Sandra Finley

2013-04-12 Lockheed Martin promos $75M fighter jet in Winnipeg, CBC

 Economy / Political Economy, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Apr 152013
 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/04/12/mb-lockheed-martin-fighter-jet-winnipeg.html

 

Officials with Lockheed Martin stopped in Winnipeg Friday to promote their F-35 stealth fighter jet, part of a national campaign to promote the jet in Canada.

The U.S. defence contractor is in the midst of a cross-Canada publicity blitz to convince the federal government to purchase the jets.

The contractor wants the jets to replace Canada’s fleet of 80 aging CF-18s, but just one of the jets has a whopping $75-$85 million price tag.

This simulator was available at Lockheed Martin’s presentation in Winnipeg Friday. (Catherine Dulude/CBC)

Canadian combat veteran Billie Flynn was brought on the promotional presentation to help pitch the jets.

“If you’re not stealthy, you are not going into bad-guy land,” said Flynn.

Flynn is currently a test-pilot for the F-35 jet.

“You have to buy on the cutting edge because you’re going to buy it for 40 years.”

Costs in question

In 2010, Ottawa planned to purchase 65 F-35s, but last December, backlash around the rising costs prompted the federal government to widen its search for other options.

“They’ve sent a questionnaire to us and looked at the capabilities of the airplain, and we’re in the process of responding to that,” said Steve O’Bryan, the vice-president of the F-35 program at Lockheed Martin.

“One of the biggest myths is the cost of the F-35 is rapidly growing. Nothing could be further from the truth,” said O’Bryan.

He said eight countries have signed contracts for F-35s, and if more sign up, prices will go down.

“The cost of the F-35 is rapidly decreasing,” said O’Bryan.

The defence company has been given until mid-May to provide Ottawa with a status report on the jets, but in February a U.S. Pentagon report was critical of the jets.

The report showed test pilots reported blurry vision and fears it could be easily shot down.

Parts manufactured in Winnipeg

The jet does have local ties — some of the components for the F-35 are produced in Winnipeg by Magellan Aerospace.

It’s one of 70 Canadian companies that make parts for the jet.

“For us, it’s up to $2 billion worth of revenue over 25 to 35 years of production,” said Don Boitson, the general manager of Magellan Aerospace.

Lockheed’s promotional tour will continue in Vancouver next week.

2013-04-08 Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35, U.S. defence contractor takes F-35 simulator on road show, CBC

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  1 Response »
Apr 152013
 

‘This airplane — despite what the air force says, or Lockheed Martin or Canadian generals — this aircraft will come close to costing a quarter of a billion dollars apiece.’—Washington defence analyst Pierre Sprey

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/07/pol-lockheed-martin-f35-pr-campaign.html

Lockheed Martin, the giant U.S. defence contractor, is launching a cross-Canada publicity blitz to convince Canadians to buy its F-35 stealth fighter jet — but it’s simultaneously raising the price by a hefty $20 million US a plane.

Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice-president for the F-35 program, said just 18 months ago that Canada would pay $65 million per plane. Now, O’Bryan tells CBC News the price is $85 million.

Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice-president for the F-35 program, tells CBC News that the price Canada will have to pay for each plane is now $85 million. (Terry Milewski/CBC)

It may not be the best time to mention that. The U.S. budget axe is hovering over the whole F-35 program and the Canadian government insists that it’s no longer committed to buying the jet at all.

Still, Lockheed Martin is fighting on, sending its executives and a working F-35 flight simulator to wow Canadians with the capabilities of its brand-new, high-tech stealth fighter. The simulator will be on show in Toronto today, and in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa in the weeks ahead.

Lockheed Martin is also sending a Canadian combat veteran into the battle: Billie Flynn.

Cue the Darth Vader helmet 

Flynn is something of a star among stars — a veteran test pilot who can fly anything. He’s married to Canadian astronaut Julie Payette. He served 23 years in the air force, flew combat missions in Kosovo, and has piloted 70 different aircraft — everything from Canada’s CF-18 to the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Now, Flynn is working for Lockheed Martin, and he says the F-35 is by far the best plane for Canada’s needs — whether to support NATO missions like Kosovo or Libya, or to patrol the Arctic — all under the veil of stealth.

And, Flynn is quick to mention, the F-35 has the Darth Vader helmet.

The cost for each F-35 helmet is estimated to be up to $2 million. (Terry Milewski/CBC)

The helmet really is something out of science fiction, yet it’s integral to the F-35 — not just a head-up display but an on-your-head display. It’s had a host of development problems, but is supposed to make the pilot all-seeing, providing 360-degree vision. Projected onto the visor before the pilot’s eyes are images from the ground, from other planes, from top-secret sensors and from six cameras embedded in the skin of the fighter.

Flynn flips down the sunshade with a flourish and declares, “This is to keep the glare off me and make it look like Darth Vader.” But what lies beneath gives him an all-seeing view from horizon to horizon — heat sources included.

“You see absolutely everything and it works!”

At this price, it had better. Estimates for the helmet range up to $2 million each; Flynn says it’s less than $1 million. But never mind; it’s just one costly part of the costliest weapons program in human history: the F-35 stealth fighter, with a total cost of $400 billion.

Pull up! Pull up! 

Billed as the fighter of the future, the F-35 is famously over budget and behind schedule. Its critics predict what is known as a “death spiral” — high prices mean fewer orders, fewer orders mean higher prices … and so on to an embarrassing end.

“It’s going to survive in the short term; it’s not going to survive in the long term,” says Winslow Wheeler, a Washington defence expert who spent 10 years at the General Accounting Office, keeping an eye on the budget.

‘This airplane — despite what the air force says, or Lockheed Martin or Canadian generals — this aircraft will come close to costing a quarter of a billion dollars apiece.’—Washington defence analyst Pierre Sprey

Another Washington defence analyst, former Pentagon official Pierre Sprey, says the real cost will be far higher than advertised.

“This airplane — despite what the air force says, or Lockheed Martin or Canadian generals — this aircraft will come close to costing a quarter of a billion dollars apiece,” says Sprey.

“My prediction is they’ll kill the program after 500 airplanes.”

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin’s chief rival, Boeing, is offering to sell Canada a fleet of F-18 Super Hornets for half the price of the F-35.

So it was just a matter of time before Lockheed Martin launched its counter-strike. Call Billie Flynn!

‘Stealth is not an accessory’ 

Flynn swoops into the fray fully loaded. For him, the price isn’t really the issue. Spread over the 40-year lifespan of the fleet, he says, the F-35’s cost will be roughly the same as its rivals.

Rather, the issue for him is whether Canada wants to send pilots to war with second-rate equipment. Having flown his share of Arctic-sovereignty missions in Canada’s North, Flynn doesn’t think much of them. Canada’s CF-18s, he says, allowed only a “token presence.” They couldn’t see far or stay for long. The F-35, he says, has greater range and lets pilots see much more — covertly, too.

