again recently it was quite a shock because he looked terrible – death warmed over terrible – looking like a walking corpse. He was fresh out of the hospital where he had an operation on his stomach. The operation has left George feeling unwell, in a lot of pain and thinking (as do most who see him) that he will, sooner rather than later, be dead.

Hardly surprising then that he is not a fount of sweetness and light. George shares his discomfort, pain and fear through angry, loud, abusive verbal outbursts that include a lot of swearing and are unpleasant and offensive to be on the receiving end of. Which makes George a royal pain in the ass to deal with.

Been there, experienced that, wanted to throttle George.

And while I can understand and sympathize with “I don’t have to put up with being sworn at like that”……..being an obnoxious, loud, verbally abusive, swearing pain in the ass does not deserve the death penalty.

Dumping George onto the streets is imposing the death penalty because in his current state of health he will not survive being homeless on the streets.

Nobody wants to deal with George so they try to dump him on someone else. A situation the Abbotsford Police found themselves caught in when the hospital, which George had been more or less dumped on, phoned the police to remove him for his swearing and angry verbal attacks. Normally, if there is no place to take someone in Abbotsford that someone ends up on the street.

The Abbotsford police ended up taking George to Chilliwack to find a place for him to stay for the night and avoid having George die as a result of being dumped onto the streets by police.

Since them George has been in the hospitals in Chilliwack, in Hope and back in Abbotsford because no one wants to deal with George and get rid of him as soon as they can dump him on someone else.

The homeless community, noting George’s absence and concerned about whether George was alive, enquired about what was going on and what George’s current fate was. They raised the question of ethics when another member of the homeless community supplied information that George had gone from the Chilliwack hospital to the Hope hospital to the Abbotsford hospital where George currently was.

Last year Dallas, who had struggled with drugs and recovery, found himself in the shelter and depressed as he again struggled with addiction. Not the ‘I am so depressed’ that most people have experienced and think of when they hear someone is depressed, but the life sucking black hole that is true DRESSION. Dallas sought help as he spiralled down into DRESSION, at Emergency at the Abbotsford hospital.

Only to be turned away as he hadn’t tried and was not threatening to kill himself or someone else. So he left the hospital and tried to kill himself. Unfortunately he was successful.

Ted’s feet had been frostbitten and not treated. When using Ted is loud, verbally nasty, tries to physically intimidate people and is a bully. When circumstances resulted in me applying antibiotic and bandages to Ted’s foot one evening, the, the black damage of frostbite on his toes together with the bare, open flesh where the frostbite damage had resulted in the loss of skin and flesh was such a concern I managed to get his foot looked at by a nurse the following day.

During the course of the examination Ted stated that his foot was not as painful as it had been. I enquired if that might be because of the high level of drugs he had ingested and he conceded it might be. He knew he could lose toes, foot or leg to the frostbite damage, vowing he would rather die.

Because Ted is a royal pain in the ass and very unpleasant to deal with, Ted is another who the system and society strives not to deal with. Ted did find a rather unique way to get help, robbing a bank in Abbotsford, walking down to the bus stop and having a seat until police arrived to arrest him.

The countdown has already begun for the next person slated to be ignored to death in Abbotsford.

“A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members”

Hubert Humphrey

“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.”

Hubert Humphrey

The question as to the mother being a product of the BC education system arose because of the assumption that either the teacher or the material were at fault, while the obvious and ultimately most important question went unasked or unconsidered or not even thought of.

Given the ample evidence that BC’s educational system is providing a non-educational experience to BC students, the question that truly needs to be addressed is whether the failure rate is a result of this particular teacher actually holding students to the standard (level of knowledge and ability to perform mathematics) that students should have in order to be judged to have mastered the material of Math 11.

I hear you asking “Doesn’t the fact that only the students of this one teacher are failing mean that, obviously, something is ‘wrong’ with this teacher?”

Not necessarily.

We are talking a system that adheres to the ‘social pass’ or ‘we cannot fail them because it would not be good for their self image’ dogma.

A system that believes it doesn’t matter if a teacher knows what they are teaching, what matters is whether the teacher has a lot of teaching theory and technique and that if you ‘know how to teach’ you can teach anything – even if you don’t know or understand the material you are suppose to teach.

