Saskatchewan Health denied FSIN funding request to conduct own First Nations Patient Review

Commissioner Tony Dagnone’s Patient First Review report, released October 15, 2009, contains some discussion and two recommendations aimed at improving the health of First Nations and Métis people in Saskatchewan.

According to Dagnone the number of First Nations and Métis people living in Saskatchewan is growing faster than the number of non-Aboriginal people and they currently comprise about 15 per cent of the provincial population, projected to increase to 21 per cent by 2017.

“These two groups of people typically experience lower health status than other Saskatchewan people,” he said. “For example, First Nations and Métis people have significantly higher incidences of diabetes, tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease, obesity, arthritis and rheumatism. This disparity in health status is frequently attributed in large part to socio-economic disadvantages.”

Dagnone said he and his researchers “took steps to ensure that the First Nations and Métis voice was heard” during the review.

“In all of the general-population focus groups, at least one First Nations person and one Métis person were invited to attend. Four additional focus groups were held for First Nations and Métis people exclusively, in urban, rural and northern locations. Focus groups were also held on three reserves. Registered nurses working on reserve were invited to attend the provider focus groups and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), the Métis Nation - Saskatchewan (MN-S) and the Northern Inter-Tribal Health Authority were invited to attend the stakeholder forums,” Dagnone said.

“We decided that a minimum of 15 per cent of individuals we spoke to through our telephone survey should be self-identified as First Nations and Métis. I also attended meetings of the FSIN Health and Social Development Commission, the MN-S Health Roundtable and the Memorandum of Understanding on First Nations Health and Well Being Steering Committee. Through all of these mechanisms, we were able to distinguish the First Nations and Métis patient experience from the rest of the population.” [p. 19]

The Patient First Review was launched November 5, 2008. The review had two parts: a patient experience component and an administrative component.

Dagnone worked with consulting firm KPMG to assist with consultations, analyzing results and drafting recommendations for the patient experience review. He also worked with Deloitte Inc. on the administrative review. Each firm submitted their own report with recommendations.

In its report KPMG said the biggest area of concern from the Patient First Province-wide telephone survey is the finding that 45% of First Nations and Métis participants have experienced unacceptable behaviour compared with 30% among people with other backgrounds. To improve access to quality, safer health services the firm recommends a First Nations and Métis health care strategy should be developed within three years.

Unfortunately, one critical item has been omitted from the Dagnone and KPMG reports. Neither touches on the request made by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) for funding to conduct its own First Nations Patient Review.

Using briefing notes prepared by officials with the policy and planning branch of Saskatchewan Health between January 14 and May 25, 2009, and obtained under the province’s freedom of information legislation, it’s possible to construct a general time line of events leading up the provincial government’s decision to deny the request.

The FSIN senior technical advisory group (STAG) is comprised of health directors from Tribal Councils and Independent First Nations and provides advice to the FSIN Health and Social Development Commission (HSDC).

According to the earliest briefing note at the STAG meeting held January 13, 2009, “there was discussion about the Patient First Review research methodology and whether it would get the “right” First Nations input. A concern was expressed that this methodology may not lend itself well to First Nations people feeling comfortable expressing the racism and mistreatment they receive in the health system. In particular, there was discussion about how First Nations people would be recruited for the Patient First Review and about whether the Review would be using First Nations data sources such as the Regional Health Survey in the research.”

The group also noted “that the MOU on First Nations Health & Well-being was about working collectively and collaboratively together and yet the FSIN was never asked what First Nations would want in the Patient First Review.”

(The MOU on First Nations Health and Well-Being in Saskatchewan (signed August 19, 2008) is a formal tripartite partnership between the FSIN, Health Canada and Saskatchewan Health to improve the coordination of health programming, reduce administrative duplication, better adapt programs to the needs of First Nations and address the gaps in health services for First Nations people.

An inter-governmental steering committee has been established to oversee the implementation of the MOU.)

Vice Chief Glen Pratt said “there are too many critical incidents within the health system that involve First Nations and also said they would like a review and a public inquiry into how First Nations are treated in the health system.”

STAG passed the following resolution:

“WHEREAS, First Nations have a Treaty Right to Health under Treaties #2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10; and

“WHEREAS, the Province of Saskatchewan has initiated a process of Patient First Review within the Treaty Territories to gather experiences of interaction with the Health System within the province; and

“WHEREAS, First Nation individuals experience negative or inadequate interactions as the general population with the health system; and

“WHEREAS, First Nations have higher levels of Health concerns, i.e. Diabetes, Cancer, Suicide, Chronic Diseases, and Preventable Injuries; and

“WHEREAS, First Nation individuals and families experience unique negative or inadequate interactions with the health system that may not necessarily be included in the Province of Saskatchewan’s Patient First Review Process; and

“WHEREAS, First Nation have a Treaty Right to Health that includes access and use of traditional healing practices that may or may not be located only in Saskatchewan; and

“WHEREAS, First Nations require their own perspective to be included in this process, and that First Nations meet with the Commissioner to ensure input and an effective First Nations consultation Process; and

“THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Senior Technical Advisory Group recommend that Health and Social Development Commission direct FSIN to initiate a First Nation Patient Review process to capture the experiences First Nation have when interacting with the health system at all levels within the province of Saskatchewan.”

In the briefing note the provincial government states that it “recognizes the FSIN as a legitimate First Nations advocacy group in the province.” But then it immediately seems to try and diminish that legitimacy: “While the FSIN represents 74 First Nations in Saskatchewan, it was not a signatory to any of the Treaties in Saskatchewan. Since each First Nation sees itself as having a nation-to-nation relationship with the Federal Government, tensions between the individual First Nations and the FSIN sometimes arise.” What is the Wall government really trying to say?

Dagnone was “asked to attend” the FSIN Health and Social Development Commission meeting in Saskatoon on January 20, 2009. This seems to suggest that the FSIN were at least willing to hear what the Commissioner had to say.

The provincial government went to great lengths to emphasize that the review was “independent” yet the January 14, 2009, briefing note being quoted here contains 13 “key messages” written by health ministry officials for the Commissioner to use at the HSDC meeting.

These speaking points describe the various steps that researchers took to gather input from First Nations and Métis people and were clearly designed to put a positive spin on the review process. Dagnone seemed confident that his team had done a good job.

“Is it enough?” he said. “From a researcher’s perspective, I am told it is enough. From my perspective, I am open to hearing your views.”

Tucked away at the bottom of the Commissioner’s key messages is this subtle warning: “In respect of the [STAG] resolution, I urge the First Nations to be thoughtful in introducing a third process. We all want to improve First Nations health status and a third process may fragment this goal. I believe the Patient First Review can compliment the MOU process and we can make gains on behalf of First Nations people.” [Patient First Commissioner Speaking to the FSIN Health & Social Development Commission; Briefing Note, January 14, 2009]

In the end, Dagnone’s presence at the HSDC meeting failed to produce the desired outcome because the STAG resolution was passed. The folks at the FSIN have likely heard it all before. Perhaps to them the Commissioner was simply a new face putting a fresh spin on an old story.

A briefing note dated February 4, 2009, confirms that a resolution of the STAG and HSDC “has been developed and may make its way onto the agenda of the FSIN Legislative Assembly being held February 11-12, 2009 at Whitecap First Nation.”

The ministry apparently asked the FSIN if they would assist “in collecting contact information for RNs working on reserve so that these front-line health providers could be randomly selected to participate in the provider input phase of the Review.”

Ministry staff claims to have “received a voice mail indicating that the FSIN wouldn’t be able to assist in this manner since they plan to conduct their own process.”

Ministry staff said they were “uncertain whether this means that the FSIN and First Nations are planning to conduct a separate First Nations Patient First Review or if they will be collecting this type of information as part of the process to develop a 10-year health and well-being plan for First Nations through the MOU process.” [First Nations Concerns Regarding the Patient First Review; Briefing Note, February 4, 2009]

On February 18, 2009, health ministry officials prepared a briefing note updating the situation, presumably for the minister, which had only gotten worse.