“With the immense amount of fuel — with 18,500 pounds of gas inside this jet — it has range and persistence better than any other jet,” Flynn says.

“So I go further, I stay longer and with the sensors I see vast distances.”

‘You come with the A game, or you don’t come at all’

As for stealth, Flynn has no time for critics who say it’s a high-priced frill.

“Stealth is not an accessory,” he says. “It is an absolute basic that you have to have … to go to war in this day and age. If you don’t have it, you won’t be allowed to play.”

Veteran test pilot Billie Flynn, who now works for Lockheed Martin, says the F-35 is by far the best plane for Canada’s needs. (Terry Milewki/CBC)

Even if it’s just a surveillance mission, Flynn maintains that stealth makes a difference, because modern ship-borne radars can see planes at huge distances.

“When we talk about surveillance over the Arctic, stealth comes directly into play … you will not be able to fly at 25,000 feet, as I did in Kosovo, and live in some sort of sanctuary. They can reach out and touch you.”

Kosovo, Flynn says, is not the future of warfare. Nowadays, “you cannot send an aircraft into bad-guy land unless he is stealthy or protected by stealth, because he will die.”

Stabbing a finger in the air, Flynn adds, “We don’t go to war because we have a 51-to-49 chance. We go to war when the odds are overwhelmingly in our favour. There’s no-one in Canada — I’m certain — that wants to send our children into war with something that is ‘good enough.’ You come with the A game, or you don’t come at all.”

‘Political engineering’ 

Whether Lockheed Martin’s pitch will work remains to be seen. It probably won’t help to start out with a price hike of $20 million per plane. But don’t count Lockheed Martin out. The company has proved adept at what Pierre Sprey calls “political engineering.” He notes that work on the F-35 has been spread around 46 states. Which congressman wants to vote against that much pork? And Canada’s share of F-35 work is already at the $450-million mark. Will Canadians feel confident that Boeing will share as much?

Fort Woth, Texas, is the home of Lockheed Martin headquaters. (Terry Milewski/CBC)

So it’s not over, just because the Harper government has “hit the reset button,” as it often says, on the fighter contract. The Maple Leaf still flies outside Lockheed Martin headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. Lockheed Martin’s Steve O’Bryan calls Canada a “partner in good standing” in the program. Canada’s still listed in the company literature as “under contract” to buy the plane.

Lockheed Martin didn’t get to be the world’s largest defence contractor by backing down from a fight.

Cause-and-effect relationship between public-private-partnerships and corruption

 Corruption, Culture and Ethics, Sustainability, Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  No Responses »
Apr 092013
 

(written in 2006, but remains valid)

CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PARTNERSHIPS AND CORRUPTION

The false idea of Public-Private-Partnerships has been embraced by different political parties:

– the Conservatives (Michael Wilson,  Federal Finance Minister in Government of Brian Mulroney was one of the early promoters of the idea in about 1982).

– the Liberals under Jean Chretien accelerated the agenda.

– I don’t know the Federal NDP position, but in Saskatchewan the NDP (when it was in power) has in various forms pursued “partnering”.  Agwest Biotech Inc. with almost 100 percent of its operating funds coming from the Government would be an example.

That thing which destroys democratic functioning – corruption – which we all abhor and which was a major issue in the January 2006 Federal Election has its roots in Public-Private-Partnerships.  We have 25 years of experience with the idea of Public-Private-Partnerships.  The experience substantiates what the thinkers of our day tell us.  There is a cause-and-effect relationship between Public-Private-Partnerships and corruption.

Corruption is necessarily part of a system where the Regulator is a co-investor with the Corporations-To-Be-Regulated: there is no one left to provide effective regulation and supervision.  There is no one minding the store.

(IMPORTANT.  7 brief, cogent statements:  Thinkers of the Day on the Unholy Alliances between Government (public institutions) and Industry)

The looting that occurred with Hurricane Katrina demonstrates what happens when no one is minding the store – people will take what they can for their own benefit with no regard for the common or long-term good.  The failure to protect the commons, for whatever reason, is at the root of unsustainable practices.  Easy example:  a community that over-allocates or that allows contamination of its water supply cannot survive in the longer term.  Robust democracy is the guardian of the commons, in this example the water supply.

It should be no surprise then, that the Government of Canada suffers from chronic and high-level corruption.  The corruption is predictable. Jane Jacobs’ “Systems of Survival, the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics” sets forth a framework for understanding that the system of governance will succumb to corruption if we fail to appreciate the functional roles of two separately evolved sets of ethics, one for the commercial function in a society and the other for governance (guardianship).

But, “Societies need both commercial and guardian work … the two types are prone to corruption if they stray across either their functional or moral barriers.”

The formation of Public Private Partnerships is not only “straying across” the functional barriers, it is the having of intercourse between the two.  With corruption, people of power and influence sack “the commons” at the expense of others in the society. Democratic governance disappears. Look in Africa – the same process is at work here in Canada.

If we don’t get rid of the idea that Public-Private-Partnerships are acceptable in democratic government, we will not be able to protect the water supply, seeds (patented), or other components of the commons against exploitation.

Jacobs says: “The relationship between a regulator and the regulated… must never become one in which the regulator loses sight of the principle that it regulates only in the public interest and not in the interest of the regulated.”

Use water as an example.  Brad Wall (opposition leader, conservative Sask Party) set forth the idea of a Department of Public Private Partnerships to replace the Department of Natural Resources.  (UPDATE:  Wall (now Premier) instead named the takeover of Natural Resources the Ministry of Economy.)

The logical evolution is to a business partnership with Government for our water resource.  Who will look after the interest of citizens?  Selling water is to abandon our water supply to corporate and “power” interests. The entrenchment of the Public Private Partnership system of governance in Canada ensures that it can be no other way. Oil and gas reserves, forests, and other natural resources – water is but another resource to be exploited. And believe me there are many people who see the dollar signs flickering before their eyes – the “blue gold”.

No one has a “stake” in the commons, in this example, in the water supply – it belongs to us all and to other life forms. In a democracy it is specifically the role of Government to protect the components of the commons.  It’s not up for sale or exploitation.  (And by the way, PPP’s are also known as “Picking Public Pockets”.)

We have high levels of chronic corruption in Canadian Government, most apparent at the Federal level and don’t forget the Saskatchewan Govt of Grant Devine (for whom Wall worked, got his early training).  But “corruption” is NOT the issue; it is an EFFECT, a SYMPTOM, or RESULT — not a CAUSE.  Corruption is the consequence of the failure to keep the commercial and governing functions in the society separated.  Public-Private-Partnerships (“P3’s or PPP’s) are the problem. The corruption is EXTREMELY predictable if you understand the dynamics of ethics.