It could well be that this is the only teacher with a background in mathematics that allows an understanding of the material and what the students must know and be able to do to be considered to have mastered the material. Or simply that this is the only teacher willing to hold their students to the standard they are suppose to meet to pass the class, with other teachers simply belling the marks to achieve an acceptable number of students passing.

Remember the schools reaction to complaints was simply to raise the marks to placate the parents.

The BC parents reaction was to complain about the failure rate, looking for someone to blame.

My parents reaction to this situation would have been to look at the test(s) that resulted in the failing grade to determine a) were the test questions and degree of difficulty in line with the knowledge, skill and ability set out in the syllabus of the course and b) did my answers show a level of mastery of the material of the course such that I should have passed, or did I deserve to fail because I had not mastered the course material?

I had someone I know tell the tale of how hard it was, when the teacher passed her son when he did not know what he was supposed to have learned or acquired the skills he was to have mastered, to get the school to have him repeat the grade until he had learned and mastered the knowledge he was suppose to have.

The time and effort she had to invest to force the school to do what it should do to teach her child the material of that grade instead of simply passing him on until the school had turned him into another graduate who lacked the reading, writing, math skills and knowledge to thrive in the world outside the classroom after graduation.

Someone else recently shared how, when the schools established the social pass, she had removed her children from the public system in order to ensure her children got an education – not just a certificate that is not worth the paper it was printed on.

I cannot fathom how parents in BC have not demanded their children get the education, the knowledge and skills that they are suppose to receive by making the criteria for advancing to the next grade level having mastered the material of their current grade – not the simple fact they are still breathing.

One wonders what thinking (or should that be non-thinking) was involved in the decision that ‘social pass’ was a good idea and not something that would, as is happening now, rob students of an education.

Or was it that the ‘just pass them’ policy is easier on everybody except, ultimately, the students.

To many failing (as in the Math 11 classes)? No problem – just adjust the marks upward on a bell curve.

The school(s) must be doing a fine job, just look at the student’s marks and see how well the students are learning, what a swell job the school(s) are doing.

Graduates of the system illiterate? functionally illiterate? unable to do simple mathematics, comprehend and solve problems? Universities having to determine which remedial classes new freshmen need to take in order to be able to function at the level required by University courses? Unfounded rumours started by those who want to impose required standards as the basis upon which advancement to the next grade is made.

Which would force teachers to waste their time ensuring students learn the material and develop the skills necessary to pass tests. Pshaw! Teachers being judged on their ability to enable their students to learn the material and acquire the skills appropriate to their grade level? Cannot have that – it would reveal the competence/incompetence of the members of the BCTF employed by school districts across BC.

No, no. Those types of tests are unrealistic, forcing teachers to focus on knowledge, skills and abilities of the students instead of the important stuff like……ummmmm….you know – the important, non-knowledge, non-skills and non-ability stuff.

The fact that so many graduates are illiterate, functionally illiterate, math illiterate does not mean teachers are not doing a good job. It simply means that………ummmm…BC teachers are faced with trying to teach really dumb students. Ya, that’s it. It is not a failure to teach by teachers, it is failure to learn by students.

No doubt the real problem is that those who, like me, are appalled by what is passing for education in the BC school system are misinformed about the purpose of the BC schools system. Foolishly thinking school is about education.

While in BC school is about providing daycare. Because any system that embraces the ‘social pass’ where students cannot fail is NOT about educating students, it is about providing babysitting, very expensive babysitting.

The focus on babysitting rather than education is why the coverage and commentary about the recent 3 day teacher strike was focused on the scramble to find/provide alternative babysitting and how inconvenient it was for parents to not be able to drop their children off at daycare, AKA school, as usual.

I recently was confronted with several young victims of the provincial babysitting system parroting the teachers line about class size.

Why is it that teachers cannot teach the children in their care to read, write, do math, problem solve etc, BUT they can manage to indoctrinate the children with the BCTF party line?

Anyway, back to the victims of the education (and one must use the term education very loosely to apply it to BC schools) and the classroom overcrowding indoctrination they received from agents of the BCTF.

It turns out that their ‘overcrowded’ classes have fewer students the my school classes did and I and my classmates managed to receive a solid education in these ‘overcrowded’ conditions.

Of course we did have the advantage of being educated before education was reformed (repeatedly). When the focus was on making sure that students could read, write, do arithmetic and had mastered the material of the grade level before they graduated. And teachers were required to know the subject they were teaching – and to be able to read and write.

