We all have our dirty, embarrassing secrets. Dracut Librarians are no exception. Here are a few of their dirty librarian secrets [2013-10-03: and the inevitable Tumblr now allows you to submit your own Library Shames.]
How aboot make a viral video where the “American” looks more like a Canadian stereotype than the guy playing the Canadian? 😉
I decided not to use the #yqr and #wwtp hash tags in my post title as I’m mostly writing this one for my own reflection and as a place to collect my thoughts after a tough loss by the “Yes” side tonight (it ended up being 57% – 43%) rather than adding to what I suspect is already a madhouse on those tags on Twitter.
Also, some of the things I might write are likely going to hit very close to home for some of the folks I know who were involved on the “Yes” side of the Referendum. I know what it’s like to have someone piss in your cornflakes right after you lose a close election which is definitely not my intention. In fact, I stopped reading the #wwtp thread as soon as I saw the first person point out that the “Yes” side winning the social media game was meaningless! 🙁
With that said, I hate to say it but I had a bad feeling all along that the “Yes” side was going to come up short – perhaps that’s a bit of a hangover from the extremely close loss Ryan Meili had in the NDP Leadership race after we thought we’d done everything needed to win, maybe it was seeing the various shenanigans of the City before the Referendum was ever approved, maybe it was also realising that there was nothing they wouldn’t do to try to get a victory as the campaign went on, maybe it was because I made the mistake of reading the P3 thread on RiderFans.com! 😉
Here are some random thoughts on various aspects of this whole campaign…
WHITHER PROGRESSIVE VICTORIES?
When was the last time a progressive cause or candidate won in Saskatchewan? We haven’t elected an NDP MP in a decade or so, we haven’t elected an NDP government provincially in nearly as long, we didn’t even elect the most progressive candidate to *lead* the NDP provincially in the last leadership race. And now this Referendum loss – so very disappointing. I know the famous quote says “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice” but it definitely doesn’t feel like that lately.
“THE CATHEDRAL EFFECT”
When Shea and I moved back to Regina from Calgary in 2001, we met with our realtor, a guy I already knew a bit from before we moved away, and he said “Oh, you guys have to live in the Cathedral area. You’re totally Cathedral people!” We looked at a few houses in Regina’s “artsy” neighbourhood but in the end, decided to buy a house in the suburbs (the inner suburbs where at least the trees are taller than we are and I could walk home from downtown if I wanted although it’d take an hour to do it – but yeah, still the suburbs.) I’m generalizing hugely but it’d be interesting to know how many people involved with the “Yes” side live in or close to Cathedral? It hit me when I drove through Cathedral the other day – literally *every single house* along Victoria Avenue had a “Yes” sign in the yard. If you lived in that neighbourhood (much like the similar criticism that if you only paid attention to social media), you’d have thought “Yes” was going to win in a landslide. And yet, out here in the suburbs, I only saw a small handful of “Yes” signs (and it’s a separate topic as to whether lawn signs mean jack shit – I’m increasingly of the opinion that they don’t.) But anyhow, I think “the Cathedral Effect” is a real thing – whether it happens on social media sites or in an NDP Leadership Race or wherever, you don’t want to get yourself into an echo chamber situation where a lot of your team think/live/feel the same way. Instead, find a way to think like your opponents and more importantly, how you can reach their supporters and convert them to your side? Here’s a couple real life examples: one person who should be a slam dunk “Yes” supporter for all kinds of reasons told me she was voting “No” because she thought the City made a clearer argument. When I posted something on my Facebook page about the Referendum the other day, my middle-aged second cousin who also lives in the suburbs was mainly concerned with the pocketbook issue being pushed by the City.
Which leads to my next point…
MAYBE THE “YES” SIDE SHOULD HAVE USED “PRICE IS RIGHT” MESSAGING
Of course it’s all hindsight now but I wonder if the messaging of the “Yes” side was particularly effective in reaching low information voters and/or voters in the suburbs and/or voters who aren’t seen as “progressive” and familiar with those tropes and therefore, may not be as receptive to messages like “Keep Water Public” that almost sound like they come from a different era? Whether it was accurate or not, the City was brilliant with their essentially one note message – vote for our side and we’ll save you $276/year. Period.
So I wonder if, similar to a person in Contestant’s Row on the Price is Right picking a value that undercuts all the other bids, what would have happened if the “Yes” side had focused their messaging on saying that their approach would save taxpayers just a bit more than the city’s approach? “Our numbers show that our way will actually save you $358 a year over the life of this contract.”