At the FSIN Legislative Assembly held February 11, 2009, the members passed the following resolution:

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chiefs-in-Assembly direct the Executive Member responsible for the health and social development portfolio to secure resources to initiate a First Nations Patient Review to document the experiences of First Nations citizens and will inform the Patient Review Commissioner of its findings.”

The executive member responsible was Vice Chief Glen Pratt.

Ministry officials weren’t sure where the resources would come from to support a First Nations Patient Review but speculated that the FSIN might approach the provincial government for the funding.

“If a proposal is submitted to the province, it will be assessed based on its merits and potential value to the Patient First Review process,” the briefing note said.

More importantly the document provides a clearer picture of what the problem was: The FSIN has “expressed concerns regarding their lack of involvement in developing the research methodology of the Review” and with the tripartite agreement in mind “believes they should have been involved in setting up the research for the Review.”

Health ministry officials go on to list five specific research methodology concerns that were expressed to them, presumably by the FSIN, and give rebuttals for three. These include: random digit dialing as a recruitment tool, surveys, focus group and patient triad settings.

The two concerns that government officials couldn’t answer for were: treaty right to health is not acknowledged; and, First Nations governments are not recognized in the process. These are pretty important. Dagnone’s report doesn’t mention treaty rights and First Nations governments aren’t acknowledged in the terms of reference for the review.

It seems like the government was determined to prove that the FSIN didn’t have a case.

The ministry still maintain that the “Commissioner and the researchers believe they have framed the research to capture the First Nations person’s voice during the patient input phase of the review.” [First Nations Concerns Regarding the Patient First Review; Briefing Note, February 18, 2009]

The FSIN’s belief that it should have been involved in setting up the review seems to point directly to the Scoping and Planning Project document that Dagnone prepared for the health ministry in early 2008.

Dagnone was initially retained by the government to prepare the terms of reference for the review and make recommendations on the study’s framework and methodology to Health Minister Don McMorris. The term of his contract was May 14, 2008, to June 30, 2008.

On November 7, 2008, an access to information request was submitted to Saskatchewan Health for a copy the framework report that Dagnone delivered to health officials.

The ministry denied the request on December 10, 2008, saying “the information contained in the Scoping and Planning Project document is exempt” because it “contains advice and recommendations to the Ministry of Health’s Executive Government; and… information pertaining to the deliberations of Executive Government and Senior Government employees within the Ministry of Health.”

What is the Wall government hiding?

On March 23, 2009, health ministry officials prepared another briefing note updating First Nations concerns with the review.

“The Minister of Health has received a letter from the FSIN requesting resources to support a First Nations Patient Review. A response is currently in development,” the report said.

The government response, however, was never sent.

According to an e-mail from a health ministry official on July 15, 2009, Minister Don McMorris received a letter from the FSIN requesting financial support for First Nations Patient First Review on March 9, 2009. Subsequent to receiving the letter, a meeting was arranged involving Minister McMorris (Minister Draude) and Vice-Chief Pratt. The meeting occurred on April 27, 2009, and “involved a discussion regarding the Patient First Review, among other matters.”

“While a letter of response was prepared, as indicated in the briefing note, it was not sent,” the e-mail said. Apparently the meeting sufficed.

The briefing note indicates that Commissioner Dagnone attended the March 17, 2009, meeting of the MOU on First Nations Health and Well-being Steering Committee and provided the group with an overview of the Patient First Review. He further highlighted for the group what had been done to capture the First Nations’ patient’s voice in this Review.

During the meeting “Vice Chief Pratt thanked the Commissioner for sharing his preliminary findings with the group and especially for visiting a northern Dene community as part of the patient input phase.”

The Commissioner and committee “agreed that they would share information with each other to better inform their respective initiatives. There was a general sense that the Patient First Review is capturing many of the same concerns that are being heard by the FSIN during its own internal sessions, as well as at the Steering Committee’s open dialogue sessions. Through these two processes, positive change to the health system to better meet the needs of First Nations people could be accomplished.” [First Nations Concerns Regarding the Patient First Review Updated; Briefing Note, March 23, 2009]

A May 25, 2009, briefing note by health ministry staff appears to bring the issue to a close stating: The FSIN “passed a resolution at their February assembly to conduct their own patient first review that would inform this review. The Ministry of Health declined the FSIN’s request for funding for this separate review since both organizations, along with Health Canada, are currently working together to develop a 10-year health plan for First Nations health and well being.” [Patient First Review; Briefing Note, May 25, 2009]

Given the Commissioner’s subtle warning in the January 14, 2009, briefing note the FSIN’s request likely had little chance of succeeding.

Government briefing notes can prove valuable but in many ways they are a one-sided conversation. It’s hard to know if the whole story is being told or whether some parts are being left out.

Take for example the FSIN’s claim that is should have been involved in setting up the research for the review, or Vice Chief Pratt saying they would like a review and a public inquiry into how First Nations are treated in the health system. The health ministry’s briefing notes leave these two very important issues unresolved.

The FSIN seem silent on the Patient First Review report – at least publicly. There are no media releases posted on the organization’s website commenting on the review or the process.

What seems clear is that the Wall government didn’t want any competition. It wanted the review all to itself and on its terms. Allowing a parallel process into the mix would have mucked up its well laid plans.

In his report Dagnone said the review process “embodied a spirit of openness and transparency.” He said as the review proceeded he “shared information with health care leaders, providers, stakeholders, and the public.” However, that sentiment never extended to his scoping and framework document. Until this record is released there will likely continue to be questions.

Patient First Review: ‘Provincial shared services organization’ high on Wall government’s priority list

When Patient First Review Commissioner Tony Dagnone submitted his findings and recommendations on October 15, 2009, Health Minister Don McMorris said in a news release the provincial government will unfold an action plan and priorities on how to best implement the 16 recommendations from the review in the forthcoming weeks.

A September 9, 2009, health ministry briefing note obtained through a freedom of information request appears to identify the government’s top four priorities. These include:

▪ adopting a philosophy of patient- and family-centered care for the health care system;

▪ improving the surgical experience for patients, and addressing the backlog of surgeries;

▪ advancing the development, and implementing an electronic health record system; and,

▪ establishing a provincial shared services organization to take on supply chain management and possibly other functions.

In the Speech from the Throne on October 21, 2009, the government pledged that over the next four years, it will reduce surgical wait times in Saskatchewan to no longer than three months. The other three priority areas weren’t mentioned.

One issue that could be contentious is the provincial shared services organization (Recommendation 14).

The administrative component [conducted by Deloitte Inc.] of the Patient First Review was designed to determine whether the health system is “over-resourced, under-resourced or over-managed,” Dagnone states in his report. [p. 46]

“We heard numerous concerns from patients, frontline staff, and the public, that health regions were becoming a “growth industry for management,” ”he said.

“Questions were raised about the efficiency and cost effectiveness of functions that are duplicated across regions and about the capacity of small and medium-sized regions to respond to the demands of a changing and complex environment.”

Dagnone says it’s time things were done differently.

“Health regions must ensure best value is harvested province-wide in the purchase of goods and services required to deliver quality health care. In other provinces, numerous non-clinical and clinically-related corporate functions have adopted alternate service delivery models. Health regions would be well-advised to explore some of these successful models for possible applicability in Saskatchewan,” he said.

“A new, provincial, shared-services organization should be established to undertake supply-chain management and standardization at a provincial level. This would signal a new way of doing business on behalf of Saskatchewan people. All health regions, affiliates, and the Cancer Agency must be full participants if maximum value is to be achieved.

