Municipal

Spectrum: $5,000 for what?

Leave a comment

So we are paying Spectrum $5,000 a month, a fee soon to increase by 50%, for their “expertise”. This would be the same “expertise” that produced the debacle at the ECHL all-star game? I am sure the ECHL was impressed by the lack of preparation and knowledge displayed by City representatives travelling on the taxpayer’s credit card.

Given Abbotsford City Hall’s track record I fail to understand why they had to pay for Spectrum’s “expertise” to appear of questionable intelligence. With brilliant moves such as their behaviour/failure on the Provincial funding front, Abbotsford City Hall is clearly capable of demonstrating incompetence without wasting tax dollars on outside “expertise”.

While on the subject of Spectrum: was it not just a few months ago that Abbotsford City Hall was claiming the reason to have brought Spectrum in was not to help sell Plan A snake, but to help secure an ECHL team through “expertise” and “connections” – the same rational that was used to sell the claim that major Ice Shows and Bands would be breaking down the doors to perform at the new arena? We have seen Spectrum’s performance with the ECHL, which raises serious questions about their ability to deliver the promised performers.

I would like to know why it is the city is doing the work vis-à-vis the ECHL when this was part of the stated reasons for brining in Spectrum and where were Spectrums claimed “connections” and “expertise” at the ECHL all-star fiasco. Based on their performance so far I fail to see why we are wasting our tax dollars on Spectrum Unless of course Abbotsford City Hall feels the need to have someone to blame, blame and excuse making being a demonstrated expertise of Abbotsford City Hall, when the arena shows its true colours: white, as in Abbotsford City Hall’s giant White Elephant – bleeding taxpayers dollars.

Consider

Dim, Dim future for journalism.

Leave a comment

As one would expect, people being people, several of them went out of their way to bring the less than complimentary article in the February 22 2007 UCFV Cascade about the Salvation Army to my attention. They seemed very disappointed by my reaction “The future of journalism is sooooooo dim!!”

Ironically the February 26th edition of the somethingcoolnews.ca would contain an article by me on the terrible reporting I saw on Global’s Noon Hour News. This was not the first piece/letter to the editor I have written on this topic and given the flood of just plain BAD journalism these days it will be far from the last – as evidenced by this piece.

Those who have witnessed my reaction know that I find the fact we are being inundated with shoddy, deficient reporting at a time and on topics were full, accurate public knowledge is needed in order to make intelligent decisions extremely aggravating and very, very frustrating. A public constantly misinformed by the media presents an educational challenge that must be overcome before we can begin to address our society’s problems. Another layer, another barrier added to beginning to solve complex pressing social problems such as homelessness, addiction and poverty. This deluge of outright terrible journalism is adding to the problem at a time we desperately need accurate, thoughtful and insightful journalism to give people facts and a true picture of the state of affairs.

So I write to the reporters and editors to express my thoughts not so much because I expect them to change (although one can always hope) but to relieve my frustration and because if we, the victims of this inferior journalism, do not protest we surrender all hope for decent reporting. I really have no expectations of reply or that they will publish these critiques, but then with the internet there are venues to share it with the public and faithful readers. I must acknowledge that the Abbotsford – Mission Post did publish my letter to them – unedited and in its long entirety. Based on reading it weekly the post seems to be trying to live up to its rather lofty stated Editorial Policies.

Unfortunately for readers and those who pay for the publication the UCFV Cascade seems to have no such lofty editorial standards or policies. From Ms Bois article it would appear their requirements are a) it fill the blank space on the page; b) it permit the abuse of one of the target’s print ads to fill an even bigger blank space on the page and c) it permit the placing of a flashy, eye-catching “expose” insert on the front page in a desperate bid to “move the paper off the strand’. Just as an aside vis-à-vis the “expose” it would appear that either the Cascade lacks a dictionary or perhaps just anyone capable of using a dictionary.

Personally, if I had been editor the space would have remained empty with the caption: “Our apologies, the article scheduled for this space was unfit to print”.

For obvious reasons of common sense there is a policy of no dogs on the property, especially necessary in light of a cliental under the influence of behaviour changing substances. Ms Bois may choose to argue that the dog is “a nice gentle animal”. This is the type of quote that hacks in commercial, “if it bleeds it leads” journalism always hunt someone down to say after a child has been savaged by said “nice doggy”. With the state of journalism these days if you cannot attack your target for causing a vicious dog attack, you can always criticize their anti-dog policy.

Unfair but then fairness was notably absent from this article. Fairness would have required that she make it clear that the whiner was not refused food as implied, but was given hearty soup, bread, dessert and pretty much a bottomless cup of coffee. Several times a week there is a meal provided for a $1, giving those on very limited budgets a chance to purchase a change from soup. In fairness to everyone, if you choose to spend your money on other things than the meal you get soup.

When personally lacking the dollar, through my own choices, I never felt/feel slighted, it was and is fair. Fairness also causes me to sympathize with the volunteers if, after 20 people have spent several minutes each arguing they are so special the rules apply to everyone but them and then cursing them as terrible human beings when they enforce the rules, if a volunteer gets a little snippy. In fact I often find myself apologizing for the oaf’s behaviour and thanking them for volunteering since I appreciate that without the volunteers the meals, the café and many other services could not function. They voluntarily give their time and far too often I am left wondering just how crazy they are to continue to volunteer given how often they are verbally abused by clients.

