Active, committed, and engaged communities happen when individual citizens decide that it is in their interest to live in empowered communities working cooperatively and respectfully for the common good. These individuals also understand the importance of leadership in its various manifestations. Many of them have walked on Leadership Road and have learned that it can sometimes be a rocky, lonely place.
Like them, I’ve walked some of those challenging stretches of “Leadership Road”. While difficult and humbling, those early experiences were also huge learning opportunities.
Since then, I’ve walked further down that road. I’ve taken some excellent training (“The Art of Leadership”, available at the Hollyhock Institute is superb) and devoured many books on the subject.
I recently completed one of the best books- fiction or non-fiction- that I have ever read, and it is all about leadership in difficult times. The book, titled “Team of Rivals” and written by Doris Kearns Goodwin, is a history of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency.
It’s a massive book (750 pages without notes, 880 total) telling the social and political story of America before, during, and after the civil war. Yet for all that scholarly size, I couldn’t put it down.
Why? Ms. Goodwin is that rare breed- a historian who is a both a great researcher and a compelling storyteller. She brilliantly relates how the newly emerging power that was America in the 1800’s ripped itself apart over the divisive issue of slavery.
We learn how a child born on a dirt farm in backwoods Kentucky became a lawyer and then President of the United States. Ms. Goodwin tells how Lincoln guided the Union government to Civil war victory by assembling and leading a cabinet composed of many of his political rivals. The book focuses on the relationships between the members of the war cabinet, both at the political and personal level.
Above all, this is a book about leadership. Within the book, Ms. Goodwin lays out Lincoln’s leadership strategies and skills, and how he was able to manage himself and lead a team of rivals through dangerous and shifting political waters with the nation’s fate at stake.
She highlights the powerful role played by the family members of leaders, and how the pressures of public life impact the families of leaders. Especially interesting is her description of Lincoln’s intuitive understanding of the power of storytelling, and of the coping skills he used to escape the terrible pressures that came with his office.
“Team Of Rivals” is a must-read for anyone contemplating a walk on Leadership Road. While very few of us will ever experience the kind of challenges faced by Abraham Lincoln, all of us who want to live in active, committed and engaged communities will gain from his story. If you read one book this year, make it “Team of Rivals”. It’s a must-read for everyone with an interest in leadership.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Best Defense
It was a warm summer day, and I was listening on-line to the smooth jazz on KWJZ Seattle, chilling out with a cold pop as I drained the day’s cares along with my beverage. That’s when an ad on the radio kick-started both my attention and my blood pressure.
An outfit calling itself the National Crime Prevention Council sponsored the ad. These folks vigorously alert Americans to the dangers they face due to home invasions, muggings, and other crime. The ad itself was blatant fear mongering designed to ensure that properly frightened listeners install more deadbolts on their door, surveillance cameras on their streets, and security systems in their homes. While it sounded like a public service announcement, its aim was to boost sales for the crime prevention industry.
Yes, there is a crime prevention industry, and it is very skilled at manipulating our fears. They paint a scary picture of the multiple faces of evil lurking whenever we open our doors. We then wall ourselves off from our neighbors, turning our attention inward rather than towards the world around us.
The crime prevention industry performs a legitimate service, and, like any other business, they use skilled marketing techniques to ramp up demand. Marketing fear pays off. Many of us succumb to the industry campaign and trade off money and personal freedoms for the specious illusion of security. We live in a secured fortress, prisoners of our fears, and terrified by the world outside our doors.
Yet that isolation drives us away from the very force that gives us the greatest security, which is our active, committed and engaged participation in the world around us. Citizens in active, committed and engaged communities have a mutual interest in each other’s well being. They understand that they are accountable to their neighbors for their actions and inactions.
What does this community ethic look like in day-to day living? What will an active, committed and engaged citizen do when they observe a crook at work? Will they phone Crimestoppers anonymously, hoping to score a reward, or will they phone the police, identify themselves and report the suspicious activity? Do active, committed, and engaged citizens keep an eye on their neighbor’s property in their absence? Will they stop to help an injured stranger on the street, even if that stranger looks, smells, or acts differently? Are they their brothers’ keeper?