“An expert board of directors can work with the Ministry of Health, health regions and respective affiliates, and the Cancer Agency in defining the new organization’s mandate. Strong corporate leadership will be needed to break through traditional ways of doing business and enshrine a province-wide perspective. Only then will value-for-money be realized for Saskatchewan citizens.” [p. 48]

Deloitte’s recommendation in its report is a little more in-depth: “Establish a single Provincial Shared Services Organization for Supply Chain, Human Resources and Finance functions, which will require the following:

a) Detailed service model design, and business case, implementation plan, and transition support focused on people, work process, technology, and change management requirements);

b) Defined governance, mandate, role, organization and operating structure, for the Provincial Shared Services Organization; and

c) Alignment / integration plan for SAHO functions and staffing within the mandate of the Provincial Shared Services Organization.” [p. 29]

Deloitte states: “Potential savings from operations in this model will yield the greatest dollar reinvestment available for reallocation to enhance the patient experience.

“Savings estimates as percentage of operating costs are 14-20% for a shared service model versus 12 – 17% a managed service model – with a payback of 4 to 5 years. Estimates are high level and based on Deloitte’s experience in other organizations / jurisdictions.”

It’s unclear whether these savings will involve any job loss.

The Government of British Columbia implemented something similar a couple of years ago and we know how much Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall likes to emulate that province.

On December 14, 2007, the B.C. Government announced the creation of a new Health Authority Shared Services Organization (SSO), an independent organization reporting to a board comprised of the six health authority CEOs and the chief operating officer of the Ministry of Health.

B.C.’s health authorities will examine the feasibility of providing greater shared services with the goal of maximizing available financial resources to direct patient care, Health Minister George Abbott said in a news release.

“In order to ensure that health-care dollars are focused on direct patient care, we are continually seeking ways of reducing overhead costs and duplication in non-clinical services across health authorities,” said Abbott. Sound familiar?

In a news release later that day, the B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU) slammed the government for failing to consult with health unions.

The union said the new organization was targeting payroll, information technology, purchasing and other services in the health sector for centralization and possible privatization.

Even though the plans had been in development for the last eight months, government representatives chose not to disclose them to health unions until the last minute, despite repeated requests for information during talks on the implementation of the June 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision on Bill 29.

“This bombshell by the provincial government places into question whether they are truly committed to the Supreme Court-mandated consultation process,” said BCGEU president George Heyman. “Dropping this on the table at the last minute, after months of planning in secret, demonstrates a significant lack of respect and commitment to their obligation to consult with affected unions.”

Bill 29 rewrote health care collective agreements and resulted in the layoff of thousands of workers - mostly women - to make way for privatization.

In its decision, the Court established collective bargaining as a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result of this decision, there is an obligation by government to engage in meaningful consultations and good faith negotiations, said the news release.

Heyman noted that the secrecy leading up to the announcement showed that the B.C. government seemed to have learned little from the Court decision.

At the federal level the Globe and Mail reported on August 11, 2005, that federal officials confirmed the existence of a two-year study that proposed to eliminate 41,000 jobs across the public service “in a bid to save as much as $4-billion a year.”

The study had been done at the request of Reg Alcock, the President of Treasury Board. According to the Globe, the report called “for staff reductions through attrition” and many of the jobs “would be transferred to new positions in a new agency tentatively called the Shared Services Organization.” Four areas would be affected: information technology, financial officers, human resources and office supply management.

Federal ministers tried to downplay the report saying it was merely an “internal study” that had “not yet gone to cabinet.”

Union leaders were upset nonetheless.

“I have not been consulted at all on any of this, so I’m pretty pissed off,” said Michèle Demers, the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the union that represents many of the employees who would be affected.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada also condemned the study, demanding meetings with government officials to discuss its possible implications. [Civil servants up in arms over proposal to cut jobs (Globe and Mail, August 11, 2005)]

It will be interesting to see how the Wall government handles the matter given its deep hatred of anything even remotely related to labour.

Sask. Party gov’t refusing to release draft Western Economic Partnership Agreement; Crowns and municipalities consulted, but not public

The Brad Wall government appears to be refusing to let the public see the contents of the Western Economic Partnership Agreement before it’s signed.

At a joint cabinet meeting held March 13, 2009, in Vancouver, the governments of Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan agreed to enter into a Western Economic Partnership.

In Calgary, on September 11, 2009, the three western provinces held their second joint cabinet meeting to continue discussions on a new pact.

A provincial government news release said the premiers signed a Western Economic Partnership. The partnership will create a broad western interprovincial trade agreement to create the largest barrier-free trade and investment market in Canada.

Premier Wall said the agreement “will break down unnecessary trade barriers” but did not identify them. He has yet to do so.

The provinces also agreed to conclude, by January 1, 2010, all elements of the agreement.

On September 16, 2009, an access to information request was made to Executive Council for copies of the two most recent draft versions of the partnership agreement.

A month later, on October 22, 2009, Bonita Cairns, the executive director of corporate services in Executive Council, advised that the request was denied citing the following sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as the reason for the refusal:

▪ 13(1) Records from other governments
▪ 14 Information injurious to intergovernmental relations or national defence
▪ 17(1) Advice from officials
▪ 18(1) Economic and other interests

It should be noted that sections 14, 17 and 18 are discretionary exemptions, meaning there is nothing stopping the ministry from disclosing the records if it wanted to.

The denial represents the second time in 2009 that Executive Council has refused a request for information about the partnership.

On April 21, 2009, Cairns turned down a request for copies of any agendas, itineraries, reports, briefing notes, memorandums or letters, including attachments, regarding the trilateral provincial meeting that took place on March 13, 2009, in Vancouver; and, also copies of any agreements or memorandums of understanding or cooperation that were signed at the meeting.

In September 2009, Wall acknowledged the partnership agreement is akin to the controversial BC-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). [Sask. inks deal with Alta., B.C. (StarPhoenix, September 12, 2009)]

BC and Alberta signed TILMA on April 28, 2006, without any public consultation or legislative debate. As Opposition leader, Wall supported the trade deal without reservation and spent the rest of year demanding that then NDP Lorne Calvert sign it.

On June 28, 2007, Wall flip-flopped saying in a news release that the Saskatchewan Party “would not sign TILMA in its present form” unless Crown corporations and provincial and municipal new growth tax incentives were protected.

In the StarPhoenix on September 12, 2009, Wall said the new pact would accommodate Saskatchewan’s concerns.

Any consultations conducted by the Saskatchewan Party government appear to be limited.

According to an April 1, 2009, briefing note the government “will need to consult with stakeholders, such as municipalities and Crown corporations, to ensure that Saskatchewan’s interests are addressed in the partnership.”

However, the largest and most important group of stakeholders, the people of Saskatchewan, is being left on the sidelines.

Furthermore, what we don’t yet know is how long will Saskatchewan’s interests be protected – permanently or temporarily? This is one question Wall has not answered.

A second briefing note, this one dated April 21, 2009, said the partnership framework “is expected to initially contain an agreement on enhanced internal trade and memorandums of understanding (MOUs) on innovation and international market development cooperation.”

These elements – plus an MOU for procurement – are indeed included in the two-page economic partnership document released by the provincial government on September 11, 2009. What’s interesting, though, is the briefing note’s use of the word ‘initially’. Does this mean that something else is coming that we don’t yet know about?

Wall is taking Saskatchewan down the same road that B.C. and Alberta travelled. Outside of a select few no one will be allowed to view the final agreement until after it’s signed. By then it’ll be too late.

27.3% voter turnout leaves Mayor Don Atchison with weak mandate; StarPhoenix coverage of mayoral forums pathetic; Mendel travesty swept under carpet

Saskatoon’s 2009 civic election was barely in the books when Don Atchison, who had just won his third term as mayor and for the first time in the city’s history every incumbent was returned to city council, said that voters were happy with the way things are going.

“The people of Saskatoon believe we are going in the right direction, that the city is doing fine the way it is,” he said.

“If you can think about a city of this size and every person is able to come back together again that’s truly amazing,” Atchison said. “It says that people are satisfied with what’s occurring in our community today.” [‘People are satisfied’ (StarPhoenix, October 29, 2009)]

Atchison seemed completely oblivious to the fact that voter turnout was an embarrassing 27.3 per cent and that his own vote total had suffered a dramatic drop from the 2006 civic election.

