Curious case of Colin Kaepernick - Hinton Parklander, 10/2/17

John Hopkins-Hill
Wide Write

The leader of the free world took time from his busy schedule to weigh in on protests during the national anthem at NFL games.

While I have to admit, it was a nice distraction from the seemingly inevitable war with North Korea, hurricanes, NAFTA, Brexit and the fact the Buffalo Sabres won’t make the playoffs this year, it definitely reminded me how insane it is that Colin Kaepernick can’t find work in the NFL.

With 32 NFL teams, there are close to 100 quarterbacks signed to rosters.

I’m supposed to believe that Kaepernick isn’t among the top 100 quarterbacks in the world?

In a league where you can beat your kids, drink and drive, assault people, use drugs and be charged with domestic violence, protesting the mistreatment of minorities is a bridge too far.

Protesting during the Star Spangled Banner is too much for some to bear, forgetting that free speech is free all the time and that protests that don’t create controversy or inconvenience are largely ineffective.

The more the discussion shifts to the protest, the more the original message is being lost. That is the truly unfortunate part.

Although less common than in years past, there are still those who demand athletes remove themselves from politics and “just play the game.”

Worst of all, some try to discredit the views of athletes as if their jobs in retail or industry somehow better qualify them to have opinions on things. Hilariously, these are also often the same people who discredit experts and despise career politicians.

Let’s just face facts.

Kaepernick’s protest was working, right up until those who disagree reframed the entire dis- cussion as a question of respect for the flag and the troops.

It’s great to see so many people actively engaging in discussion about a topic that would otherwise be ignored, and maybe all this rhetoric will result in real change.

If sports weren’t meant to be political, perhaps they shouldn’t start every major sporting event with a flyover from some type of military aircraft.

There truly are no winners in this debate, but until we begin to try to understand how the world is for others, we’re going to be stuck in the spin cycle.

You may not like it, but that’s football and that’s life.

FOIP, legislation that is both good and bad - Hinton Parklander, 10/2/17

John Hopkins-Hill
Peculiar Ponderings

Like any journalist worth his or her salt, I have a love-hate relationship with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act and similar legislation.

While I understand it protects individuals and organizations from all kinds of different violations of privacy, think medical records, contract negotiations and so on, it also makes finding out the important information related to a topic or story harder to access than sometimes feels necessary.

One of the most common instances where I run into these issues is in dealing with the Town of Hinton. Since I’ve been covering council, there have been dozens of in camera, behind closed doors, items discussed at regular council and standing committee meetings that I, and by extension the general public, know absolutely nothing about.

There are a variety of reasons for council to discuss topics in camera, and none of them are nefarious. Some of the most common or well known are personnel issues and contract negotiations.

It’s only logical that if an employee is under review, being reprimanded or otherwise discussed it shouldn’t be public information. That’s an issue between the employee and employer, and really none of my business.

By the same token, contract negotiations being held in private also makes sense. If municipalities were forced to disclose all discussions related to a new contract, the other party would well and truly hold all the cards. The same way you don’t announce to a car salesman your maximum budget the moment you walk on the lot, why would a municipality or other public body want to tip their hand? As a taxpayer, it’s reassuring that someone is at least trying to get value for money.

My issue is not the fact I can’t get details on these items, but that I can’t even find out what they are.

Let me give you an example.

At the Sept. 12 standing committee meeting, council discussed four items in camera. Three of those items were deliberative and one was a personnel matter.

That’s all the information that was released.

Let’s now take a look at the Edmonton council minutes for their Sept. 12 and 13 meeting. It’s a little bit different, they refer to these items as private reports rather than in camera items, but the same laws apply.

Edmonton actually had nine items discussed in private on that agenda, but the information the agenda package contained is very different.

“Northlands Update – Northlands Site Negotiations” reads the title of one item in Edmonton. Clearly, they’re discussing the Northlands site. No idea what aspects of the site are being negotiated, but at least the public knows in broad terms what is happening.

In Hinton, we don’t get those details. Three items from the Hinton agenda on Sept. 12 simply said “Deliberative (FOIP)” and the other said “Personnel Matter (FOIP)”. What topic is so secret that the public cannot even know what it is?

I understand whatever was deliberated had to be done in camera, and I’m not saying there is anything off or unusual about it, but I would love to see the Town of Hinton be just a little more transparent.

Obviously, there are still cases where any information is too much – that Edmonton meeting I just mentioned had at least two items that would not look out of place on a Hinton agenda – but I can’t help but feel like letting the public know, at least in a broad sense, what is up for discussion would be a great thing.

Here’s hoping a new council and a new CAO gives everyone a chance to hit the reset button and start being more open, if only because it’ll make my job easier.

No free rides in Hinton, unless you’re young or old - Hinton Parklander, 8/21/17

John Hopkins-Hill
Peculiar Ponderings

Fear not people of Hinton, because town council is working hard to ensure the financial viability of the transit system.

Council voted not to give free monthly passes to CNIB cardholders. This exercise in fiscal restraint and responsible government could save the town up to $8,400 in potential revenue.

You read that right, there are 10 cardholders in Hin- ton and assuming they all bought bus passes every month at the full rate of $70, it would bring in $8,400 every year for the town.