CUPE = EVIL
It’s part of a larger trend in our society but the demonization of unions continues and so the fact that Water Watch was seen as a front for CUPE made an easy target for the “No” side’s attacks which was probably more effective than it would otherwise be, given our current political and economic climate.
YES MEANS NO
I don’t know how much, if any, this was a factor but the way the question was worded was weird in that you had to mark “Yes” to say “No” to the city’s P3 proposal and “No” to say “Yes” to it. I’m sure there was some voter confusion but again, it’s hard to tell how much of a factor this was, especially with the amount of advertising both sides did. If anything, I would’ve thought that the backwards wording may have worked to the advantage of the “Yes” side but obviously not.
JIM HOLMES FOR MAYOR?
I think Jim Holmes represented himself incredibly well as the spokesperson for Regina Water Watch and wonder if he’ll make another run for the Mayoral seat in our next civic election as he did in 2006? (How ironic that the first story I find mentioning Jim’s 2006 run is a story where the sitting Mayor is acting in an unethical fashion? The more things change…) But perhaps that CUPE boogeyman aura is too strong with him which is really too bad – nice, smart, well-spoken guy – who’d be a great Mayor.
BABIES MAKE GREAT EXCUSES FOR APATHY
After pouring so much of myself into Ryan Meili’s Leadership campaign, I made a promise that I’d back off on all of my volunteer commitments – political and otherwise – as much as possible and focus my attention at home since Sasha was born almost exactly one month after the NDP Leadership Race ended. With one small, non-political exception, I’ve held true to that. I was approached about helping with Regina Water Watch and said “no”. I turned down a couple approaches to serve in some capacity with our union local at work. Speaking of Ryan, he has an exciting new endeavour in the works and while I wish him and his team all the success in the world, I’ve enjoyed quietly watching things develop from the sidelines. What’s my point? There were many times during the campaign where I was feeling like I should be doing *something*. But then I realised that whatever was going to be was going to be and my minimal involvement wouldn’t likely make much difference either way. There will also be other battles to come, I’m sure – and ones where the progressive side will have a good chance to finally get on the winning side!
This week is Banned Books Week in the US (as opposed to last week of February in Canada for some reason.) Oh well – I’ll happily celebrate any week that celebrates banned books and pass along great articles profiling authors who’ve been banned.
In 2008, when Phillip Pullman learned his novel, The Golden Compass, was one of the most banned public library books in the country, his reaction, he said, was “glee.” Not only did the ban mean free publicity, but guaranteed an increase in sales, as readers who might otherwise check his book out of libraries would now be forced to buy it from bookstores. Today, when most writers are grateful to get attention — any attention — for their books, and Fifty Shades of Gray has grandmothers reading about S&M, libraries and school boards across the country still challenge the inclusion of books they consider dangerous or subversive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru1sX8slL-w
“September” – Corb Lund
Like the title says, I’m voting “Yes” in the Regina Waste Water Treatment Plant Referendum. But it’s not for the reason you might expect…
I think I’ve mentioned in passing on this blog that I sometimes regret getting more heavily involved in party politics, first by joining Ryan Meili’s 2009 Sask NDP Leadership bid and then as a member of the Coronation Park NDP Executive.
It’s not because I don’t like the NDP or feel that they’re (usually but not always) the best reflection of my values and the party I’m most likely to vote for. And I do think being engaged and aware politically is important – however people chooose to do that.
But what I don’t like about being a known supporter of the NDP is that it automatically comes with baggage where some people assume they know a lot about you – how you feel about everything from unions to taxation to social issues – just because of the political party you support.
In fact, one of the many things I liked about Ryan Meili was that he occasionally took difficult positions that ran contrary to what you’d expect from a progressive left winger.
Or more to the point at hand, Alex Mortensen, a U of R student and former NDP candidate, wrote an op-ed for the Carillon where she came out strongly in favour of the “No” side in the Waste Water Referendum, gaining lots of criticism in the comments to that article, much of which basically amounted to the fact that she wasn’t being a “good NDPer”.
(I had my own issues with her op-ed – mostly that her analysis reminds me of how I sometimes thought and wrote when I was a young U of R undergrad student! 🙂 But I can’t fault her for making up her own mind rather than toeing some perceived party line.)
Which is all a long tangent to say that, given my politics, you’d probably expect that a “Yes” vote in the Regina Water Referendum would be an automatic for me. I mean, I’m a CUPE member (ooh, boogeyman!) and I’ve even been in Jim Holmes’ living room (his wife makes excellent cookies!) 😉
But I decided to try something unique this time – I thought I’d watch events unfold, (try to) put aside my biases, do my own research, and make up my own mind on the issue rather than just doing the easy, expected thing.
