Cat for Christy no laughing matter

This is odd.
First, a cat belonging to a Christy Clark campaign worker joins the Liberal party.
The worker, when contacted by Justine Hunter of the Globe, initially claimed the membership belonged to a great aunt who lived with her. The campaign later told the truth and then claimed the cat membership was a prank by persons unknown.
George Abbott and Kevin Falcon condemned the cat sign-up; Abbott expressed concern about voter fraud in the leadership contest.
And a website - kitties4christy.com - mocked the whole thing.
Then Sean Holman revealed that the web domain name was registered on Feb. 1, three days before the story broke.
The Liberals are voting for the next leader by phone and online. Members who joined by today - Friday - will get a PIN and be eligible to cast a ballot. Falcon claims he's signed up 17,500 new members; Mike de Jong 10,000.
There is a large potential for voter fraud.
The Liberals are supposedly adopting a process that gives each riding 100 votes, no matter how many members it has. The votes would be allocated based on a constituency vote. That would reduce the impact of signing up thousands of new members, feline or otherwise.
That decision has to be confirmed at a convention next weekend and requires two-thirds support to pass. All candidates have said they support the change.
If it doesn't pass, then the legitimacy of new members is going to be a big issue.

Postscript:
The Abbott campaign confirmed in a statement that Campaign Research, a campaign management company in Toronto working as a contractor for his leadership bid, prepared the cat website.
"I have learned this afternoon that this website was created by a vendor who works for my campaign when they learned through the media that a story regarding Ms. Clark's campaign sign-ups was under development," Abbott said in the statement.
He had it taken down.
But they didn't sign the cat up, he said.

That raises other questions

Dix plan for corporate tax cuts should spark needed debate

Liberal Kevin Falcon has set himself up as the business leadership candidate.
Now New Democrat hopeful Adrian Dix has claimed the opposite side.
Dix took one of the bolder positions of both campaigns so far by saying he would raise corporate taxes to fund needed services.
It's striking how little real discussion there has been of the dramatic business tax cuts over the last decade and the resulting service cuts and much higher taxes and fees paid by individuals and families.
It's been a big shift. You can't readily allocate all government revenues to individuals and business. Both pay the carbon tax, for example.
But even a rough cut at the numbers shows companies are paying a far smaller share of the government's bills than they did a decade ago.
In 2001, direct corporate taxes and royalties of various kinds provided about 22 per cent of government revenues. Today, after tax changes by the Campbell government, that's down to about 10 per cent.
Despite inflation and economic growth, corporations are paying about $1 billion less in readily attributable taxes than they were in 2001, a drop of about 20 per cent.
Individuals and families are paying about $8 billion more, an increase of about 60 per cent. (The change isn't just in income taxes. MSP premiums, for example have increased more than 80 per cent; the government is also taking in more indirectly, through B.C. Lotteries, for example.)
You can argue the details. But the shift is undeniable and large. Corporations and businesses are paying a greatly reduced share of the province's bills.
That's by design, and a perfectly legitimate policy. The theory is that lower taxes would encourage companies to invest here, which would mean jobs and growth.
Families would have to pay more to make up for the corporate tax cuts, but, in theory, benefit from a strong economy.
But we haven't had a real public discussion about the tax shift. In part, that's why the HST - which shifted $1.9 billion a year off corporations and onto individuals and families - made people mad.
Dix proposed to claw back about $270 million in corporate tax cuts, which would still leave them paying about $700 million less in direct taxes than a decade ago.
Politically, it sets him apart from the main candidates from both parties, though it won't win business friends and supporters.
Meanwhile, Falcon has presented himself as the candidate of choice for B.C. business.
Falcon has racked up, and promoted, endorsements from a flock of business people. They bought a full-page ad in the Vancouver Sun and his campaign team has sent out press releases celebrating his corporate support.
It's impressive, at least to some Liberal party supporters.
But Falcon was already seen as business-friendly and likely had the support of those supporters. And he risks being seen as short on support from other groups.
What he needs, in terms of winning the leadership, are similar indications from other sectors.
He was the health minister, for example. Where are the patient groups or doctors or seniors' organization offering the same kind of ringing endorsement he's getting from the business sector. Or the women's shelter or teen group in his riding praising his insight and efforts?
Both Dix and Falcon are staking clear positions that reflect the interests their respective party's core supporters, which might help win support in the leadership contest.
That success might not translate as well into an actual election campaign, where the emphasis is on winning over moderate or uncommitted voters.
But Dix has, at least, started a needed debate on tax policy and who should pay for the services government provides.
The tax shift under the Liberals has seen business pay much less and individuals and families pay much more, without a great deal of public discussion of the impacts on the economy and British Columbians.
Footnote: Christy Clark and Falcon sparred a bit over his reliance on business support, or "insiders" as she called them. The bigger issue should be how much they spend to back his campaign. Candidates are limited to $450,000 in spending, but third party spending doesn't count against the cap. Falcon's business backers have already bought ads in his support.

Is the Liberal caucus chair sniping at Kevin Falcon?

The government caucus sent out a press release attacking recall efforts today that was hardly a favour to the Kevin Falcon leadership campaign.
Falcon's start in politics came as the organizer of an unsuccessful "Total Recall" campaign against the NDP in 1999. The campaign stalled, Falcon said then, because it couldn't raise enough money to launch credible efforts.
The recall effort looks much like the current version. Falcon said it was a bid to defeat the government, he defended the role of Liberals in the effort (he had done paid for work for the Liberals and campaigned) and the pro-recall forces were angry at Elections B.C.
The release is below.