Because no matter how much teaching theory or how many fancy teaching techniques you have – garbage in still equals garbage out.

Our education system needs to be changed to focus on and accomplish what it is suppose to be doing – providing our youth with an education that gives them the knowledge and skills they will need in the world outside the BC school system.

The administrative side needs serious reform to stop wasting the millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars it squanders each year. As evidenced by the review commissioned by the Vancouver School Board to prove the provinces examination that suggested there were millions of dollars of savings to be had. Oooops!

School boards and school board members have to become focused on equipping students with the knowledge, skills and abilities (the Education) that will serve them well when they leave the school system.

As opposed to boards such as Abbotsford’s where the focus is not on preparing students to be able to face and deal with the real world, but on what knowledge to withhold from students. About board members delicate sensibilities as opposed to the needs of students to be prepared to thrive in the real world, not the fantasy world(s) of the Abbotsford School Board members. As if Abbotsford’s students lack the intelligence and judgement of their counterparts in countries such as the Netherlands.

Parents need to become involved, demanding the school system educate their children; stressing the importance of education and making homework and study a priority; even though this change will not be easy, requiring as it does the investment of time and effort.

We need to weed out teachers who cannot teach and those who do not have the knowledge to be teaching the classes they are suppose to be teaching. Given the evidence that a significant percentage of the current teaching staff lack the ability or knowledge to educate students, the BCTF will oppose any efforts to make ability, not seniority, the criteria to hold a teaching position in the BC school system.

It is clear that the educational methods, standards and requirements for those wishing to teach in the school system need a serious overhaul to provide those who would teach with the skills, knowledge and understanding of the subject(s) to be able to impart that knowledge to their students.

Maintaining those standards and imposing discipline needs to be independent of the control of teachers. Yes, teachers must be involved in the process but……the process must be independent of the status quo.

Per contra……

Forty years ago the nation debt was $20 billion, national healthcare was being introduced; technology was exploding; the future included the conquest of space – Moon base, Mars, the stars.

The future was so bright you had to wear shades and young people needed an education for that bright future.

Today the national debt is $600+ billion with provincial debt in no better shape; healthcare is crumbling under rising costs, federal/ provincial debt levels and demand; we have not simply turned away from space but have abandoned the sense of  wonder and can do that space ignited; youth today are looking at the drudgery of slaving at low paying service jobs to repay the debt they will be saddled with because their parents and grandparents squandered their future to pay for the luxury of their ‘put it on credit, let the kids pay it’ lifestyle.

Any brightness in the future of today’s youth comes from inheriting a large sum of money or wearing rose coloured glasses. So really, I suppose kids today, other than the few needed to keep society running for the comfort of the, don’t need an education for their future since their parents and grandparents have already frittered their future  away on themselves. There can be no doubt that from the point of view of the begetters it is not simply expedient but provident, that young people lack the education to understand how their future was greedily, thoughtlessly, uncaringly, consumed by their parents and grandparents.

All the citizens of this land were overjoyed that they did not have to pay (as do the unfortunate citizens of lands that exist in the real world) for the ever increasing services and perks the citizens, with their insatiable appetite for more health care, more hospitals, more salary, more perks…..more……more……more…..,  demanded their government provide to them.

Anytime the government of the Kingdom wanted to spend money on something, the MLA’s merely needed to walk through the garden of the castle called Legislature and pick up the money that had fallen off the money trees growing in the garden or visit the basement of the Legislature and exchange the gold that the little man Rumpelstiltskin had spun from straw or pluck the gold eggs from the nest of the goose who lays gold eggs.

One group of citizens, Teachers, were so enamoured of the government’s ability to ‘find’ money without limit, they felt it  reasonable to demand a 22% wage increase – plus a host of expensive perks and changes to schools. To support their fatuous salary demands, the Teachers spread the tale of the government’s magical ability to ‘find’ $$$$ whenever the government wished, throughout the airwaves of the land.”

Unfortunately for the citizens of BC they reside in the real world – despite politicians of all stripes and parties (Liberal, NDP, Conservative) telling voters the fairy tales voters, who insist on living in the land of ‘Wilful Denial of Reality’, demand to be told in order to give the politicians what they want – political power.

