Category Archives: Municipal

Oh Suitmate! Wherefore art thou Suitmate?

Regular use of recreational facilities in Abbotsford drives home the reality that there is a better chance that Hell will freeze over than Mark Taylor and Parks, Recreation & Culture will pay attention to patron feedback or the needs, comfort and convenience of patrons.

It is a reality that can drive those under the mistaken impression that Parks, Recreation & Culture has any interest in patrons, outside of separating them from as many dollars as possible, to feeling as if they are banging their head against a brick wall when they deal with Parks, Recreation & Culture. Or drive them to want a cement block wall to bang their heads against.

To those who have experienced Parks, Recreation & Culture disdain for patrons needs a wall such as the one pictured above can be more than a stress reliving device. The wall can also, to the experience observer of the urban landscape, be a clear sign of Parks, Recreation & Culture brushing aside the needs, comfort and convenience of patrons.

Before being rendered it current pristine white, the wall pictured above bore evidence of the Suitmate unit that had been fastened upon the wall.

With the SUITMATE® Swimsuit Water Extractor you can

remove up to 95% of a suit’s water in just 10 seconds.

From the patron’s perspective, the Suitmate was THE outstanding renovation/addition to the change rooms [this assessment is based upon the responses of patrons when asked their thoughts on the Suitmate].

Hardly surprising patrons sorely miss the Suitmate when you consider the Suitmate offers ARC patrons the convenience of packing home a 95% dry suit as opposed to having to pack home a heavy, soaking wet swim suit.

For a patron of……..significant experience…… with Parks, Recreation & Culture, the pristine white state of the wall was as clear a Sign as if a notice had been posted.

To test the deductive reasoning that lead from the pristine wall to the conclusion that the Suitmate was no more, enquires were made of staff as to how matters stood vis-à-vis the Suitmate. These enquiries confirmed that the wall did indeed bear witness to the fact the Suitmate had ‘died’ and there was no intention to replace the Suitmate on a timely, or untimely, basis.

Asking why there were no plans to replace the Suitmate produced only vague responses leaving one with the impression the Suitmate units were of a costly nature and/or very hard to find and purchase and/or undependable and constantly breaking down and/or of no real benefit or convenience to patrons – who were blamed for causing breakdowns by treating the unit to roughly.

Clearly it was time to do some research on Suitmate.

Research Findings,   

Research (see Exhibit A below) revealed a ‘Retail Price” of $1425.00 and a ‘Sale Price’ of $1365.00 from multiple Suitmate suppliers.

Consideration the service and convenience the Suitmate provides (provided) to patrons availing themselves of the ARC’s pool facilities, replacing one (or both) of the ARC Suitmate units would be a reasonable expenditure/expense. Even should it be necessary to replace one or both units every year the cost is acceptable in light of the convenience and service provided by the Suitmate units.

As to the difficulty reported by staff in obtaining Suitmate units, I am willing to do all the work necessary to locate and procure Suitmate units in exchange for a yearly Recreation pass. No matter the difficulty city staff have with getting Suitmate units, I have never found it particularly onerous to go on-line to Amazon.com and order what was needed – in this case Suitmate units.

As to the reliability of the Suitmate: research of the experience of other users of the Suitmate, supported the manufactures statements as to the quality and dependability of the Suitmate.

Research also turned up Exhibit B below the Maintenance Guidelines for Suitmate.

Enquiries made of patrons failed to turn up any patron aware of the weekly or monthly maintenance set out in Exhibit B being performed at all, much less performed weekly or monthly.

Research also found Exhibit C below, installation instructions.

Contained in the installation instructions under the heading PROPER LOCATION FOR THE SUITMATE® UNIT  is the prohibition:

2) The unit should NOT be located……where it is exposed to direct shower water or water hose down.

The Suitmate was located in the change rooms which are cleaned several times a day by hosing down the floor. Resulting in water being splashed about to the point one needs to dry a spot on the benches after cleaning in order to have a dry place to sit and put your shoes on.

As to clients rough treatment of the Suitmate, the units are solidly constructed and research did not uncover patron use causing damage to the Suitmate elsewhere. Regarding concerns with how patrons use the Suitmate, the following is from the manufacturer’s installation instructions (Exhibit C).

