Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Candidate Roxie Malone-Richards

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Roxie. The Alberta Health Services has a much different opinion then your research. DO you have a comment about this? Is your research some how more better than what our Health Officials are making?
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

    Comment


    • #32
      Roxie.. Kim krushell says she spend 8 months researching about ECCA and found that there is no good reason as why ECCA be kept open, also no Edmontonians have use this airport much at all in the last 15 years.

      can you answer that ??

      thank you for your time
      Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
        For fear of sounding over dramatic, The medivac issue is important to any human who cares about saving lives.

        Approx. 400 of the 4000 medivac flights that fly into the Muni yearly are critical cases. Time is of the essence. Minutes and seconds count. The time it would take to transfer a patient or organ from medivac at the International. Nisku or Villeneuve airport to a helicopter, and to hospital is 30-45 minutes. Many feel the closure of the City Centre Airport will lead to fatalities because of this time factor.
        Originally posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
        I have read countless reports and studies on the issue. I have spoken with frontline workers in both NICU and PICU, doctors, nurses and transport teams. The most compelling argument to keep the airport open comes from the "Report to City of Edmonton" regarding medevac services. This report contains letters to Mayor Mandel from several medical leaders in Edmonton. Every one of them have expressed their concerns about the negative impact the closure of the ECCA will have on patients, (especially critically ill children).

        These letters of concern were written by: Dr. Sunil Sookram- Assoc Clinical Professor, Dept of Emergency Medicine U of A,
        Allen de Caen-Medical Director of the PICU Transport Team U of A
        Blair J O'Neil- Professor of Medicine and director, Division of Cardiology U of A
        Mary vanWijngaarden-Stephens- Director of the Trauma Department, U of A
        Dr. Ruben Hansen- Site Chief, Emergency Medicine, RAH
        Demetrios Kutsogiannis-Faculty of Medicine & Dentristry, Critical Care Research U of A.

        Every single letter echoes the same message: Increasing transport time will, without question, have a detrimental and negative effect on long-term outcomes of the critically ill, including survival rate and quality of life.
        It is most unfortunate you chose to label the Share The Facts campaign website a "pro-closure" website... of course, by extension, you equally label the Edmonton Airports authority itself, "pro-closure". Alternatively, rather than play an emotional, "lives will be lost" card, you could step-forward and dispute the facts being shared - you could do that.

        Those shared facts you choose to dismiss, outright, address the concerns put forward within the medical practitioner letters you reference within this CofE initiated consultants report. It is most telling that you choose to emphasize these letters while ignoring the conclusions within that very report; specifically:
        A number of other jurisdictions have fully integrated ground and air ambulance systems to expedite patient transport to the facilities needed by the critically ill adult, child and infant. A number of suggestions to mitigate the additional transport time from EIA to the Edmonton tertiary flights have been suggested by stakeholders and some are included in this report such as helishuttle, dedicated ground transport for the specialty teams, appropriately built and staffed 24/7 facilities at EIA, coordinated and integrated ambulance system inclusive of dispatch, etc. These opportunities would need to be assessed and operational costs and plans developed to ensure the options discussed by clinicians would reduce transport time and improve quality of the air transport system in central and northern Alberta.

        Many stakeholders note that significant opportunities exist to improve the coordination, quality and timeliness of fixed wing air ambulance patient transfers to the right place the first time. With all ground and rotary EMS services now within AHS, with a single medical oversight model for the province now in place, and the plans to coordinate all EMS dispatch (air and ground), there is an opportunity to begin planning for a fully integrated critical care transport system for patients in central and northern Alberta, and the other provinces and territories that send patients to Edmonton tertiary facilities.

        Closure of ECCA and relocation of air ambulance volumes to the EIA may present an opportunity for stakeholders to work collaboratively to design a service able to meet the needs of rural Albertans transferred to Edmonton for tertiary care, and subsequently returned home for appropriate care in their local facility.
        As I said, you could choose to dispute the shared facts within this info pack... you could choose to dispute these summarized shared fact points:
        Air ambulance isn't moving until facilities are ready at EIA.

