I was a City of Calgary employee until a few months ago when I voluntarily resigned to pursue another career opportunity in the private sector. What you are saying above does not jive with my experience as a former City employee at all.
For example, this...
...is exactly the opposite of my personal experience. I know I'm only one person and this is anecdotal, but I was personally in budget planning meetings with Directors and one GM over the last 2-3 years where the message was, "We cannot absorb another budget reduction while still maintaining the same level of service. If council asks us to further decrease our budget, they must understand their decision will result in these specific proposed service reductions." Also, as a City staffer, I was always encouraged to submit ideas on how savings could be achieved to enable the public service to operate more efficiently. The SAVE Program, as Bunk mentioned above, is one recent high-profile example of this. The idea that any, let along many City employees would tell you that nobody wants to listen to their cost-saving ideas is laughable (unless, I suppose, they were simply bad ideas that were quite rightly dismissed by management, and employees mistook "management didn't implement my bad idea" with "management doesn't want to listen to me.")
Also, I never personally saw any DeptID Owner, Manager, Director, or GM who had a "spend it or lose it" budget mentality. Again, purely from my own anecdotal experience that obviously could have differed in other City Business Units/Departments outside my line of sight, literally nobody had that mentality.
Frankly, I seriously doubt you've actually talked with many City employees contrary to your claims, and if you did, they almost certainly would not have said those comments. I guess it makes for a nice political soundbite for a candidate running for office to say that you will "cut the fat" and "eliminate waste" so you can reduce taxes while still maintaining the same quality of public services, but that kind of facile, childish slogan doesn't accurately reflect the reality of municipal government.
I only have hearsay information to contribute but the only group that I have heard multiple stories about having a "spend it or lose it" mentality is the CPS. Mostly it came from co-workers who worked in various support capacities and they reported new IT equipment, new vehicles, police gear, etc. were purchased every year to max the budget when they were not required to be replaced yet.
I was just in the office of a prominent home-builder and I noticed they had a couple of Gary Bobrovitz lawns signs leaning against a wall. That’s not a huge red flag that he’s in the developers’ pockets but it does raise questions. I get the feeling he could win on name recognition so hopefully he’s not.
I still haven’t chosen a candidate. Every one makes their platform so vague it’s tough to really know what they stand for.
That is a bit alarming as by Oct, Ward 8 will incorporate the beltline + downtown and I would say the constituency here would be more about reducing subsidizing infrastructure out to the edges of urban sprawl caused by developers.
Hmm. Looking at a summary of the four candidates in Ward 1 who have any a web presence and the choices look underwhelming. Three of them appear to be in the 'cut spending, taxes are too high, run the city like a business' mold. The fourth looks to be focussed on social issues which normally aren't large on my radar for an election so I'll have to dig a little deeper to see where he stands on other issues.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
Nenshi campaigned on and implemented the Zero-Based Review program specifically to address this sort of thing. Why do you think it's still an issue and how would you do things differently?
Anybody who looks at the vehicle fleet the police are using for photo radar knows that there is fat to be trimmed.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Anybody who looks at the vehicle fleet the police are using for photo radar knows that there is fat to be trimmed.
I think worth noting that the police, though a lot of its funding flows from the City, is a separate entity, governed by the Calgary Police Commission, not City Council (though there are two councillors on the civilian commission).
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
I truly don't understand why police have pickup trucks. I never see them hauling anything around. Seems unnecessary.
A friend of mine asked that once to the CPS Twitter account and the answer that came back was to accommodate taller officers (over 6’3” IIRC).
I just assumed they got a good fleet deal on them or something easily justifiable, but that’s the reason that was given instead. Which makes me wonder what other police services do for tall officers. Take out the front seats?
A friend of mine asked that once to the CPS Twitter account and the answer that came back was to accommodate taller officers (over 6’3” IIRC).
I just assumed they got a good fleet deal on them or something easily justifiable, but that’s the reason that was given instead. Which makes me wonder what other police services do for tall officers. Take out the front seats?
A friend of mine asked that once to the CPS Twitter account and the answer that came back was to accommodate taller officers (over 6’3” IIRC).