POSTING THE WALL SIGN

 Locate the top edge of the sign 60+/- 1/16” (1524 +/- 2mm) above the floor centered over the SUITMATE® unit. At this height the sign will not be blocked when the lid is raised. It will also serve as a stop to keep the Lid from striking the wall behind the unit.

The sign has an adhesive foam backing. Be certain the surface that the sign is to be mounted to is clean and dry. Without touching the sign to the wall, align the top of the sign 60+/- 1/16” (1524 +/- 2mm) above the floor and at the center of the unit. Press the sign to the wall and rub firmly over the adhesive portion of the sign.

Posting a sign setting out the operating instructions in a clear and highly visible way, rather than relying on patrons seeing and reading the small set of operating instructions on the inside of the Suitmate’s lid would provide patrons with clear instructions on proper use of the Suitmate, significantly reducing patron abuse of the Suitmate due to a lack of understanding on how to operate the Suitmate properly.

Posting the signs setting out how to properly operate would seem to be a ‘no brainer’. Should the sign referred to in the installation instructions have been omitted from the Suitmate due to being non-bilingual…..it would seem a ‘no brainer’ to create and post a sign setting out how to operate the Suitemate…….unless nobody read the installation instructions thoroughly enough to be aware of the need for a sign setting out how to operate the Suitmate.

The Suitmate provides a valuable service, is a valuable convenience, to patrons of the ARC pool such that even yearly replacement (at the cost revealed by research) would be a reasonable and justified expenditure.

Although the track record of the Suitmate elsewhere suggests that performing the weekly and monthly maintenance recommended by the manufacturer; protecting the unit from splashing as set out in the installation instructions; posting a sign providing operating instruction to the patrons as set out in the installation instructions; should significantly improve the longevity and reliability of Suitmate units at ARC.

All of which supports the IMMEDIATE purchasing and installing a replacement Suitmate unit for the men’s change room.

But then, as noted in the opening paragraph, there is a better chance that Hell will freeze over than Mark Taylor and Parks, Recreation & Culture will pay attention to patron feedback or the needs, comfort and convenience of patrons.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

MAINTENANCE

These instructions are designed to keep your SUITMATE clean and operating properly.

The procedures should be followed at the recommended frequencies.

WEEKLY

1. Inspection

Pull the Basket to the side and check with a flashlight for trapped debris such as straps, strings, bathing caps, etc., inside the SUITMATE . If foreign objects or debris are found, remove them with a coat hanger or other implement.

2. Hygienic Cleaning

a. Mix a disinfecting cleaner at recommended strength in a 1/2-gallon bucket of water.

b. Clean the inside of the unit by spinning a small soft hand towel soaked in the cleaning solution. Repeat two or three times.

c. Use the spun towel to wipe down the Lid, plastic Top, sides and Basket.

3. Flushing

a. If your unit uses a drain hose or a P-trap, disconnect it from the unit’s drain tail piece and inspect it for any obstruction.

b. With the drain hose or P-trap removed, place an empty (1/2-gallon capacity) bucket under the tailpiece to catch the flush discharge.

c. Slowly pour 1/2-gallon or less of cleaner water (use the disinfecting cleaner water from step a. in “Hygienic Cleaning” above for this procedure) into the top opening of your unit.

If the unit’s drainage channels are open, the full amount of water poured into the unit should flow into the bucket within a few seconds. Check the discharge water for debris.

d. Repeat the 1/2-gallon flushes with fresh water until a free flow of water is established and the discharge water is clear of debris.

e. If you cannot establish free flow of water or if the discharge water spills out from under the unit, the tailpiece is plugged or the drain channels are blocked. Locate the blockage by pushing the Basket aside with one hand and, with a flashlight, determine where the blockage is and remove it. Repeat FLUSHING steps c. and d.

f. Reinstall the disconnected drain hose or P-trap.

MONTHLY

1. Case and Top care

a. Clean the black plastic Top with Armor All (or its equivalent).

b. Clean and polish the stainless steel Case with Liquid Gold (or its equivalent). If flat rust or stains are present use a medium grade steel wool to remove them. Be certain to rub with the grain of the Case (up and down – not sideways). Follow with Liquid Gold for cleaning and polishing.

