For their own good.

Whatever happened to pro bono publico? The idea that lawyers would do work to help the public in order to ensure equality before the law and to help individuals who could not afford to pay them? Where did that concept go?

 Last August, the GG said law firms in Canada donate less than 3% of their time to this fundamental legal ideal. 3%? You could have knocked me over with a feather. Because, as near as I can tell, that might be a couple of firms using ALL of their time, while the rest don't do any pro bono work.

 Because I've been pitching a simple case for a veteran who was mistreated. There is nothing complex or convoluted and it should be able to be resolved with a few letters written. I've approached dozens of lawyers and SIX pro bono societies. Response rate? 1. Not 1%, 1 response. And repeated querying of the societies supposedly dedicated to doing this work has not resulted in a single word. In my experience, the GG's estimate is grossly overinflated.

 Which leads me to suspect that every negative thing said about lawyers may be true. Because if not one will step up to help an impoverished veteran, then the profession really believes pro bono pocketo.

Money, money everywhere, but not a cent to help

Since I started fundraising for Our Duty, I have found it very difficult to listen to any news story that discusses money. 

To date, our biggest donations have come from veterans on fixed incomes, who have scraped together a few bucks out of their meagre pensions to support us.  It is amazing that they did and we appreciate every one.

BUT

Listen to any news cast you hear about hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars changing hands, as profit, as waste, as the fine-points in a negotiation, as the net-worth of a company that makes crap.  All that money, flowing all around.  And people like me, who are out there trying to fix a problem or make the world better; we have our hands out, saying please help me help others.  And the money whirls past, like in some pathetic game show booth.

A percent of a percent of the funds being discussed would turn any organization into a major force.  If would take operations out of basement or garage and into an office.  It would let the volunteer staff stop worrying about their own bills and focus on doing what they do best.  It would enable travel to significant events.  It would buy ads to help spread the messages.

But you try getting those funds.  Damn near impossible.

I'm afraid to add up the number of volunteer hours behind Our Duty or to tally the costs we have contributed.  I don't want to know how much we have donated because then I will be even more angry and disillusioned.  Especially since I know a lot of that time and energy has gone into fruitless funding appeals.

And the most aggravating part is the silence.  Letters, emails, phone calls, faxes - most are completely ignored.  Perhaps 1 in 1000 actually gets a response and that’s a 'no'.  The rest just disappear, like you flushed a great wad of your time and effort down the toilet.

The Haves not only won't help, they won't even listen.  Which creates our current situation:  Those with the least to give, give the most.

And that is heartbreaking.

Dear Jeff Skoll

(Yes, this is a letter to Jeff Skoll.  You may read along.  You may even comment.  Even better, you can print this off and give it to Jeff, if you know him.  For that matter, if you know someone of similar mind and bank account, you can give this to them, too.)

We don't know each other and we probably don't have much in common.  I've shopped on eBay, I write, and I'm Canadian.  That's probably the end of the list.

Oh, one more thing: I also champion the underdog.

I've read a lot about your philanthropy over the past 24 hours, and I admire the way you are approaching it.  Good job.  I am always glad to see someone following their moral duty, especially when the only thing driving it is their own drive.

In fact, I have admired many who have done this: people who stick to their guns, who declare that a thing is right, and who do it regardless of harm to themselves.  I have a list of names: Romeo Dallaire, Linda Keen, Pat Stogran...and you.  And others.  Oh, its not that giving away your money is the big deal; many wealthy do so.  It is the WAY you are doing it.  I can see that you are personally involved in doing what is right and your money happens to be the tool you have handy.

As for me, I too feel this drive, this thing inside that tells me to stand up and point at things that are wrong.  18 months ago, this drive kicked in as I watched a man lose his job for standing up for what is right.  Col Pat Stogran, Canada's first Veterans' Ombudsman, lost his position because he was too outspoken.  Upon learning this, his first response was "Oh, you thought THAT was outspoken???  Tune in to tomorrow's press conference!"  And so he did hold a press conference and he blew the lid off a slew of problems at Veterans' Affairs.