BC LIBERAL GOVERNMENT CAUCUS
NEWS RELEASE

For immediate release
February 3, 2011

TIME FOR NDP TO END WASTEFUL, DISHONEST RECALL SCHEME

VICTORIA – Following the resounding defeat of the NDP-backed recall in Oak Bay-Gordon Head, it’s time for NDP president Moe Sihota and his party to abandon their wasteful and dishonest attempt to manipulate recall and re-fight the last election, says BC Liberal Caucus Chair Ron Cantelon.

Elections B.C. has said that each recall attempt costs B.C. taxpayers at least $500,000 per campaign. (Vancouver Sun, Sept. 24, 2010).

Two decades of failure on at-risk children, families

Note: Please read the specific examples in the posts below after reading this. Or, if pressed for time, just read them.


It’s now been 20 years of failure when it comes to the most vulnerable children in this province. Based on the scarcity of commitments from leadership candidates, another dismal decade could lie ahead.
The Representative for Children and Youth has released her latest report, on the deaths of 21 infants whose families had been involved with the children’s ministry in the year before the children died.
These babies didn’t really stand much of a chance. Many people in “the system” — the ministry, health authorities — knew the risks for them were high. But the response was fragmented. The people who could have helped were overworked and unsupported. We failed them.
None of these were easy cases. The children faced tough lives even with the best support in the world. The families were dirt poor. They lived in dismal housing: Mould-ridden hovels, motel rooms, overcrowded houses.
Most of the families had issues with addictions, mental illness and domestic violence. Almost three-quarters of the children were aboriginal.
You should read the report, Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems, at rcybc.ca. Especially the case examples, which set out the circumstances of some of the families, and was done — and not done - to keep the children safe.
The measures that could have helped aren’t all complicated or expensive. The representative found there are no provincewide rules or guidelines for child protection workers involved with a family expecting another child. (And where there are protocols, they weren’t followed.)
In three-quarters of the cases, the ministry had received reports that children already in the home might be at risk while the mothers were pregnant. Investigations were slow and in some cases inadequate. In only three of the cases was there evidence of planning for the infant on discharge from hospital.
Perhaps as a result, there was little support for the families after the babies were taken home. They were left living in terrible conditions, with no effective help in finding adequate housing, for example.
Public-health nurse visits could have helped protect the children and support the often ill-equipped mothers. But the province hasn’t created a standard of nursing support for at-risk infants.
And, of course, B.C. still has no provincial plan to address its ranking as the worst province in Canada for childhood poverty.
Just before the 2001 election, I wrote about the New Democratic government’s cruel mismanagement of the children’s ministry.
The column quoted the final report of Children’s Advocate Joyce Preston, an independent legislative watchdog foolishly eliminated by the Campbell government.
She described a decade of failure on the part of the NDP. “For the most part it has been a case of all talk and no action,” she said. Under the NDP, the ministry was underfunded, short-staffed and mismanaged, I wrote then.
Gordon Campbell promised much better. I believed him. But it was all empty talk.
The most obvious broken promise was the 2001 election campaign commitment to stop the “endless restructuring” that wasted resources and created disorganization.
Campbell had also stood in the legislature and urged an end to partisan fighting over vulnerable childen. All MLAs should figure out what the children and youth needed and find the money to support them, he said.
He repeated the promise in writing before the election. The children and families spending would be based on the need, not some arbitrary budget allowance, he pledged.
Campbell and the Liberals did the opposite. Budgets were slashed, without any analysis or plan. The Liberals launched — and spent tens of millions on — a plan for regional authorities, and then abandoned it. Almost 10 years after the Liberals were first elected, and the ministry is still perpetually “transforming,” though how and into what is unclear.
The Liberal government has defended its poor performance. It’s tough to keep social workers. There were staff shortages. We’re trying. Things will improve.
It was all exactly what the NDP government said a decade earlier.
Infants, children and youths who at risk, or in danger, deserve protection. Families need help. And for 20 years, the provincial government has failed them.

Judge for yourself if infants protected and families supported

I've been posting case examples from the Representative for Children and Youth report Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems.
Here are number five and six; the first four are in posts below.
You can read and judge if the system is working to protect children.

Case Example
This infant was born to a First Nations mother who had one older child living with her. Two older children had been removed by the ministry in the past and were living with relatives. There had been 12 child protection reports over a 10-year period. The reports involved drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence as well as exposing the children to dangerous situations and general lack of supervision and neglect. Investigations had found at one point that the family lived in very substandard housing requiring immediate attention due to the risks to the children.
The eleventh report regarding the care of the sibling was received when the mother was in the early stages of her pregnancy. It was not investigated. A second report was received subsequent to the infant’s birth, which also was not investigated. Both reports were signed by a supervisor and closed. A number of months later, after another report that was not documented as a child protection report was received, the children were removed.
By not responding to the initial report, the opportunity was lost to assess the family circumstances and plan for the birth of the infant.