2. Testing the GFCI

Test the GFCI and record the results. The “TEST” and “RESET” buttons are on the face of the GFCI under the flip cover of the weatherproof Junction Box in the rear of the unit.

If you are having problems with your SUITMATE please read through the numbered questions below to see if the condition you are experiencing is described and answered. If you still have difficulty or wish to participate in the Exchange Program, call the Extractor Corporation.

1. Is the unit dead? No sound, hum, etc., when the Lid is held down?

NO.  Go to question 2.

Is there power to the unit?

Go to question 1A.

NO. To make certain there is no power to the unit, use an A.C. voltmeter set to the appropriate range and measure across the “LINE” side of the GFCI.

1.A. Is the GFCI tripped out?

Reset the GFCI by pressing the red button.

NO. Go to question 1.B.

1.B. Is the Microswitch working?

Test the Microswitch by slowly depressing the Lid and listening for a faint click.

There is some other problem with the unit and an Exchange may be recommended.

NO. The Microswitch may be out of adjustment. Consult the SUITMATE MICROSWITCH ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE in this manual.

2. Does the unit hum, but not operate, when the Lid is held down?

NO. Go to question 3.

Does the basket spin freely? Test by depressing the Brake Rods manually and trying to spin the basket. There is some other problem with the unit and an Exchange may be recommended.

NO. Something may be obstructing the Basket. Pull the Basket to the side and, with a flashlight, look for an obstruction. Remove the obstruction. If the obstruction cannot be removed, an Exchange may be recommended.

3. Does the unit Leak?

NO. Go to question 4.

There is probably an obstruction, of the drain hose or drain channel. Remove the drain hose and make certain it is not plugged. The drain channel is a two-inch U channel that runs around the perimeter of the interior of the unit. Check for an obstruction by pulling the Basket aside and, with a flashlight, look for something blocking the drain channel or hose. If foreign objects or debris are found, remove them with a coat hanger or other implement. If the unit still leaks an Exchange may be recommended.

4. Does the unit operate intermittently?

NO. Go to question 5.

Does the basket spin freely? Test by depressing the Brake Rods manually and trying to spin the Basket. The Motor Thermal Breaker may be faulty.

NO. There may be a partial obstruction of the Basket causing the Motor to overheat and the Motor Thermal Breaker to kick out. Check for an obstruction by pulling the Basket aside and, with a flashlight, look for something blocking the drain channel or hose. If foreign objects or debris are found, remove them with a coat hanger or other implement.

If the unit still leaks an Exchange may be recommended.

5. Does the GFCI keep tripping out?

NO. Go to question 6.

Is the unit connected to a 115 volt 20 ampere 60Hz

NO. Provide a 115 volt 20 ampere 60 Hz

The GFCI may be faulty. Check the GFCI with a A.C. voltmeter set to the appropriate range, or by bypassing the GFCI. If the unit does not kick out the main dedicated circuit breaker when bypassing the GFCI, the GFCI is probably faulty and should be replaced. If the GFCI is not faulty, an Exchange may be recommended.

6. Does the unit make excessive noise?

The patrons may not be operating the unit properly. Test by putting a swimsuit in the Basket and pushing it all the way down, making certain that it is evenly distributed in the bottom. Operate the unit. If the unit is still excessively noisy, an Exchange may be recommended.

NO.

If these questions have not led to a satisfactory answer to the problem with the SUITMATE , please call the Extractor Corporation at ________. We want you and your patrons to have the benefits of a smoothly operating SUITMATE Swimsuit Water Extractor.

Exhibit C

 

 

 

What a Concept

Councillor Braun dared to suggested that before the City spends $300 million to solve a problem, the City take the time to make sure it was a problem that required a solution.

To avoid having  the City find itself with the true problem still needing to be addressed, having squandered $300 million and years of time ‘solving a problem’ that did not require a solution.

And the mayors’ reactions? Mayor Peary……ahem….Banman: “My tendency is to focus on solutions rather than spending valuable time and resources re-examining the problem“.

Apparently Mayor Banman has caught the SPEND, SPEND, SPEND fever that infected prior mayors and councils, where the important thing is to be spending large amounts of taxpayer funds and whether it is being spent on infrastructure that is needed and will benefit the citizens of Abbotsford/Mission doesn’t matter. After all, it isn’t his money, so why should he make the effort required to spend it wisely and on needed infrastructure?

