August 17, 2008

Looking 9 Months Ahead to May 12th

Most British Columbians won't think very much about the May 12, 2009 provincial election until late April or early May when they can't help but notice election advertising. There will be municipal elections throughout BC in November, a US presidential election and possibly a federal election, if Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion can overcome his nervousness and his party's financial distress. Nevertheless, provincial political pundits will have the May 12th date in mind for the next nine months as we speculate on what will influence that vote.

What is unlikely to influence the May 12th provincial election is any sitting of the BC Legislature between now and then. If Gordon Campbell kept his word and called a fall sitting of the Legislature, the government might face 24 question periods between October 6th and November 27th to be followed by at least another 20 question periods between February 10, 2009 and early April. In all likelihood, there will be no fall sitting, and as soon as a Supply Act can pass in March, the Legislature will be adjourned and not recalled until the fall of 2009, when the new 85 seat Legislature (6 seats more than now) will finally deal with the budget for the year that starts April 1, 2009.

Just as there will be no budget debate before the 2005 election, there will also be no audited financial statements for the previous year, fiscal 2008-2009, until two months after the election. After the 2009 election, those abnormalities speak strongly for resetting BC's fixed election date to the fall when the finances aren't up in the air. Breaking the four year term with one three and a half year term so as to reset the date would be consistent with the terms that WAC Bennett usually enjoyed. If the new government is going to reset the calendar, it should do so in the fall 2009 session so everyone knows well in advance when the 2013 election will be held. Of course that election could be one of the most bizarre in BC's history if voters approve BC-STV.

A referendum will be held on the BC-STV voting system concurrent with the May 12th election. If it passes, the 2013 election will be held on the basis of a system with 20 large constituencies, each with between 2 and 7 MLAs. No more than a dozen people can probably explain how votes are counted and winners determined in that system.

During debates on the referendum in 2005, proponents spent a lot of time explaining how a valid vote is cast and skipped over the outrageously difficult counting system that is constructed so as to guarantee that minor parties win seats with just 13% of the vote in the capital region, which would be represented by 7 MLAs, and with just 17% in the 4 regions which would have 5 MLAs. In the North, with just 2 MLAs, one of the two seats would be won with just 33.3% of the vote. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why proponents don't talk much about how votes are counted and winners determined. A lot more will be said about the BC-STV system during the upcoming referendum.

There are two important differences between 2005 and 2009 as far as the vote on the referendum is concerned. First, thanks to the work of the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission, and the Legislature, voters will know the precise boundaries of the multiple-MLA constituencies that would take effect for 2013 if the vote passes. That may be enough to encourage some voters to vote no. Second, BC has a traditional Legislature today, with 33 New Democrats and 46 Liberals, unlike the lopsided balance in 2005 where the Campbell government refused to recognize the three New Democrats as the Official Opposition. With a return to normality, voters may not want to rush to adopt a different system.

All of the points in the debate for and against BC-STV could be listed today, unlike the points in the provincial election campaign where the so-called "ballot box question", the question parties want voters to have in their minds when they mark their ballot, may be in flux up to the last possible minute. Will it be the intricacies of the carbon tax, cap-and-trade systems or greenhouse gases that determine votes, or will the future of the forest industry and BC's economy be more important? Will homelessness, health, education and welfare play a role in determining which party wins? Will the arrogance of the Campbell government disgust voters, or will they hold their noses and be "30 second Liberals"? There are probably as many answers as there are voters. If only provincial elections were as simple as a yes or no referendum!

_____________________________________

By the way, here is the proof on what percentage of the vote is sufficient to guarantee a seat to a minor party in a multiple member consistency with BC-STV.

The counting rule provides that a candidate wins if that candidate gets more votes than the "quota" where:

Quota = [(number of ballots in the riding)/(number of MLAs in the riding plus 1)] plus 1

Let X be the number of ballots in the riding, and let N be the number of MLAs in the riding, then the quota as a percentage of the vote is:

Quota/X = {[X/(N+1)] + 1 }/X = (X + (N+1))/(N+1))/X = (1 + (N+1)/X)/(N +1),
but as X becomes large (N+1)/X approaches zero,
so
Quota/X = 1/(N+1).

Hence, with 2 MLAs a candidate can get elected with just 33.3% of the vote and the percentage decreases as the number of MLAs in a constituency increases: with 3 MLAs, one wins with 25%; with 4 it takes 20%; with 5 it takes 16.7%; with 6 it takes 14.3%; and with 7 an MLA would be elected with only 12.5% of the total vote. Many might think that to be undemocratic.

---

August 9, 2008

Consequences from Campbell's Obscene Pay Hikes

The announcement of obscene pay increases for selected executive level employees came in the form of an Information Bulletin from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development. The BC Public Service Agency was also noted under the Ministry's name, but according to the website for the BC Public Service Agency, it is accountable "to an executive board and, through them, the Province's Deputy Ministers' Council." In other words, the Public Service Agency is another body that really is part of the Office of the Premier. The Manager of Information and Privacy for the Office of the Premier also happens to be the Manager for the Public Service Agency. That makes it similar to other government bodies, like the Public Affairs Bureau and the Climate Action Secretariat, that nominally report respectively to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Environment, but are really run directly by the Premier's Office. Part of the reason for the silly games with the organization chart is to make the budget for the Premier's Office look much lower than it really is.

A truly open government would make public the "careful examination of the senior public service labour market" that it says was undertaken as justification for the obscene pay increases. According to the news release, the pay hikes are needed to maintain "competitiveness in recruiting and retaining the talent necessary to lead the public service". One might therefore expect an open government to have reports at hand that discuss recruitment and retention challenges, as well as evidence from recent postings for executive staff of any difficulties in obtaining qualified applications. Freedom of information requests have been submitted for such reports, but the Campbell government's track record on responding to such requests makes a joke of the law which requires documents to be produced within 30 business days.

Whether the Campbell government can adequately defend the pay increases, or not, it is certain that they will not be isolated. The Public Service Agency website lists salary schedules for all government staff, unionized and excluded. In addition to assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers and deputy ministers, excluded staff include judges, officers of the legislature, ministerial staff, legal counsel and various levels of managers. Does anyone think that the folks at the top of the salary pyramid can rush like hogs to the trough without everyone else saying that they want historical relationships to be restored? When Minister of Advanced Education Murray Coell defended the increases of up to 43%, which are estimated to cost $4 million per year, he estimated that there are 20 deputy ministers and 80 assistant deputy ministers. He failed to mention the thousands of other excluded staff who will now demand equal treatment.

The Campbell government should come clean with the public and demonstrate whether recruitment and retention is any more of a problem for ADMs and deputies than it is for nurses and other skilled workers, many of whom are covered by collective agreements where government wouldn't dream of a 43% salary lift.