Citizens like you and I, we don't pay too much attention to veterans.  We know people enlist in the RCMP and the Canadian Forces.  We know they get hurt and killed.  We stand proud of Canada's role in peacekeeping.  We wear our poppies on Remembrance Day.  But otherwise, we don't think much about them.  Part of that is because we don't want to think too much about the horrors they see and the things they endure.  The other part is that we think they are taken care of.  After all, this is Canada!  Of course they are looked after!  No one would even debate the need and there has never been a debate about funds.  We pay our taxes, secure in the knowledge that, of all government departments, Veterans' Affairs will be run properly and the vets looked after.

Which, of course, is completely naive when you think about it.

But Col Stogran changed all that for me.  He told me, a civilian, what was really going on.  And the veterans themselves, in comments on the press coverage, also told me the horrors of this department.  Within 48 hours, I had found the Col and offered to help spread the word (having some measure of social media skills).  He accepted.

A week later, I had a campaign, a website, and a name for the organization: Our Duty.  The purpose?  To fix Veterans' Affairs and to make sure that we take care of our veterans, at least in the way we thought we had been.

What's wrong over there?  Well, there's the big things: failure to cover exposure to Agent Orange/White/Purple and depleted uranium.  Pension clawbacks.  Replacing a monthly pension with a much smaller lump-sum award.  Then there's the small things: thousands of pages of policy.  Staffing problems.  Case mangers carrying a load of 1000+ claims.  Years-long processing times and decades long appeals processes.  And then there's the dirty things: passing around the private medical files of any critic.  Cutting benefits to those same critics.  Trying to get veterans who stand up for themselves committed to mental hospitals.  Yes, Jeff, its happening in your Canada.

Outraged?  So am I.  Motivated?  Well, I am.  So much that I have been labouring long and hard this past year-and-a-half.  OurDuty.org has become Our Duty Inc - a registered not-for-profit.  We even have a board of directors.  And a bank account containing $10 (our treasurer's recycling money).

And that's the problem: Our Duty is broke.  We have the drive to make things happen.  We have the knowledge and will to solve the problems.  We have the desire to stand and declare That Is Wrong!

But we don't have any money to do it.

We've donated thousands of hours in manpower, and we would gladly do so again, if we could just figure out how to pay our bills.  Our Duty could have a major impact, if we had enough cash to buy a few ads once in a while, to help spread the word.  And if we weren't all stressed out about making ends meet.  Because, as you know, advocacy doesn't pay.  At least, advocating for veterans doesn't pay.

In the land of the government grant, we can't get funds. Veterans' themselves are broke. The provinces say that veterans are a federal issue.  The Feds are hardly going to fund a group that is critical of them.  Philanthropists don't want to upset the government by funding advocacy.  And no one wants to sponsor a group that speaks truth to power.

Except, perhaps, you.

Jeff Skoll, you like underdogs?  Here's one.  Our Duty, a group of rogue citizens committed to fixing an entire government department, provided we can find a way to feed our families while we do that.

Jeff, you're a Canadian.  You know how important those uniforms are, the blue beret and the red serge.  You know what the Battle of the Somme means.  And Rwanda.  And Suez.  Haiti.  The Balkans.  Afghanistan.  And so on.  You know that Canada made those commitments and sacrifices, not for glory, but for humanity.  We have sent our fellow citizens to the furthest outposts of the globe, to bring peace and aid, or, when everything else fails, to bear witness to atrocities so that someone will know.  Our fellow citizens answer to call to fight, to rescue, to bag sand and shovel snow, to fly in blizzards and to march on ice, to get maimed or killed, because it is necessary.

Jeff, my fight is also necessary.  Someone, some civilian, an unbiased third party, needs to wade into this fight and bring stability. Veterans are biased one way; politicians and bureaucrats the other.  Citizens are the employers of both sides.  We can make the peace and fix the problems.  We can do it.  All it takes is clarity of vision, will to change, and drive to labour.  And a few bucks to pay for the gas.

Jeff Skoll: your veterans need you.  Your government needs you.  Your nation needs you.  I need you.  Will you help me make this right?

Best Regards,
Jeff Rose-Martland
President, Our Duty inc.
http://ourduty.org

P.S. I am putting this letter into an electronic bottle and casting it adrift on the seas of cyberspace in the hope it finds you.

Communications Pro seeks income!