Case Example
The mother of the infant had been diagnosed with FASD at a young age. Her capacity to parent was limited. Prior to the infant’s birth she had transferred the care of her first child to her former spouse as she was unable to handle the child’s behaviour. She used harmful substances while pregnant with her second child. Her prenatal substance use, limited capacity and lack of financial resources were factors that the staff in the hospital felt placed her at risk.
The infant was born prematurely and was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit due to high medical needs. Prior to discharging the infant, health professionals noted concerns about the home the infant would be living in, the mother’s capacity and her social situation. The infant was discharged at six weeks of age.
When the infant was two months old, the social worker contacted the public health nurse to request that she provide information to the infant’s mother regarding safe sleep as the mother had informed the social worker that the infant currently slept in a car seat and also in the mother’s bed. The public health nurse contacted the mother, who said that she did not have a crib for the infant and could not afford one. The mother said that the infant was currently sleeping in a playpen. The nurse discouraged the mother from using a playpen and encouraged her to purchase a crib. On the same day, the nurse contacted the social worker regarding financial assistance for a crib. The public health notes indicate that the nurse planned to follow up with the MCFD social worker in two weeks. However, there is no indication of any further follow-up regarding the infant’s sleeping arrangements.
Over a number of weeks the mother’s capacity to take care of the infant began to deteriorate, and beginning at three months old, the infant was provided temporary respite care with increasing frequency in three different homes. The ministry social worker requested and received approval for the purchase of a playpen for the infant to sleep in while in respite care in one of the three homes because the caregivers did not have an appropriate place for the infant to sleep.
The third home offering respite care was an MCFD-approved foster home. The foster home file information did not indicate that the foster parents had received any specialized training with respect to caring for infants or caring for infants with high medical needs. In this home the infant also slept in a playpen. On the night of the death the infant was put to sleep on its side in the playpen, with a blanket placed against its back. A couple of hours later the caregiver found the infant unresponsive.
A post-mortem examination following the infant’s death indicated that an untreated kidney infection caused the death, and an inter-current viral infection and aspiration pneumonia were contributory. A pediatric review of the infant’s medical and post-mortem information indicated that the kidney infection was treatable, had it been recognized earlier. However, the infant’s symptoms may have been misinterpreted as a cold or flu.

You decide if children are protected

I've been posting case examples from the Representative for Children and Youth report Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems.
Here's number four; the first three are in posts below.
You can read and judge if the system is working to protect children.

Case Example
The mother of this infant was involved with MCFD child protection social workers during her pregnancy. She had two toddlers. The family lived on reserve in a home that had extensive mould. The pregnancy was assessed as high risk, and the mother was confined to bed rest. A service agency was contracted to provide assistance to the family to address housing- related issues. One of the stated goals of the service provider was for the family to find adequate housing. During the final weeks of her high-risk pregnancy and in the first few weeks following the infant’s birth, it appears that the infant’s mother was expected to locate adequate living conditions. In the months following the infant’s birth, it appears that the only help the mother received from the service provider was housing lists and contact phone numbers for low-income housing agencies. The infant was brought to the hospital three times between the ages of one month and five months for coughing, vomiting, fever and breathing difficulties. At approximately six weeks old, the infant was diagnosed with respiratory syncytial virus. At that same time a sibling was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with pneumonia. In the hospital the infant’s mother advised the treating physician of her concerns with regards to the mould in the family’s residence.
A few weeks after the infant was born, an MCFD social worker wrote a letter to B.C. Housing and a low-income housing provider requesting that the family be given priority on a waitlist for housing because all of the children were frequently ill with respiratory illnesses thought to be related to the mould in the house. A year later the family was still waitlisted for housing and had to move off reserve into a motel with the young children when the infant was one year old.
One day while the mother was at work, the children were being cared for by their father. The infant was placed to sleep on an adult bed in the room, propped up with a pillow and covered with a blanket. The infant began to vomit and defecate. The infant’s breathing became noisy and irregular, and the infant became unresponsive. Emergency health services were called and took the infant to the hospital, where the infant was pronounced dead.

Another child's short life

I've been posting case examples from the Representative for Children and Youth report Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems.
Here's number three; the first two are in posts below.

Case Example Three
One of the infants resided with an adolescent mother and a grandmother in a motel. Over a two-month period, 10 individual service providers had some involvement with the mother and infant, including child protection social workers, hospital social workers, public health nurses, hospital workers and a family support worker.
A public health nurse had observed the infant’s living conditions and documented that the family was to be “observed” for emotional status, postpartum depression and family functioning; however, the nurse also recorded “no apparent problem” in the notes of the visit. A second nurse who visited also documented that the family should be observed for provision of a safe environment and support systems.
During at least one of the visits, the nurse noted that two adults were smoking inside the motel room with the infant present. It was also noted that the mother smoked and used marijuana. The nurse advised the mother to wait two hours after doing so before breastfeeding the infant. However, in a follow-up conversation with the child protection worker, the nurse expressed no concerns related to the infant’s care. The infant’s living conditions were not noted as a concern for the service providers.

Another child whose life we wrote off

"The Ministry of Children and Family Development missed opportunities to learn from its mistakes by failing to review a number of infant deaths, B.C.'s independent child advocate says," reports Lindsay Kines in the Times Colonist today.
"Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who examined the deaths of 21 infants for a recent report, noted that the ministry conducted its own internal investigations in just 14 of the cases."
All the deaths should have been reviewed based on the ministry's standards, the representative found. In the 14 deaths that were reviewed, "a number took too long complete, ignored key issues or failed to recommend changes that would fix identified problems."
The representative also said regional directors were reviewing cases in which they were involved - an obvious conflict of interest. Minister Mary Polak agreed and said some changes would be made. But the ministry has been "transforming" itself for years with no clear improvements. Where is the accountability for managers who failed to ensure an effective independent review process?
The article is here.
The representatives report, Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems, is here.

But the individual case studies from the report tell much of the story.
Here's the second one. (The first one is in the post below.)