        When the new air ambulance facilities are completed and a safe operating plan is in place with provincial health services, air ambulance services will move to EIA. The effective coordination of ambulances, planes and helicopters working at the new facilities will ensure Albertans continue to receive safe, high-quality and timely transport to hospital. Until then, air ambulance service will continue uninterrupted at City Centre Airport. That's a fact.
        • STARS AIR AMBULANCE'S NEW EQUIPMENT WILL REACH MORE ALBERTANS. Currently, STARS can reach about 92% of the Alberta population. New equipment will mean they will be able to reach upward of 97% of the population in 2011.

        • EIA AND OUR PARTNERS PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES. Our partners, together with the highly trained emergency response personnel at EIA, safely and professionally handle planned and unplanned medical situations each year: 493 cases in 2009.

        • TIME-CRITICAL CASES CAN BE HANDLED FROM EIA. Over the last fiscal year, of the 3,020 air ambulance flights to the City Centre, 93% were not time-critical. Most of the 7% that were (144 of 213) were transferred to the South-side hospitals like the University of Alberta Hospital, which is an eight-minute difference from EIA. The remaining small percentage of patients could be transferred by helicopter from EIA facilities.
        You could choose to step forward and dispute the aforementioned summation and linked document facts... you could do that. Or... you could settle with what you've previously stated and implied - that these are not facts and that the Edmonton Airport authority is "pro-closure".

        Your choice.

        Comment


        • #34
          Let's clear this up right now, Ms Malone. 77% did not vote to keep the airport "open" in 1995. There was no question at that time of the airport being closed. The choices were to move scheduled air services to YEG and maintain ECCA as a GA airport or the status quo.

          Therefore 77% in 1995 voted to move scheduled air service to YEG not to keep ECCA "open". If you remember, even the debate about the wording of the question was highly charged and the final wording could even be termed to be a compromise as it was ensured that at no time would the question put closure on the table.

          Just wanted to make sure the right facts about this question were on the table. It's been a tired misrepresentation by Envision Edmonton since the start.

          Or do you have a different version of the 1995 referendum?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
            Dear Admin;
            I fully understand the purpose of this site and I'm sorry I was not more clear. The pro-closure website I was referring to, is definitely not Connect2Edmonton. I was asked in a previous post by medwards what my opinion was on sharethefacts.ca.
            Cheers!
            Roxie Malone-Richards

            Thank you for the clarity Candidate Richards.
            Ow

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
              Originally posted by howie View Post
              Hello Roxie,

              It is my understanding, and not mine alone, that the Muni, if closed, will enable the City to have a source of revenue from property taxes, etc., that, by far, outstrips the status quo, and will continue to do so. Plus, the added benefits of infill population in holding back urban sprawl, for one example, on the outskirts are quite evident. How does someone committed to the betterment of Edmonton turn down such an opportunity?

              Thank you.
              Business or revenue opportunities get trumped by the value of a lost life. Closing the airport may be a revenue opportunity for the city, but it comes at the huge cost of lost lives and preventable disability.

              I am committed to the betterment of our beautiful city and I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get a grip on urban sprawl. There are many empty spaces within Edmonton that we should be re-developing. Thousands of Edmontonians, including myself, believe the airport land isn't one of them.
              Cheers!
              Roxie Malone-Richards
              Thanks for your reply, Roxie. I know you're getting plenty of flak here on this issue.

              While I do agree that a human life is of paramount importance, I can't agree with you on this business of "lost lives and preventable disability" with regard to the Muni issue. Sorry, but you're sounding more and more like a mouthpiece for EE on this.

              An article in the Journal earlier this month gave the following figures:
              "Alberta Health Services said more than 3,000 patients were transferred to hospital through the downtown airport last year, but just 213 faced life-threatening illness or injury.
              However, Envision Edmonton believes that figure is closer to 400 and has said forcing them to land at the airport in Leduc County will cost lives."

              Of AHS and EE, I know whose figures I'd trust to be more accurate. AHS has concrete facts, EE, and yourself, evidently, "believes". 'Nuff said. And you're no doubt aware, or at least should be, of transfer times being quicker by STARS helicopter from YEG than road ambulance times from the Muni.