The unofficial results for the mayoral candidates were:

Don Atchison – 26,676
Roger M. Chernoff – 709
Steve Lawrence – 407
Johnny Melenchuk – 736
Lenore Swystun – 17,678
Total votes: 46,206

Atchison received 57.7 per cent of the total votes cast for mayor.

Of the more than 218,000 city residents, 170,272 were eligible to vote. [Saskatoon voters head to the polls (StarPhoenix, October 28, 2009)]

This means Atchison’s support from the total number of eligible voters in Saskatoon was just 15.6 per cent. This is in no way a vote of confidence. It is instead a very weak mandate.

Atchison’s vote total was down 11,702 from 2006 when he garnered 38,378 votes – or 63.8 per cent. Lenore Swystun, on the other hand, had an excellent campaign that saw her vote total go up 4,139 from 2006. In that election she received 13,539 votes – or 22.5 per cent.

The voter turnout in the 2009 election was the lowest since 2000:

2009 – 27%
2006 – 37%
2003 – 52% (Casino vote)
2000 – 26%
1997 – 20%
1994 – 46% (Casino vote)

The StarPhoenix’s coverage of the mayoralty forums was pathetic with stories buried and averaging about 367 words. In fact, two forums held October 20, 2009: the Business and Professional Women Saskatoon Mayoralty Forum at 200-120 Sonnenschein Way and the Saskatoon and Region Home Builders Association at the Willows Golf Course, received no coverage at all.

The newspaper seemed more interested in reporting on the visit it co-sponsored by former U.S. President George W. Bush, a war criminal, to Saskatoon on October 21, 2009.

The following is a breakdown of the StarPhoenix’s lousy job:

Atchison, Swystun spar over planning
October 15, 2009, Page A8, 370 words

Swystun tries to broaden public’s perception of her
October 16, 2009, Page A4, 287 words

Swystun, Atchison joust over project
October 20, 2009, Page A6, 422 words

Candidates tackle library future
October 23, 2009, Page A9, 418 words

Swystun backs taxi commission
October 27, 2009, Page A5, 338 words

As for Atchison’s six-year record as mayor it was virtually ignored.

The StarPhoenix blamed the poor voter turnout on the lack of contentious issues. On the contrary, those issues are there it’s just that the newspaper chooses not to treat them as such. This includes things like the poor decisions and reckless spending on River Landing or the plan to move the Mendel Art Gallery. Rather than hold city council to account the newspaper instead takes every opportunity to protect it by supporting the projects.

In the post-election editorial Sustaining growth in tough economy council’s challenge (StarPhoenix, October 29, 2009) the newspaper brass stated the following:

“The destination centre steering committee that was to present council with options for River Landing has been overtaken by events. When it became clear that the feds had no desire to put in money to revamp the Mendel Art Gallery, if for no other reason than because there are too many art galleries and museums across the country for Ottawa to get into that game, Saskatoon’s senior administration and council had to act quickly on their own to adjust the city’s strategy. This left many Mendel supporters feeling betrayed.

“Council now has to make sure it opens the process as much as possible, assuages those who were wounded by the shift and bring into the process as many citizens as it can to secure public support.”

Unfortunately, it’s too late for that. The integrity of the process has been damaged beyond repair. The city, the Mendel board, and the provincial and federal governments simply have no credibility.

Furthermore, it’s incredible that the StarPhoenix would even suggest such a thing. The newspaper is failing its readers by abdicating its responsibility to investigate the debacle and get to the bottom of the closed door meetings and backroom dealing. To date the newspaper has let all parties off the hook.

The aforementioned destination centre steering committee meets in secret and has issued no reports. At least two of its members – Mendel board chair Art Knight and Meewasin Valley Authority CEO Susan Lamb – appear to in conflict since both their organizations have an interest in the outcome. So what has the StarPhoenix done about this? The answer is nothing.

Finally, the low voter turnout would seem to suggest that political lobby group LEAD Saskatoon had little impact on the election. Interestingly, the group ran no advertisements in the StarPhoenix nor did it ask candidates to fill out a questionnaire like it did for the 2003 and 2006 elections. Why this wasn’t done has not been explained.

In an October 19, 2009, news release LEAD director Don Ravis said the group was concerned that in this election the lack of contentious issues and, in some wards, the lack of candidates will result in a poor voter turnout.

“[W]hen you get a strong turnout of voters, you make it much more definite as to what direction you want your Mayor and City Council to follow, and you give those elected a much stronger mandate. We don’t want people standing up at Council meetings claiming that they represent a majority of citizens, when in fact their claims cannot be substantiated. That’s why we hold elections. Make your views known, run for office, and truly let the citizens decide. Without question, the more people who vote, the clearer the voice of Saskatoon will be heard,” Ravis said.

Given the 27.3 per cent turnout, Ravis’s standard should apply to Atchison and city council as well. They clearly do not represent the majority of citizens. What we have shaping up here is three more years of controversy and divisiveness.

Mayor Don Atchison’s 20 Not-So-Greatest Hits

Don Atchison was first elected mayor of Saskatoon on October 22, 2003.

Since 2004 property taxes have gone up nearly 23 per cent and the city’s long-term debt has exploded from $23-million to a projected $156-million by the end of this year.

The city’s operating budget has risen 53 per cent and capital spending has increased a whopping 251 per cent. And to make matters worse the city is facing its fourth straight year of deficits and the rainy day fund that city council uses to help balance the budget as required by law has run dry.

Then there’s River Landing where costs have tripled from $42-million to $135-million. Enough said.

For a growing number of people it seems Atchison has overstayed his welcome by about six years.

What follows are 20 issues – in no particular order – that have created controversy during Atchison’s reign.

1.) Alleged racial remark

At a civic election public forum held at the First Nations University of Canada on October 19, 2006, Mayor Don Atchison was alleged to have uttered a racial remark and to have said something that offended a fellow candidate.

According to the article Mayors’ race turns ugly: Mayor, challenger have altercation (StarPhoenix, October 21, 2006) several witnesses said Atchison came under fire from spectators who demanded a further explanation for the decision made earlier in the year by the board of police commissioners -- of which he is chair -- not to renew former police chief Russell Sabo’s contract.

Mayoral candidate Ron Kocsis said the incumbent eventually responded to the questions by telling the forum Sabo was “too aboriginal-friendly” for Saskatoon.

Those were Atchison’s exact words, Kocsis said in an interview on October 20, 2006.

“Everyone was just shocked. I think he just slipped up and spoke his mind.” But Atchison said in a phone interview he never suggested Sabo’s departure was linked to his friendliness toward First Nations.

“I’m not getting into any he-said, she said,” the mayor responded.

Other candidates and observers said Atchison’s response was less inflammatory and more like his previous explanations for Sabo’s departure.

City Park community association president Tom Wolf, who was seated in the front row, said regardless of Atchison’s word choice, his comments appeared to be taken by most people in the room -- Kocsis included -- as a suggestion that Sabo was let go because he had a strong focus on the aboriginal community.

Kocsis says Atchison later made a disparaging remark to him while they were sitting next to each other at the debate table during a closing speech by mayoral candidate Lenore Swystun. Kocsis says Atchison gave him an up-and-down stare and said, “A guy like you wants to be mayor?” followed by a derisive snort.

“I don’t know what he meant -- is it because I’m First Nations that he would say that?” Moderator Daryl Oshanek confirmed Kocsis interrupted the proceedings after Swystun’s speech to demand an apology from Atchison, and Atchison refused.

Oshanek and Wolf said they saw an exchange of words between Atchison and Kocsis just before Kocsis demanded an apology, but they could not hear what was said.

“Strong offence was taken by Mr. Kocsis, and it was palpable. We were shifting uncomfortably,” Wolf recalled.

2.) Police Chief Russell Sabo’s contract

At a press conference held March 2, 2006, the city’s board of police commissioners announced that police chief Russell Sabo’s contract would not be renewed. Mayor Don Atchison, who chairs the police commission, said Sabo had done a good job, but would not explain why the decision was made. Atchison said the board did not disagree with the direction in which Sabo was taking the force. He also refused to reveal whether the board voted unanimously to oust the chief.