Case Example Two
This First Nations child was born into a home with other young children. The family lived in poverty and often relied on relatives, transition housing and motels for accommodation. MCFD became aware that the mother was expecting early in her pregnancy.
The mother had been admitted to hospital after being assaulted by her spouse during her pregnancy. Prior to the infant’s birth, 14 child protection reports had been made to the ministry, primarily about alcohol abuse and domestic violence. Four of these reports were made while the mother was pregnant with this infant; they included concerns about inadequate housing, emotional abuse of the infant’s siblings and substance abuse. One of the reports was investigated and not substantiated. The other three were not investigated. The MCFD file was closed before the infant was born.
According to the MCFD file information, the newborn was assessed at birth by a program in the local hospital that worked in conjunction with the public health unit. The program reportedly assessed newborns for medical as well as social/emotional risk factors. The newborn was assessed by the program as low risk and was discharged from hospital the following day. It does not appear the hospital was aware that the family had no reasonable housing and a history of substance abuse and family violence. It appears this MCFD information was not shared with the hospital following the infant’s birth.
The infant was seen three times by public health nurses from birth to three months of age. At the second visit, the mother reported that the infant had noisy breathing while asleep, which a doctor thought was possibly the result of a floppy epiglottis.
Approximately two months later the mother took the infant to see a doctor because the noisy breathing persisted and a cough had developed. The doctor thought these symptoms were possibly due to an infection and prescribed amoxicillin. At the third visit with the public health nurse, the mother informed the nurse that the infant’s noisy breathing persisted, and she also informed the nurse about the previous visit to the doctor. No follow-up regarding the infant’s breathing was noted on the record of the visit.
The infant died four days after the last visit with the public health nurse. On the evening of the death the infant had been left in the care of adolescent babysitters. There was no crib in the home. The babysitters placed the infant to sleep in a car seat that was on top of a soft mattress. Sometime later the car seat turned over, and the baby was asphyxiated.

The key point is that the child's bleak future was foreseeable and the death could have been avoided. The baby never really had a chance and no one took the small steps that could have made a difference for the children in this messed-up family.

Behind the statistics on children we failed

There is a useful editorial on the Representative for Children and Youth report on the death of 21 children involved with Ministry of Children and Families here.
And the entire report is on the representative's website.
But the individual case studies tell much of the story.
Here's one.


Case Example
The mother of this First Nations infant was actively involved with MCFD child protection social workers during the prenatal period due to concerns regarding the care and safety of an infant sibling.
The MCFD file information indicated a lengthy history of involvement with the infant’s family over a number of generations. When the infant’s mother was a child, she had been removed from the care of her own parents due to domestic violence, mental health issues, neglect, sexual abuse and lack of medical attention. The infant’s grandparents had suffered the impacts of attending residential schools and lived in severe poverty. The infant’s mother
was suspected to have been affected by prenatal exposure to alcohol.
Numerous health hazards in the family’s home had been reported to MCFD. Despite the information regarding the historical abuses affecting the family and active child protection involvement, no discharge planning was done by MCFD and the hospital when the infant was born. MCFD did not make contact with the family until six weeks after the birth. Public Health had extensive and frequent contact, noting the infant’s medical concerns relating to care and hospitalization for failure to thrive. MCFD was not advised of the hospitalization, nor did they appear to be monitoring the situation in order to know that the infant had been hospitalized.
MCFD received another report regarding the infant’s care, and the infant was removed from parental care at approximately four months of age. At the time of placement in the foster home, the foster parent noted that the infant’s body was covered with eczema and that the infant made “odd sounds.” The foster parent attempted to access medical care for the infant at a walk-in clinic but did not get to the clinic before it closed for the day. The infant died that night. The death was identified as sudden unexplained death in infancy with contributing health problems.

Heed's 'star candidate' status looking dim

You could make a pretty good movie based on Kash Heed's disastrous political career. A cautionary tale about ambition, the perils of modern politics and the risks of a "star candidate."
Heed was supposed to be a golden boy in the Liberal ranks. He looks good, presented well, at least in a superficial way, and was most recently chief of the West Vancouver police. Ambitious, confident of great things in his future, encouraged by Liberal operatives who pushed Wally Oppal out of the way to create a safe riding for Heed.
And it's all gone to ruin.
Heed is now going to B.C. Supreme Court to try and hold on to his seat. An Elections B.C. audit has determined that his campaign broke the rules. Candidates could not spend more $70,000 on their campaigns; an audit found he spent $4,165 over the limit, the office says.
There are a lot of other issues around the tainted campaign. But let's start with the spending.
It matters. Heed won by less than 850 votes. Illegal campaign spending could have tipped the balance.
B.C. has a Wild West approach to political donations that allows big backers to write unlimited cheques to support parties and candidates. Any violation of the few rules is significant.
Elections B.C. has been asking for a new finance report from the campaign since June and granted Heed repeated extensions.
Last month, it warned Heed's election could be declared invalid and a byelection held.
Heed is pleading ignorance. That's never a great defence, and particularly bad for a police chief and political star.
But in an affidavit filed on Christmas Eve, Heed says he had nothing to do with his campaign spending or financial reports. Oppal recommended two people to run the campaign. Heed says he accepted and they made all the decisions.
Heed says he can't compel them to provide the information and he knows nothing. So all should be forgiven.
But that would mean an election might have been stolen by cheating.
It's a scandal in itself. But there's more.
A Chinese-language brochure smearing the NDP with false allegations was sent out in Heed's riding near the end of the campaign. It was illegal, because there was no indication who sponsored it.
But an investigation linked it to the Liberal campaigners.
Heed's campaign manager Barinder Sall faces five charges as a result, including obstructing justice, submitting a fraudulent document and improper election advertising. Two others involved with the campaign also face charges.
The unreported spending on the brochure is part of the campaign overspending, Elections B.C. alleges.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general while the incident was investigated.
Last May, a special prosecutor cleared him. Gordon Campbell, off at a meeting in Europe, put him back in cabinet.
And then the special prosecutor revealed his law firm donated to Heed's campaign. He resigned. Heed stepped down again.
And a new special prosecutor was appointed and the investigation started again.
The police report is now with the new special prosecutor.
Now an RCMP application for search warrants alleges Heed used $6,000 in public funds that was supposed to furnish his office to pay two campaign workers, including the campaign manager.
It's quite a spectacular mess.
Heed has the right under the Election Act to ask the court to clear him if he acted "in good faith."
But his affidavit doesn't reveal any effort on his part to get the needed information or press his campaign's financial agent to complete the reports. And the act appears to say the "good faith defence" applies only if the financial agent and the candidate both are found to have met the standard. It's not enough for the candidate to plead ignorance.
The Liberals - politicians and party officials - have been silent on the affair.
But the prospect of a continuing scandal, and perhaps a byelection, can't be cheering.
Footnote: The searches also uncovered a 2008 e-mail in which Heed touted his prospects to his future campaign manager.
"Think of things this way: You are a trainer that has a few horses in your stable ," he allegedly wrote. "Wally [Oppal] is getting on and needs to be put out to pasture soon. You have a stallion that has been in training for some time and you and everyone else know he's a winner, but can't wait on the sidelines forever."
Oppal gave up his seat for Heed and lost in a new riding.