              Nisi Dominus Frustra

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
                Business or revenue opportunities get trumped by the value of a lost life. Closing the airport may be a revenue opportunity for the city, but it comes at the huge cost of lost lives and preventable disability.
                ...
                roxie,

                you would seem to be agreeing with the envision edmonton "helicopters can't fly in all weather" counter to the fact that helicopter transfers for time critical patients from eia to university and stollery or grey nuns or misericordia for that matter are potentially faster than ground transfers from ecca.

                given your exposure to edmonton weather and traffic coverage at ched, from your own experience isn't it also true that in that same weather many of our roads and bridges can be virtually impasssable as well?

                and isn't it also true that many of our roads and bridges can be virtually impassable even in weather in which helicopters can still fly?

                and isn't it just as likely that a time critical patient may die on the operating table at mazankowski waiting for that transplant heart to get across the high level bridge or through grout road than from consolidating medevac at eia?

                as far as sharethefacts.ca goes, regardless of whether you think eia is pro or anti or neutral re ecca or any particular aspect of ecca, which - if any - of the actual facts posted to that site do you feel are not true?

                ken
                "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                Comment


                • #38
                  I have made my view quite clear on the airport issue. I have offered my well researched opinion as to why I personally feel the CCA should remain open.
                  For myself and many others, the question of whether the airport should close or remain open, is not the issue.
                  Here is the issue: A significant number of residents in this City were eager and prepared to vote on the proposed closure of the airport, live with the results and finally move forward. The constituents I have spoken with in Ward 2 feel the decision to close the airport was not City Council's decision to make! It would have been completely within City Council's legal rights, to allow the question to be put to a public vote. I believe they had the obligation as elected officials to listen to the wishes of over 70,000 of their constituents, and allow the referendum.
                  With only 27% voter turnout 3 yrs ago, why would city council choose to ignore almost 10% of the population that were ready and very willing to vote on this one issue alone? The democratic process would have still been intact and upheld to the letter of the law if City Council had chosen to let the people vote . Many residents in Ward 2 feel that, as was the case with the selling of Epcor, democracy has once again taken a blow.
                  I will not be entertaining further questions about my stance on the closure of the airport as I believe the topic has long been exhausted on this thread. This is a voluntary forum that I willingly chose to participate in for the purpose of answering questions from constituents on a wide array of issues, and as such; I will only answer questions that are not surrounded by derogatory, negative or presumptuous editorial comments.
                  Cheers!
                  Roxie Malone-Richards

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Roxie

                    The democratic process would have still been intact, If Envision Edmonton have filed petition within 60 days of city's decision to close muni in stages last year and requires fulfill 10% of signatures were valid then city council will vote to accept to have plebiscite on Oct 18 but Envision Edmonton have fail to fulfill 2 of city's requirements, that is their biggest mistake they ever made. it is not public's fault but envision edmonton because many who did sign petition were duped by Charles Allard.

                    City Council did the right thing to follow the law , they are within their right to reject petition for a good reason.

                    thank you

                    James
                    Last edited by jagators63; 26-09-2010, 12:13 AM.
                    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      While the decision may or may not have been council's to make, council made the decision after much public debate. There are provisions, however, for council decisions to be challenged with a plebiscite. For that to have happen, a petition drive should have taken place within 60 days of council's decision. The drive should have collected 10% of the population. Neither had taken place. While there may have been a large number of people who wanted the plebiscite, an even larger number of edmontonians did not sign the petition. In fact, some 93% of edmontonians did not bother to sign the petition. If this was such an important issue to all of edmonton, people would have gobe out of their way to sign the petition.

                      You can try to bend it every which way, but there are rules that we abide by. For example, imagine you had decided to file your papers to run in this election one month after the deadline and then had collected 1000 signatures from Ward 2 asking for your name to be put on the ballot. Do you think the city should listen to a large number of Ward 2 constituents and allow your name on the ballot?