Similarly Mayor Adlem “At the end of the day, we have a water issue that we need to address.” From Mayor Adlem’s words it seems that, since the issue is clearly some kind of water issue spending $$millions, hundreds of millions$$ of tax payer dollars addressing a water issue, any water issue is the important point. Mayor Adlem also apparently sees no need to ensure that taxpayer funds are being spent on infrastructure that is needed and will benefit the citizens of Mission/Abbotsford.

It is not enough to be busy. So are the ants. The question is: What are we busy about?

Henry David Thoreau

It is clear from the Mayors comments pooh-poohing the suggestion that, before spending $300 million on a water issue, they make sure all those millions of dollars will be spent on the issue/problem that actually needs to be addressed, that Councillor Braun had no choice but to bring his concerns to the attention of those who will be stuck paying the tab, if – in the well established traditions of local politicians – the dollars are spent pointlessly.

This was an issue that engaged voters and the number of votes Councillor Braun and Councillor Ross (the only prior council member to oppose the Stave Lake proposal) got and the 75% NO vote to Stave Lake make it clear voters, the people who pay for Council’s profligate spending, did (do) not agree with the City’s conclusion and contention that a new water source was needed.

One could argue the top mandate Councillor Braun was given in the election was to ensure taxpayer’s monies were spent wisely and only as needed on appropriate and necessary issues – especially the water issue.

Therefore Councillor Braun’s actions are clearly in line with the duty of care due those who voted for him and the duty of care he owes all citizens of Abbotsford as a City Councillor.

Meaning those who, as Mayor Adlem’s puts it,  “…stepped a bit out of line” are the mayors and councillors who are ignoring the voters and rushing to spend $$millions$$ regardless of whether the money is spent unnecessarily upgrading water sources more than adequate for decades to come, rather than on the issue that truly needs addressing.

As to the cost of performing a review to determine what (if any) issues our water delivery system has that require addressing and what the timeline for addressing the issue(s) is (are), I have no idea where the figure of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for the cost of the review comes from. Perhaps that is the going cost for a report that is written to support the City’s desired course of action; however, the review called for is to be a review of the facts, and what actions the facts indicate are required.

Under these circumstances a review should not be that costly……..well assuming adequately competent and frugal management by the City; which admittedly is a rather large assumption based on how the City conducts its business affairs and the City’s past management performance.

If cost is the only issue I (and I am sure Councillor Braun and others) can think of several ways to structure a review that would ensure that $300 million is not spent where no expenditure is needed, that adds no additional costs for the City.

I do wonder why Mayor Banman considers the cost, even if City was to somehow run the cost to several hundred thousand dollars, to be the deciding factor for whether or not you do or do not undertake the  review?

It seems to me an excellent business decision to invest the cost of a review when there is more than reasonable doubt as to what the necessary, wise and prudent fiscal behaviour is with respect to our water delivery system.

Much wiser and far more fiscally prudent than being in a rush to waste $300 million on a non-problem.

Beware of the man who knows the answers before he understands the question. Anonymous

Solving City Council Problem

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Aldous Huxley

Henry Braun’s suggestion that Abbotsford City Council adopt a policy of gathering ALL the facts, examining all these facts to determine what the issue/problem truly is and then basing Council’s actions and decisions on what the issue/problem was revealed to be……… is so contrary to the way Abbotsford’s City Council approaches issues and problems one has to wonder if Mr Braun’s approach stands any chance of being adopted by Council?

Council has consistently chosen to decide what they want to do, ignoring any and all evidence that does not support their desired course of action, commissioning reports to support Council’s intentions and hiring PR to develop a plan to Sell, Sell, Sell Council’s desired course of action to voters.

Mr Braun’s proposed approach abounds with common sense, perception and savvy – all behaviours Council has demonstrated aversion to employing; standing in marked contrast to Council’s commandment: Thou shalt not look in dusty corners where unknown answers hide.

So, is this a matter of distribution?  of supply?.

It is imperative that, in addressing this issue, we remember there is a major difference in the delivery of the Utility Services Water and Electricity.

There is currently no way to economically store and then distribute large amounts of electricity, while water is easily stored for later distribution.