In the real world neither fairy tales nor wilful denial prevents the outstanding bills and debts from – at some point in time – coming due……as the outstanding bills and debts are now doing in Greece.

The problem is not with the teachers telling a fairy tale, or with the perversion of fairy tales from teaching a lesson about life to fairy tales as a way to enable wilful denial of reality.

The problem is that the advertisements and statements from teachers and their representatives evidence the teachers belief in the fairy tale they are telling.

Providing a little understanding as to why, despite the hundreds of millions of $$$$$ taxpayers pour into education, students are getting a 4th rate education. An education that leaves students in BC functionally (or actually) illiterate in English and Mathematics, lacking even the most basic skills in logic and problem solving or the ability to analyse what has occurred or attain an understanding of the consequences and/or implications flowing from events.

With the teachers demonstrating their inability to analyse, use logic, problem solve, research and understand what is, as opposed to seeing the fairy tale land they want to see, it should surprise nobody that the product (graduates) of the BC school system lacks these skills. Or that students of the BC school system cannot use the English language or Mathematics in a functional or useful manner.

As ‘proof’ of the existence of their fairy tale land of unlimited plenty the teachers point to the $600 million the government spent on the new roof on BC Place.

A comparison of the proverbial apples to oranges as the BC place roof is a capital project representing a one time (admittedly large, but that is the nature of capital projects) expenditure and teachers salaries, which are operating expenses that need to be paid every year, not one single time.

The teachers also either ignore or fail to understand that operating expenses such as wages, suffer a compounding effect as the starting point of future contracts and increases is the current contract negotiated.

The biggest problem is that the teachers ignore where the provincial government had originally found the $$$ (and what happened to those $$$) – accepting Ottawa’s offer of $1.6 billion to harmonize the PST with Ottawa’s GST.

And we all know, or at least should know, how that worked out.

The citizens of BC voted to continue their state of wilful denial and extinguish the HST – a demonstration of a lack of the skills required to evaluate and understand the consequences extinguishing the HST would have on provincial finances and the ability of the BC government to deliver services to citizens.

I am assuming the decision was due to a lack of skills to understand the consequences of extinguishing the HST and not to the desire to force the government of BC to reduce the services delivered to BC citizens or a lack of mental capacity or insanity.

See “Think. Think. Think.”  for an analysis of the consequences flowing from extinguishing the HST.

There are delicious ironies in the karmic balance of the government literally having no money to raise teacher salaries.

Irony that the product (graduates) of the BC school system, of the teachers teaching, lack the ability to analyse, use logic, problem solve, research and understand the extensive negative financial consequences of extinguishing HST. One of which is a reduction of the funds the province has to provide services to the people of BC. Which results in not only no money for increases in education costs such as teachers salaries and smaller classes, but puts the government under pressure to find ways to reduce or ‘reallocate’ spending on  education.

Irony that the teachers and their union are supporters of the NDP party, which spent months travelling the province publicly supporting and working to extinguishing the HST. The ‘success’ of which meant there are no funds available to increase spending on education. Actually, this irony applies across the entire government employees union.

Irony in the strong probability that numerous teachers voted to extinguish the HST, voted to place the government in a financial position where there is no money to be able to afford increasing teacher’s salaries or spending more on education.

Irony that voters acted in such an egregious and childish manner as to ‘damn reality or the consequences, threw a temper tantrum and extinguish the HST in anger’ – rather than acting like adults; taking the consequences of throwing a temper tantrum versus a reasoned response into consideration.

Irony in that childishness being reflected in the teachers rushing to get on strike before the government introduces and passes legislation imposing a settlement. Three days of being on strike that will accomplish nothing since the final outcome of the matter will be the same strike or no strike. The only ‘accomplishments’ of the teachers strike being the inconveniencing of parents and more negative consequences for students – in particular those who graduate this year. Although, the strike will make available to government the savings achieved from not having to pay 3 days of teachers wages.

Irony in the teachers, whose job is (theoretically at least) to impart knowledge, clinging in wilful denial to the fairy tale world in which the government has (in effect) access to money trees or Rumpelstiltskin or a goose laying gold eggs. Because it is only in that fairy tale world can teachers demands be met. In the real world there is no money and the teachers are SOL.