I don’t buy the fear monger’s advertising campaign. Life is short and precious- much too precious to live in fear behind walls that insulate us from the world. I choose a life rich with community interaction; supporting and being supported by my neighbors. In my world, risks and mistakes are learning opportunities, and true satisfaction comes from being an active, committed and engaged member of my community. How about yours?
An outfit calling itself the National Crime Prevention Council sponsored the ad. These folks vigorously alert Americans to the dangers they face due to home invasions, muggings, and other crime. The ad itself was blatant fear mongering designed to ensure that properly frightened listeners install more deadbolts on their door, surveillance cameras on their streets, and security systems in their homes. While it sounded like a public service announcement, its aim was to boost sales for the crime prevention industry.
Yes, there is a crime prevention industry, and it is very skilled at manipulating our fears. They paint a scary picture of the multiple faces of evil lurking whenever we open our doors. We then wall ourselves off from our neighbors, turning our attention inward rather than towards the world around us.
The crime prevention industry performs a legitimate service, and, like any other business, they use skilled marketing techniques to ramp up demand. Marketing fear pays off. Many of us succumb to the industry campaign and trade off money and personal freedoms for the specious illusion of security. We live in a secured fortress, prisoners of our fears, and terrified by the world outside our doors.
Yet that isolation drives us away from the very force that gives us the greatest security, which is our active, committed and engaged participation in the world around us. Citizens in active, committed and engaged communities have a mutual interest in each other’s well being. They understand that they are accountable to their neighbors for their actions and inactions.
What does this community ethic look like in day-to day living? What will an active, committed and engaged citizen do when they observe a crook at work? Will they phone Crimestoppers anonymously, hoping to score a reward, or will they phone the police, identify themselves and report the suspicious activity? Do active, committed, and engaged citizens keep an eye on their neighbor’s property in their absence? Will they stop to help an injured stranger on the street, even if that stranger looks, smells, or acts differently? Are they their brothers’ keeper?
I don’t buy the fear monger’s advertising campaign. Life is short and precious- much too precious to live in fear behind walls that insulate us from the world. I choose a life rich with community interaction; supporting and being supported by my neighbors. In my world, risks and mistakes are learning opportunities, and true satisfaction comes from being an active, committed and engaged member of my community. How about yours?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
What's His Role?
Alberta’s Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett’s blunt assessment of Alberta’s film and television industries pulled no punches. Speaking at the Banff World Television Festival he said, "I sit here as a government representative for film and television in the province of Alberta and I look at what we produce, and if we're honest with ourselves ... I look at it and say, 'Why do I produce so much sh**t? Why do I fund so much crap?”
Those remarks received a lot of media attention. Most film and industry leaders agreed that the remarks were ill timed and delivered in a venue that embarrassed Alberta’s cultural community.
Yet his remarks raise a bigger question. Are his comments accurate? Is Alberta’s film industry producing “crap”? And if so, what does “non-crap” look like?
These are important questions for Alberta’s creative community to consider. Is it the role of the creative to produce work that makes folks feel comfortable and appeals to a broad spectrum of people; or is it to push the edges as it portrays the realities of life? Is it appropriate for government ministers providing funding for the arts to bluntly criticize the work of Alberta’s creatives? Should he or she who pays the piper call the tune?
The reality is that the creative's role in the restaurant of community living is to provide both comfort food and new-age cuisine. There will always be those who produce mainstream art that the masses enjoy, and there will be those that tweak and twang our sensibilities and sensitivities. What often gets forgotten is that yesterday’s radical- hello Wolfie Mozart- often becomes tomorrow’s Old Master.
Where the cheese gets binding is when public money funds the arts. Expecting a politician not to pander to his base is akin to expecting a dog not to chase rabbits- to a point.
That point comes when the politician becomes a cabinet minister. Cabinet ministers should be local, national, and international champions for the communities of interest in their portfolios.
Being a champion means that the minister does not publicly trash the efforts of the communities of interest represented in his / her portfolio. Should Agriculture Minister Jack Hayden speak to the International Beef Congress and say that Alberta’s beef mostly sucks? What if Tourism Minister Cindy Ady told a panel discussion on Canadian tourist destinations that Banff and Jasper were highly overrated?
