08 January 2007

AG Noseworthy changes rules as he goes

In the most recent accusations under the House of Assembly spending scandal, Auditor General John Noseworthy has once again changed the rules under which he is conducting his review.

In the original four cases, the AG levelled accusations without having completed even the most basic investigations. Each of the four accused met for a handful of minutes - less than 10 for Ed Byrne - and were asked to explain claims without being shown the claims in question. Noseworthy claimed at the time his legislation prevented him from showing the documents to anyone outside his office.

In the second round of accusations, Noseworthy met with the accused member of the House after making the accusations public. Noseworthy only got around to calling the MHA involved after he filed a report.

Now with the double-billers, Noseworthy met with at least one of them, show him the questionable claims and - solely on the basis of that meeting - is now deleting one of the fellows from the report.

In one instance, the member was paid for the same incident based on the receipt and the VISA bill. Why were they filed separately? It could indeed be an innocent clerical error by inexperienced staff.

Then again, it could be something else.

There is no reason to delete anyone from a report.

Rather, by fully disclosing the details, the AG could help us understand what happened.

Unfortunately, we have an AG who is acting as a law unto himself. The rules get made up as Noseworthy likes and, when it gets right down to it, his work seems to fall far short of any reasonable standard of performance by anyone in a comparable position.

Unfair? Unreasonable? Slipshod, even?

Yes. Without a doubt.

And today's revelations just add another straw to the already snapped spine of the camel bearing the calls for a public inquiry into the whole mess.


bagwatts said...

I've been reading your blog off and on now for approximately four months. I've left a comment now and again when the urge hit me. After reading this recent blog post about the AG, I've gotta tell ya, you are not someone who appears to take any sort of position for too long. One day you dislike so and so and the next you're his/her best supporter. Wishy washy fence sitting. I've known many people like you Ed, and to be honest, this diplomatic dance you do is actually a form of cowardice and opportunism. Tell me Ed, what exactly do YOU believe in as a human being? Do you have any strong positions on anything that you are willing to stick to for good? This blog is so devoid of true conviction for anything of importance that it could have been written by a group of people not just one. In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps that is the case here. This blog has your name and face on it but who exactly is writing this stuff? You or a staff of more than two? The hallmarks of character and credibility are consistancy. There are none on this blog.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Perhaps the inconsistency is in your reading, not in the writing.

Consistent readers would understand - among other things - the miserable view I hold of anonyblogging.

A New Writer said...

Before you go off on a diatribe about anonybloggers Ed, I'm not bagwatts. I choose to be anon simply because I want to be. (You know me anyway.) Just as you will probably delete my comment, because you can.

I think bagwatts is right on with the inconsistencies of your blog.

After all, how can a man who derives his income from the very people he purports to be railing against in his blog be consistent in his views, when those very same people change theirs with the wind? The organ grinder makes the rules after all, the monkey just performs.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Right off the bat, new writer, I have no idea whatsoever who you are. You are as anonymous - unknown, invisible - as any other of the anony-bloggers slagging all and sundry at their whim.

As for staying anonymous because you chose to be, then allow that others may chose to disregard comments made from behind the coward's cloak.

If you have an example of an inconsistency, then by all means share it.

Dennis said...

Agreed, Ed. I tend to assume that when somebody is unwilling to put their name alongside something they've written, there must be a reason, and I treat it as such. That is, I disregard.

bagwatts said...

Ed, I totally agree with you! I was reading inconsistently. Instead of reading only the posts that declare how much you like Danny Williams et al, or only the posts where you hate Danny Williams et al, I read the posts where you hate him, then like him, then hate him, then like him etc... I'm sure you get the waffling picture. As for your dislike of anonymous bloggers, lets just say you focus on that when you don't want to address what is being said. Whether someone has a face or name is irrelevant really, but your lack of a response based on that anonymity could be construed as, to use your own quaint phrase, hiding behind a "coward's cloak". Of course, that is, unless you totally disregard this semi anonymous post. Maybe you will only semi disregard it.

A New Writer said...

Aw Ed, you shouldn't have said that, given your penchant for feminine garb. The cloak is a much more masculine form of attire than the little black dress, don't you think?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Thanks Dennis.