But that seems unlikely to happen.

Anyone under age six, cardholder or not, is enti- tled to ride the bus all they want for free. And anyone over 65 is entitled to a discounted rate - $50 for three months instead of the customary $70 per month.

So really, CNIB cardholders only have to pay full price for bus passes for 59 years in this community.

Council didn’t want to open up a Pandora’s Box of free transit passes. If it’s people with vision impair- ment today, why not people with paralysis tomorrow? Or people with epilepsy?

It’s a slippery slope indeed; soon dozens of citizens otherwise unable to get around could be traveling Hin- ton safely at no out of pocket cost.

Economic need, they said, will be the new threshold. Only those really in need will get assistance with tran- sit passes.

Councillor Ryan Maguhn asked at the council meet- ing on Aug. 15 if there was a will to scrap the senior discount. That question was met with crickets.

He had previously asked the same question at a May standing committee meeting, where another council- lor explained that seniors with money drove places and only those in need utilized the bus.

What was to stop, he said, a rich person with vision impairment from exploiting the system?

Well the bad news for council is the numbers flat out don’t back this up. Just over 12 per cent of seniors are considered low income in Alberta, while over half of Canada’s population of people with vision impairment make less than $20,000 per year.

With an election so close, it’s disheartening to see a council willing to protect transit discounts for a large section of the population that arguably don’t need it while simultaneously denying help for a group that demonstrably meets any criteria – moral, physical or economic – you want to put on the topic.

There are groups in town giving out free passes already, said council. True, but there simply aren’t enough to go around. Groups like the food bank and FCSS give out passes to clients but administration stated in May that they are frequently asked by these groups for more passes; there aren’t enough passes to

meet demand as is.
Oh, and for clarity, the passes these groups obtain

aren’t donated by the town; the groups purchase them at a discounted rate and then distribute them to those in need.

Human beings are not meant to live in isolation, and affordable transit helps mitigate that. If people cannot get around, they become separated from society. They stop interacting with others, they lose their independ- ence and they suffer from depression.

From a numbers perspective, you can’t spend money at local businesses if you can’t get to local businesses. If those 10 people go to a local business once a week and spend $50 each time, that’s $26,000 into the local economy.

It bothers me I’m even attempting to make an eco- nomic argument.

It bothers me that this is an issue.

It bothers me that this council is so willing to stand pat.

It bothers me that this council will continue to go out and tell people how wonderful they are for not raising taxes.

Less than one dollar more per person in taxes annu- ally would offset these passes. Or simply increase cash fares that have stayed steady at their cost rate. Or increase advertising that has dropped in recent years.

Let’s hope when this topic comes back to stand- ing committee, council can see the light.

Code costs are just too high - Hinton Parklander, 5/15/17

John Hopkins-Hill
Peculiar Ponderings

Let’s talk about something exciting.

Not the Oilers recent exit from the playoffs, not the latest hijinks south of the border, but something truly exciting.

Codes Canada publications.

Public safety and infrastructure has been quite the popular topic around town lately. There has been quite a bit of finger pointing and buck-passing lately, and oftentimes the best way to get to the bottom of it all is to check the relevant documents.

Laws are easy. All it takes is five minutes on your search engine of choice, I’m looking at you Alta Vista, and you can track it down online, free and in full.

It truly brings a tear to my eye seeing the system work.

If you want to get into documents that are a little more hands on in their nature, think building and fire codes, accessibility takes a big hit.

Let’s take a look at an example.

The National Building Code of Canada 2015, a 1,400-page epic split into two volumes, is available online for purchase from the National Research Council (NRC) online store for the low, low price of $350. For that one-time payment, you get your own personal copy of the code in a binder.

I can hear you already, “but what about other options? Surely there is a cheaper way.”

And you’re absolutely right. If you’re willing to forgo the lovely binder, you can get a softcover edition for $335.

But stay with me, it gets better. If you want a PDF version – save the whales, after all – that will cost you $350 as well.

And it’s locked to an individual computer.

And you can’t transfer it.

And printing is disabled.

What a deal!

So if it’s $350 for a hard copy in a binder, why would anyone pay the same price for a hob- bled digital version with digital rights management that would make EA blush?

It’s all a setup of course, designed to sign you up for subscription. Just $45 for two months access from any computer. Kick that time period up to a year, and you shell out $140, but you gain the ability to print to your hearts content.

Are we talking about the code that is meant to set the standards for safety in construction in this country or micro trans- actions in Candy Crush?

The NRC explained in an email that there are a variety of reasons the documents cost so much. First of all, they include intellectual property that is “developed, updated and made available at significant expense, including printing and distribution.”

Let that sink in.

The NRC said part of the reason for the high cost is printing, yet they charge more for a digital copy than for a softcover copy of the exact same document.

Next on the list of reasons was the cost associated with the 400 volunteers and nine standing committees that work together to write the document.

Fair enough. If that’s what it takes to keep us and our buildings safe, so be it.

The NRC says they offer “several economical alternatives” for accessing the building code, referring to the subscriptions, again starting at just $45.

Maybe, just maybe, the documents that govern what we can and can’t build should be available to everyone, even those without $45 burning a hole in their pocket.

Although in that case, the fire code might be money well spent.