Do you get my drift? The problem here is not the quality of Alberta’s film and television output. That industry is doing what the creative process and its’ marketplace always does- provide both a reflective and visionary perspective on our life and times. Perhaps the problem is simply that the Minister needs reminding that he’s not the television and film critic for the Calgary Sun.
Those remarks received a lot of media attention. Most film and industry leaders agreed that the remarks were ill timed and delivered in a venue that embarrassed Alberta’s cultural community.
Yet his remarks raise a bigger question. Are his comments accurate? Is Alberta’s film industry producing “crap”? And if so, what does “non-crap” look like?
These are important questions for Alberta’s creative community to consider. Is it the role of the creative to produce work that makes folks feel comfortable and appeals to a broad spectrum of people; or is it to push the edges as it portrays the realities of life? Is it appropriate for government ministers providing funding for the arts to bluntly criticize the work of Alberta’s creatives? Should he or she who pays the piper call the tune?
The reality is that the creative's role in the restaurant of community living is to provide both comfort food and new-age cuisine. There will always be those who produce mainstream art that the masses enjoy, and there will be those that tweak and twang our sensibilities and sensitivities. What often gets forgotten is that yesterday’s radical- hello Wolfie Mozart- often becomes tomorrow’s Old Master.
Where the cheese gets binding is when public money funds the arts. Expecting a politician not to pander to his base is akin to expecting a dog not to chase rabbits- to a point.
That point comes when the politician becomes a cabinet minister. Cabinet ministers should be local, national, and international champions for the communities of interest in their portfolios.
Being a champion means that the minister does not publicly trash the efforts of the communities of interest represented in his / her portfolio. Should Agriculture Minister Jack Hayden speak to the International Beef Congress and say that Alberta’s beef mostly sucks? What if Tourism Minister Cindy Ady told a panel discussion on Canadian tourist destinations that Banff and Jasper were highly overrated?
Do you get my drift? The problem here is not the quality of Alberta’s film and television output. That industry is doing what the creative process and its’ marketplace always does- provide both a reflective and visionary perspective on our life and times. Perhaps the problem is simply that the Minister needs reminding that he’s not the television and film critic for the Calgary Sun.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Duke's Lesson
There are very few old-time ranchers who, when facing St. Peter at the gates of the Holy Corral, won’t confess to ignoring the messages sent by a willing horse. I’m talking about the times when the rider ignores his horse’s signals regarding the operating environment.
Years ago, I ignored the warnings of my buckskin partner Duke and sent us down an ice-slicked slope in pursuit of a runaway cow. We wiped out halfway down, and Duke and I parted company as we slid down the slope. When he got to his feet, Duke was favoring his hind leg. The look he gave me spoke volumes.
Although Duke was soon as fleet and savvy as ever, I never again over-rode his judgment. I learned the consequences of ignoring the messages of the willing horse.
Alberta’s political leaders might consider this lesson as they ponder the message sent to them by the Wandering River Volunteer Fire Department. The Wandering River crew recently announced that they were taking a “time out” from providing highway emergency response service along Highway 63 on the way to Fort McMurray. Along with protecting the lives and property of the folks at Wandering River, the fire crew was making an overwhelming number of trips for serious vehicle collisions along the high-accident highway. Sheri Johnson, the department's acting fire chief, said on average, there is one serious accident on the stretch of Highway 63 every week — and most volunteers aren't capable of handling the often-bloody outcomes. "There are a lot of people who don't feel it's the volunteer's job to be scraping people up off the highway, which is what we've done a fair amount of," she said. "A lot of people just can't handle it."
Ms. Johnson’s comments are spot-on. Volunteers in rural Alberta should not be expected to carry out difficult and dangerous tasks performed in urban Alberta by paid professionals. Volunteering to fight fires within one’s own community is much different than serving as first responders to the carnage on Highway 63.