If the CAUSE of the corruption is not understood and addressed, we do not stand a chance of protecting the commons upon which we are all dependent.

Think of the water supply or think of a parallel example:  the ownership of seeds which are also part of the commons.  When Government forms partnerships with corporations to “develop” seed stocks, there is no one left to perform the regulatory function.  The corporation appropriates for itself the commons (ownership of seeds) which rightfully belongs to all people and creatures.

Our experience and the thinkers of the day (Justice Krever, Mae-Wan Ho, John Ralston Saul, John Kenneth Galbraith and Jane Jacobs) tell us the same thing: the corruption and break-down of the rule of law in Canada have their roots in “public-private-partnerships”. The most egregious examples are in the area of biotechnology where the Governments have taken to bed the most corrupt and corrupting of partners – the chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech complex of companies. (Monsanto fined $700 million in Alabama, Dow Chemical fined $1 million by the Attorney General of New York State, Monsanto found guilty of bribery in Indonesia, Monsanto and attempted bribery over Bovine Growth Hormone in Canada, Senate Hearing, Bill Moyers’ documentary on PBS, “Trade Secrets”, Interveners on the side of Monsanto in the Schmeiser case are BioTec Canada and AgWest Biotech, both are “Government fronts” (publicly funded organizations but their name doesn’t tell you that), the infamous “IBT Laboratories” scandal in the 1980’s that involved the chemical and pharmaceutical companies, etc. etc.)

With public-private-partnerships we have strayed very far down a bad road.

You create the conditions for tensions in the society, for anger, for citizen non-compliance with law and regulations, and in the end for resistance if influential interests in the society are allowed to enrich themselves at the expense of others and future generations.

When you work on sustainability issues (sustainable water supplies, etc.) you come to realize that robust democracy is a necessary pillar of sustainability.  The function of Government in a democracy is to defend “the commons” against those who would appropriate it for their own benefit.  The commons are necessary for the survival of everyone.   If you don’t have strong democratic Government that protects, regulates and supervises the use of the commons (air, water, soil, seeds, public money, knowledge),  if you don’t have someone “minding the store”, you gradually fall into corruption and chaos.

IF Government does not get back to its job of regulating, supervision and protection;  if public-private-partnerships are not outlawed, corruption MUST continue to escalate because of the cause and effect relationship.

Sandra Finley

2013-04-08 Request to make presentation re Susan Milburn illegally on U of S Board of Governors, sent to the Board today.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Take back the University  No Responses »
Apr 082013
 

Minutes ago I sent the following to the University Secretary, a request to make a presentation to the Board of Gov.

It is the work of a number of University Senators.

On Friday (April 5th) I spoke about the legality of Susan Milburn’s position on the Board of Governors with the offices of the

  • Deputy Minister of Justice and then the
  • Deputy Minister of Advanced Education (responsible for enforcement of the University Act).

The latter advised that they’d get back to me.

The next Senate meeting is less than 2 weeks away, Sat Apr 20.  (Open to the public.)

(Note:  I deleted a previous posting on this issue (Milburn is now Chair of the Board;  she would know that her position contravenes the law – she participated in requests aimed at making her position tenable)  and transferred “related postings” to the bottom of this posting. )

= = = = = = = = = = = =

April 8, 2013

TO:  Elizabeth Williamson

University Secretary

 

From:  Sandra Finley

University Senator

 

RE:  Legality of Susan Milburn’s position on the Board of Governors

 

I wish to make a presentation to the Board of Governors.

I have read and meet the Guidelines for representation to the Board:

  • I am an elected member of University Senate
  • That the presentation be related to the Board’s mandate:   The Board is mandated to select its own Chair.   The presentation has to do with the legality of Susan Milburn’s position on the Board.
  • The next Bd of Gov meeting is May 7, 2013.   You would like a month’s notice.  I don’t like to send communications on a weekend (not work days for you).  I assume April 8th provides adequate notice.
  • Materials supplied in advance:  please see appended.

Thank-you for your consideration.

I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley

= = = = = = = = = = = =  =

APPENDED 

SUBMISSION TO THE U OF S BOARD OF GOVERNORS, to:

Members Ex Officio

Dr. Busch-Vishniac ( President )

Dr. Vera Pezer ( Chancellor )

Members Appointed by the Government

Mr. Lee Ahenakew

Mr. David Dubé

Dr. Grant Isaac

Ms. Kathryn J. Ford, Q.C.

Mr. Greg Smith ( Vice-chair )

Members Elected by the Senate

Ms. Grit McCreath

Ms. Susan Milburn ( Chair )

Faculty Member

Dr. Linda Ferguson

Student Member

Mr. Jared Brown ( President, USSU )

Secretary to the Board

Elizabeth Williamson

 

I request to make a presentation that will take less than 10 minutes to your May 7 Board Meeting.

The appointment of Ms. Milburn as the Board Chair is fundamentally flawed according to University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995, c. U-6.1.

Senator Stefania Fortugno, a practising lawyer in Saskatoon:

In 2011 with Milburn’s second and final term as Senate representative on the Board soon to expire, the Board requested that the Government appoint Milburn as one of its five appointees to the Board. However, the Government chose to appoint other individuals.

There was a second option: the Government was asked to amend the University’s governing legislation to enable Senate Representatives (Milburn) to serve a third term. The legislation has not been amended.

Milburn’s maximum term expired June 30, 2012; she was granted an extension for the time being. And yet on March 5th the Board made her Chair until 2016, four years beyond the maximum set out in the Act.

The University is subject to the laws of Saskatchewan.

Knowing that Milburn’s term as a Senate-elected representative on the Board would officially expire on June 30, 2012, a new representative should have been elected at the April 2012 Senate meeting. The Board, wishing to retain Milburn’s services in the interests of continuity, recommended to Senate that the position be left vacant for the interim while waiting for the government to address the issue. The motion was met with some opposition at Senate but passed with the understanding that this measure would be temporary and the position would be filled in 2013.

Because of her status as a provisional senate representative, a number of senators were surprised to find that on March 5, without Senate consultation, it was announced that Milburn had been selected to chair the Board until 2016.  (1.  below)This means Milburn is expected to remain on the Board a full four years beyond her legally prescribed term as Senate representative, according to the Act.

Question: for how many years will the Senate be prevented from electing an appropriate representative to the Board? The current situation requires that the Board of Governors and the Senate intentionally, actively and knowingly circumvent the Act.

In Fortugno’s opinion, “This is not an example of good governance. This decision represents a failure to respect legal and democratic principles, including the rule of law.”

The law, as set out in the University Act, must be respected. The Senate needs to elect someone who can legitimately represent the Senate on the Board of Governors. This is an opportunity for the Board to uphold its legal integrity and to act on its recently proclaimed commitment to transparency and good governance  (2. below).

Please see appended documentation.