I've been looking for a paying gig for a while now. (Volunteering is great but it doesn't pay the bills.) I've done the usual upload-your-resume-to-our-site (and wonder for 6 months if we receive it, looked at it, or if the network just dumped it in the recycling bin in order to save everyone a lot of bother) and so-far, it's been a fruitless activity. So I'm putting it out there for the world to see. If you think my skills can fit your needs, contact me!

Employment or contract. Free consultations.
---------------------------------------------
Jeff Rose-Martland's Resume - 12 July 2011
Jeff Rose-Martland

139 Campbell Ave , St. John’s, NL , A1E 2Z7 , (709) 739-1842 , rose_martland@yahoo.ca          



Profile



-        Media professional with 26 Years combined experience [Traditional, New, and Social media].

-        Expert Social Media Marketer and Internet Content Developer.

-        11 Years experience in Public Relations and Promotions.

-        Proficient researcher with exceptional planning, organizing, and problem-solving skills.

-        Veteran of fast-paced environments who is able to achieve excellent results under pressure.

-        Accomplished and award-winning author.

-        Professional speaker who delivers messages effectively to diverse audiences.

-        Talented communications professional able to develop and execute strategies for target groups.



Attributes

-      An exceptional communicator: passionate, engaging, and highly creative.  Organized and detail oriented, a dynamic individual who sets priorities and achieves deadlines.  An enthusiastic, results-oriented professional who works equally well independently or with a team.  Superior interpersonal communications skills.  Talented leader in customer service.



Professional Experience



PUBLICITY & PUBLIC RELATIONS

-        15+ Years experience in promotions.

-        12+ Years experience in public relations.

-        Communications Director for Hunger-Strike Veteran Fabien Melanson, solely designed and

executed the media campaign.

-        Communications Director for Our Duty

-        Publicity director and keynote speaker for the provincial committee of the Canadian Veterans

National Day of Protest rally, 6 November 2010.

-        Developed and conducted media campaigns for advocacy, book promotion, and live

entertainment.



COMMUNICATIONS

-        15+ Years experience as a writer.

-        11+ Years experience as a radio announcer.

-        3+ Years experience as frontline customer service agent in a contact centre environment.

-        Author of three books: Game Misconduct, Call Centre: The Musical, and Please Hold! Ruminations of an

Agent.

-        Writing credits include The Newfoundland Quarterly, The Telegram, Broadcast Dialogue, NL Press,

Canadian Stories, The Hill Times, The Montreal Tribune, and other national newspapers.

-        Ambassador Team - Communications Sub-Team, 2006-08, Convergys Customer Management.

Responsible for creating content for monthly internal publication.



SOCIAL MEDIA and INTERNET

-      16 Years experience in Internet use and electronic communications

-      14 Tears experience in Social Media, from chat rooms to current trends

-      Highly skilled in the use of Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, YouTube, MySpace, LinkedIn,

EmpireAvenue and other social networks for promotion.

-      Manage online presence for freelance work, Game Misconduct (novel), and Our Duty (advocacy).

-      Social media consultant and publicist for veterans’ advocacy groups and events.

-      Manage two websites: design, generate content, basic HTML knowledge.

-      Knowledgeable of embedding techniques and multimedia site content.

-      Generate and distribute content via blog. Experienced live-blogger for events.

-      Proficient with Search Engine Optimization and Analytics.



Select Accomplishments

-      Recipient of the 2005 Percy Janes First Novel Award.

-      President of advocacy group Our Duty.

-      Provincial Coordinator 2010 Canadian Veterans’ National Day of Protest - NL.

-      Guest Panellist for the 2010 Winterset in Summer literary festival.

-      Finalist for the 2009 CBC Creative Non-Fiction Award.

-      Guest lecturer in 2009 for Henry Stewart Talks, Contact Center Management, by personal request of

Stagg, A.M. (ed.), former chair of the U.K. Contact Centre Organization



Employment History



-      FABIEN MELANSON – Communications Director, Social Media Coordinator – May 2011 – Present



-      OUR DUTY - Founder, President, Policy Analyst, Public Relations, 2010 - Present.



-      FREELANCE - Writer / Social Media Marketer, 2002 – Present.



-      CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT CANADA - St. John’s, NL - Customer Service

Representative II, July 2005 - November 2008; Ambassador Team - Communications Sub-Team, 2006 - 2008.