Why are local volunteers shouldering such a complex and difficult burden? Is it simply because they live alongside this under-sized and over-used ribbon of blacktop? If that’s the case, why aren’t those industries whose operations drive the traffic load assuming more of the burden? They don’t because governments coping with “bust cycles” download complex and risky responsibilities such as highway first response to the volunteer sector in rural areas.
There is a more than a whiff of arrogance and entitlement about government and industry’s approach to the volunteer sector. Both know that community volunteers save many, many millions of tax dollars otherwise paid for by industry and / or taxpayers. Yet they regard the volunteer horse as impervious to overwork and abuse.
The Wandering River Fire Department has just sent a very strong signal to government and industry. You can ride a willing horse too hard. Will government and industry listen and respond with the same courage shown every day by Alberta’s volunteer fire departments? Across Alberta, other community volunteers will be carefully watching. Like any old-time rancher knows- one should never ignore the message from a willing horse.
Years ago, I ignored the warnings of my buckskin partner Duke and sent us down an ice-slicked slope in pursuit of a runaway cow. We wiped out halfway down, and Duke and I parted company as we slid down the slope. When he got to his feet, Duke was favoring his hind leg. The look he gave me spoke volumes.
Although Duke was soon as fleet and savvy as ever, I never again over-rode his judgment. I learned the consequences of ignoring the messages of the willing horse.
Alberta’s political leaders might consider this lesson as they ponder the message sent to them by the Wandering River Volunteer Fire Department. The Wandering River crew recently announced that they were taking a “time out” from providing highway emergency response service along Highway 63 on the way to Fort McMurray. Along with protecting the lives and property of the folks at Wandering River, the fire crew was making an overwhelming number of trips for serious vehicle collisions along the high-accident highway. Sheri Johnson, the department's acting fire chief, said on average, there is one serious accident on the stretch of Highway 63 every week — and most volunteers aren't capable of handling the often-bloody outcomes. "There are a lot of people who don't feel it's the volunteer's job to be scraping people up off the highway, which is what we've done a fair amount of," she said. "A lot of people just can't handle it."
Ms. Johnson’s comments are spot-on. Volunteers in rural Alberta should not be expected to carry out difficult and dangerous tasks performed in urban Alberta by paid professionals. Volunteering to fight fires within one’s own community is much different than serving as first responders to the carnage on Highway 63.
Why are local volunteers shouldering such a complex and difficult burden? Is it simply because they live alongside this under-sized and over-used ribbon of blacktop? If that’s the case, why aren’t those industries whose operations drive the traffic load assuming more of the burden? They don’t because governments coping with “bust cycles” download complex and risky responsibilities such as highway first response to the volunteer sector in rural areas.
There is a more than a whiff of arrogance and entitlement about government and industry’s approach to the volunteer sector. Both know that community volunteers save many, many millions of tax dollars otherwise paid for by industry and / or taxpayers. Yet they regard the volunteer horse as impervious to overwork and abuse.
The Wandering River Fire Department has just sent a very strong signal to government and industry. You can ride a willing horse too hard. Will government and industry listen and respond with the same courage shown every day by Alberta’s volunteer fire departments? Across Alberta, other community volunteers will be carefully watching. Like any old-time rancher knows- one should never ignore the message from a willing horse.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
A Bad Idea!
Alberta’s Liberal Party recently announced a twelve-point plan for improving political governance in Wild Rose country. There were eleven points worthy of serious discussion and – with apologies to my canine friends- one dog. The one that barked suggested that Albertans voting in provincial elections receive a $50 tax credit. Sadly, that woofer got most of the media attention and the good points didn’t receive the attention they deserved.
So why is paying people to vote a bad idea? Let me count the ways: Our troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan to give the gift of democracy to the Afghanis, while the home folks won’t vote unless they’re paid. Paying democratic slackers to do their civic duty insults those Canadians who take their citizenship seriously and faithfully vote in municipal, provincial, and federal elections. It also sends a dangerous message to all citizens, implying that the state will absorb the heavy lifting of good citizenship. That’s a very dangerous idea.
Communities that are active, committed and engaged don’t happen by Divine intervention, government assistance or by accident. They happen because the citizens in such communities work darned hard.
