Transparency and accountability are the building blocks of public confidence.
Chief Justice Derek Green
In his comprehensive report, Chief Justice Green made a simple observation that conceals a much more profound truth for the members of the House of Assembly.
The public must have confidence in its legislators, confidence that has been seriously eroded by the House of Assembly spending scandal after a year of revelations.
No one doubts the sincerity of the Premier and the other members in addressing the matter. We all may take them at their word.
However, at this point, intentions and words are not as important as actions in restoring that public confidence.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, "trust but verify".
The verification in this case is contained in the schedule to the Green bill passed by the House of Assembly on the last day of its session before the general election.
The schedule set down rules for reporting of spending in the legislature and for public disclosure of that spending. It also set down specific rules for spending constituency allowances, something many members said had been absent.
The action that would have given full and unquestionable proof of the members' intentions would have been the immediate adoption of the schedule to Green's bill. If there were concerns about specific sections - such as the transportation ones - those may have been set aside to be addressed later.
Fundamentally, however, transparency and accountability is the core of the current problem in the House of Assembly, as Chief Justice Green noted.
The core of transparency and accountability is telling the public what is being done and why.
In the case of the Green bill, the members of the House of Assembly didn't do that. In fact, they left the impression that the rules were in place already, not, as it turned out, that they would come into force after the next election. Take a look at Rob Antle's Telegram story and one sees just that impression.
At no point, did any member of the legislature tell the members of the public clearly what was being done and why. All members knew or ought to have known. Certainly the senior leaders - the House leaders from each party - knew what was going on. Yet, in the House they said nothing.
This was not a decision of the Williams administration alone and no one should direct an attack or criticism specifically at the premier's administration.
Rather the failing here is one to be borne collectively by all members of the House from all parties.
On their first step on the road to restoring public confidence, all members of the House of Assembly stumbled and stumbled badly. They will undoubtedly try and offer some excuses, as Paul Oram has attempted already.
Fundamentally, however, Mr. Oram's explanation simply calls into question the decision to postpone adoption of The Rules. If caucuses have already agreed to be bound by the rules, then they ought to have been given full force of law. Why pussyfoot around, especially since a clear and unequivocal action would have left no doubt as to members' intentions?
And for members attempting to deal with the issue individually, a clear set of rules would relieve them of the pressure from groups long used to receiving various donations from public money in a way Chief Justice Green unequivocally denounced. They do not have to set arbitrary rules about which donations to grant and which to reject or to face the potential questions when some of their colleagues might be found to have done something different from what they have done.
One set of rules would bind them all to the same standard. After all, the absence of rules is the excuse offered by so many members of the House and the creation of clear rules set by Chief Justice Green is what so many of those same members pined for.
Why then, did they postpone adopting The Rules?
Why then, didn't they tell the people of the province what they were doing and why?
Why, after a year of revelations and the repetition of the words "accountability" and "transparency" does it appear that all the members of the legislature don't seem to understand what those words actually mean?
The public must have confidence in its legislators, confidence that has been seriously eroded by the House of Assembly spending scandal after a year of revelations.
No one doubts the sincerity of the Premier and the other members in addressing the matter. We all may take them at their word.
However, at this point, intentions and words are not as important as actions in restoring that public confidence.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, "trust but verify".
The verification in this case is contained in the schedule to the Green bill passed by the House of Assembly on the last day of its session before the general election.
The schedule set down rules for reporting of spending in the legislature and for public disclosure of that spending. It also set down specific rules for spending constituency allowances, something many members said had been absent.
The action that would have given full and unquestionable proof of the members' intentions would have been the immediate adoption of the schedule to Green's bill. If there were concerns about specific sections - such as the transportation ones - those may have been set aside to be addressed later.
Fundamentally, however, transparency and accountability is the core of the current problem in the House of Assembly, as Chief Justice Green noted.
The core of transparency and accountability is telling the public what is being done and why.
In the case of the Green bill, the members of the House of Assembly didn't do that. In fact, they left the impression that the rules were in place already, not, as it turned out, that they would come into force after the next election. Take a look at Rob Antle's Telegram story and one sees just that impression.
At no point, did any member of the legislature tell the members of the public clearly what was being done and why. All members knew or ought to have known. Certainly the senior leaders - the House leaders from each party - knew what was going on. Yet, in the House they said nothing.
This was not a decision of the Williams administration alone and no one should direct an attack or criticism specifically at the premier's administration.
Rather the failing here is one to be borne collectively by all members of the House from all parties.
On their first step on the road to restoring public confidence, all members of the House of Assembly stumbled and stumbled badly. They will undoubtedly try and offer some excuses, as Paul Oram has attempted already.
Fundamentally, however, Mr. Oram's explanation simply calls into question the decision to postpone adoption of The Rules. If caucuses have already agreed to be bound by the rules, then they ought to have been given full force of law. Why pussyfoot around, especially since a clear and unequivocal action would have left no doubt as to members' intentions?
And for members attempting to deal with the issue individually, a clear set of rules would relieve them of the pressure from groups long used to receiving various donations from public money in a way Chief Justice Green unequivocally denounced. They do not have to set arbitrary rules about which donations to grant and which to reject or to face the potential questions when some of their colleagues might be found to have done something different from what they have done.
One set of rules would bind them all to the same standard. After all, the absence of rules is the excuse offered by so many members of the House and the creation of clear rules set by Chief Justice Green is what so many of those same members pined for.
Why then, did they postpone adopting The Rules?
Why then, didn't they tell the people of the province what they were doing and why?
Why, after a year of revelations and the repetition of the words "accountability" and "transparency" does it appear that all the members of the legislature don't seem to understand what those words actually mean?
-srbp-
