Open Letter to Medicine Hat City Council and Administration

Doubtless you have heard how all of the candidate campaign links were removed from the candidate list on the city election information page. With 44 registered candidates so far for mayor (3), council (30) and both school divisions (5 & 6), it is onerous for voters to find out information about them if they must search for 30+ separate names to make an informed decision. 

This all came about because the city administration received a single complaint about my website from Someone. They immediately removed my campaign link, they did this without even speaking with me. Only my link was removed, nobody else's. 

The same day that I complained about it, Administration did a quick jurisdictional scan to see if other municipalities publish this information to try to justify their action. Even after they admitted they were wrong and that most municipalities did indeed publish candidate campaign links, they doubled down and refused to put them back up.

I have the name recognition, it does not matter to me if my campaign link is removed. However we have a LOT of new names running for office, they do not have my name recognition. It is also unfair to the voters who now must seek and search for each person instead of being able to access campaign info in one place - on the city election page.

In the spirit of wanting the election to appear fair, I am willing to leave my campaign link off the list if the other candidate links are restored. I will even send an email to the city administration asking for my information to be removed. I am willing to make this sacrifice for the benefit of others. After all,

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”

 Spock - Wrath of Khan

Here’s How It Looks

It may not be true but an old marketing axiom says Perception is Reality

1 Someone does not like Kelly Allard and either does not want her to be elected or does not want people to know how to find her website. (That’s fine, people don't have to like me or want me to be elected.)

2 This Someone makes a complaint to the City and Administration acts right away in removing Kelly Allard’s campaign link without even speaking to her. All other candidates who submitted their campaign links to the city still had their campaign links published on the city website. 

3 To cover up the fact that Allard was the only one who was targeted, Administration does what appears to be a cursory jurisdictional scan with cherry picked data in a hurry to justify this behaviour; our own City Clerk cited “time constraints”. One complaint by Someone should never cause a jurisdictional scan to be done in a hurry. 

4 It looks like City Hall is so scared of Allard especially if she is elected that they will take action against her after one complaint by Someone. Either that or they are scared of the Someone who must be very powerful and influential indeed to cause such a rash reaction. 

5 It appears to demonstrate how the real power resides outside of City Hall and the elected officials, they appear to be mere puppets dancing at the whim of Someone who is acting as a Puppet Master.

Again, it may not be true but Perception is Reality

This whole situation is very disturbing.

The Municipal Inspection has already found that the City has been run in an improper, improvident and irregular manner; these recent actions by Administration do nothing to disprove it. 

Administration should have told Someone that the mere fact that links are posted on the city website does not imply endorsement, the City is merely providing a valuable service to their residents. Instead, Administration took it upon themselves to do a BS jurisdictional scan less than 50 days before the election to try to justify their rash actions. 

This was not an emergency situation where a decision needed to be made immediately. Even if, and that’s a big if, the jurisdictional scan was justified, Administration should have taken their time to do it properly. The fact that they did not is very concerning and raises a number of questions.

How many other jurisdictional scans are done in a hurry?

How many jurisdictional scans appear to be cherry picked to justify a lousy decision?

Why was the jurisdictional scan not published? 

How can we even trust what City Hall says?

Then, in an attempt to make it look fair, they punish all of the candidates by removing their links. This could possibly cause hard feelings against me as I am the person who triggered this unfair treatment. Given how the infighting at City Hall has been reminiscent of the behaviour of high school students, perhaps this is what they were hoping for - remember how teachers would punish the entire class for one student' s behaviour? I’m sure you remember how that one student would be punished by the other students. I'm not too worried, most people have outgrown such petty high school behaviour.

I tried to meet with Administration; I made an appointment. That appointment was unilaterally cancelled against my wishes after they removed all candidate links. I had more questions but was going to be denied my opportunity to ask them. I replied that I would be there for my appointment at 1:30pm on Sept 4.

Sept 4 at 12:19, I received an email from the City Clerk Tarolyn Aaserud confirming that my appointment was cancelled and that they stand by their decision. There was no opportunity for questions. 

To me it seemed like I was being told “F–k you and your opinion, I will do what I want because I have the power and you are the peasant who Someone does not like.”

Sept 5 I went to City Hall to see the complaint about me and to see this "jurisdictional scan”. I was told that the Someone who had made the complaint did not agree to have their information released. I said I had a right to see the complaint even if they redacted the name and email. I actually had to file a FOIP for the complaint and they will get back to me on the jurisdictional scan. 

At first I was told to contact the Director of Corporate Communications Colleen Graham about the jurisdictional scan but I objected as she has been less than forthcoming with me in the past. Besides, why is the onus on the resident to have to go to a different department, why can’t staff put in a request on behalf of the resident especially when the department has no public access?

I have asked for 5 days of records - this should not take the 30 days allowed for a FOIP request, nor should they need a 30 day extension which would take us past the election date. The complaint may actually be in violation of the Election Act which says

False statements about candidate 

160   A person who, before or during an election and for the purpose of affecting the voting for a candidate at that election, makes or publishes any false statement in relation to the character or conduct of that candidate or of the withdrawal of that candidate, is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $50 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or to both fine and imprisonment.

I will not know until I see the actual complaint. That is solely in the hands of the City Clerk department. Council can direct their sole employee to make that information available right now.

You all know that I am an investigative journalist, I have a large following. Support is growing because the voters are seeing how I was treated unfairly. (Perhaps Someone and the administration is not aware of the Streisand Effect.) 

This issue is not going away, even mayoral candidate Drew Barnes has issued a press release about it. This is not a good look for the city; Council needs to remedy this situation immediately. The election is only 44 days away. If Council has any hope to maintain any semblance that this is a fair election, they must act.

Again

I agree to leave my campaign link off the list if the other candidate campaign links are restored. I am willing to make this sacrifice for the benefit of others. 

I am hoping that you have the courage and wisdom to ensure this decision is reversed tout de suite. I believe this is necessary to have the appearance of a fair election. City Administration has no right to allow Someone acting as an outside agitator to influence how they disseminate election information. 

It is your job as Council to direct your sole employee. I hope you do your job.

Sincerely,

Kelly Allard

PS - By the way, the City has published candidate forums run by a special interest group. This could mean that the City is endorsing the Chamber of Commerce when they post the links to their candidate forums on the election page. I am demanding that they publish ALL opportunities for the public to listen to candidates and ask them questions, after all it is only fair.

PPS - I am willing to forward the e-mails in question to anyone who wants them.