From the Tao of James:

Reality does not care what you want to be fact, reality does not care what you believe to be fact, Reality simply is what IS

The bottom line, the real world Reality, is it that until teachers are turning out well educated, well rounded, well prepared to deal with the real world product (students) – teachers salaries should be going DOWN, not up.

Continuing to fail or to refuse to think or to consider reality and burying our heads in the sand of wilful denial is how you end up a financial disaster like Greece.

Or, as voters in BC did in June 2011, voting to reduce the services the government of BC (health care, education, etc) provides to citizens of BC by $300 million a year for the next 5 years.

Reducing services by $300 million a year may not be what voters intended to do when they voted to extinguish the HST. But by failing to invest the time and effort required to achieve an understanding of the HST and the consequences of extinguishing the HST, then voting to extinguish the HST, voters voted to reduce services provided by the BC government to citizens by $300 million a year for the next five years.

In order to understand how, in voting to extinguish the HST, voters were voting to reduce government services by $300 million a year for 5 years let us review the history of the HST in Ottawa and Victoria.

In late 2009 and early 2010 the BC Liberal government found itself in need of $458 million ($600 million final bill) to replace the roof on BC Place and a $billion$ or $two$ to replenish government coffers depleted by spending on the Olympics.

In Ottawa the federal government had just wrapped up its negotiations with Ontario as to the size of the bribe, I mean compensation, Ontario would receive from Ottawa to cover the costs of harmonizing Ontario’s sales tax with Ottawa’s GST.

With Ontario on board to bring in the HST, Ottawa turned its attention to getting Quebec and BC to harmonize their sales taxes with the GST; offering Quebec and BC $1.6 billion bribes, ahem – compensation, to bring in the HST.

Cash strapped as a result of Olympics costs and facing the need to pay for the new BC Place roof, BC’s Liberal government agreed to accept the – compensation – offered by Ottawa and bring in the HST.

When the BC Liberal government announced they would be bringing in the HST the citizens of BC jumped to the conclusion that the Liberals had lied during the provincial election, during which the Liberals had said they would not be bringing in the HST. With citizens citing the fact that politicians “ALWAYS” lie as ‘proof’ that the Liberals knew at the time of the election they would be bringing in the HST.

As to the matter of politicians lying. Voters point their fingers and accuse politicians of ‘always’ lying as if voters have nothing to do with politicians behaviour. For decades voters have been wilfully denying the Reality of what IS the state of affairs in BC (and Canada), wilfully denying the implications of the Reality of the state of affairs and the consequences that would (have to and do) flow from ignoring the Reality of what the state of affairs IS -  in favour of what voters WANT to be the Reality of the state of affairs.

In choosing to dwell in wilful denial, voters rewarded those politicians who told them what they WANTED to hear and punished any politician who dared to speak of what voters NEEDED to hear and consider. Only wilful denial would cause someone to be surprised that after decades of this behaviour, politicians now tell voters what voters want to hear – saying whatever is required to avoid telling voters anything that voters do not want to hear.

‘Politicians lie’ because voters have voted anyone who does not lie – particularly those who insist on addressing the Reality of the issues facing our cities, provinces, territories and country – out of office and out of public life. Thus voters themselves have voted to have politicians lie to them. A situation allowing voters to avoid facing financial Reality.

In the scheme of things it doesn’t really matter what Campbell and the Liberals knew and when they knew it, they had no choice but to say yes. Given the financial state of affairs in BC it would have been financially irresponsible not to take the $1.6 billion from Ottawa – and the additional revenue the HST would generate.

Feeling they had been lied to (ignoring their own culpability for politicians use of doublespeak to avoid telling voters what they don’t want to hear and to instead tell voters what they want to hear) voters condemned the government for implementing the HST.

Presented with the opportunity to exact a pound of flesh from Campbell and the Liberals – whose existence, by presenting an alternative to the NDP, led to the demise of the Social Credit and Bill Vander Zalm’s notoriety as the leader who killed the BC Social Credit Party – Bill Vander Zalm jumped on the anti-HST bandwagon and helped propel the issue to referendum.

While the political fallout suffered by the Liberals and Gordon Campbell’s resignation no doubt  were very satisfying to Vander Zalm, his actions in helping to extinguishing the HST have resulted in painful financial consequences and the financially driven need to reduce government services to citizens.