That is why an electrical utility such as BC Hydro has to have the capacity to meet peak demand as it is occurring. BC Hydro’s ability to generate electricity overnight while people sleep and there is little demand, is of no importance because BC Hydro has no way to store the electricity and deliver it later to meet peak demand.

It is why southern Ontario is dotted with water towers. During scorching summer weather with its peak water demand, the water stored in the towers is used to meet peak demand for water and then refilled overnight (when demand is low but the supply remains fully accessible) to meet the next day’s demand.

The ability of water to be efficiently and economically stored was reflected in the report from experts after the ‘crisis’ of high water demand as a result of abnormally hot weather.

I had the opportunity to read this report where the experts stated that the problem was not with the water sources the City had, but with poor planning and design with the City’s reservoir which cannot be refilled overnight because the intake system is incapable of processing water to refill the reservoir quickly enough.

In light of this the experts recommendation that Abbotsford 1) build a second reservoir with intake capacity that would permit refilling the reservoir in a portion of the off peak hours available and 2) when the new reservoir is on line the old reservoir’s intake system be renovated to be capable of refilling in a timely manner and brought back on line.

As to redundancy, others experts hired to evaluate whether Council should fully upgrade the capacity of the Norrish Creek water system to the levels planned when Norrish Creek was originally developed had an interesting comment on redundancy.

Noting that the recommended full upgrade would mean the existing pipeline lacked the capacity to carry the total amount of water available, it was suggested that council consider building another pipeline which would permit all the water available after upgrade to be available for use. That not only would the second pipeline increase the water available from the upgrade, but it would reduce the stress on the original pipeline increasing lifespan and decreasing the probability of a leak or failure. And pointing out that having a second pipeline from Norrish Creek would provide protection of supply in the form of redundancy.

This leads to the conclusion that the water problem Abbotsford has is not supply but distribution; concurring with Mr Braun’s judgment that it is distribution, not supply, that the City needs to address.

Suggesting that Mr Braun is also correct in advocating a change from the current Council policy of deciding what course of action to undertake, finding or creating evidence to support the desired course of action and using a high pressure, ‘the sky is falling’ sales campaign to scare voters into accepting the need for Council’s desired actions; to a policy of gathering all the facts, analyzing the facts and setting out a course of action (or non-action) based on what the facts and analysis of the facts reveal.

Who Would Have Thought???

Abbotsford has a Character Council??????

“The Abbotsford Character Council was established in spring of 2011 following the Abbotsford Leadership Forum which took place on April 26th, 2011. At this forum, community leaders worked together to establish a common language and a vision for the future of our city; one that places high value on the practice and promotion of good character” – excerpted from the Abbotsford Character Council web page

Who could of guessed…….although, a Character Council does fit right in with trendy organizational must haves such as a highfalutin, buzzword laden Mission Statement.

And why should taxpayers expect their City Council [et al] to focus on old fashioned ideas such as safe, drivable roads or worry about the health of its poorest, most vulnerable citizens or astute, frugal spending of taxpayers monies rather than ‘cultural gardens’, giant strawberry (raspberry?) sculptures in a roundabout, a Character Council, council’s egos or the subsidizing of profession hockey teams and owners?

Character:     the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing; moral or ethical quality

Good:             satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree; of high quality; excellent; right; proper; fit.

Armed with definitions for good and character……..we need consider a few of the actions taken by the City of Abbotsford under the auspices of the majority of the current council.

One test of ‘good character’ is what you do when you want to take an action but there is a law against taking said action.

The BC Local Government Act contains a prohibition of municipal governments investing in or subsidizing private businesses.

The WHA’s Chilliwack Bruins relocated to Victoria because Chilliwack’s Mayor and Council turned down the Bruins request for a yearly $250,000 subsidy to enable them to remain in Chilliwack. Chilliwack’s Mayor and Council citing the provisions in the Local Government Act against subsidizing a private business, in this case the Bruins.

When Abbotsford’s Council, in order to save face by luring a hockey team to Abbotsford’s empty Entertainment and Sports Centre, was faced with the need to subsidize the Heat ownership for 10 years for the losses incurred playing in Abbotsford……… Council circumvented the law and made Abbotsford Taxpayers liable to the Heats ownership for up to $57 million’

            Aside: Hmmmmm? I wonder how long it will be before Abbotsford Council, in light of                    the fact the annual subsidy is (for now) closer to $2 million rather than the $5.7 million            maximum, begin claiming to be saving taxpayers $3.7 million a year?