According to the StarPhoenix, Atchison said police chiefs in Canada generally only last three to four years in their jobs. Sabo has been in Saskatoon almost five years, “and we feel that it’s time that we in fact do the same thing (as other cities),” the mayor said. [Police chief out of a job: Board offers little explanation of decision (StarPhoenix, March 3, 2006)]

3.) Mendel Art Gallery

In October 2005 the city floated the idea of moving the Mendel to River Landing. The plan was roundly criticized. Former director Terry Graff and the gallery’s board of trustees had the courage to stand up to the city and reject the plan.

On December 7, 2005, city council put the screws to the Mendel by placing the gallery third behind the Victoria Bridge and Persephone Theatre on the city’s list of priorities for federal centennial funding. Officials with Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) warned the city that the bridge might not be appropriate for the funding but the city put it on the list anyway. Furthermore, the city does not own Persephone and yet WD allowed the city to submit their name.

Graff resigned October 31, 2007, when the Mendel board decided not to renew his contract, which was set to expire October 2008.

Although he had the option to complete his contract, Graff chose to step down.

“I needed the board’s complete support and confidence in what they approved,” he said, referring to a recent five-year business plan for the gallery that was approved by the board.

“To not renew my contract runs contradictory to accepting the plan,” said Graff. [Graff paints positive picture of Mendel (StarPhoenix, November 2, 2007)]

The majority of the Mendel board is appointed by city council.

On April 3, 2009, Mayor Don Atchison and Mendel board chair Art Knight announced that the nationally recognized gallery would be renamed and moved into a new building at River Landing. The long planned $24-million expansion and renovation of the Mendel would be abandoned. The public, Mendel family, donors and supporters were never consulted.

It was at a closed-door meeting on March 23, 2009, that the city’s executive committee decided to approve in principle, a new art gallery as the anchor facility at River Landing Destination Centre.

The only reason we know this is because a private citizen made a freedom of information request.

On September 23, 2009, Atchison participated in a press conference announcing funding for the $58-million facility. The city’s contribution is approximately $17-million, plus $7-million for an underground parkade. Atchison was quoted by CBC News as saying the city’s portion “will come out of our capital projects.”

At no point in time was the issue debated at a public meeting of city council. It was all done in secret.

4.) Disregard for the city’s built heritage

On Mayor Don Atchison’s watch the city lost two major pieces of built heritage: The Gathercole building (former Saskatoon Technical Collegiate, built in 1931) and the nearby Royal Canadian Legion, Branch #63 built in 1929 by local veterans of the First World War. Both were cited by the Heritage Canada Foundation (HCF) as being among the worst losses of heritage in Canada.

In January 2004 Atchison told the StarPhoenix he wasn’t interested in spending public money on the Gathercole site.

“For the life of me, I can’t believe we would take federal, provincial or municipal dollars on a site where the private sector has been knocking at the door.” [How federal cash will be spent focus of mayor, Goodale meeting (StarPhoenix, January 16, 2004)]

Since then at least $70-million has been spent or committed to the site. With that much money the Gathercole and Legion buildings could have been renovated three or four times over.

Currently on the HCF’s Top 10 list of endangered buildings is St. Mary Community School in Pleasant Hill, the city’s oldest Catholic school built in 1913. It is being demolished to create green space. Atchison supports the plan.

5.) Voted to use library taxes for interchange

At the June 27, 2005, city council meeting Mayor Don Atchison voted against instructing city administration to negotiate with FirstPro Shopping Centres that 50 percent of the overpass located at Clarence Avenue and Circle Drive be paid by FirstPro. The developer agreed to pay only 20 percent.

According to Council OKs contentious big box development (StarPhoenix, June 28, 2005), Mike Gilman, project manager for FirstPro Shopping Centres ‘told council before its vote that he doubted FirstPro would have a “real appetite to continue” trying to build the mall, if its terms weren’t accepted.’

At the February 27, 2006, city council meeting Atchison voted in favour of dedicating incremental municipal and library property taxes on the FirstPro Shopping Centre property for 15 years to help finance the construction of the Clarence Avenue and Circle Drive overpass.

Council’s decision cleared the way for FirstPro to begin building a giant Wal-Mart before the interchange is built even though city administrators and council had previously insisted that the interchange be finished prior to the opening of the first store.

In Rushing ahead with interchange cause for unease (StarPhoenix, March 1, 2006), the newspaper’s editorial board wrote: “Atchison and others are on record saying that no shopping centre would be opened unless an interchange is in place to avoid traffic snarls and for safety reasons. Now, it appears that a big box shopping centre expected to generate traffic of 2,500 vehicles an hour during Saturday peaks could open with just a temporary traffic control light.”

6.) Shafted the Saskatoon Public Library

In February 2004 Atchison said he was willing to commit $5 million toward renovation of The Bay building for an expanded downtown library, pending city council’s approval.

The funds made up one-third of $15 million in federal strategic infrastructure funds earmarked for Saskatoon.

“I’m hoping we can do that,” Atchison said in an interview. “I understand (the library’s) concerns and needs for a new facility. The last thing we need is for The Bay to come down, the (Bay) parkade to come down and the King George Hotel to come down.”

The then library board chair, Ian Wilson, said a newly constructed downtown library would be a $30-million project. Renovation of an existing building is substantially cheaper, depending on The Bay building’s condition, at $15 million to $20 million. [Mayor proposes cash for library in Bay building (StarPhoenix, February 26, 2004)]

Five weeks later Atchison reneged on the arrangement.

On April 5, 2004, city council decided to approve an application to Infrastructure Canada that asked for all of the federal money to be spent on the A.L. Cole site (now River Landing Phase II).

In Library may face choice on new branch (StarPhoenix, April 7, 2004) Atchison said the Saskatoon Public Library may have to choose between building a Riversdale branch and a new central library.

The 20th Street West Branch was an unexpected addition to the city’s south riverfront development plan that was unveiled April 5, 2004. The library board had earlier asked the city to consider support for a new central library.

“I don’t know if they can afford both,” Atchison said in an interview. “I don’t know if we can find the money for them. They’re going to have to make a decision.

After five years of stalling the cost of building a new main library has now increased to $50-million. [City passes tax hike (StarPhoenix, April 8, 2009)]

7.) Supported devastating condo conversions

From September 2006 to July 2008 the city experienced an incredible string of 23 consecutive months of double-digit house price increases. Average house prices doubled and vacancy rates plummeted.

It wasn’t until June 2007, nine months into the crisis, that Atchison admitted there was a problem and that political action was necessary.

It took Atchison seventeen months — when house price increases were above 50 per cent — to finally acknowledge, in January 2008, that the issue had become the city’s top priority.

From 2006 to 2008 the city approved the conversion of 2,027 apartments to condominiums.

On June 27, 2009, the StarPhoenix reported that “most agree” the conversions “cut the supply of rental apartments, helped drive rents higher and ushered in a wrenching period of uncertainty for many existing tenants.”

Atchison is on record as supporting condo conversions.

8.) Abuse of process

At city council’s September 19, 2005, meeting Mayor Don Atchison told councillors there would no debate on the proposed River Landing Destination Complex. They could speak only once and were limited to five minutes. The arrogant heavy-handed tactics meant there was no chance for rebuttal. Mayor Atchison also arbitrarily reserved the right to speak last, which Councillor Tiffany Paulsen described as an “abuse of process”.

9.) Reduced public members on police board

At the December 1, 2003, city council meeting Mayor Don Atchison voted in favour of reducing the number of public members on the board of police commissioners from four to two. This was part of Atchison’s plan to seize the chair of the police board.

During the 2003 civic election Atchison said, “We need a police commission with the Mayor as the Chair to make the commission accountable to Council directly.”

However, the Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners does not report to city council. The police board is an independent board that is not supervised by city council. The supervisor of the board is the Saskatchewan Police Commission, and ultimately the Minister of Justice – not city council. The purpose of an independent board is to act as a buffer or insulator between the police and city council. Atchison failed to understand this important concept.