On Kash Heed and the RCMP contract

Two useful editorials in the Times Colonist today.

Heed's tainted election

"Liberal MLA Kash Heed is trying to escape the consequences of illegal campaign actions by pleading ignorance. It is a defence that cannot be allowed to stand, as it undermines the basic principles of fairness and democracy."

Read more here.

Changes needed in RCMP deal

"Citizens have a right to demand two things from police - accountability and a commitment to learn from mistakes and address problems. The RCMP has, so far, failed to meet the required standard.

The force's official response to its handling of the Robert Pickton case is disturbing. It raises serious doubts about the RCMP's willingness to change."

That editorial is here.

How serious is campaign spending oversight?

The Kash Heed affair is covered well elsewhere.
But a review of his affidavit material suggests a casual/sloppy attention to financial reporting.
The auditor's report on campaign finances, attached to the affidavit, was prepared by Robert Ikoma, the Burnaby chartered accountant who signed the opinion.
The heading says it's the "Auditor's Report on Kash Heed's Election Financing Report Pursuant to the Election Act."
But in the first paragraph, the auditor refers to the financial agent for Linda Reid, another Liberal candidate.
It looks like a standard form letter was prepared and candidates' names pasted in as needed.
And not, as this gaffe indicates, with any great care.

FSA tests far too useful to boycott or kill

It's important to know how we're preparing our children for the challenges ahead.
And it's stunning, even tragic, that the teachers' union campaign to kill the Foundation Skills Assessment tests in B.C. schools has made such gains.
The tests, introduced by the NDP government in 2000, provide a snapshot of student performance.
Every year, students in Grade 4 and Grade 7 write tests to assess their basic skills in reading, writing and math.
Of course, the results aren't definitive. But they give parents a report on how their children are doing in developing basic skills that are essential for life today. (And no, report cards with their often bafflingly oblique comments are not a substitute.)
The results also identify classrooms, schools and districts where children are doing better than average in learning to read, write and do math.
That's important. A teacher might have come up with great ways to help children soar in math skills.
But unless the success is measured and identified, the knowledge might never be transferred to other schools.
The value goes much farther. We have more than a decade worth of data now, information that's invaluable for researchers.
The University of B.C.'s Human Early Learning Partnership, for example, used FSA data to look at the link between where children lived and how they did in school.
The researchers followed 2,648 students from kindergarten to Grade 7. Partly, the findings were expected. Children from affluent neighbourhoods had better skills, unsurprising given advantages from preschool programs to better nutrition.
But the study also found that even if students moved to more affluent neighbourhoods, their performance in basic skills lagged.
That's important for anyone who cares about equal opportunity for children. The research shows the focus has to be on children's lives from birth to the time the start kindergarten.
And according to the researchers, the study would have been impossible without the FSA test results.
The B.C. Teachers Federation has waged war against the tests. They take too much time, the union says. But six tests in 12 years of schooling hardly seems onerous.
Some teachers spend too much time in preparing students, the union says. But that's a professional problem for teachers to deal with.
Results can be misused, the federation complains. Indeed they can; but it's insulting to claim the rest of us are incapable of identifying misuse.
Schools do much more than help students read and write, the union argues. Which is true; but it's not an argument against assessing progress in those skills.
Parents and policy makers know you can't reasonably compare results from an expensive private school and a school drawing students from a poor community where many children are learning English as a second language.
But you can compare two schools and classes from similar rural communities. And you can learn something it one is much more successful in helping children develop the core skills for a successful, happy life.
The union's opposition is disheartening. It hasn't offered a pragmatic alternative.
The campaign seems aimed at removing any independent assessment of children's progress in learning basic skills. That's in the interests of the union's members. And, legally, that is the first priority for the union.
But it's not in the interest of students or of society.
It matters that children should be able to read and write and comfortably calculate interest rates and the costs of groceries.
The teachers' federation has waged a fairly effective boycott campaign. And, on some level, many others in the system are also keen on the idea of killing one of the few measures that let us look at one aspect of how well our kids are doing in developing basic competence. Politicians are caving.
It's sad time for anyone who believes it's important for all children to have a fair chance at success in this life.
Footnote: The government undermines the tests as well. If the information was used to find ways of improving student learning - from anti-poverty measures to new approaches to teaching and learning - the government would have a much stronger argument. That has happened far too rarely.