 

INSERT NOTE:  Links above may become invalid; therefore the content is copied on www.sandrafinley.ca  at:

  1. 2013-03-05 Susan Milburn elected chair of U of S board
  2. 2013-03-04  U of S board grilled on nuclear plans, transparency.  CBC News.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==

DOCUMENTATION:

1.  AGENDA   Excerpt from April 2012 U of S Senate Agenda – Item 9 1 3

2. MINUTES  Excerpt from April 2012 U of S Senate Minutes – Item 9 1 3

3. June 2011, Minutes of the Board of Governors’ Meeting:

Board of Governors passes motion:

“It was agreed to recommend to the province that S. Millburn be appointed to the Board of Governors” (be appointed as a government representative to the Board; she would no longer qualify to be the Senate Rep as of the following year).

4. Apr 2012, Minutes of University Senate Meeting:

Senate complies with request not to fill the Senate Milburn vacancy on the Board of Governors, passing a motion that Milburn “not be replaced at this time”.

5. Was the University Act changed, such that Milburn’s position becomes tenable?

See  http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca/details.cfm?p=921&cl=5  It doesn’t appear that sections 42 to 45 – the relevant sections of the University Act – have been amended

6. The Government did not choose to appoint Milburn.

Jan 21, 2013 News Release: “The U of S welcomes four new members appointed by the Government of Saskatchewan to its Board of Governors, effective Jan. 17, 2013 for three-year terms. The new members are Lee Ahenakew, David Dubé, Kathryn J. Ford, Q.C. and Grant Isaac. They replace Garry Standing, Nancy Hopkins, David Sutherland and Art Dumont, all of whose terms on the Board of Governors have expired.”

(NOTE: I would think that IF the Government HAD appointed Milburn, it would have been operating outside the spirit of the University Act, allowing Board Members to serve beyond the intention of the law by simply changing who they represent on the Board.)

8. WHAT ARE THE OTHER AVENUES THROUGH WHICH MILBURN COULD LEGITIMATELY BE ON THE BOARD?

The Govt appointments have been made; she couldn’t represent faculty (she’s not a member of faculty); Univ president’s position has been filled; Univ Secretary position has been filled; she couldn’t represent the students’ union; she can’t continue as a Senate rep unless legislation is amended; she is not the University Chancellor.

Please explain how it is that Susan Milburn can, within the rule of law, serve as Chair of the Board and until 2016.

 

Submitted by

Sandra Finley

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = =

A few related postings.  For more, see Take back the University   (under “Knowledge Base” in the righthand sidebar):

Posted by admin at 9:15 am

2 Responses to “2013-03-13  University Senators question legality of Susan Milburn’s position on U of S Board of Governors”

  1. RE YOUR QUESTION:

    have either you, Mary Jean Hande or anyone else lodged a formal complaint with anyone about this?

    MY REPLY:

    We initially decided against taking it to the University Secretary which would be our channel for lodging complaint.  The reasons for so doing:

    – The University Secretary is secretary for Senate meetings.  We have raised the issue of Susan Milburn’s position on the Board at Senate meeting.

    There are serious issues, not taken seriously.  As I understand things, the Senate used to accept most everything that came from the University Administration;   it was a very expensive rubber-stamp.

    The Administration has perhaps found it difficult to adjust to a situation where new Senators ask questions and put forward motions.

    Their response has been, for example, when we objected to the conflicts-of-interest that the former Chair of the Board (Nancy Hopkins)  was in ($2 million worth of Cameco shares, sitting on the Cameco Board since 1992, Cameco having a 30% investment in Bruce Power (nuclear), chairing the Bd of Gov of the University, making decisions related to the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation at the U of S, we got nowhere.   McKinnon (then-President)’s response was:  Nancy Hopkins is this fine person, giving to the community, how dare you question her position on the Board!   Both he and Hopkins are lawyers by training.  They would not address the issue of conflict-of-interest, not even when the University Conflict-of-Interest statement was provided. Rhetoric without substance.

    Another example of the difficulty:  for the time I’ve been on the Senate (3 years) we have tried to put forward motions for the Senate Meetings (the University Act explicitly states that Senators can put forward motions).   The motions have been worked on, in one case taken to the Secretary for input, we worked to establish a working relationship, and still it is difficult to get motions onto the Agenda through normal channels (submitting the motion in advance, for inclusion in the agenda package).  Can’t get past the gate-keepers.

    – The Bd of Gov is just as closed-shop.  Long before I went on Senate, I submitted a well-argued document to the Board and asked to be allowed to make a related, brief presentation to them.  They would not allow it because their meetings were closed.  A few years later, long after a change in procedures –  presentations could be made to the Board, I submitted a different matter.  They rejected it on the basis (never mentioned in the past), that no, it did not have anything to do with the financial management of the U, and so they would not consider the submission.  A narrow interpretation could conclude that it did not affect the U financially.

    – To my way of understanding the role of Senator at the U,  especially the elected Senators (who are a minority, 25% roughly), it is like other elected bodies in a democracy – – our role is to ask the questions, to keep the administrators accountable, and responsible.

    Also, in a democracy you have to have conversation – – the public has to have some idea of what is going on in order to know whether the money is well-spent, and how well the educational institution is serving the population.  The University is making it very difficult to converse, unless it’s a one-way conversation in which they write the script.  Now, this Milburn situation places them outside the rule-of-law.

    – I would add that Milburn’s position has been considered by more than one lawyer; the case is deemed by them to be valid.  We also checked to see if the Legislation had been changed – it hasn’t.  Milburn will be 3 to 4 years on the Board, beyond what she is allowed by law (she got a temporary extension past her July 1, 2012 expiry date, but was to have been replaced in 2013.  The University Press Release says she’s on the Board until 2016.).

    – This final point was not a factor in the decision to issue the media release, but it is a concern of mine.  As I wrote to one lawyer:

    First – I am not interested in denouncing Milburn.   Maybe she is good on the Board.  Maybe she is not – – she has been on the Board for 6 years, going on 7.

    It can be reasonably argued that the spending during that time was way out-of-line.  A $44.5 million deficit in the operating budget ALONE.  And other very serious financial matters.  Costs that were easily projected into the future.

    Yes, the Provincial Govt did not come through with the money, but it was not good management to spend the money before it was in the bank, when it was subject to politics.

    Also, the Board during her time did not protect the autonomy of the U.  It was willing to take $30 or $47 million from the Prov Govt ear-marked for the CCNI (Cdn Centre for Nuclear Innovation), and now it is receiving $50 million from the Province ear-marked for the Global Institute for Food Security (a corporate biotech/chemical entity – – the announcement of it completely bypassed the people on Campus who have been working on the question of public interest Food Security for years now.).

    Bees in my bonnet:  autonomy requires that the U receives the money and be able to allocate as it sees fit.   The U cannot be held to account on many different fronts, if it does not protect its autonomy.

    There it is, more than you want!!