In an ironic twist of heroic size, Vander Zalm’s action put Gordon Campbell in London England as Canadian High Commissioner and allowed him to exit BC politics as the leader who lead the Liberals into power and left the Liberals in power with a majority. It also allowed Campbell to exit before financial realities began to place tighter and tighter constraints on what a BC government can do, what services it will have the revenues to supply and the need to cut services.

Which would have me, if I was in Mr Campbell’s shoes, enjoy a very merry last laugh.

Either Vander Zalm, sensing blood in the water, seized the opportunity to inflict a wound on Campbell and the Liberals OR Mr Vander Zalm is notably intelligence challenged. The implication, should Mr Vander Zalm possess a minimal level of intelligence, is that Mr Vander Zalm wanted his pound of flesh so badly he did not care how much financial damage extinguishing the HST of the fiancés of BC.   

Presented with the opportunity to score political points the NDP leaped on the bandwagon of a referendum and extinguishing the HST. Campaigning to reduce government revenues, even as the NDP called for the government of BC to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on healthcare, education and other voter wants (as opposed to needs).

We are faced with another either. Either the NDP want power, to form the government of BC, so badly that they will do and say anything – no matter how much financial damage their actions inflict on the finances of BC OR the NDP are so financially incompetent that they see no conflict in advocating ripping $1.6 billion out of the finances of BC (giving it back to Ottawa), reducing sales tax revenue by extinguishing the HST – and being able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on healthcare, education etc.

When voters exercised their right to extinguish the HST in a fit of temper, they surrendered their right to demand increased services from the government and surrendered any right to expect the same level of services from the government. Because in choosing to extinguish the HST, voters chose to reduce the dollars the government has available to purchase services (healthcare, hospital beds, classrooms).

Of course, living in wilful denial the voters of BC simply refused to acknowledge they had voted to reduce the funding available to the government to purchase services. The day after voting to rip $1.6 billion out of BC’s finances and to reduce government sales tax revenue voters were once again demanding more, more, more, more.

Which is how we arrived at the financial state BC is in today.

In light of the reality that Ottawa transfers more than $1.6 billion to BC every year, not repaying the money to Ottawa was not an option. Thus the BC government found itself forced to negotiate the repayment of the $1.6 billion over the next 5 years. Borrowing the $1.6 billion, and repaying Ottawa immediately was also not an option as it would have caused BC’s credit rating to be downgraded – pushing interest rates and the cost of servicing the provinces debt up.

Given the effect of debt levels on the provinces ability and cost to borrow; the sputtering state of the economy; the uncertainty of the economies around the world; voters refusal to pay to cover the cost of the services they demand (and receive) from the government: the funds available to the government of BC to purchase and pay for services for the citizens of BC will remain approximately what was available in the 2011 – 2012 financial year.

What does that portend for BC and its citizens over the next five years?

The monies available to purchase services for citizens will, for the next 5 years, be reduced by $300 million. In other words, in order to repay Ottawa the government of BC will have to reduce the services it provides to citizens by $300 million a year or manage to raise $300 million extra to offset the repayment to Ottawa. This is one of the consequences of voting to extinguish the HST.

Healthcare costs consume the biggest piece of the provincial budget. Unless – miraculously – the cost to purchase the same services next year as purchased this year remains the same (for the first time ever), the province will need to increase spending on healthcare  – just to hold services provided at the same level of services as this year.

People demand new operations, procedures, drugs, equipment, hospitals, hospital rooms, etc and ask why they are not available. Simple – no budget for these services means there is no money to pay for these services, ergo no services.

Healthcare was estimated at $15.7 billion for the 2011 – 2012 fiscal year. Over the past decade healthcare has increased 6.4% a year on average. Which leaves the government needing an additional $1 billion to pay for health care in the 2012 – 2013 fiscal year.

With the money cut from the budget by extinguishing the HST and no significant increases in revenue where will the money come from to pay for healthcare? or education? the courts?

Reality: if there ain’t no (enough) money, their ain’t no (the desired level of) services.

The report prepared on what Ontario will need to do to avoid becoming the first Canadian political jurisdiction to become a ‘Greece’ included pegging annual healthcare funding increases at 2.5% even though cost increases are running at 5%. In other words Ontario is faced with being forced to cut healthcare services provided to citizens because it has failed to keep its financial house in order.

Healthcare, Education, Justice system are all poised to devour substantially more dollars. But the dollars to pay substantially more for Healthcare, Education, Justice System do not exist.