Christy Clark's baffling campaign

A couple of items last week raised questions about Christy Clark's campaign positions.
Over at closer-look.blogspot.com, Jody Paterson reprints a Clark release on the role of non-profits and comments:.

"Here's Christy Clark on...what, exactly? I do quite a bit of work with the non-profit sector and am familiar with the initiatives she mentions here, but I still couldn't make heads or tails out of what the Liberal leadership candidate was actually saying in this news release."

And Les Leyne of the Times Colonist tried to puzzle out what Clark was actually saying about the HST referendum. Her explanations were nearly incomprehensible. His conclusion was summed up by the column's headline.

"One flaw in Clark's HST plan: It's nuts"

Kevin Falcon's promise to solve Victoria's traffic congestion - something he never paid any attention to in five years as transportation minister - also gets a look in the Times Colonist, in an editorial.

Meanwhile, an important and concrete commitment from George Abbott hasn't got much attention.
Abbott has pledged to bring in civilian oversight for the RCMP.
More significantly, he's also said the current RCMP policing contract should be extended for two years to ensure that the oversight actually happens and is included in the agreement. He also says the delay in signing a new 20-year deal would allow recommendations from the inquiry into the missing women case to be included in the contract.
The government seems intent on rushing into a new long-term commitment; Abbott offers a smarter, more responsible course.
His release is here.

New Democrats off to disastrously self-destructive start

The New Democrats’ stumbling start to the leadership race should leave loyalists in despair and raise questions - again - about the sense in forcing Carole James out as leader.
The contest has barely begun and it has been hit with a divisive scandal.
To be eligible to vote in the April 17 leadership ballot, people had to join the party by 5 p.m. last Monday.
All the campaign teams had scrambled to sign up new members who would vote for their candidate. They carted in completed membership applications - each accompanied by the required donation - through the day.
But organizers for Adrian Dix showed up with big batches of memberships and separate piles of cash, then started attaching the money to the application forms.
Candidates Harry Lali and Mike Farnworth both cried foul, Lali most vigorously.
The complaints were that the memberships weren't submitted with the money, as required, and that the Dix workers were still pulling the material together after the 5 p.m. deadline.
But the fear was that the Dix campaign had undertaken a campaign of mass sign-ups of instant members in South Asian ethnic communities. The stacks of cash raised questions about whether the new party members had actually made the required donations themselves or whether the campaign was picking up the tab.
It's a common political tactic. Send some well-connected operatives into a close-knit community, sign up hundreds or thousands of members, and you can control a riding association or a leadership race.
It's also destructive. The instant members disappear the day after the vote. Real party members find they've been elbowed out of the process, so they drift away. Supporters of losing candidates feel cheated. And the party is left, in many cases, with a leader without real support.
The New Democrats hoped to reduce the problems by setting an early deadline for new members who would be eligible to vote. It didn't seem to work.
The other candidates are right to be concerned.
The NDP had something like 12,000 members when James was ousted. The numbers have climbed as candidates signed up new members, but an influx of several thousand instant members supporting one contender could tip the scales. The race could be over before real party members were even sure who was running.
NDP provincial secretary Jan O'Brien ruled the memberships were valid. They got there before 5 p.m. even if they weren't complete by that time.
O'Brien acknowledged the rules issued to all the candidates said each membership must be submitted with individual payments attached, but she had now decided that was a "redundant, internal process." She woudn’t enforce the rules.
At best, the New Democrats look like bunglers, setting campaign rules - which most candidates played by - and then ignoring them.
And at worst, the party looks to be condoning mass sign-ups paid for by third parties and favouring one candidate over the others.
Farnworth said he accepts the ruling; Lali says he hasn’t ruled out legal action over the memberships.
The party might be able to satisfy both with a pledge to contact a large sample of the new members to establish if they actually joined and made the required personal donation.
It's hard to see any renewal in all this, which the anti-James people said they were looking for.
The four leading candidates are holdovers from the Clark government of the 1990s. Farnworth and Lali were in cabinet; Horgan and Dix were political staffers, with stints in the premier's office. Dix resigned after faking a document in an attempt to help deflect attention from Clark in the casino scandal. Only Nicholas Simons is a relatively new face and he is a long shot.
The race is already tainted with scandal and allegations of fraud.
And the Liberals, I expect, are very pleased.
Footnote: The Liberals are looking wise in having adopted a process that gives each riding 100 votes, no matter how many members it has. The votes are allocated based on a constituency vote. This reduces the benefits of mass sign-ups and gives candidates from outside the Lower Mainland, where sign-ups are easier, a better chance.