    Best wishes, Sandra

  2. RE:  YOUR SUGGESTION  ” if we acceded to Milburn . . . “:  (This is from a different person than the preceding question.)

    What I think I can say somewhat factually, but admittedly knowing very little:

    – The University Bd of Gov provided less-than-stellar over-sight to the U Admin.  They would not be in the financial mess they are now in, but for the terribly inflated over-building.  It is the responsibility of the Board to keep the Admin in line on financial matters.

    – The Board has served corporatist values well.

    – It seems to me they were part of a small, overlapping cabal.   Use the Lockheed example:  McKinnon & Hopkins both on the S’toon Airport Authority, Lockhheed Martin setting up for drone training at the new school set up at the Airport, Lockheed then coming onto campus (don’t know whether that has been successful).  Lockheed being a prime player in the SPP (North American integration),  Board member Sutherland with connections to that.  A few years ago I circulated the newspaper piece about university presidents (12 at that time) that are now drawn in.  Eisenhower identified the “(military)-industrial-congressional complex”.  We now have the  “(military)-industrial-government-UNIVERSITY complex”.

    – Milburn  would know that she is not legitimately on the Board.  But she is willing to go along with that.  I don’t know what the intrigues are, but it’s more important to her that she become Chair of the Board than that she play by the rules.  That’s not a very good sign.

    – Personally, I am opposed to accommodation for Milburn.   She’s been on the Board for more than 6 years, a not-very-stellar 6 years.  Enough.   (There is wisdom in limiting people’s time served in positions where their influence builds with time.)

    – Right now, a significant  battle whether with the Govt, or with the University, is to try to establish the rule of law.  If they want Milburn on the Board, it should be by legitimate procedure.  If we capitulate, we are effectively abandoning the rule of law.

    Sandra

2013-03-04 U of S board grilled on nuclear plans, transparency. CBC News

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Nuclear, Take back the University  No Responses »
Apr 082013
 

Students and staff peppered members of the University of Saskatchewan’s board of governors with questions about uranium development and transparency.

In one exchange, the board was asked about the role of a new board member – Grant Isaac – who is also a senior vice-president and chief financial officer at uranium mining company Cameco.

Isaac is also a former dean of the business school at the U of S.

The questions Monday focused on a proposed centre for Nuclear Innovation at the university.

Ilene Busch-Vishniac, president of the university, responded that nuclear research and uranium development are two different things.

“It is clear that there are some people in the community very concerned about our involvement with certain businesses,” Busch-Vishniac said. “But the truth of the matter is that as a university we are not engaged in any uranium development. We are engaged in research and discovery. Those are neutral processes.”

The board members were also questioned about meeting behind closed doors.

Another board member, Susan Milburn, said it is possible for the board to be transparent even without holding open meetings.

“We are providing lots of opportunities to be transparent without holding open meetings,” Milburn said, adding she was open to listening to other points of view. “So if we believe that and there is a difference of opinion we would be really interested in hearing what other folks would like.”

With files from CBC’s Jennifer Quesnel

2013-04-01 Taxpayers on the hook for a billion dollar toxic cleanup (Arsenic +, Yellowknife). Giant Gold Mine. Globe&Mail

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Economy / Political Economy, Health, Sustainability, Water  No Responses »
Apr 072013
 

RE:  the G&M article below

a toxic smorgasbord of buildings, tailings ponds and a quarter-million tonnes of arsenic stored underground  . . .   before large amounts of arsenic start escaping from collapsing buildings.   … 

The poisoning from the Giant Mine has been known for a long time.   Now, a billion dollars — ALL from tax-payers.

I worked in Yellowknife in the early 1970’s.  My 3 best friends from there, my age,  all died of cancer.  They died in middle age.   One of them was Gina Blondin.  I googled and found a book with a moving tribute to this remarkable First Nations (Slavey) woman.  (I roomed with Gina and her husband, Duncan Pryde.)   The tribute to Gina is in:  Like the Sound of a Drum: Aboriginal Cultural Politics in Denendeh and Nunavut, By Peter Kulchyski.

The First Nations people we have joined in battle:

  • northern Alberta (tar sands)
  • Saskatchewan (uranium and now nuclear)
  • Sarnia ON (the Aamjiwnaang, petro-chemical plants)
  • Grassy Narrows (mercury from upstream pulp and paper mills)

have everything in common with the Dene in the NWT   – the on-going poisoning of their land and their people.  They are robbed of their ability to feed themselves.

The tragedy is not theirs alone – – think of what we could do with a billion dollars.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article10659731.ece

BOB WEBER,  The Canadian Press  Published Last updated

 

Cleanup costs at a single northern mine next to Great Slave Lake are ballooning so high they are forcing Ottawa to rethink plans for thousands of contaminated sites across the country.

Documents obtained by northern environmentalists show the government expects the cost of cleaning up the Giant Mine just outside Yellowknife to be nearly a billion dollars – perhaps the largest single environmental cleanup in Canada and paid for entirely by taxpayers.

Initial estimates for safely dealing with the huge site, which includes a toxic smorgasbord of buildings, tailings ponds and a quarter-million tonnes of arsenic stored underground, were about $488-million. A federal progress report on the project says costs have increased as more has become known about the scale of the problem.

“The increase in estimated costs occurred as a result of the normal progression through the preliminary phases of the remediation project [… increased site information and detail obtained over time],” the report says.

Rising labour and equipment costs are also part of the problem. So is the current state of the mine, which is so bad that emergency measures need to be taken this summer before large amounts of arsenic start escaping from collapsing buildings. The official price tag of $903-million could get higher yet.

“There is a potential for the total project cost estimates to increase over time,” says the report, which uses figures as of March, 2012.

The costs are already squeezing funding for other federal cleanups.

The Giant Mine remediation project is funded out of a federal program for contaminated sites. Beginning in 2005, a total of $3.6-billion over 15 years has been earmarked for the program. That was supposed to be enough for 6,765 known toxic sites, including 2,709 “priority” sites. They include the Lennard Island lighthouse off the coast of Vancouver Island, the Happy Valley-Goose Bay air force base in Labrador and Rock Bay in Victoria Harbour. Cleaning up the Faro Mine in the Yukon alone is expected to cost up to $590-million.

Contaminants found on the sites vary widely, but most common are fuel residues, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls. Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson said there’s enough money in the kitty for immediate work.

“There is currently sufficient funding available to cover the cost of planned remediation activities at high priority sites,” he said in an e-mail.

Other sites, however, may have to wait. “The government of Canada will re-examine its approach to identifying the highest priority sites for funding.”

The Giant Mine is getting so bad that the federal government has asked the NWT’s environmental regulator for emergency approvals to clean up the crumbling site. About 3,600 cubic metres of arsenic and arsenic-contaminated material remain in surface structures – uncontained and in many cases exposed to the elements.