At the time of the 2003 civic election the chair of the police board was Leanne Bellegarde Daniels, a citizen. It didn’t take long for new mayor Don Atchison to challenge her position.

In the November 5, 2003, StarPhoenix, Atchison made it clear that “come Jan. 1, I certainly intend on being the chair.”

On November 6, 2003, Bellegarde Daniels resigned her position as chair of the police commission.

On November 20, 2003, the board named Mayor Don Atchison as chair.

10.) Failure to read Neil Stonechild report

On October 26, 2004, Justice David Wright released a scathing report into the November 1990 freezing death of 17-year-old Neil Stonechild in the city’s north industrial area implicating the Saskatoon Police Service.

Ten days later, on November 5, 2004, the StarPhoenix reported that Mayor Don Atchison hadn’t “thoroughly read the report because of a full schedule.”

“I’m not trying to duck out, just tell you the straight goods -- that I haven’t read the whole report yet,” Atchison said, before catching a flight to Toronto, where he was to attend meetings later that day. [Mayor yet to endorse Wright report: Atchison has not read all of Stonechild report (StarPhoenix, November 5, 2004)]

11.) Lack of openness and transparency

During Atchison’s first term as mayor the city’s executive committee, which is composed of all members of council with the mayor sitting as chair, conducted at least 22 special closed-door meetings. This is in addition to the committee’s regularly scheduled in-camera meetings. The public does not have access to the agenda or minutes for these meetings.

12.) Rob Dee and Associates regional retail study

On December 16, 2002, City Council authorized a Regional Retail Study in the 2003 Capital Budget (project 2035).

In February 2003, the city contracted the services of Rob Dee and Associates (Ontario), in association with Fast Consulting (Saskatoon), to undertake a Retail/Service Space Needs and Distribution Study for Saskatoon.

On February 9, 2004, City Council received the Retail/Service Space Needs and Distribution Study as information.

At the meeting Mike Gilman, First Pro Shopping Centres, advised council that their application for development has been put on hold for over a year waiting for the Retail Study to be completed, and expressed concerns with some of the aspects of the study.

Against administration’s recommendation city council resolved to reject “that the introduction of new, major retail locations into the Saskatoon market occur in a phased approach over time, as warranted demand for retail space grows city-wide.” The vote was 10-1. Mayor Don Atchison was one of the ten that voted to toss the $120,000 taxpayer funded report.

“We need to send a message to the private sector that Saskatoon is going to become the most business-friendly city by 2006,” said Atchison, referring to a resolution passed by a previous council. [City council opts for flexible plan to develop retail (StarPhoenix, February 11, 2004)]

13.) Dress code for visitors to the mayor’s office

On November 4, 2003, Atchison arrogantly introduced a dress code for visitors to his office. Public reaction was swift and harsh. On November 5, 2003, the dress code was rescinded.

14.) Scaring persons with disabilities

During the 2009 civic election Atchison resorted to scaring persons with disabilities and using them to get re-elected.

In the article City eyes recycling plan: mayor (StarPhoenix, October 13, 2009) Atchison said a city-run blue-box curbside recycling program would mean a tax increase of a minimum $144 per year and result in SARCAN Recycling workers ending up “out on the street.”

SARCAN has grown to support recycling efforts in 62 communities through 71 depots. Its last annual report shows 2008 was the forth consecutive year that container returns have grown by more than seven per cent. With more than $35 million in deposit returns going to the public last year, it’s unlikely that residents will abandon SARCAN because of a blue box program.

In the article, Atchison said the city is studying a “unique” subsidy program involving Saskatoon Curbside Recycling, a private for profit firm, which will likely require some sort of subsidization. This means taxpayers will still pay.

The Saskatoon Curbside Recycling website says the cost of their service is $15 per household per month, plus GST. This works out to $189 per year, which is less than the $144 a month Atchison is trying to alarm people with.

15.) Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast

With the election of Don Atchison as mayor came the return of the elitist Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast. The annual event was held February 14, 2004, at the Centennial Auditorium (now TCU Place). Atchison managed to offend a lot of people.

In Breakfast evangelism narrow-minded (StarPhoenix, February 18, 2004), civic affairs columnist Gerry Klein said Atchison told the crowd of about 800: “If you don’t believe in God or if you don’t believe in a Supreme Being, I honestly don’t know how you can go anywhere in life.”

Klein took exception to what he was hearing.

“It’s one thing to hold Christian views… and quite another to use one’s office to propagate the faith. This is something one expects from fundamentalist regimes, not in liberal democracies such as Canada,” he said.

“In his campaign to become mayor, Atchison made it clear there was no place in Saskatoon for those who didn’t respect law and order. Given his officially held view (it was the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast, not Atchison’s), one wonders how welcome are those who don’t hold his beliefs.”

In Many leaders have no wives, Mayor Atch (StarPhoenix, February 18, 2004) columnist Joanne Paulson lambasted Atchison for making this comment: “This is called the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast, but it’s not just for the mayor. It should be called a ‘Leader’s Breakfast,’ because it is for all the leaders in the community and their wives or significant others.” [Prayers support mayor: Saskatoon faith community resumes annual breakfast (StarPhoenix, January 31, 2004)]

To which Paulson shot back, “I can think of several leaders in this community who do not have wives. Shall I list them for you, Mayor Atchison?”

“The mayor wasn’t using some bizarre updated use of the term, when he suggested that the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast was for city leaders and their wives or significant others. And I’m afraid he can’t wriggle out of this by suggesting “significant others” refers to “everybody else including husbands, partners, and spouses of every description.” He meant male leaders and their wives or girlfriends, or he would have said “wives, husbands, or significant others,” Paulson wrote.

“I would also like to know what his definition of leader is.”

16.) Sweetheart deal for Remai Ventures

The city’s appraised value of the 2.43-acre spa hotel site on the former Gathercole site was $2.9 million. The city sold it to Remai Ventures Inc. for only $1.6 million.

On December 12, 2005, Atchison voted in favour of a deal in which Remai Ventures Inc. received a total of $3.1 million in tax incentives from the city over the course of the spa hotel’s construction and its first four years of operation.

Atchison had previously said there would be no tax breaks or subsidies on the hotel site and that the city must receive every dollar of the land’s value.

17.) Bending the rules for Lake Placid Developments

On June 23, 2008, Atchison voted in favour of unfairly bending the rules to allow Lake Placid to build River Landing’s hotel four storeys higher than zoning guidelines permit.

The maximum building height for a hotel at the corner of Second Avenue South and Spadina Crescent was eight storeys. Council passed an amendment to the site’s special zoning allowing the hotel to rise to 12 storeys.

Councillor Charlie Clark said two developers told him they might have submitted proposals had they known the city would be flexible with the zoning rules.

“I have some real questions about the fairness of the process. I question, when this is what the competition was based on, going back and changing the rules now.”

Atchison didn’t seem to care about the integrity of the process.

The amendments are “minor,” he said. [River Landing hotel can add four storeys (StarPhoenix, June 24, 2008)]

On June 22, 2009, city council granted Lake Placid an extension to June 30, 2010, to complete all excavation required for the development of Parcel “Y”, River Landing Phase I, provided that payment in full for Parcel “Y” was received no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday, August 17, 2009. The original deadline to complete the excavation was June 30, 2009.

Lake Placid subsequently missed the August 17, 2009, deadline.

At a special city council meeting held August 19, 2009, Atchison voted in favour of giving the developer another extension to 5 p.m., October 30, 2009, to pay the balance of the Purchase Price for each of Parcel Y and the Lane Adjacent to Parcel Y to 5:00 p.m., October 30, 2009, provided that all interest accrued under both Agreements, totalling $214,197.19, is paid on August 31, 2009.

Atchison voted against amendments to change the deadline from October 30, 2009, to September 15, 2009, or September 30, 2009.