-     UN CONFERENCE ON THE GOVERNANCE OF THE HIGH SEAS AND THE

UNITED NATIONS FISH AGREEMENT - St. John's, NL - Ministerial Driver, May 2005.



-      VOCM - STEELE COMMUNICATIONS - St. John's, NL - Announcer / Operator, 1999 - 2004.



-      JUNO AWARDS - St. John's, NL - Offsite Performance Co-ordinator, April 2002.



-      FREELANCE - Associate Producer, St. John's, NL - Shakespeare By the Sea, 1998; Recycled Shakespeare Company, 1997-1999; Headstrong Todd Productions, 1997-1999.



Education



-      ELECTRONICS COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIST

College of the North Atlantic - St. John's, NL - 1989 to 1992.



-      PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES: Theatre, Video Production, Telecommunications,

Customer Communications, Others - Memorial University and Convergys Online.









Writing Samples and References Available Upon Request.

Don’t Pee on Me and Tell Me It’s Raining: Why Trickle-Down Economics Doesn’t Work.

The concept of trickle-down economics has been around for years.  Its precepts are usually trotted out whenever a government is announcing huge tax-cuts to big business and the rich.  The basic idea is that companies who have more profit will spend that profit increasing the business, thereby creating jobs and improving the economy.  It works like this:

Mom and Pop own a store, which they work themselves, struggling to survive.  After a few years, profits are up, and they hire some help, creating a job.  After a few more successful years, they now have a staff of 4 (not counting themselves) and add a deli counter.  A few more years of growth, the store has become a neighbourhood supermarket employing 20. 

But now they are in a new tax bracket, which means that they cannot add the bakery this year.  In fact, it takes them 5 years to save enough to add the bakery.  The pro-tax-break people suggest that if business taxes were lower, that bakery could be added now, creating another 5 jobs.  And next year, the butcher shop.  Then the gift store.  And so on.  More profit means more money for growth and more money in the community.  After all, Mom and Pop don't want to work so hard if they can hire others.  They want to give little Tommy a summer job so he can go to university.  They like being an essential part of their community.  If they have lots of ready cash, why Mom and Pop would have the biggest store in town, employ hundreds, and stimulate the local economy!

That’s the argument.  And, as far as that argument goes, it is more or less correct.  People like to be a part of their community, want to be successful, and will turn profit into growth.  At least, Mom and Pop will.

The same is not necessarily true for big business.

Let’s say Mom and Pop have had a great business life.  They now own ten stores employing a thousand people.  Managers have been hired, so Mom and Pop don't have to work so hard.  Still, life is getting on and Mom and Pop would like to enjoy what's left of it.  So they sell their business to a national grocery Chain and move to Cottage Country.

Then the same old story continues: Chain 'consolidates' their operations by closing five of the stores and letting go 500 people, arguing that this improves their business.  Chain argues that the area really only needs five stores anyway and in reducing waste, they can provide better service.  Profits are put towards building a new, bigger store, with a restaurant and gym.  Within a few years, Mom and Pop's ten stores have become a single big-box retailer.  1000 Employees have become 150.  The promised restaurant and gym are delivered by renting space to other existing chains.  Profits are high but Tommy can't get a job.

We have seen this time and again.  The proponents of trickle-down theory use Mom and Pop to justify the plan and their logic is sound, but the effects don't ever appear to meet expectations.  Opponents to the theory never seem to be able to explain why things don't work out; at least, not in the same simple terms used by proponents.

That reason, however, really is very simple: community.

Mom and Pop, no matter how mercenary they may be, still live in the community.  They see the direct impact that their business has, both in serving the customer and in employing staff.  Mom and Pop know that closing a store will have a direct negative impact on their community.  So unless there is a really good, profitable reason for doing so, their business will remain stable or expand.  The profits Mom and Pop earn will either go back into their operations or into their own pockets - trickling back down with their personal purchases of cars, houses, and so on.  Either way, the money stays in the community.

Chain does not belong to the community.  Chain is a publicly traded company.  Its headquarters are far away, the owners are all over the world.  Investors expect to get paid.  Profits are not just for growth, they also pay the shareholders.  The people in charge do not see their impact on the community because they are not in the community.  And neither is the money.