Ethics and character lie in obeying the intent and spirit of the law as opposed to circumventing the law for ones convenience. Consider the following:

The news is full of reports of people being defrauded out of their money, to the point of losing their life savings, by scams.

With my background in accounting and business it would be easy (I have a few specific approaches I favour in mind) to construct an……’investment opportunity’……that would circumvent the fraud laws, enriching myself and my bank account at the expense of the victimized investors – in a perfectly legal manner.

Siggghhhh, the ethics, the character my parents instilled in me tells me it is not whether I can circumvent the law and get rich with no legal consequences, but whether circumventing the law and reaching into people’s pockets to relieve them of their cash is ethical behaviour. Further,  the ethics and character my parents instilled in me tells me that the difference between breaking a law and circumventing the law is simply that circumventing the law avoids the penalty, the negative consequences, of simply breaking of the law.

As much as poverty may grind on me, ethics and character will not permit me to rationalize or justify circumventing the intent and spirit of fraud laws to enrich myself.

Under the ethics and character my parents and the community of Georgetown Ontario instilled in me it is unethical, a sign of bad character for Abbotsford’s Council to circumvent any law, not just a law designed to protect the taxpayers of Abbotsford from Council wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money subsidizing a private business and the owners of that business.

While considering ethics, character and the AESC there is the recent admission by the City Manager that City Hall had always expected the Entertainment and Sports Centre to lose $2,000,000 a year, even as Council was promising taxpayers a profit of $500,000 a year, in order to get taxpayers to vote to let council to build  Abbotsford’s Great White Elephant Centre. While saying anything needed to get elected or win a referendum may be politics and politicians as usual, it is neither ethical nor behaviour of good character.

Then there is the matter of Harm Reduction; a matter where the bottom is quite literally life or death.

A matter were the actions, yea or nay, of a community directly results in lives saved or lost and has a direct effect of the health of the community – the whole community – places a duty of care on all citizens requiring them to put aside what they believe they know, what it is they want to believe about Harm Reduction and their personal preferences, to determine what experience demonstrates the facts to be and to base one’s decision on the facts.

Ignoring the facts, that Harm Reduction saves lives, gets people into treatment sooner and improves the health of not just the community of those who use substances but of the entire community – devalues human life and imposes a death sentence on some of those who use substances to self medicate.

Clutching at straws, grabbing onto any excuse in order to ignore that the facts, experience and evidence are all against you…….is behaviour that substantially lacks character.

            Aside: before you utter or think the words “he is just a bleeding heart” let me state the       my thoughts on  matters of mental illness, substance use and homelessness    underwent significant re-examination and modification when mental illness and homelessness brought me face to face with Reality, shattering smug myth, judgment and wilful  ignorance.   

Let us conclude our considerations with a clash between greedy self interest versus ethics, character, consideration of others and the health of our community as a whole.

On July 1, 2012 City Council changed security contractors, not because the previous security firm was not doing a good job – it was – but to save money. These saving will be achieved through paying those working  for the new security firm wages at or close to minimum wage.

Unfortunately, minimum wage does not provide enough income to cover the expenses of living frugally in Abbotsford. $10.50 is considerably under the $15.50 – $16.41 that is calculated to be the hourly wage necessary to be able to live frugally, but with a degree of comfort in Abbotsford. A ‘living wage‘.

It is unethical for the City of Abbotsford (government period) to directly or indirectly pay someone performing work for the City (government) a hourly wage that is not sufficient for them to be able to afford safe, healthy housing; food; basic necessities etc.

Paying such a wage, at the expense of the wellbeing of people, to save money in order to pay council its automatic yearly salary increase and management their exorbitant and unconscionable raises descends into an area of unethical and characterless such that council and management must cease to sully the City of Abbotsford with their presence and resign.

Unless they apply the same rules to themselves as applies to the least among those who serve the City.

20 hours a week times $10.50 per hour times 52 weeks a year = 20(10.50)(52) = $10,920.

40 hours a week times $10.50 per hour times 52 weeks a year = 40(10.50)(52) = $21,840.