Outside resources and agencies can play a positive role in community evolution. Federal and provincial government programs not tied to a particular political or economic agenda can assist. Organizations such as the Alberta Recreation and Parks Association (ARPA) provide invaluable access to resources and information vital to community building.
Even organizations like ARPA must be constantly aware of the risks inherent in doing too much. When the music stops, we must pay the orchestra. When government grants disappear, active, committed and engaged communities must self-finance. When ARPA moves on to other challenges, the active, committed and engaged community will continue to develop its’ own capacity.
Sustainable community evolution happens when a community has the courage and the commitment to empower itself. There are no silver bullets or magic wands. Active, committed, and engaged communities engage themselves in the painful self-examination, spirited discussion, and hard work of community change and evolution. They succeed because they have made the social investment required for success.
What about those communities where most folks don’t give a rip- where a handful of overworked volunteers do the bulk of the hard work of community building? How about the communities where the number of citizens choosing not to vote exceeds those who do? Those communities should begin writing their own community obituary, for their days as a functioning community are numbered.
Compared to the difficult elements of community development- consensus building and conflict management- voting is a piece of cake. When citizens no longer value community responsibility enough to exercise the right to vote, they turn their backs on participation in an active, committed, engaged, and democratic community. The bottom line: Paying people to vote simply enables bad citizenship and insults the efforts of true community builders. It’s a bad idea. Woof!
So why is paying people to vote a bad idea? Let me count the ways: Our troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan to give the gift of democracy to the Afghanis, while the home folks won’t vote unless they’re paid. Paying democratic slackers to do their civic duty insults those Canadians who take their citizenship seriously and faithfully vote in municipal, provincial, and federal elections. It also sends a dangerous message to all citizens, implying that the state will absorb the heavy lifting of good citizenship. That’s a very dangerous idea.
Communities that are active, committed and engaged don’t happen by Divine intervention, government assistance or by accident. They happen because the citizens in such communities work darned hard.
Outside resources and agencies can play a positive role in community evolution. Federal and provincial government programs not tied to a particular political or economic agenda can assist. Organizations such as the Alberta Recreation and Parks Association (ARPA) provide invaluable access to resources and information vital to community building.
Even organizations like ARPA must be constantly aware of the risks inherent in doing too much. When the music stops, we must pay the orchestra. When government grants disappear, active, committed and engaged communities must self-finance. When ARPA moves on to other challenges, the active, committed and engaged community will continue to develop its’ own capacity.
Sustainable community evolution happens when a community has the courage and the commitment to empower itself. There are no silver bullets or magic wands. Active, committed, and engaged communities engage themselves in the painful self-examination, spirited discussion, and hard work of community change and evolution. They succeed because they have made the social investment required for success.
What about those communities where most folks don’t give a rip- where a handful of overworked volunteers do the bulk of the hard work of community building? How about the communities where the number of citizens choosing not to vote exceeds those who do? Those communities should begin writing their own community obituary, for their days as a functioning community are numbered.
Compared to the difficult elements of community development- consensus building and conflict management- voting is a piece of cake. When citizens no longer value community responsibility enough to exercise the right to vote, they turn their backs on participation in an active, committed, engaged, and democratic community. The bottom line: Paying people to vote simply enables bad citizenship and insults the efforts of true community builders. It’s a bad idea. Woof!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Schools Make A Difference
Closing a school is a lot like breaking up a longtime love affair- it’s hard to do. School closure is a process that fills everyone involved with a sense of failure and loss, and the pain doesn’t go away quickly.
Some inner-city communities here in Edmonton are losing their schools, and their residents and the Edmonton Public School Board are feeling the pain. Residents know that the loss of their public school diminishes the intrinsic social value of their community and the market value of their homes. For Board members, closing schools is the exact opposite of what they want to be doing, which is growing public education.
Across Alberta, school closures are the inevitable result of changing demographics, past and current urban planning policies, rural depopulation, school board and Alberta Education policies, and community disengagement from public education. The reality is that most folks without kids in a community school don’t give a hoot about the school until the padlock looms. Then the community isolation from the school ends, but it’s much too late. School Board administrators present the public with the relevant provincial and local policies, the low enrollment numbers and the future projections of enrollment; all justifying the closure. The Board grits its’ teeth and closes the school.