I just assumed they got a good fleet deal on them or something easily justifiable, but that’s the reason that was given instead. Which makes me wonder what other police services do for tall officers. Take out the front seats?
I saw someone ask the same question on Twitter and the response was, "our members like trucks". Well, duh. If trucks help them do the job I say go for it but if it's just what they like to drive then it's wasteful, especially after they tried to explain the black paint job as a cost savings.
I think worth noting that the police, though a lot of its funding flows from the City, is a separate entity, governed by the Calgary Police Commission, not City Council (though there are two councillors on the civilian commission).
If that's kept them out of implementing ZBR and SAVE, perhaps a governance structure with more accountability is needed.
I think worth noting that the police, though a lot of its funding flows from the City, is a separate entity, governed by the Calgary Police Commission, not City Council (though there are two councillors on the civilian commission).
City council appoints the police commission. If they had the stones to hold them accountable for their spending they could.
A friend of mine asked that once to the CPS Twitter account and the answer that came back was to accommodate taller officers (over 6’3” IIRC).
I just assumed they got a good fleet deal on them or something easily justifiable, but that’s the reason that was given instead. Which makes me wonder what other police services do for tall officers. Take out the front seats?
I've also heard that the trucks are roomier given all the stuff an officer wears while sitting in the seats and having around them (computer, etc).
Hello all, as my name indicates, I am Rob Ward. I am running in Ward 11.
I was told about this thread by a friend and thought I would post just to give a little info on myself and what is being said.
In the last comment, I was labelled as "cookie-cutter copy of Bertram, DeFraine, and Jamieson". I just want to explain how I am actually quite different from the others.
Hahaha, I appreciate the effort to elaborate. I certainly did not expect any of the candidates to respond directly to my post on a Calgary Flames fan forum. I'm going to chop your post up a little to respond more directly to your points.
Quote:
<(accurate, IMO) summaries of Bertram, DeFraine and Jamieson campaigns>
So you're thinking, "great Rob, but how are YOU different?"
I base everything on feedback, data, and facts from people. For example, I talk about finding efficiencies with the city. Why do I say this? Because I have sat down and talked with numerous employees, managers, and department heads at the city. The common thing I hear back is, "we know there is waste, I have ideas on how to improve, but nobody listens or wants to hear about it." THAT is what I want to help change. I want to champion these ideas and innovative thinkers to improve our city and deliver our core services better.
I am not running a campaign of brainless "lower taxes for all!" catchlines. That is overly simple and used by people that don't actually know the inner workings of the city, budgets, and service lines and are simply looking for a job and will say whatever it takes to get elected.
[...]
I talk about fiscal responsibility because the employees themselves have told me there is room for improvement. I am sure you yourself have seen examples of wasted money at City Hall. Many departments are currently run on a "spend it or lose it" budget mentality. This needs to change. I want to reward innovative thinkers who come up with ways to save money and do things more efficiently.
I appreciate the nuance in your position that "a brainless 'lower taxes for all!' policy" is nonsense. That said, I somewhat lumped you in with Bertram/DeFraine/Jamieson with respect to this because you speak of "doing things more efficiently", which is something the likes of Bertram/DeFraine/Jamieson use as an empty platitude. I can tell from your response you don't mean it to be an empty platitude, but frankly in my own dealings with the City—mostly with Corporate Properties, CPS and CFD—I already see a lot of the sort of "efficiency-finding" that you speak about. And the "use it or lose it" budgeting is still the way of doing things at most departments, but I don't see it being plowed into unnecessary junk to pad out the end of fiscal year numbers. In fact, dealing with Corporate Properties there's a never-ending list of deferred maintenance and capital improvements to be made to buildings all over the place, and it's all worthwhile spending.
Quote:
Yes, City Council does need change. This thread title proves that the argumentative, divisive, clique-filled council we currently have needs to improve. I am about working together collaboratively to get things done on time, on budget, and without the distractions of arguing, cliques, and division within Council.
I talk about YOU the resident a lot, because that is who I would be working for, YOU. We have seen it so much in Council, members working for the interests of parties, special interest groups, unions, or other political candidates. People have said they are sick of Council working for the needs of others and not the residents. That is why I am not aligning with outside groups and that is why I put emphasis on working for YOU, the resident.
