Cal Dallas, MLA Red Deer South, and Mary Anne Jablonski, MLA Red Deer North, have both announced they will not seek re-election when their current terms expire.
Though I may not have voted for them, I do respect and appreciate both their service and their willingness to finish their terms. They committed themselves to a term of office and they fulfilled their commitments, and they gave their supporters ample time to find a replacement at no unnecessary cost to anyone. Thank you for that.
The two Progressive Conservative nominations are open, and our new premier is giving all indications of an imminent election, so time is tight. Names are being offered, people are being asked, support is being gauged, and the whispering has started. Lots of ink will be used, and articles studied between announcements and the vote.
The Feb. 6 article in the Red Deer Advocate, about Red Deer South’s first contender really drew my admiration. It was not his name or his position, as respectable as they are, but it was the fact that he will be taking a leave of absence without pay between now and the nomination, that impressed me the most.
A married person, with children, willing to give up a pay cheque for any length of time is impressive. We made a big deal of our premier, cabinet ministers and MLAs giving up five per cent but if Darcy Mykytyshyn campaigns for only 37 days, he’d have given up 10 per cent of his yearly income, and it could be 74 days and 20 per cent — he does not know until a date is set.
How many other candidates will be willing to do the same? There will be others, self-employed and retirees on pensions coming forward, who couldn’t even if they wanted to. I imagine there may be others who will have to take a leave of absence once they announce their candidacy and I hope they get due recognition.
The other part of the equation is the completion of terms. Both Dallas and Jablonski will finish their terms, but things happen and politicians sometimes have to default on their obligations. What circumstances are acceptable for a politician to leave his post early, possibly incurring an expensive by election? A death, health issues, a transfer and stress are some but not all.
Political ladders have been around since they invented the wheel, and timelines do not match. They are a necessity so political aspirants can gain credence for the next rung. It would be easier to be a mayor if you had been a councillor, a premier if you had been an MLA, and easier to be a prime minister if you had been an MP.
Changing arenas is a different kettle of fish. Terms overlap, positions open up unexpectedly and experience in one arena would be beneficial in another. When do the benefits of experience exceed the costs of a byelection? How long in one elected position would actually be needed to be of any benefit in another.
The questions for any politician wishing to advance their career are ethical in nature. When does the benefit of experience supersede the expense of a by election? A day, a week, a month, a year, a term, a decade or should it be in percentages 10, 25, 33.3, 50, 75, 150, when would it be acceptable? Should one take a leave of absence while seeking the nomination, campaigning in the election, or waiting until they are pronounced the winner? Questions, that does need to be asked by voters and answered by all politicians, considering changing arenas.
I hope all candidates will offer reasons why we should vote for them, and I hope that all candidates will offer explanations for their actions that may affect us in some way. A leave of absence may be inappropriate and unnecessary, and if it is more than mere political ambition of a personal nature that forces an expensive byelection on voters, just let us know.
I think it may incumbent of all candidates to consider these issues and be forthright with the public.
Garfield Marks
Red Deer