Are school closures the predictable and inevitable? What can we do to strengthen the viability of community schools and public education?
Schools are vitally important to every one of us both socially and economically. That’s why community schools built, maintained, and staffed by public money should respond to local community needs. They are not the exclusive property of trustees, school administrators, teachers, students, or parents. School facilities should host and support community initiatives pertaining to adult education and family programs. Entire communities need to be involved in the design and program planning of new schools and retrofits of existing schools.
We need a public discussion on the allocation of the most important asset in public education- time. The amount of class time available for a child in a school day is the most valuable commodity in public education. Constant pressure on our schools to expand the curriculum, and the ever-increasing costs involved in public education make every in-school minute a priceless asset.
Then why in the name of sanity are so many school buses disgorging homeward-bound students in mid-day? On early dismissal days, some rural Alberta students spend more time on their school bus than they do in their classroom.
Would these kinds of changes save every school from closure? There will always be school closures that are painful for communities, trustees, and the students forced to relocate by the closure. That’s just an unpleasant fact. What is unacceptable is the continuation of the status quo.
What will change the status quo? Change will happen when ratepayers demand that their trustees and provincial politicians take actions protecting community schools and public education.
Public education is important to our youth, our communities, our economy, and our society, yet we only pay attention when it fails. The closure of schools across Alberta is a painful reminder that when it comes to public education issues, ignorance is NOT bliss.
Some inner-city communities here in Edmonton are losing their schools, and their residents and the Edmonton Public School Board are feeling the pain. Residents know that the loss of their public school diminishes the intrinsic social value of their community and the market value of their homes. For Board members, closing schools is the exact opposite of what they want to be doing, which is growing public education.
Across Alberta, school closures are the inevitable result of changing demographics, past and current urban planning policies, rural depopulation, school board and Alberta Education policies, and community disengagement from public education. The reality is that most folks without kids in a community school don’t give a hoot about the school until the padlock looms. Then the community isolation from the school ends, but it’s much too late. School Board administrators present the public with the relevant provincial and local policies, the low enrollment numbers and the future projections of enrollment; all justifying the closure. The Board grits its’ teeth and closes the school.
Are school closures the predictable and inevitable? What can we do to strengthen the viability of community schools and public education?
Schools are vitally important to every one of us both socially and economically. That’s why community schools built, maintained, and staffed by public money should respond to local community needs. They are not the exclusive property of trustees, school administrators, teachers, students, or parents. School facilities should host and support community initiatives pertaining to adult education and family programs. Entire communities need to be involved in the design and program planning of new schools and retrofits of existing schools.
We need a public discussion on the allocation of the most important asset in public education- time. The amount of class time available for a child in a school day is the most valuable commodity in public education. Constant pressure on our schools to expand the curriculum, and the ever-increasing costs involved in public education make every in-school minute a priceless asset.
Then why in the name of sanity are so many school buses disgorging homeward-bound students in mid-day? On early dismissal days, some rural Alberta students spend more time on their school bus than they do in their classroom.
Would these kinds of changes save every school from closure? There will always be school closures that are painful for communities, trustees, and the students forced to relocate by the closure. That’s just an unpleasant fact. What is unacceptable is the continuation of the status quo.
What will change the status quo? Change will happen when ratepayers demand that their trustees and provincial politicians take actions protecting community schools and public education.
Public education is important to our youth, our communities, our economy, and our society, yet we only pay attention when it fails. The closure of schools across Alberta is a painful reminder that when it comes to public education issues, ignorance is NOT bliss.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
A Summer Of Opportunity
Before long, we will be enjoying another Alberta summer. This summer is special, for the scent of wild roses drifting across the breadth of Alberta will herald the approach of local political renewal.
Yes, we are approaching Alberta’s tri-annual municipal elections. On October 18th, we will have the opportunity to re-seed Alberta’s rich soil of grassroots democracy. Can we expect that most Albertans will do their part to bring grassroots democracy to Wild Rose Country?