Photographs from the site show piles of arsenic dust lying exposed inside the old flues that used to carry it underground. Those flues are pulling away from the building they were attached to and slowly collapsing as concrete and wood pillars that held them up rot away.

Snow blows freely through derelict walls and roofs onto arsenic-contaminated equipment. Asbestos insulation waves in the wind as it flakes off old pipes and buildings. Underground, arsenic-stuffed caverns are in danger of falling in from the surface or collapsing into mined-out areas below. The mine’s main smokestack is crumbling.

Arsenic poisoning starts with headaches, confusion, severe diarrhea and drowsiness. When the poisoning becomes acute, symptoms may include vomiting, blood in the urine, cramping muscles, hair loss, stomach pain and convulsions. Continued poisoning leads to a coma, followed by death.

The cleanup will be so dangerous that buildings will have to be sealed off as they are demolished and removed. Workers would have to wear full hazmat suits and breathe supplied air.

2013-04-03 Opposition parties to join forces, Orillia Packet & Times

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
Apr 042013
 

http://www.orilliapacket.com/2013/04/03/opposition-parties-to-join-forces

Opposition parties to join forces ( 6 Comments)  (Please go to the link to see the Comments)

By Roberta Bell, Orillia Packet & Times

ORILLIA – Members of the local federal opposition parties are going national with a joint effort to unseat the Conservative government and bring about electoral reform.

“We’re not talking about a merger. We’re not talking about coalitions. We’re talking about one-time co-operation and the implementation of some kind of proportional representation so that we’re never in this situation again,” said Gord Ball, a member of the Simcoe North Federal Green Party Association executive.

Ball was also the chair of the riding’s unofficial tri-party group that has met over the past year to discuss opportunities for collaboration in the next federal election.

The group, which has kept the focus of its outreach fairly close to home until now, will be hosting a three-day conference called Co-operate for Canada, open to members and unaligned voters from coast to coast, Sept. 27 to 29 at Geneva Park in Ramara Township.

“The goal of the conference is to come up with some realistic strategies that will work in ridings across Canada,” Ball said, “particularly those ridings where the seats are held by members of Parliament who were elected by less than a majority of the voters.”

As opposed to looking at local members of the Green party and NDP as adversaries, Steve Clarke, who ran as the Liberal candidate in Simcoe North in the 2008 and 2011 elections, sees them as partners.

The first-past-the-post system is designed for two parties, said Clarke, a member of the tri-party group.

“Certainly, on the federal scene, now we have more,” he said.

The Stephen Harper government has “100% of the power with only 39% of popular support” because the vote is being split, said Ball, who wants to see a system put in place that better reflects the will of the electorate.

While there are different models of proportional representation, Clarke is an advocate of instant-runoff balloting, a ranking system of sorts where nobody wins unless they have 50% of the vote.

Simcoe North MP Bruce Stanton, who did have 50% of the vote in the last election, sees the first-past-the-post system as one that promotes stability.

“To be successful electorally, you’ve got to reach beyond your ideological base because people won’t support your party otherwise,” he said.

Although Stanton is not opposed to looking at other options, he sees the push for collaboration among opposition members as a “shortcut to success.”

It’s just another avenue of opposing the existing government, he said.

While there’s support for co-operation at the federal level from the Green party, the Liberals and NDP have yet to get onboard.

“We’re hoping that the ground will shift,” said Ball, who’s hoping political collaboration at the grassroots level encourages leaders of the other opposition parties to “rethink” their stance.

Tri-party co-operation is not a long-term goal, said Ball.

There’d really be no need for it after electoral reform, he added.

The Co-operate for Canada conference is not sponsored by the parties or their local riding associations.

The cost of participating is $350 and includes meals and lodging. After June 30, the fee will increase to $375.

For more information or to sign up, visit cooperate4.ca.

Great by COOPERATE! Research: Canadians WOULD vote for cooperation candidates, support electoral reform

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Green Party  No Responses »
Apr 042013
 

http://cooperate4.ca/national-poll/ 

 

Canadians would vote for cooperation candidates, support     electoral reform according to new national poll
    Toronto, ON — April 4th — A new national Environics     poll shows that Canadians think our democratic system is broken,     overwhelmingly favour proportional representation, and are willing to vote     for cooperation candidates to defeat Conservative MPs in the next federal     election.

The telephone poll, which sampled 1,004 voters, comes just days before     voting in the Liberal leadership race is set to begin. Cooperation and     electoral reform have been major topics of debate between the two top     candidates, Joyce Murray and Justin Trudeau.

Poll Findings

1. Canadians more likely to say our democratic system is broken     than effective. When asked if our democratic system is broken and     needed to be fixed, or effective and works well – 45% said broken and 33%     said it works well.

2. Seven in ten Canadians support move to proportional     representation. When asked if they would support a move to     proportional representation – 70% of Canadians would support, with Liberal     supporters at 77%, NDP supporters at 82%, Green supporters at 93%, and     Conservative supporters at 62%.

3. Canadians would vote for cooperation candidates to defeat     Conservative MPs. When asked if they would vote for a candidate     that was jointly fielded by the Liberals/NDP/Greens to defeat a     Conservative – 37% would vote for the joint candidate, 25% would vote for     the Conservative candidate, 18% are undecided and 18% would not vote (this     number is comparable to the number of people in this poll who said they did     not vote in the last election.) Notably, over 70% of Liberal and NDP     supporters would vote for the joint candidate while less than 7% would vote     Conservative.

4. Disenfranchised Canadians would be more likely to vote.     People who did not vote in 2011 were asked if this idea would make them     more or less likely to vote in the next election – 22% said more likely,     10% said less likely, and 66% said it would have no effect.

To see detailed results, please click here:

http://s3.coop4.ca/Environics-Cooperation-Poll-Details.pdf

The poll was funded by 692 Canadians who donated online     through Leadnow.ca. Leadnow.ca supports cooperation for electoral reform.     Interviewing for this Environics National Telephone Survey was conducted     between March 18th – 24th, 2013, among a national random sample of 1,004     adults comprising 502 males and 502 females 18 years of age and older,     living in Canada. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/-     3.10%, 19 times out of 20.

–30–

For comment:

Jamie Biggar, Executive Director of Leadnow.ca – 778-847-8205 – media@leadnow.ca

Leadnow.ca is an independent advocacy organization that brings generations     of Canadians together to achieve progress through democracy. Leadnow.ca’s     campaigning community is powered by over 220,000 Canadians.


www.leadnow.ca

Follow on     Twitter | Friend on Facebook | Add on     Google+ | View this email in your browser
Suivre sur     Twitter | Suivre sur Facebook | Suivre     sur Google+ | Visualiser ce courriel dans votre navigateur

(new) Government of New Zealand, bank deposits will shoulder the losses of bank failure.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Economy / Political Economy  No Responses »
Apr 032013
 

I could not find a date on this Government posting:

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/finstab/banking/4368385.html

What is an OBR?