Once ownership passes away from people living in the community, there can no longer be community responsibility.  Owners and shareholders demand ever-increasing profits.  Local services and employment are only considerations if they have an impact on profit.  Money which would have trickled down from Mom and Pop's wallets is now sent to far-away lands, to trickle into somebody else's economy.  Once the community store stops achieving high-profits, Chain will put it on the auction block and not look back.  Chain is out to make money, not friends, no matter how many charity funds it has established.

And that is why trickle-down economics does not work.  A large corporate entity has no morals, no ethics, no responsibility, and no sense of community.  It cannot have those things because it is not a person.

One thing we know works is regulation.  Regulation forces corporations to at least act like they care.  For example, if government offers tax-creaks to companies which contribute to local charities, then by-golly, companies start building playgrounds, buying medical equipment, and writing cheques.  Remove those tax incentives and watch the swing-sets rust.  That is an indisputable fact: corporations only behave responsibly when it serves their interest.

Unlimited growth is not in their interest.  Mom and Pop will roll-over their profits in a quest to become bigger and better and more important.  They get visceral pleasure from being important to their community.  Corporations do not get that pleasure.  They only get profit.  The bigger the company, the less likely it is to expand further, and corporations are massive companies.  They don't want another 1% of the local market if it means losing 2% profit for the next year; 2% less money for their shareholders.  Expecting a corporation to behave like a person is like expecting a rock to fly: pretty silly.  Yet this myth is what we are constantly sold by the proponents of trickle-down economics.

Since they can only adequately prove trickle-down theory as applied to mid-size and smaller companies owned by individuals, then logic dictates that the tax breaks should go to those companies in order to stimulate growth.  As we can show that big business only acts with community responsibility when regulated, then any tax breaks applied to corporations should reward for community action.  Rather than giving tax cuts in the hope that big business will create jobs, why not give breaks for the jobs they create?  Give breaks for charity, employee profit-sharing, money spent within the community.  Apply tax penalties on funds transferred out to corporate head-quarters.  Reward good behaviour; penalize bad; just as you would teach a child to become a good person.  Giving rewards and expecting the corporation to figure it out on its own is no way raise a good corporate citizen.

On Exposing the Vancouver Rioters

(This was sent to Cross Country Checkup today.) 

The issue of naming rioters has become convoluted because of the shaming.

Initially, the point of posting videos and pictures online was to identify riot participants.  That is a perfectly reasonable response by Citizens who watched the G20 riot last year.  Canadians watched as those who looted and destroyed property went unidentified; observed the number of ‘responsible’ people who stood by and let such destruction happen.  During the past year, we have become more aware of a ‘somebody else’s problem’ attitude rampant in our society, where we expect the police to do all the work and blame them for their lack of success.

The posting of these images as an attempt to identify participants is a good way for Citizens to help our police do their jobs.  As citizens, we are not only entitled to look after our communities, but we are also required to do so.

Shaming, on the other hand, is taking control back from our trusted legal institutions.  It is too easy for a picture to be misinterpreted and incorrect conclusions drawn.  The Riot Couple appeared to be engaging in sex when in fact, the woman was injured and her boyfriend assisting her.  This is why we have experts to investigate.  The gathering of information by the public is helpful, but leave the actions to the experts so that justice will be served and we will live in a fair society.

Regards,

Jeff Rose-Martland

President

Our Duty

Longtime-Nowrite: Why I Suck At Blogs

It's now becoming July and it's been ages since I wrote anything on here.  Not that I haven't been writing, just that I have been writing elsewhere.

As every writer will tell you, if you are actually writing-writing, that is, work writing, then you don't have much creativity left for updating blogs.  Add to that my work with Our Duty, veterans, the election campaign, and about a dozen different things, and finding inspiration for a blog is very difficult.

Also, I have never quite been sure what the point of a blog is.  Surely, no one is interested in my minute-by-minute day (and those that are can watch me on facebook).  I'm not much of a journal keeper and mostly my inspired rantings wind up in my writing.

But lately I have found a need to express my opinion on a bunch of items in the news, my thoughts of Canadian society, and generally do some soap-box ranting.  So what better place for that then here?  (I think I may have figured out the point of a blog after all).

So there will be some posts coming (until I get busy elsewhere again, I suspect).