They are human beings and so yes politeness, asking instead of demanding, please, thank you and just plain good manners can result in them preferring to help, even go out of their way to help, a person demonstrating basic civility over a person screaming obscenities in their face while demanding T-bone steak for dinner, that their every demand be immediately met and asserting that they are the point around which the Universe must revolve. Karma: good behaviour is rewarded, bad behaviour has a cost. Excuse me if I do not find this Balance upsetting.

Although, considering Ms Bois contacted her target just before the Cascade’s deadline expecting them to drop everything and meet her needs NOW, she may not even find “the universe revolves around me” attitude anything but normal behaviour. No, blithely tossing off “Unfortunately my attempts to arrange … did not succeed” is not acceptable journalism when it a) involves a deadline that is for the writers convenience and is unrealistically short and b) there is no reason to rush the story into print.

But then this attack was not about being balanced. If it was Ms Bois would not be demanding special treatment for some (exemption from the dog ban, accepting 75 cents for $1 meal) while taking away the rights of others (the right not to be bitten by a dog or even having to worry about that; that everyone pays the $1 you did for your meal) and then a few paragraphs latter accusing the target of giving special treatment to some. Either argue for or against special treatment but be consistent and include an explanation for why the special treatment. I for one would be interested to know upon what basis Ms Bois thinks it equitable or ethical treatment to charge those who spend their money on things other than the meal less than those who save up to treat themselves to the meal as opposed to the plainer soup that everyone can have.

I do concede that Ms Bois was very consistent in whom she spoke with, searching out those who have a bone(s) to pick or conflict with the target organization of the article and avoiding anyone with positive experiences or things to say. This kind of unbalanced, negative research is what spreads misinformation and establishes stereotypes such as all homeless are lazy drug using bums. The lack of balance and its focus on the negative also leads to the kinds of gross factual errors the article contained.

Perhaps it was simply laziness that prevented a simple google search or a search of local newspaper articles would have turned up: a) reports on the extreme weather plan, resulting in the shelter stuffed to overflowing b) articles and letters about how full the shelter is and the large number of people turned away because the shelter was already not only full but overfull.

Even simpler would have been a little footwork. It is not as though the target organization is clandestine or hard to find. Giving the writer access to the best evidence of all, personal observation. Drop in and observe, better yet volunteer to see just what they face day-in and day-out. Of course this course of action would have entailed the high risk of meeting those who have good things to say or seeing some of the truths staff and volunteers see, face and deal with daily.

Perhaps it would seem that basing a judgement on the future of journalism on this one article is against common sense, unfair and unbalanced – but entirely in keeping with Ms Bois reporting. Sigh. The future of journalism is so dismal. I should have expected something along these lines after all, to adapt from the Tao of James, “When you think you have reached rock bottom journalistically with articles that were unfit to see the light of day, someone will write an article to prove you wrong.”

Municipal

City Manager Gary Guthrie cites “lack of expertise.”

Leave a comment

That certainly explains the mismanagement of Abbotsford by Abbotsford City Hall and I certainly believe him. I am speaking of city manager Gary Guthrie’s statement about Abbotsford City Hall lacking expertise. Of course in this case he was speaking specifically to the contact with MHPM Project Managers on Plan A. Then there was the lack of “expertise” that led to the Spectrum contract and then there is… and then there is … . A little lack here and a little lack there and before long you are totally lacking in expertise.

The proposed construction projects and day-to-day operations of the proposed Arena are fairly simple operations to manage in comparison to the management required to meet the City of Abbotsford’s operational and business needs. Rather clearly explains why Abbotsford is so badly run, does it not?

Abbotsford City Hall will undoubtedly have an excuse, after all serving special interests, ignoring citizens, bad financial management and making excuses are demonstrated areas of major expertise. It is truly unfortunate that there is no demand in other municipalities for these skills, especially excuse making, otherwise Abbotsford would have a source of revenue that would render the casino/revenue debate moot once and for all.

Let us ignore, as did Mr. Guthrie, the fact that project delivery on time and within budget would, for most cities, be specified in and part of the project construction contract as Mr. Beck promised during the slick Plan A sales campaign. After all the process that led to the hiring of MHPM was so badly managed and executed that 3 of 4 contractors could not understand what it was Abbotsford City Hall wanted done. Defining the requirements of this type of management contract is small potatoes really, easy, simple and straight forward in comparison to the complexity of setting out what you want built when you refuse to be bothered drawing up architectural and engineering plans to present to the bidders. Leaving me shuddering at the potential for disaster inherent in the lack of competence just demonstrated by Abbotsford City Hall in clearly setting out – in even this relatively simple matter – what is required from the bidder.

More directly on this question of expertise, I know of at least two people in Abbotsford who are capable of managing these construction projects, available on a contract basis for considerably less that $524,250, who would be devoting full time to the project management. The idea of time devoted to actually managing the projects is important because, as anyone familiar with these types of management contracts would tell you, there are not likely a great number of hours available within this contract to be spent on actual management.

Of course hiring somebody locally to oversee project construction or running the proposed Arena would leave witnesses of what actually took place in Abbotsford and available to tell the citizens of Abbotsford what went or is going wrong. I tip my hat to Abbotsford City Hall’s brilliant posterior covering insurance policy with MHPM Inc which ensures them someone out of town to blame for the debacle Plan A holds promise to become. Leaving witnesses safely hidden away in Ottawa or the USA.

As I said, the City would have a fantastic source of revenue if only there was a need or demand in other municipalities for this kind of cover-you-posterior activity. Instead we are left with the $524,250 cost of posterior insurance for Abbotsford City Hall. But then what is another paltry $524,250 added into the $97,000, 000+ nightmare that is Plan A? After all, it is only taxpayer’s money, a few additional percentage points on the old tax bill.