“This is absolute certainty now,” Atchison said of the Oct. 30 deadline. “You heard me at the end there tell Mr. Lobsinger if he doesn’t come up with the $214,197.14, the deal is finished, or if he doesn’t come up with the money for the land, it’s terminated as well.

“There’s no more chances.” [Lake Placid gets time (StarPhoenix, August 20, 2009)]

As of October 25, 2009, there has been no word on whether Lake Placid has made the required payment.

18.) Amusement Tax fiasco

On March 21, 2005, Atchison voted in favour of tax breaks for Famous Players who planned to build a 12-screen theatre complex on Block 146. The decision created an unlevel playing field for other theatres.

In the article Downtown theatre one step closer: City council approves tax breaks for Famous Players (StarPhoenix, March 22, 2005), it was reported that the tax breaks included an annual grant refunding the amusement tax to Famous Players. Famous Players would also collect a 100 per cent property tax break on the theatre in its first year, dropping to 80 per cent in the second, 60 per cent in the third, 40 per cent in the fourth and 20 per cent in the fifth. Famous Players had asked for a 100 per cent abatement for seven years.

The city did not commit to extending the same incentive to the existing downtown theatres run by Cineplex Odeon and Famous Players.

The city’s business incentives are designed to target housing to downtown, all forms of business to core neighbourhoods and industry in general, not movie theatres.

On June 25, 2007, city council finally voted in favour of abolishing the amusement tax but Atchison refused to support the move noting council had defeated a motion to kill the tax when it passed the city budget.

“I don’t know how you can pass things that were defeated. . . . To pass this today, you’re sending a very bad message.”

Instead of killing the tax now, the city should have waited until later in the year when it knows if it’s running a surplus or deficit, Atchison said. [Council axes tax (StarPhoenix, June 26, 2007)]

19.) Special deal for Persephone Theatre

In a deal approved by city council on December 7, 2005, Persephone Theatre will receive a five-year tax incentive under which the non-profit theatre will pay no taxes in its first year of operation in the new building, with discounts of 80, 60, 40 and 20 per cent in each of the following four years. The theatre will be exempt from property taxes during construction.

In Curtain call for theatre (StarPhoenix, December 8, 2005), it was reported that “Persephone will buy a parcel of land at the corner of Second Avenue and Saunders Place for $30 per square foot, or about $888,600.

Mayor Don Atchison said that’s the appraised value of the land, not a reduced price.”

What Atchison did not mention, however, was that the land was originally valued at $32.50 per square foot.

On December 5, 2005, the city advised Persephone that it had obtained a fresh appraisal that differentiated between the values of the north half and the south half of the River Landing cultural block. The north half was valued at $30 and the south half, being closer to the river, was valued at $36. Accordingly, the city reduced Persephone’s cost to $30 per square foot, and that was the price reflected in Persephone’s purchase agreement.

20.) Contempt for city council

In Transit shuttles need tweaking (StarPhoenix, September 14, 2005) civic affairs columnist Gerry Klein wrote: “Another issue in which (Councillor) Birkmaier was correct but which received little attention last week was over a letter Mayor Don Atchison was charged with writing to the CRTC advising that council has no objection to an application by the CBC for a local FM licence. The CBC wants to improve the reception for its programming in the city.

Although council agreed to the letter on Aug. 15 – with a deadline of Aug. 31 – Atchison received a letter from Vic Dubois, president of the Saskatchewan Association of Broadcasters, a couple of days later asking the city not send a letter.

Without seeking the advice of councillors, Atchison decided he would ignore the wish of council. As Birkmaier pointed out, by doing so he subverted the wishes of council. It may seem a small thing, but councillors and citizens should have the confidence that when they pass a motion, it is acted upon. Failing that, the mayor should have personally contacted his colleagues and made sure a majority supported his change of heart.”

It should be noted that the letter from Vic Dubois to Mayor Don Atchison was dated August 19, 2005. It was received by the mayor’s office on August 22, but not by the city clerk until August 31. It appears the mayor’s office held onto the letter for nine days.

LEAD Saskatoon director and city councillor among attendees at speech by former U.S. president George W. Bush; authorities fail to arrest war criminal

An audience of about 2,000 paid up to $115.95 each, including service charges, to hear former U.S. President George W. Bush talk about his eight long years in office. According to the StarPhoenix most of the crowd seemed impressed, giving Bush several standing ovations. [Ex-president defends Iraq war (StarPhoenix, October 22, 2009)]

The war criminal’s noon hour speech at TCU Place in Saskatoon on October 21 lasted all of 45-minutes, followed by a 45-minute “conversation” with Calgary businessperson and University of Saskatchewan graduate W. Brett Wilson.

Local right-wing radio talk show host John Gormley was the emcee. No surprise there.

Wilson’s questions were pre-approved by Bush officials. Organizers refused to reveal Bush’s speaking fee. No surprise there, either.

On October 2, Wilson participated in a Q & A with Saskatchewan News Network senior reporter Jason Warick. When asked if Bush was a good president Wilson dodged the question. “I don’t think my views on that are relevant,” he said.

Wilson said the former president is “a professional, through and through” and someone whose “integrity and honesty are above reproach.”

As for critics that say Bush a war criminal Wilson suggested it wasn’t “professional or respectful.” He said “people have the right to protest” but then called it “nonsense” and “disorganized chaos.” [Chat with Bush (StarPhoenix, October 3, 2009)]

It seems obvious where Wilson’s loyalties lie.

Among those attending the event were Vic Dubois, general manager of CJWW-AM, CFQC-FM and CJMK-FM in Saskatoon, and his wife Bev, the city councillor for Ward 10. The couple was seen standing in line outside before the event.

Vic Dubois is also a director of the political lobby group LEAD Saskatoon Futures Inc.

LEAD was formed in August 2003 — just prior to the civic election — allegedly as a response to the embarrassing voter turnout of 26 per cent in 2000. The group’s stated objective is to increase voter awareness and participation in the election.

In reality, however, LEAD’s primary goal is to try and get as many business friendly people as possible on city council.

tinePUBLIC Inc., a partnership founded by two Calgary entrepreneurs, Christian Darbyshire and Andy McCreath, were responsible for bringing Bush to Saskatoon.

The event was presented by Calgary-based Bedford Biofuels and sponsored by the Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce, The StarPhoenix, TCU Place, and American Express.

TCU Place is a publicly owned, taxpayer funded multi-purpose cultural and entertainment facility. The current board of directors includes Mayor Don Atchison and LEAD Saskatoon directors Vic Dubois and Don Ravis. [City of Saskatoon 2009 Municipal Manual]

It’s nice to see the public’s money hard at work supporting a warmonger like Bush as he continues the difficult transition from public to private life.

Taxpayers are also on the hook for Bush’s security bill.

According to the article Security tight for Bush Former U.S. president arrives today for speech (StarPhoenix, October 21, 2009) more than 100 private security officers, city police, RCMP and U.S. Secret Service agents were used.

Bush arrived by private plane in the morning and flew out immediately after the event.

Those attending had to go through a security checkpoint that included a metal detector.

The tab for the extra security is unclear, but each of Bush’s two previous speeches in Canada this year cost taxpayers more than $100,000.

Authorities at the event failed to arrest Bush for his war crimes. The illegal wars Bush started in Afghanistan and Iraq have claimed over a million lives – and they’re still ongoing. No U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force was adopted in either case. [Congressional Research Service RL 30588 (October 6, 2009) and RL 31339 (August 31, 2009)]

The day’s only bright spot were the protestors that took part in a peaceful demonstration. CBC News estimated the number at 300.

The CBC noted that demonstrators were unable to boo Bush in person because he was taken inside the building earlier in the morning and avoided any encounters with the crowd. [Hundreds protest Bush speech in Saskatoon (CBC News, October 21, 2009)]

The rally’s organizer, Peter Garden, is the owner of Turning the Tide bookstore. Garden set up a Facebook group called the George W. Bush Welcoming Committee to coincide with the former president’s visit. It boasts over 2,030 members.