Why MLAs don't get more respect

People should admire politicians, be proud of them. They should have the support of their fellow citizens, who selected them in an election process.
So why doesn't it work that way more often?
It's an important question. If the people we elect to represent us don't have our respect, neither does government or the rule of law. There is no reason to pay taxes or accept the rules of a government that you don't consider legitimate.
Rich Coleman just offered a pretty good example of part of the problem
MLAs have refused to reveal their expense claims - how much they get for food, housing in the capital and other costs.
They promised disclosure last May.
In July, it became a big issue when filings required by cabinet ministers revealed Ida Chong had claimed $5,921 in meal allowances - even thought she lived 10 kilometres from the legislature.
MLAs are entitled to a $61 per day meal allowance when the legislature is sitting or they're on government business. (No receipts needed; they can grab a bagel, pizza slice and burger for the day and pocket $40.) Chong claimed 98 days worth of meal allowances.
If you're from Dawson Creek, maybe you need a meal allowance. But not if you live in the capital and are paid $150,000 a year.
Chong is not likely alone. New Democrat MLAs from the capital region supported Chong. And they refused to say how much they had claimed in taxpayer-funded meal allowances.
But the good news was that the controversy forced MLAs to promise an end to secrecy by last September.
It hasn't happened. Mike de Jong, the former Liberal house leader, said MLAs were resisting disclosure of how they spent taxpayers' money.
No, said Coleman, the current house leader. "I'm not finding a lot of opposition to it."
It's January. Disclosure was supposed to happen four months ago. In the real world, that's a problem. There is no commitment on when taxpayers will get the facts.
Coleman wasn't being candid. If there was no resistance, the September commitment would have been met.
Kevin Krueger offered another reason politicians are held in disrepute.
The cabinet minister bristled during a Kamloops radio interview about an announcement of hospital improvements when the host noted New Democrat health critic Adrian Dix had campaigned for the changes.
"If there ever was a guy who shouldn't put his head up to get it shot off - as the soldiers refer to it - it's Adrian Dix," Krueger responded.
In the week after the week after a politician and 19 others were shot in Tucson, it was an especially dumb remark.
But it would have been a dumb remark anytime. Dix had pushed for needed improvements to the hospital, especially to equipment that left surgeons starting operations with dirty instruments. That's just the truth; slagging him doesn't change it.
Dumb remarks are human. Krueger said he realized right away he had made a mistake.
Still he initially told the Globe and Mail he wouldn't apologize.
Dix is "constantly negative" and has a "reprehensive history" in B.C. politics, Krueger said. "It was an off-the-cuff comment that I do regret, but I certainly don't think anyone owes Adrian Dix an apology."
So according to Krueger, only some people can be wronged. People who are "constantly negative" don't have the a right to expect fair treatment.
Krueger did apologize later. But it was too late. Who could know if it was his conscience, or the public affairs bureau commanding the change of heart.
These people can do better. Certainly many voters expect better of them.
The recall campaign against Chong looks like it will fall short of the required 40 per cent of registered voters. But it seems likely more people will sign petitions calling for her firing than voter for her in 2009.
Chong is a perfectly average MLA. The strength of the recall effort shows many voters expect more from their elected representatives.
Footnote: MLAs do have a high opinion of their own value. They can claim up to $19,000 a year for a capital residence if they're from outside Victoria. That's four times as much as a single disabled person gets in income assistance for shelter. Chong's meal claims were just slightly less than a disabled person gets for all expenses except housing for an entire year. And MLAs increased their pay 34 per cent in five years, while the average wage in B.C. rose 12 per cent.

'Melding news with drama, politics with theatre'

The Globe had an interesting weekend piece on "Five reasons why gun control has been disarmed" on the weekend.
Anyone interested in building public/popular support around issues should take a lok.
I was struck by a section on the gun lobby's response after "a string of catastrophic school shootings" before the U.S. elections in 2000.

"So they called in the pros.
The NRA hired the Mercury Group, a high-powered consulting company that describes itself on its website as 'masters at melding news with drama, politics with theatre, and public affairs with popular buzz to make your message sing and your story sell.'
Their client list includes the Navajo Nation, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, and the Air Force Memorial Foundation.
Mercury Group worked with the NRA to identify key states to target with their new campaign: 'Vote Freedom First.'
The campaign featured radio and television ads, billboards, bumper stickers and 'other collateral materials.' Huge 'Freedom First' rallies were organized in dozens of cities in swing states leading up to election day.
Afterward, the NRA and Mercury Group declared victory, citing an 85 per cent success rate in state and local elections of sympathetic candidates, a pro-NRA majority seated in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and 'a pro-NRA President in the White House.'"

The Mercury Group's description of their role is useful for anyone who is thinking about how to influence opinion (or is the target of such efforts).