[...]
Lastly, yes, it is time to end the divisiveness and cliques at City Hall. I have watched many Council meetings over the last two years and it can be downright embarrassing to see the grandstanding and arguing amongst members of Council. Growing up my dad always said, "sometimes you have to work with people you don't get along with or you don't agree with. It doesn't matter, you have a job to do, get it done."
As a constituent I don't care if my councillor gets along with the others as long as they support the policies I think are worthwhile. I read your statements here and I think in retrospect you're coming at the issue of "ending the divisiveness" from a perspective that I don't really consider as much of an issue. I look at it like this: there is a definite divide between urbanist and populist/suburbanist councillors. They don't get along. And I'm fine with that. I'm GLAD they don't get along, because the populist/suburbanist councillors—Farkas, Chu, etc.—are idiots. I don't support a lot of the policy positions the likes of Druh Farrell and Naheed Nenshi have taken over the years, but I do appreciate that they actually don't get along with the likes of Chu, Farkas, Magliocca and so on. Farkas in particular is a useless self-aggrandizing ####-disturber, who purposefully causes disaccord on council for his own political gains.
I think what you mean by "time to end divisiveness at City Hall" is that you won't be a Farkas. Which is great; Farkas sucks. But, I don't want a councillor who is afraid of being a Nenshi, who will call the likes of Farkas out on their bull####.
The Following User Says Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
I truly don't understand why police have pickup trucks. I never see them hauling anything around. Seems unnecessary.
Cops prefer them over the Explorer because they are more roomy inside which counts for a lot when you're wearing all that gear. The department doesn't mind because they're about the same price and about the same on fuel
There are also less and less police car options as the Taurus is discontinued and the Charger is a hunk of crap. There are no other domestic police cars offered by manufacturers anymore
That's basically why in Calgary you mostly see F-150's and Explorers. Even big departments like Los Angeles have ditched cars entirely for the same reason, they use mostly Explorers and Tahoes
TLDR version, trucks are more popular for cops for the same reason they're more and more popular for the public. Value for money, lots of space, and surprisingly practical. Cars make for solid commuters, but they're crap to actually do work out of. Modern "SUV's" are just the worst of both worlds
But people will still ignore the reasonable explanations and complain, blaming it on vanity or whatever nonsense makes sense in their head, just like the whole scary black cars thing
Last edited by btimbit; 09-16-2021 at 06:51 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
A friend of mine asked that once to the CPS Twitter account and the answer that came back was to accommodate taller officers (over 6’3” IIRC).
I just assumed they got a good fleet deal on them or something easily justifiable, but that’s the reason that was given instead. Which makes me wonder what other police services do for tall officers. Take out the front seats?
Hightower didn’t get a truck!!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CactusJack For This Useful Post:
I'll vote for whomever requires the police to use the same cars as the French.
Renault Meganes for all.
I think it's absolutely asinine that we (North Americans) have our cops rolling around in big trucks, SUVs, and sedans. They're mostly gutless turds that guzzle preposterous amounts of fuel. I've heard the reason why it is so is really down to this: the police service's insurance won't cover cars that haven't been specially prepared as police vehicles and have undergone testing to certify them as such (e.g. Michigan State Police vehicle testing). The only ones built these days are the Charger, Tahoe, Explorer and F-150. (And Transit paddywagons.)
I'm still miffed that the CPS chose to have their cars painted black with white front doors and minimal markings. The reported reason was because this saved costs vs. all the decals the Crown Vics used to have, but an overarching reason is that the black vehicles "project an image of force". They're meant to be hard to spot in the dark, and look intimidating in daytime. I think that's bull####: police cars should be very noticeable and approachable. They should all look like they do in the UK:
EDIT: Oh, and our cop cars' strobe lights are waaaaaaaaaaay too bright at night. Driving past a cop pulled over to the side of the road is super-dangerous because I can barely see anything other than the incredibly high amount of red and blue glare.
Last edited by timun; 09-16-2021 at 06:45 PM.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