Under the same wage rules that council and city management consider adequate for contracted workers council should be paid $10,920 a year and managers should get $21,840 a year.

With the savings realized using those wage rates for council and managers the City could afford to pay those contracted to perform tasks on the City’s behalf a wage sufficient to live, frugally, on.

Seems to be ethical and fair vis-a-vis council and managements behaviour in this matter; and would – hopefully – encourage the development of character in council and management.

Council, city management and their sycophants may even come to appreciate that we were not instructed to “do unto others” but to “do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves”.

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Do we need more detox beds in Fraser Health?  Yes.

Is the (un)effectiveness of Fraser Health’s mobile detox programs, succinctly summed up in the words of those seeking  detox: “they [Fraser Health] are not looking for people needing detox, they [Fraser Health] are looking for people already detoxed”? Yes.

Are Fraser Health. our Provincial and Federal governments doing a poorer and poorer job of providing the support needed for people to find recovery and wellness even as our understanding of what supports are needed grows? Yes.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s childish ‘I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I do not get my own way’ attitude? No.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s ‘I am taking my toys and going home’ threats? No.

Does this provide an excuse for Abbotsford City Council to continue to ignore the facts about substance use and Harm Reduction? No.

For those who are seeking any excuse to justify their dogmatic opposition to harm reduction? I refer you to the words of Councillor John Smith: “If they aren’t going to give us detox . . . then quite frankly, [the harm reduction issue] is going nowhere with me.”

Then we have the sophistry of “…suggested that if Fraser Health was truly committed to providing harm reduction services in Abbotsford the first thing it should do is step up and fund the Warm Zone.”

I do not recall Council providing leadership, beating the bushes or pressuring senior levels of government to raise funds to keep the Warm, Zone open and operating. Now suddenly they are publically supportive of keeping the warm zone open, concerned about the consequences for those who depend on the Warm Zones services?

But then when the facts, experience and evidence are all against you and you are left clutching at straws, any excuse will do.

City Council’s finger pointing at Fraser Health on this matter brings to mind the quintessential Mom question, ‘if Fraser Health was jumping off the Lion’s Gate Bridge would you jump as well?’

Although……that does bring to mind the question: “what do you call the river bottom under the Lion’s Gate Bridge being littered with the bodies of municipal politicians, provincial and federal politicians and want-to-be ‘same old’ politicians and executives from BC Health? ”

A solid step towards good governance and healthy priorities by municipal, provincial and federal governments.

Detox, the Warm Zone – what healthcare is council advocating Fraser Health cut from services provided to the citizens of Abbotsford? Because when you call on Fraser Health (or any Health Region) to spend money on services, capital projects etc not included in their budgets, you are calling on the Health Regions to cut existing (budgeted) items to free up the funds to pay for the new (non budgeted) spending.

So what healthcare does council want to cut to pay for Detox and the Warm Zone?

Mayor and Council need to remember that Fraser Health can only spend the money the provincial government gives them. Remember that, unlike Abbotsford City Council,  Fraser Health cannot simply create a water crisis and scare/panic taxpayers into borrowing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to cover past, present and future misspending.

As to council’s sudden concern about detox……on my list of programs and services (including appropriate, affordable housing)  required in Abbotsford to help people achieve recovery and wellness, detox is well down my list of priorities. It is a waste of money to push people through detox and treatment without providing the support programs, services and housing that would aid them to remain in recovery more than a few days, weeks or months as is currently the case (less than 5% are substance free one year after ‘graduation’ from treatment)..

The reality of addiction and substance use is reflected in Councillor MacGregor’s statement that the issue of drug abuse needed a “layered” approach and Councillor Barkman stressing there is no “silver bullet” to substance abuse and that building relationships is critical to helping people escape addiction.

Harm: (noun) physical [of or pertaining to the body] injury or mental damage; hurt. (verb used with object) to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt.

Reduction: (noun) the act of reducing [bringing down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number etc.] or the state of being reduced [to become lessened] .

I will be dropping a dictionary off at the mayor’s office to facilitate and encourage council to seek facts and understanding about what Harm Reduction is and is not – and to express my support for Harm Reduction and making Abbotsford a healthier place for ALL who live in the City.

Should you have a dictionary you would like to spare for council………