Gordon Gibson, OBC, may have a long line of learn-ed political credentials — most recently, or notably, his appointment to run B.C.’s 2003-2004 Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

In greater light, his opinion piece in last Saturday’s Globe and Mail that suggests a win for both the BC New Democratic Party and a proposed Single Transferal Vote system change, appears tainted.

Globe lazy?
For its part, the Globe failed to ensure Gibson’s disclosure as the headmaster (not chair, though of course) of this populist excercise by the BC Liberal government.

Astute readers only may recognize, as a matter of fact only, Gibson was once a senior fellow within the Fraser Institute.

He also sat as a BC Liberal in the provincial legislature back in the days of yore for the then-North Vancouver-Capilano riding. Indeed, he also ran against current B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell for the party leadership in 1993.

These are facts that may not, or may, influence readers’ examination of the piece, but the should have been disclosed.

The ethics of good journalism, in my view, dictate — if not demand — disclosure of any opinion piece authors’ backgrounds.

This makes the Globe, perhaps: lazy; short on copy hole space; and, in any case, culpable of a de facto editorial endorsement of Gibson’s views.

Crediting his views, though
For his part, Gibson uses an array of current public opinion polls to back some solid logic outlining a BC NDP win in 2009, all while he points out valid pitfalls for both the west coast Dippers and the BC Liberal Party:

One thing markedly diminished is the very real fear of the NDP that prevailed when Mr. Campbell first won in 2001. There is nothing frightening about Ms. James. She is a sensible moderate. But yet to be demonstrated is her ability to control some of the old class warriors still to be found in the NDP backrooms.

Big money will still be on the Liberal side but, if anything, that confirms the arrogance/out-of-touch tag. Big unions will still be with the New Democrats, damaging their attempted message of moderation.

In a way, it is B.C. politics as usual – which, in this conservative province, favours the right. But the old “time for a change” urge always grows with the passing years in power.

And Gibson also notes a majority of the voters in 2005 supported a change to BC-STV. Fair enough.

But in lieu of commentary surrounding the 2005 vote — and the Ctitzens’ Assembly — a 2009 opinion piece needs more substance, or a balancing position with regard to the activities leading to the 2005 vote.

The “Assembly” and its stale date mandate
The Elections BC report on the 2005 referendum results notes the following about the assembly’s background:

The Citizens’ Assembly was an independent, non-partisan assembly of citizens composed of 161 members – one man and one woman randomly selected from each of the 79 electoral districts, plus two First Nations members and a chair…

During 2004, the Citizens’ Assembly studied various electoral systems, held public hearings across the province and accepted public submissions. In December 2004, the Citizens’ Assembly released its final report, recommending the province adopt a new voting system; a form of the Single Transferable Vote called BC-STV.

It states the facts, but consider the Assembly’s learning stage lasted between January and March 2004. It learned about electoral systems in three months before holding public meetings and so forth. In-depth college courses on the subject last longer.

(I stated it was populist, but it can be noted that these referenda, along with fixed election dates, move us closer toward American-style “direct democracy” — i.e. idiocracy. But I digress now upon that value claim.)

Indeed, even seeking the meta-meaning beside the reportive definition of an assembly shows evidence of populism PR. It’s easy to imagine 163 “citizens” would work on such responsibility as an “assembly”. One can but find Roman-cum-Westminster-esque power within the phrase, evoking the metaphorical toga verillis and a natural link between proper nouns proper in “Assembly” — that is, between their work and our public legislature.

Then again, it remains possible Gibson was just a lackey in today’s BC Liberal government.

Salient, but tainted
Ultimately, Gibson’s intellect and prose produce salient points; however, his appointment to the exercise about which he comments, and his political past reduce his STV prediction piece into taint — at least at face value.

For the Globe, again, it can supplicate its range of views from missing, necessary disclosure.

An early Christmas present found its way out of Vancouver City Hall just over two weeks ago when its newly minted mayor Gregor Robertson gave then-city manager, Judy Rogers, walking papers, and replaced her with Dr. Penny Ballem.

Why Ballem, B.C.’s former top health care bureaucrat — who was just recently working in the private sector — took Terminal City’s top mandarin job remains unclear, save for a vague city news release that accompanied the shakeup.

According to the Dec. 12 release and backgrounder, the move “supports the new Council’s agenda for change at City Hall.”

Rogers, for her part, received “a severance package in line with her 20 years of employment with the city,” according to the CBC report on the shakeup.

She was paid $292,066 plus $16,801 in 2007 for her stewardship of Vancouver’s operations, according to the city’s fiscal 2007 financial statements (page 56).

But Ballem, who was B.C.’s Deputy Minister of Health between 2001 and June 2006, worked with billions. Vancouver, as $900-million operation, pales in financial comparison. A question remains, however, about whether her civic compensation will match either her predecessor’s or that of her former job in the capital.

Part of the province’s fiscal 2005-2006 Public Accounts information (page 11) show Ballem was paid $230,958 along with $74,767 in expenses during her final full year on the province’s payroll.

The City of Vancouver’s news release also regurgitates that B.C.’s Ministry of Health oversees about $12 billion — currently.

Ballem left the BC Liberal government health care vision behind in 2005, but was hired in the spirit of riding waves of change. Her resignation letter read, in part:

In 2001, you hired me into government to help you reshape and rebuild our health care system…

The plans you and your deputy minister have established are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part…

The Canadian Press-obtained letter is available online here.

A source had told fullstop.ca in 2007 that Ballem had also refused a gag-for-cash agreement after she quit her post.

What is clear is that Ballem’s range and scope of her responsibilities have increased (sanitation takes a different form from hospitals to city sewers), but the magnitude has lessened itself. Statistics Canada Census data shows Vancouver formed 14 per cent of B.C.’s 4.1-million residents in 2006.

Rogers’ former pay, and Ballem’s as a deputy minister, are similar. But Rogers lasted 20 years at 12th. and Cambie. Ballem lasted about four years as a provincial deputy — and that’s considered senior, as top-dog provincial bureaucrats tend to have lifespans lasting often only as long as government fortunes do.

Ballem’s c.v. is impressive enough to make more elsewhere, like the private sector. So why take risk on Vancouver city council’s “agenda for change”? And who gets to write up her value-for-money assessment as she works with another body of politic — one that may change its stripes wholly again in three years?

Some time recently, the Globe and Mail appears to have changed its hyphen-use style to make it commonly pervasive in every report’s prose.

To wit, whereas a $100-million deficit would amount to $100 million, it now reads ‘$100-million’ — modifier, modifying, or not — mostly across the board.

An example story: here.

To be honest, I’m not sure when the change happened, or even if it is a Canadian Press modification, which shouldn’t totally matter to “Canada’s National Newspaper”, as the Globe carries its own style manual (as most, major dalies do).

Then again, a feature on Peter Pocklington reverts to the old way, and — oddly — uses percentage signs (“%”).

What the %#@&?

I’m back to blogging. Again. Finally, and after a lengthy departure since this summer. But, in some Dave Barry sense, ‘I am not making this up’.

My neck was broken in July, just as holistic elements in my life had started to come together. I have since struggled with surgery, rehabilitation and relocation. I am now a quadriplegic.

So, while I lament losing my physical ability to be your average photojournalist (especially running up and down sports fields hunting for those great faces that athletes emote), and my opportunities to cover and comment on two elections, I have taken advantage of my own, personal pregnant pause.

In any case, happy Christmas to each and every one of you still tune in.