Mr Dix can demand the government spend hundreds of millions, a billion of two, more dollars on healthcare, education and the courts. It will no doubt win the NDP points towards winning the next election. But no matter how hard Mr. Dix huffs and puffs……his demands are meaningless, pointless grandstanding when the money cupboard is bare.

With the government limited in the amount that it can borrow (without the cost of borrowing reaching levels where the more you borrow the less dollars you have to spend) and without significant increases in revenue, Financial Reality is threatening to force citizens out of their state of wilful denial and face to face with financial reality.

BC can begin to set priorities, begin to chose what we spend our limited funds on (healthcare versus pointlessly locking more and more people up), begin to acknowledge reality and make rational decisions based on what IS rather than what we BELIEVE or WANT to be.

Or we can bury our heads more deeply in the sands of wilful denial until suddenly we find ourselves on the international news as the latest political jurisdiction to have hit the Greece’d plunge into financial hardship and a bleak future for citizens.

Some members of the homeless community became aware of this meeting and felt their interests needed to represented and protected from any negative consequences resulting from this meeting.

So I found myself attending the meetings to represent one subset of the homeless/addiction/mental illness/poverty community who have concerns about their needs, wants and priorities being misrepresented by another subset of the homeless/addiction/mental illness/poverty community who present their concerns as those of the entire community; when in fact the concerns being discussed at the meeting represent only the point of view of one group whose voice is loud because they have organized and named themselves

At these and other meetings around Abbotsford, claims have been made as to what happens in the shelter. As someone who works at the shelter, who has been a client and who discusses the shelter with clients regularly there are a few comments I would like to share as to the veracity of those claims.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, during extreme weather nobody is turned away for any reason.

However if someone’s behaviour is threatening to other clients in the shelter or staff; if someone’s behaviour is extremely, extremely disruptive and interfering with other clients in the shelter they will be asked to leave.

Being removed from the shelter occurs only after clients have been warned (repeatedly) that they need to modify their behaviour and then only after having been given the choice of going to bed or leaving.

It is also repeatedly claimed that nobody knows what the shelter rules are, yet these same clients demonstrate a grasp of any rules they want to take advantage of.

Everyone staying at the shelter fills out a registration form on the back of which the rules are listed. Clients are instructed to fill out the registration, read the rules, if they have any questions about the rules to ask staff and the rules will be explained; if they understand the rules or once they do understand the rules they sign the registration form to acknowledge they provided the information on the registration form and have read and understand the rules.

During my visits to the shelter as a client I had no trouble knowing the rules – I simply turned the registration form over and read the rules.

I suppose we could ensure the clients have read and studied the rules by giving a quiz about the rules and turning people away if they failed the quiz. But then everyone would be complaining about being forced to study the rules.

In order to address the reality that many clients do not read the rules (thus permitting clients to claim they didn’t know and/or were never told the rules when they violate rules) the rules are read aloud before the shelter opens for intake.

I do not want to give the impression that all, or even most, clients are rule challenged. Other clients demonstrate an ability to either read the rules on the back of the registration form; listen, hear and comprehend the rules read aloud every night to clients before the shelter is opened; ask for clarification of the rules “can I ….” Or “what happens if……or “how would I……”

I have long lost count of the number of clients who repeatedly claim not to know a rule (or rules) you have specifically discussed with them before or repeatedly before – sometimes mere minutes before. Or clients who are overheard laughingly telling other clients about ‘almost getting caught’ smoking pot, crack, drinking or disobeying some rule. Who acknowledge knowing their behaviour violates the rules, but then explain why the rule does not or should not apply to them; or who argue the rule is a stupid rule, should not be a rule and thus they do not have to abide by the rule(s). Or had incorrectly assumed they would not get caught and would get away with ignoring the rule(s). Or – the #1 favourite excuse – claim not to have known the rule(s).

When the latest Cold Wet Weather status ended someone who was over their nights and needed to wait 30 days before getting their next 5 nights in the shelter was standing there protesting they did not know about only having 5 nights, even though they had been on a plan (he was no longer on a plan because he had not kept the terms agreed to in order to remain on his plan).