The Open Bank Resolution policy is a tool for responding to a bank failure.  It allows the bank to be open for full-scale or limited business on the next business day after being placed under statutory management (as a result of, for example, an insolvency event).  This means that customers will be able to gain full or partial access to their accounts and other bank services, whilst an appropriate long-term solution to the bank’s failure is identified.

Why is the OBR policy required?

In the absence of the OBR policy, the options for responding to a bank failure are limited to liquidation, government bail-out or take-over by a competitor.  If a private sector solution is not available the government must therefore choose between allowing the bank to enter the liquidation process, or providing public support.  The liquidation process can be complex and time-consuming, during which time customers of the bank would not have any access to their funds or banking services.  This has potentially significant implications for the wider economy, and can create pressure on the government to provide support.   By providing a mechanism through which liquidity can be provided to customers whilst the resolution of the failed bank is being worked out, the OBR mitigates some of the risks that banking failures pose for the wider economy.

In reducing the pressure for government to provide a bail-out to a failed bank, the OBR might also help to strengthen incentives on bank management to operate in a more prudent manner, and on creditors to provide greater external scrutiny, helping to mitigate the moral hazard concerns that arise when an assumption of implicit government support prevails.

Furthermore, one of the key lessons emerging from the financial crisis is the potentially enormous fiscal costs associated with supporting troubled banks.  Some governments that chose to guarantee their banking system’s liabilities are now faced with a sizeable public debt burden.  By increasing the likelihood of bank shareholders and creditors shouldering the losses of a failing bank, the OBR can help to mitigate the risk of New Zealand being placed in such a position in the future.

Why should depositors bail-out banks?

The OBR policy is designed to ensure that first losses are borne by the bank’s existing shareholders.  In addition, a portion of depositors’and other unsecured creditors’ funds will be frozen to bear any remaining losses.  To the extent that these funds are not required to cover losses as more detailed assessment of the position of the bank is completed, these funds will be released to depositors.  At a high level, this outcome replicates the outcome that would apply in the event that a failed bank was liquidated.  The primary advantage of the OBR scheme, however, is that depositors would have access to a large proportion of their balances throughout the process.  This contrasts with what would happen under a normal liquidation, where depositors might not have access to any of their funds for a significant period.

Why aren’t deposits guaranteed?

During the recent global financial crisis the government took the decision to put in place a temporary guarantee on retail deposits.  On 11 March 2011 the Minister of Finance announced that further guarantees would not be provided following the expiry of the existing scheme.  Furthermore, the Minister ruled out the possibility of introducing a compulsory deposit insurance scheme.  In coming to this conclusion the Minister noted that deposit insurance is difficult to price and blunts incentives for both financial institutions and depositors to monitor and manage risks properly.  The full statement from the Minister can be accessed at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/maintaining-confidence-financial-system

Which institutions will be covered by the OBR?

All locally incorporated banks with over $1 billion dollars of retail deposits are being required to participate in the scheme.  This means that these banks will have to put in place the necessary systems to allow the OBR to be carried out within the necessary timescales.  This is referred to as pre-positioning.  All other registered banks have the option to opt-in to the scheme voluntarily if they wish to do so.

Is the OBR the only option in the event of a bank failure?

The OBR is not intended to be the only option in the event that a registered bank gets into difficulty, rather it is designed to be an option that is available to the government if required.  There may, for example, be circumstances in which a private sector solution is available.

Who is responsible for deciding that the OBR should be used?

The Reserve Bank will undertake an initial assessment of the health of a troubled bank.  Following this initial assessment it may make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance that the bank be placed under statutory management.  The Minister of Finance is responsible for taking the decision to place the bank under statutory management, and whether to apply the OBR.  As part of any recommendation for statutory management, the Reserve Bank will be available to provide advice to the Minister on the appropriateness of activating the OBR policy.

What happens to depositors funds during the OBR process?

The first stage of the process is to freeze all access channels to the bank and establish the balance of each account at the point at which the bank was placed under statutory management.  A high-level assessment of the bank’s losses will then be undertaken, and  a conservative portion of account balances frozen.

The frozen funds are then set aside to cover any losses beyond what the bank’s capital position could absorb.   The frozen funds are not cancelled or written off, and the depositors and creditors continue to hold a legal claim to these funds.  To the extent that all or some of these funds remain available after all losses have been covered, they will be returned to depositors and creditors.

Who determines the size of the frozen portion?

Once the bank is placed under statutory management and all access channels have been temporarily closed, the Reserve Bank will make an initial assessment of the scale of losses incurred by the bank.  It is not necessary for this assessment to be precise.  What is initially required is a high-level calculation that is expected to ensure that a sufficient amount is frozen so that final losses do not exceed the frozen funds set aside.

It is expected that the size of the portion to be frozen will be issued to the statutory manager as a direction from the Reserve Bank, following consultation with the Minister of Finance.

How soon will depositors be able to access their funds?

The bank will re-open for ordinary transaction business on the next business day after it is placed under statutory management.  At this point, depositors will have full access to the unfrozen portion of their accounts.  These funds will be subject to a government guarantee.

The full assessment of the condition of the bank and the identification of the appropriate long-term solution to the failure are likely to take a number of days or even months to work through.  Additional frozen funds may be periodically released to depositors during this time, to the extent that it becomes clear that they will not be required to cover the losses that have been incurred.

Could more money from accounts be frozen later in this process?

No.  A key element of the policy is that no additional funds will be frozen once the bank re-opens.  The initial amount frozen is expected to be sufficiently conservative to ensure that the losses of the bank do not exceed the level of funds available in the frozen portion of account balances.  All funds that are not frozen will be subject to a government guarantee to ensure that all participants in the financial system are able to engage with the re-opened bank with confidence that any transactions will be honoured.

Who runs the bank whilst the OBR process is carried out?

The first stage of the OBR process will see the failing bank placed under statutory management.  From that point on the statutory manager is empowered under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 to carry on the business of the registered bank.  In doing so, the statutory manager is required to comply with any directions given in writing by the Reserve Bank.  Once the bank is placed under statutory management, it is unlawful for any of the bank’s previous management to conduct the business of the registered bank except with the permission of the statutory manager.

What happens to the bank after the OBR has been carried out?

One of the key features of the OBR policy is that creditors are able to access the majority of their funds immediately after the bank fails and is placed in statutory management.  This means that depositors and small businesses have on-going access to banking facilities, mitigating the risk that urgent liquidity concerns dictate how losses are allocated between shareholders, creditors and perhaps government.

The OBR is therefore not designed to determine how the bank failure should be resolved in the long term, but to create time for a full analysis of the appropriate course of action to be determined.  In practice, the OBR is consistent with a range of long-term solutions, including sale to new owners, restructuring to become a stand-alone bank, repurchase by a parent group, government recapitalisation or liquidation.