Only if we also expect Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff to quit federal politics to run off together to Wainwright and open a sushi restaurant. Given our abysmal record of political engagement, we’ll be lucky to get enough candidates in some communities to fill the School Board and Municipal Council seats by acclamation.
That’s a dismal state of affairs. Political representation at the Municipal Council and School Board level is the pinnacle of grass roots governance. Decisions made at those Board tables directly affect people’s daily lives. Their policies shape the community’s future.
Yet too many of us don’t participate in local democratic renewal. We don’t stand for office, actively support someone, or even bother to vote. It’s simpler to studiously avoid the process and the issues shaping our community’s future.
Even when we engage in the process, we use the filter of immediate self-interest as our decision-making guide. “Good old Bill or Mike or Hazel promises to lower taxes and that’s good enough for me. Why should I ask them where they intend to find the bucks to clear the streets and operate the landfill after they’ve cut our taxes? That’s just a minor detail. We always get grants from the province. Somebody else can worry about the future; not me” It’s a familiar refrain across the province.
That attitude raises three interesting questions. Why should our provincial government treat communities choosing not to invest in themselves the same as those that do? Should the province tax Peter, who regularly invests his own money in maintaining his property, to give to Paul, who doesn’t? How can we develop strong, self-reliant communities when our provincial government grants disempower local governments and create a municipal culture of dependency?
The impact of that culture of municipal dependency is what drives the Old Prairie Dog’s First Rule of Municipal Politics: The difficulty in recruiting strong municipal politicians increases in direct proportion to the degree of mess left by their predecessors.
That’s why we are truly approaching the summer of opportunity for many Alberta communities. Now is the time to seek out people with a community vision and the willingness to champion public investment that will provide local governments with the resources required to build active, engaged, and committed communities.
That’s the challenge facing every Albertan who takes the concept of democracy seriously. My challenge to you is this: If not you, then who? Your summer of opportunity awaits.
Yes, we are approaching Alberta’s tri-annual municipal elections. On October 18th, we will have the opportunity to re-seed Alberta’s rich soil of grassroots democracy. Can we expect that most Albertans will do their part to bring grassroots democracy to Wild Rose Country?
Only if we also expect Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff to quit federal politics to run off together to Wainwright and open a sushi restaurant. Given our abysmal record of political engagement, we’ll be lucky to get enough candidates in some communities to fill the School Board and Municipal Council seats by acclamation.
That’s a dismal state of affairs. Political representation at the Municipal Council and School Board level is the pinnacle of grass roots governance. Decisions made at those Board tables directly affect people’s daily lives. Their policies shape the community’s future.
Yet too many of us don’t participate in local democratic renewal. We don’t stand for office, actively support someone, or even bother to vote. It’s simpler to studiously avoid the process and the issues shaping our community’s future.
Even when we engage in the process, we use the filter of immediate self-interest as our decision-making guide. “Good old Bill or Mike or Hazel promises to lower taxes and that’s good enough for me. Why should I ask them where they intend to find the bucks to clear the streets and operate the landfill after they’ve cut our taxes? That’s just a minor detail. We always get grants from the province. Somebody else can worry about the future; not me” It’s a familiar refrain across the province.
That attitude raises three interesting questions. Why should our provincial government treat communities choosing not to invest in themselves the same as those that do? Should the province tax Peter, who regularly invests his own money in maintaining his property, to give to Paul, who doesn’t? How can we develop strong, self-reliant communities when our provincial government grants disempower local governments and create a municipal culture of dependency?
The impact of that culture of municipal dependency is what drives the Old Prairie Dog’s First Rule of Municipal Politics: The difficulty in recruiting strong municipal politicians increases in direct proportion to the degree of mess left by their predecessors.
That’s why we are truly approaching the summer of opportunity for many Alberta communities. Now is the time to seek out people with a community vision and the willingness to champion public investment that will provide local governments with the resources required to build active, engaged, and committed communities.
That’s the challenge facing every Albertan who takes the concept of democracy seriously. My challenge to you is this: If not you, then who? Your summer of opportunity awaits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