                      There are rules in place. The only thing in this election that you can justifiably campaign on is a plan to make a change in these rules for the future initiatives. Now, if it is your intention to run on such a platform, would it not be appropriate for you to state what new rules you wish to implement?

                      With that long intro, I will repeat my earlier questions:
                      What should be the timeframe within which council's decisions can be challeneged?
                      What number of petitioners should lead to such challenge?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
                        Here is the issue: A significant number of residents in this City were eager and prepared to vote on the proposed closure of the airport, live with the results and finally move forward. The constituents I have spoken with in Ward 2 feel the decision to close the airport was not City Council's decision to make! It would have been completely within City Council's legal rights, to allow the question to be put to a public vote. I believe they had the obligation as elected officials to listen to the wishes of over 70,000 of their constituents, and allow the referendum.
                        Obviously you’re a neophyte in terms of understanding the latitude city council’s have in making decisions… something about being elected to make decisions – what a concept! You clearly don’t recognize the legalities associated with the Municipal Government Act – as in the law city council was following… and yet you have the audacity to speak of council’s legal rights. You fail to grasp the simple fact that even if a proposal to put a question on the ballot were to be entertained, the outcome (either way) would have been non-binding… and yet your naivete speaks of that outcome as bringing closure.

                        Originally posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
                        I will not be entertaining further questions about my stance on the closure of the airport as I believe the topic has long been exhausted on this thread.
                        Exhausted on this thread? Thanks for coming out! Thanks for showing your true colours and just how easy you fold under the most benign challenge – clearly, you’re not up to responding to the challenge to refute the Edmonton Airports ‘shared facts’. Most certainly, it raises serious doubts as to your capabilities in handling the job of city councilor.

                        Originally posted by Roxie Malone-Richards View Post
                        This is a voluntary forum that I willingly chose to participate in for the purpose of answering questions from constituents on a wide array of issues, and as such; I will only answer questions that are not surrounded by derogatory, negative or presumptuous editorial comments.
                        Here’s one for you… since you’re not an incumbent councilor, you weren’t subject to the influences of the new ward redesign. That is to say, you most certainly had the option of directly choosing to run in the ward that you live. This Edmonton Journal article states you live outside of Ward 2… accepting to the accuracy of this article, why have you chosen to run in Ward 2, a ward you do not live in?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Mandel and all current councilors have been taking questions about their stance on the airport for 3 years or more. Roxie, your stance seems pretty insecure on this. Can you comment on that?
                          You are calling for accountability in your opening post in this thread, Why is it you're not being accountable to all of us here, who many are comprised of eligible electorate that will be voting for someone in this city/wards , are you too good to answer our succinct questions on your stance on the airport issue? You clearly focused on that issue right away in the beginning of your post. It appears to be your leading and perhaps even main cause for running for council. Can you not answer the questions?
                          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Folks.

                            This is a forum to ask questions. I expect the same decorum of the ask forums to be displayed here. I understand the emotions in the airport debate, but some of these posts take a long time to get to the point.

                            Please be succinct in your questions. Thank you.
                            Ow

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The Alberta Aviation Museum Association, in 2006 a small community museum now the 3rd largest aviation collection in Canada, is a feature tourism attraction in North Edmonton currently serves (5) veterans organizations, (3) Heritage organizations, (2) Youth organizations as well as a series of (6) modern aviation volunteer organizations such as the Civil Air Search And Rescue Association. The Museum also has the most advanced K-12 aviation education programming and is currently an operationally self sufficient not for profit operation that receives no operational funding from any level of government.



                              This is a facility that currently receives over 150,000 individual uses per year and attracts visitors from around the world.


                              What do you, as a candidate commit to specifically doing to insure the ongoing success and expansion of the Alberta Aviation Museum with the closure of the City Centre Airport and the damage it will cause to the facility?



                              I have been directed to ask on behalf of the boards of this facility.



                              Thomas Hinderks
                              Executive Director
                              Alberta Aviation Museum

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I'm curious where we find this platform you mention Ms Richards. I've been on the City web site and found links for the candidates and the only link for you was to a facebook page where I see no discussion or link to a platform. Why do you not have a web site so we can read about your views and this platform?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X