Leadership races both entering important phase

The Liberal and NDP races are both finally under way, but much of the work right now is behind the scenes, as candidates scramble to sign up new party members who will support them.
That's critical, especially for the New Democrat hopefuls. Their leadership ballot is April 17; to be able to vote, people have to be party members by Jan. 17. The Liberal contest is Feb. 26, but anyone who joins by Feb. 4 will be able to vote
So the serious candidates and their camps are rushing to sign up new members. A few thousand new party members - if they vote - could tip the balance.
It's striking how much the leadership campaigns have come to resemble election campaigns, with pollsters, full-time staff and - paid or not - and tightly scripted agendas.
It's also striking, especially on the Liberal side, how important lobbyists and government relations consultants are to the candidates' efforts.
The practitioners increasingly move from lobbying politicians to helping them raise money or win elections or leadership races and then back to lobbying the same politicians.
Take the well-connected Progressive Group. The firm's Patrick Kinsella, of B.C. Rail fame, is helping Christy Clark. Mark Jiles, also of the Progressive Group, is assisting George Abbott's campaign, as is Sarah Weddell of National Public Relations, another company that sells companies advice on getting government to see things their way.
And the emails I get from Kevin Falcon's campaign come from the Pace Group. Norman Stowe, its managing partner is supporting Falcon; the company's vice-president for media relations is handling communications for the leadership contest. The Pace Group has millions of dollars worth of government contracts and advises others on dealing with governments.
And it's striking how much money these campaigns will cost. The New Democrats have set a campaign spending limit of $175,000 for candidates; the Liberals are rumoured to be imposing a $450,000 limit per candidate.
The parties also differ on donations.
The New Democrats have set a $2,500 limit on contributions. The idea is that large donations can create real or perceived conflicts of interest - that a successful candidate will be indebted to big backers, or that shape his actions to suit them.
The Liberals have no limits. A single business, for example, could entirely fund the campaign of the leadership candidate of its choice.
Both parties have to live by the Elections Act, which requires public disclosure of donations.
But the New Democrats have added a useful refinement. Candidates will have to publicly report all donations of more than $250 before party members vote.
That's a much more meaningful measure. If the sources of a candidates' cash cause concern, members will have a chance to ask questions and consider the issue before voting.
Once the membership sign-up deadlines are past, the leadership candidates will turn to courting the current party faithful, setting out a platform that differentiates them from their rivals and trying to show they are popular enough to win the next election.
The last task is important. It's one thing to appeal to people already in your party's camp. But most sensible party members will be looking for candidate who can win the next election, not one who offers the prospect of a noble defeat.
At this point, that might be good news for George Abbott, particularly if Christy Clark and Kevin Falcon end up running hard against each other and raise the fear of divisions in the party.
It's harder to figure out which New Democrat offers the best prospects for electoral success. John Horgan, Mike Farnworth and, likely, Adrian Dix, are credible candidates. (Harry Lali and Nicholas Simons are unlikely likely to persuade Liberal voters that they offer a better plan for the province.)
And none of the main NDP candidates represents renewal - Dix, Farnworth, Horgan and Lali are all associated with the discredited New Democrat government of the 1990s.
Footnote: The challenge for candidates in both parties is to stake out a distinctive position without attacking other hopefuls. That's important both to keep the party united and because no candidate is likely to get a majority on the first ballot; alienating supporters of other candidates could be costly.

Casino money laundering suspicious cases soar

Criminals love casinos. They're great places for loan sharking and passing counterfeit money.
And even more important for the serious crooks, casinos are the easiest place to launder money.
The CBC used freedom of information requests to learn that millions of dollars in suspicious transactions flowed through two B.C. casinos in three months last year. The casino companies told B.C. Lotteries, but no one passed the information on to police immediately.
These aren't slightly suspicious transactions. In one case, a man entered a New Westminster casino with $1.2 million worth of chips. He didn't place a bet. He just turned them in and took the money in cash.
He told staff he was boarding a flight and was concerned the money might look suspicious. So the casino gave him a letter confirming the money was a casino payout.
It's a classic money-laundering scenario. Crime - drug dealing, robbery, whatever - can produce lots of cash. Banks have to report deposits of more than $10,000 to FINTRAC, a federal agency that fights money laundering and organized crime. Even if money is broken into smaller deposits to come under the limit, a criminal might end up having to explain where all the money came from.
Instead, criminals can buy chips in casinos, cash them in and get a cheque or, in this case, cash with a letter suggesting they were winnings. The money is clean.
In another case uncovered by the CBC, a man entered a Richmond casino with a bag stuffed with $460,000 in $20 bills and bought chips. The casino reported that there was nothing suspicious in the transaction.
All told, there were 90 large transactions worth $8 million in three months.
The RCMP only learned about this after the fact. Insp. Barry Baxter, with the unit that tracks the proceeds of crime, said the police suspect money laundering. "The common person would say this stinks," he said.
Casinos also have to report large transactions to FINTRAC, the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, and also report to police and the province's Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch. But the reports aren't required for 30 days; a quick first step would be to require immediate reporting to police.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for gambling, initially downplayed the reports. He later promised an investigation.
But none of this is surprising.
The government's Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch 2006 annual report, for example, warned of a crime explosion at casinos, with investigations into offences like loan sharking and money laundering more than doubling in a year.
Last year, it was revealed B.C. Lotteries had been fined $670,000 under federal laws aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing. There were more than 1,000 infractions; in eight cases, the most basic information wasn't collected when people walked out of casinos with more than $10,000.
FINTRAC said fines are only imposed for a "persistent, chronic failure to comply with the law."
Despite the warnings, enforcement has been minimal. In 2009, the government shut down the five-year-old specialized police unit created to target gambling-related crime.
And the enforcement branch's just-released annual report for the 2009-10 fiscal year reveals that it opened 635 investigations into money laundering, loan sharking and counterfeit offences in casinos, without laying a single charge.
Again, none of this is surprising. Casinos want to make money. Coleman and B.C. Lotteries are responsible for increasing the number of gamblers in the province, the average amount each one loses and the province's take.
Cracking down on transactions that could be linked to money laundering is a threat to those goals. Casinos fear that asking for information from big gamblers could drive away some of their best customers.
The obvious, and long overdue, first step is end the inherent conflict in having one minister responsible both for promoting gambling losses and fighting crime in casinos.
Footnote: The CBC reported that reports to FINTRAC showed that while the dollar value of suspicious transactions at casinos in other provinces stayed the same or went down in the past year, they tripled in B.C.

A lot more oversight for fish farm industry

The Times Colonist has an interesting editorial looking at the shift of most responsibilities for the fish-farm infustry from the provincial to federal government as a result of a lawsuit.
The numbers tell the story. The federal DFO is adding 52 positions in B.C. — most on the Island — to monitor the farms, enforce regulations, share information and develop managememnt policy.
The provincial government is eliminating 13 positions as a result of the shift.
The feds are committing four times as many people to do the same work.
The editorial is here.