“I can’t in good conscience sit by and not mobilize against a war criminal coming to town,” said Garden in an interview with the StarPhoenix in mid-September.

A worldwide movement to put Bush on trial for war crimes emerged following the end of his second term earlier this year, he added.

With a trillion-dollar war in Iraq started on false pretences, the many thousands of civilian and military deaths, lack of due process for Guantanamo Bay detainees and the Abu Ghraib torture fiasco, Bush should be tried in international courts, said Garden.

“If there was any justice in this world, he’d land at the Saskatoon airport and be placed in handcuffs,” he said.

That being said, free speech is not something Garden wants to ignore.

“I’m not going to stop him from speaking, but I’ll voice my concerns,” he said. [Bush protest in works (StarPhoenix, September 11, 2009)]

Labour lawyer Larry Kowalchuk was on hand to address the crowd and alleges that TCU Place management refused to schedule any of its Muslim staff for work on the day of Bush’s visit. This wasn’t reported by the StarPhoenix.

Councillor Bev Dubois (in black & white jacket)

Vic Dubois (center)

Protest march heading east on 19th Street

TCU Place

Labour lawyer Larry Kowalchuk

StarPhoenix misleading voters about political lobby group LEAD Saskatoon’s motives; directors include Vic Dubois, Russel Marcoux & Coni Evans

The StarPhoenix is misleading voters about lobby group LEAD Saskatoon Futures Inc. and its motives for taking part in civic elections.

Twice in the last month the newspaper has suggested that the non-profit group’s primary reason for getting involved is to get more people to do their civic duty.

On October 16, the newspaper said LEAD’s stated objective is “to increase voter awareness and participation in the election.”

LEAD director Don Ravis said his group is “concerned that… the lack of contentious issues and, in some wards, the lack of candidates will result in a poor voter turnout.” [Group promotes increased voter participation (StarPhoenix, October 16, 2009)]

Last month an editorial noted that the “group formed in time for the 2003 civic election as a response to the embarrassing voter turnout of 26 per cent in 2000.” [Multiple trips to polling booth price of freedom (StarPhoenix, September 17, 2009)]

In that election city councillor Jim Maddin defeated incumbent Mayor Henry Dayday.

Maddin was perceived as being less business friendly than Dayday. This could explain why LEAD Saskatoon was nowhere to be seen following the October 22, 1997, civic election when Dayday won his fourth consecutive term as mayor with a voter turnout of barely 20 per cent. The StarPhoenix reported that Dayday knew within 15 minutes of the polls closing that he’d won. [Electorate fails to show (StarPhoenix, October 23, 1997)]

Why wasn’t LEAD concerned about the results from that election?

Records filed with the corporations branch of Saskatchewan Justice show that LEAD Saskatoon was incorporated on August 23, 2003. The nature of the group’s activities is listed as “political lobbying”.

The group currently has eight directors but their names aren’t posted on the organization’s website. They are:

▪ Joe Bloski, general manager, Early’s Farm & Garden Centre

▪ David Criddle, president, Pro-Trans Ventures Inc.

▪ Vic Dubois, general manager, CJWW-AM, CFQC-FM and CJMK-FM

▪ Gary Emde, owner, Prudential Sask Realty

▪ Coni Evans, former president of Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce. Evans worked for Point2 Technologies.

▪ Russel Marcoux, president and CEO of Yanke Group of Companies; and, former chair of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

▪ Todd Peterson, vice-president sales and marketing, Saskatchewan Blue Cross

▪ Don Ravis, former Tory MP for Saskatoon East in Mulroney government

(Note: LEAD’s board originally included Don Funk, a friend of Don Atchison. He ceased being a director on December 31, 2004. Funk is one of the organizers of the annual Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast. Vic Dubois became a director on February 23, 2006. His wife is Bev Dubois, city councillor for Ward 10.)

LEAD unveiled its civic election plans at a press conference on September 18, 2003, at the Travelodge in Saskatoon. According to The StarPhoenix approximately 50 people attended the event – some by invitation. [Group aims to double turnout from 2000 civic election (StarPhoenix, September 19, 2003); Time to get involved in civic election (StarPhoenix, September 20, 2003)]

At the time LEAD had “about 40 unofficial supporters who have attended meetings during the past year,” and were “launching a fund-raising campaign aimed at generating between $10,000 and $20,000.” The money would be used to fund campaign advertising and a Web site for the organization.

Mayoral candidate Jim Pankiw was skeptical about LEAD, alleging it’s aligned with Atchison through the involvement of Atchison campaign manager Lori Isinger.

“This is a Don Atchison smokescreen,” said Pankiw, refusing to reveal how he knows there’s a connection. “It’s the oldest trick in the book.” [New group stirs civic election pot (StarPhoenix, September 18, 2003)]

LEAD and Atchison denied this, of course.

LEAD is always quick to point out that it endorses no candidate and provides financial assistance to none. Publicly endorsing someone is not the same as working behind the scenes encouraging or recruiting people to run in certain wards. The public would be naïve to think that this kind of thing doesn’t happen.

At some point during this time, a one-page letter, undated, soliciting for donations was circulated. It was signed by LEAD director Joe Bloski and addressed to “all Saskatoon taxpayers”. The problem is not everyone got one. It seems only a select few did.

“There is a growing concern amongst the citizens of our community that our city has become stagnant and is failing badly on its economic course and its ability to make decisions on major issues and opportunities,” Bloski said.

The letter said LEAD Saskatoon was formed “to try and bring about some changes that, hopefully, will place Saskatoon back on track.”

Bloski cited eight issues that LEAD believed city council had “mismanaged.” These include:

1. World University Games 2007
2. South Downtown Development
3. Casino
4. Police Department
5. Dialogue with Aboriginal Community
6. C.P. Wang Dismissal
7. Gathercole Site Proposals
8. Special Needs Transit Services

“In order to effectively promote the aims and objectives of LEAD SASKATOON prior to the next civic election, we are respectfully soliciting your financial support. Your contribution will assist us in preparing and delivering a strong slate of common-sense, business-minded candidates who possess some of those qualities we so desperately need. We will also focus on evoking an emotional response from the taxpayers that will help them appreciate the importance and relevance of their vote,” Bloski said.

The StarPhoenix never informed readers that LEAD’s main objective was more than just getting people out to vote, it was to stack city council with as many business-friendly individuals as possible. The only columnist that came close to exposing LEAD for what they were was Gerry Klein who said in his October 21, 2003, column that LEAD was a “civic lobby group” “organized to unseat council members including Maddin.”

Unfortunately, Klein’s words were limited to just one sentence buried in an article that had little to do with the group.

During the 2003 civic election LEAD used print and radio advertising to evoke “an emotional response” from voters.

One such advertisement was a ridiculously over-the-top two-page spread in the October 19, 2003, edition of the Saskatoon Sun.

“Saskatoon is at a crossroads,” the ad said. “Never before in our city’s history has your vote mattered more.”

“You’ve heard it all: About crime and safety issues, casinos, south downtown, transit services. From the Moral Majority, the Politically Correct and other special interest groups.”

“It’s time to take back our city – to restore its unity, its potential and its pride.”

“Vote! Your future depends on it! Do it for your city. For your kids. Foryour future.”

Honestly, the way LEAD was carrying on you’d think the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were at the city gates.

The thing is LEAD itself is a special interest group. At least two of its directors served with the Saskatoon and Canadian chambers of commerce – the biggest local and national business lobby groups around. LEAD wanted their kind of people on city council. It’s no more complicated than that.

LEAD obviously got what it wanted because three years later, during the 2006 civic election, Klein wrote that the group was now “fighting for the status quo.” [Status quo will rule civic race (StarPhoenix, October 25, 2006)]

No doubt this is the minimum that LEAD will accept in the October 28, 2009, civic election as well.

Saskatoon Sun, October 19, 2003, p. 28

Saskatoon Sun, October 19, 2003, p. 29

StarPhoenix, September 18, 2003, p. A1