I knew both sides would have legitimate points. I knew I would find arguments for and against P3 water projects and examples from around the world where they’ve been successful and where they haven’t been.
But a funny thing happened on the way to making up my mind about how I’d vote in the Referendum. Even though a new Waste Water Treatment Plant is a huge project with a massive budget and long timeline, I realised something even bigger was at stake.
Now, this is a heated topic and I know both sides are going to try to do anything they can within the agreed upon rules (eg. existing legislation and democratic principles) to get the result they want.
But one side seemed much more willing to not just make their arguments within the rules but to change the rules to suit their goals too, undermining democracy itself.
First, when it looked like Regina Water Watch was going to hit the required number of petition signatures to force a referendum, the City tried to move the goal posts by saying the number should come from Sask Health numbers instead of census data as legislated in the Cities Act.
When that didn’t work, the City tried to throw out a number of signatures using dubious methods. The most blatant was a requirement that all signatures be dated to include the year. (If the petition was started in 2013 and ended up 2013, wouldn’t common sense dictate that people signed the petition in the year 2013, even if they didn’t write the year?)
When that didn’t reduce the number of signatures below the threshold, the City moved on to potentially illegal methods to reduce signatures. While legislation says that the City could use a couple different methods to test the validity of the signatures collected, it didn’t say they could do both things – which is exactly what the City did.
City employees also called people at home to verify that they’d actually signed, again, possibly in violation of The Cities Act (which you’d think City employees *really* should be familiar with, no?)
There were numerous other examples of the “No” side bending if not outright breaking the rules, heavily towards their own goals – even though “The City” (which is also in charge of running the referendum) should be neutral, even if the elected council isn’t.
More examples?
The City is spending 3x as much promoting the “No” vote as they are to promote the fact that citizens *should* vote. The City is sending out material about where people should vote that includes information about why people should vote “No”. They are refusing to allow scrutineers in certain advance polling locations and there are also other irregularities being reported. They’re using misleading numbers (will the City get $58 million from the Feds for doing a P3 or “up to $58 million”) and acting in a secretive manner generally about how they arrived at numbers or what various reports contain.
[Edit: Prairie Dog has just released a good summary of all of these shenanigans which would’ve saved me a lot of typing if it’d been up earlier!]
In terms of the abuse of democracy, I’m also disappointed when I hear “No” supporters say “Council was elected to do this job, let them do it” without also acknowledging that the rules also allow citizens to force a referendum as part of our democratic process if they do the legwork to get the ~20,000 or so signatures required – which Regina Water Watch did.
Oh, and on that note, I’m not a huge fan of how Regina Water Watch is being villainized as a front for CUPE. Full disclosure: I’m a CUPE member but even then, so what? It’s not like there aren’t organized groups on the local and national level promoting the other point of view. How come the Regina Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Taxpayers Federation or even the Regina Construction Association, which the Mayor previously led, get a free pass but CUPE doesn’t? [Edit: And now it’s come out that the “No” side is sending Regina taxpayer dollars to a company in the US – yet another choice that is way worse than anything the “Yes” side is doing. At least CUPE is a Canadian union!]
In all honesty, if I wasn’t so disappointed with the anti-democratic mishandling of this whole situation by the city, I suspect I would’ve voted “Yes” in the end, even after doing my research and so on. There are a lot of people out there – from Pat Fiacco’s kids to various lefties on Twitter who you know how they’ll vote.
Much more interesting is those who’ve changed their position. For example, a local writer, who was originally supportive of the “No” side has just posted a thoughtful blog post saying he’s decided to vote “Yes” which sums up many of the same arguments I’m trying to make in a much better fashion:
Thus, voting against the P3 not only makes economic sense, it will also send a message to City Council that we, the people, will not tolerate fear mongering, abuses of power, or disrespect for the electorate. Give us honest information and real numbers so that we can support your position. And frankly, we expect more from elected officials than to accept dubious reports that fly in the face of published and peer reviewed research and then call it due diligence
Not to end on too high blown of a note but I keep thinking about how I send my six year old son to school each day and how he’s going to learn about Canada and our democratic process one of these days. Unfortunately, what those school day lessons usually don’t include are details about how democracy often leads to arrogance, entitlement and elected politicians even making voters cry after verbally abusing them. Maybe school kids should be the ones telling politicians how to behave instead of the other way around?
Like I said earlier, a new waste water treatment plant is big project with a long time frame and a huge budget. But in my view, this has become about something even bigger than the waste water plant – this is about how we run our democracy.
For that reason, I’d encourage you to vote “Yes” on September 25.
I won’t even try to analyse which of these categories describe me.