On Sunday nights staff make sure to remind those who are on night 4 or 5 that if they need more than the 5 nights they need to sign up and see Case Management Monday. For those whose fifth night was Saturday night, we grant a grace night and remind them that they must talk to Case Management to get more nights or wait 30 days for their next 5 nights. The shelter at large is reminded several times throughout the evening that those needing more than 5 days need to see Case Management to get more than 5 days.

Case managers always remind clients that they need to do what they agreed to do as their plan and be at the shelter gate when the shelter opens at 6 pm. To provide motivation case management reminds clients that they need to carry through on these points because they have used up their five nights and if they are not at the shelter at the 6 pm opening time or they do not carry through with the actions they promised to perform, they are off their plan and will need to wait the 30 days until they get a new 5 nights.

And claiming you do not know about the 5 night rule is not going to work very well when you are making that claim to a staff member who had made sure to warn you that you had been given a grace night so that you could talk to Case Management on Monday morning if you needed more nights because you had used your 5 nights up on Saturday night.

Most ignorance is evincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to.  Aldous Huxley

While on the subject of rules, just how detailed do the rules need to be? Does every little detail need to be spelled out? What about a little common sense (which is admittedly not so very common)?

Is it really necessary to spell out that standing in the middle of the shelter screaming at the top of your lungs is unacceptable behaviour? Or that you need to take a shower and have your clothes washed when the odour you emit renders the air of any room you are in non-breathable? (The shelter provides sweats for those with only the clothes they are wearing – at least as long as loaner clothing can be replaced faster than it is being stolen). Or that Smoking pot or crack or consuming alcohol is not permitted?  Or that if you need to urinate you use the washroom, not the corner of the room or another client and their bedding or a garbage pail or a cup? Is it really that hard to understand what a sign marked ‘Staff Only’ means?

And whatever happened to Personal Responsibility?

Homelessness/addiction/mental illness/poverty does present people with barriers, problems and issues. It does not absolve them of personal responsibility for their behaviour.

On a bad head day, the fact mental illness has me wanting to scream, act out or strike out at others is not an excuse or permission to do so.

I and many others who accept personal responsibility for our actions have (or had) no difficulty with the shelter rules or staff. Of course we also acknowledge that we are not ‘special’, that the rules apply to us as well as to others.

Some claim others get treated better than they do. But why would anyone be surprised that being polite, saying please and thank you, gets a friendly response while screaming, cursing and verbal abuse gets a less positive response?

Then there are the clients who complain they are ‘picked on’ when they keep repeating the same self-defeating behaviour and end up under review for repeating their behaviour time after time after time.

Should you mention AA’s “if you are happy getting what you are getting, keep doing what you are doing; if you are not happy getting what you are getting, stop doing what you are doing” daring to suggest they need to change their behaviour to get different outcomes – you are cursed at and heaped with verbal abuse for suggesting they accept any responsibility for their behaviour.

Listening to what is said (is claimed) in these meetings about what occurs at Abbotsford’s shelter, gives one the impression that running a shelter is easy. It is not.

Abbotsford’s shelter is in space adapted for, not built for, use as a shelter. Langley’s shelter space was built for the purpose of being a shelter so when clients come in their belongings and clothing are put in a locker and they wear clothing provided by the shelter – ensuring nothing comes into the shelter, that the clients have nothing with them that is not provided by the shelter.

Ensuring staff in Langley do not run the risk, that Abbotsford staff face, of getting stuck by needles carelessly discarded or thoughtlessly left in clothing put into their laundry bags; laundry that is done by staff as a service so clients have clean clothing.

The risk, the close calls that occur, of getting stuck with a client’s used needle from a population infected with Hep C, AIDS, hepatitis A & B et al. As if  it is not enough staff gets lied to, verbally abused and screamed at; has to deal with people who are drunk or have used another substance to achieve an altered state of reality; deal with clients who, based on demands and actions, are under the impression they are more important than all the other clients in the shelter or that they are in a 5 star hotel, not an emergency shelter; get to clean up puke, urine, shit, blood; have to exercise patience, understanding, tolerance and judgement – or the shelter would slowly empty of clients in the hours following intake.

When a shelter opened in a neighbouring community several years ago the new shelter was going to show the staff at Abbotsford’s shelter how a proper shelter was run. This shelter now has more rules and people under review than Abbotsford.

The reality is that it is far, far easier to run or work at a shelter in theory than it is in a shelter in the real world, a wolrd populated with real people.