How likely is it that the OBR will be used?

Banking failures are infrequent, reflecting the low risk nature of the business that New Zealand banks undertake relative to many other financial institutions.  This is reflected in the high credit ratings held by the major banks in New Zealand.  The Reserve Bank does not expect the risk profile of banks to change significantly in the future, and as such would not anticipate an increase in the likelihood of a registered bank failing.  However, banking failures can and do happen.  One of the key objectives of the OBR scheme is to reduce the costs of allowing a bank to fail, and minimise access to taxpayer funds or bailouts.

©Copyright Reserve Bank of New Zealand

 

Subjective wellbeing, Social Capital Blog, Bhutan

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Economic Indicators, Sustainability  No Responses »
Apr 032013
 

Many thanks to John Helliwell.   Excellent material:    http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/tag/subjective-wellbeing/

 

(Part of the “why” of my interest in economic indicators is at:  2012-12-07    I am just back from Bhutan (Gross Happiness Index)!  (economic indicators) )

 

– – – – – –  – – – – – – –

A copy of part of the Social Capital Blog, just in case it goes down sometime, but please go to the blog – – there’s lots more excellent material!:

Wisdom on social capital, human interaction, civic engagement and community through research, news stories and life.

Gross National Happiness?

Flickr/smysnbrgThe United Nations held a historic UN Conference on Happiness on April 2 to discuss wide discrepancies in levels of happiness worldwide and whether countries should track happiness in addition to other more standard economic measures. The meeting drew 600 delegates, including leaders and scholars from around the world.  The main consequence of the meeting, in addition to exploring what is known about happiness research was to focus on happiness and wellbeing at the Sustainable Development Rio+20 conference in June.   It is also likely that when the new new Sustainable Development Goals come out in 2015 (a re-working of the Millennium Goals) happiness will be on the list of priorities, joining the stalwarts like anti-poverty  and educational goals.

The UN meeting follows on the visible efforts of Nicholas Sarkozy (the so called Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission) in 2009 and the decision in 2010 of the UK government to begin measuring happiness regularly.

Attending the conference were, among others, my colleague Robert Putnam, Richard Layard, Jeffrey Sachs, Costa Rican president Laura Chincill, Bhutan’s Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley.

“The US has had a three time increase of GNP per capita since 1960, but the happiness needle hasn’t budged” [Jeffrey Sachs]

Sachs suggested that there were much more efficient strategies, as shown by other countries, for how to achieve higher levels of average wellbeing than to focus on boosting the size of the economy, as the US has done.

P.M. Thinley (whose country Bhutan has endorsed Gross National Happiness) suggested that focusing on happiness worldwide was essential if the world was to get on a sustainable trajectory.  Last summer, led by Bhutan, the UN unanimously adopted a measure “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development.”

Sachs, John Helliwell (a friend and colleague) and Richard Layard, helped produce the interesting background World Happiness Report for the conference which both discusses worldwide variation in happiness and scientific evidence that happiness can be reliably measured and is meaningful.

The Guardian article by Mark Williamson also describes a conference the day before the UN Conference: “[G]lobal experts debated the cutting edge of wellbeing research. Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist, had explained how happiness is a skill that can be learned; public policy expert Robert Putnam showed us the vital importance of social connections; economist Joseph Stiglitz highlighted the flaws with GDP; Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard explained the reciprocal benefits of altruism; and Martin Seligman, founder of positive psychology, reminded us that there’s much more to a flourishing life than just the absence of misery.”

Excerpt from World Happiness Report:

We live in an age of stark contradictions. The world enjoys technologies of unimaginable sophistication; yet has at least one billion people without enough to eat each day. The world economy is propelled to soaring new heights of productivity through ongoing technological and organizational advance; yet is relentlessly destroying the natural environment in the process. Countries achieve great progress in economic development as conventionally measured; yet along the way succumb to new crises of obesity, smoking, diabetes, depression, and other ills of modern life.

These contradictions would not come as a shock to the greatest sages of humanity, including Aristotle and the Buddha. The sages taught humanity, time and again, that material gain alone will not fulfill our deepest needs. Material life must be harnessed to meet these human needs, most importantly to promote the end of suffering, social justice, and the attainment of happiness. The challenge is real for all parts of the world.

As one key example, the world’s economic superpower, the United States, has achieved striking economic and technological progress over the past half century without gains in the self-reported happiness of the citizenry.  Instead, uncertainties and anxieties are high, social and economic inequalities have widened considerably, social trust is in decline, and confidence in government is at an all-time low. Perhaps for these reasons, life satisfaction has remained nearly constant during decades of rising Gross National Product (GNP) per capita.

The realities of poverty, anxiety, environmental degradation, and unhappiness in the midst of great plenty should not be regarded as mere curiosities. They require our urgent attention, and especially so at this juncture in human history. If we continue mindlessly along the current  economic trajectory, we risk undermining the Earth’s life support systems – food supplies, clean water, and stable climate – necessary for human health and even survival in some places. On the other hand, if we act wisely, we can protect the Earth while raising quality of life broadly around the world. We can do this by adopting lifestyles and technologies that improve happiness (or life satisfaction) while reducing human damage to the environment. “Sustainable Development” is the term given to the combination of human well-being, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. We can say that the quest for happiness is intimately linked to the quest for sustainable development.”

Prince Charles, who attended and gave a talk, said: “The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis. The time for us to act is rapidly running out. We are facing what could be described as a ‘perfect storm’: the combination of pollution and over-consumption of finite natural resources; the very real risk of catastrophic climate change; unprecedented levels of financial indebtedness, and a population of seven billion that is rising fast.”

For prior reports on happiness, read here and here is a summary of recent happiness research.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his introductory remarks commented: ““Gross National Product (GNP) has long been the yardstick by which economies and politicians have been measured. Yet it fails to take into account the social and environmental costs of so-called progress. We need a new economic paradigm that recognises the parity between the three pillars of sustainable development. Social, economic and environmental wellbeing are indivisible. Together they define gross global happiness.” Read his introductory remarks here.

[BBC report on the conference here.]  NYT pre-Conference story here by Timothy Ryback.

For more on the link between social capital and wellbeing, read “Social Capital, The Economy, and Wellbeing” (John Helliwell).

2 Responses to Gross National Happiness?

  1. akismet-d86ff268f86765ce0c295543a5a81580 | April 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Reply

    Interesting concept. I like the idea of focusing on indicators beyond GDP, but wondering if happiness would be tough to come up with common measures for, across different cultures.

    • David –

      For sure there is a cultural dimension to happiness — some cultures are consistently happier than one would expect given their national  statistics and others much unhappier, but change over time is real.  Read the World Happiness Report [] for some of the thinks to the relevant psychometric research on consistency and reliability.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries