Get Knotted Doc O'Keefe #nlpoli

No one should be surprised that St. John's mayor Doc O'Keefe is huffing and puffing over comments by former mayor Andy Wells to the effect that O'Keefe's crowd had been doing things improperly if not illegally at city hall.

"You've got a council that's been profligate, wasteful, irresponsible and certainly immoral and possibly illegal," Wells told reporters outside Monday night's council meeting.  It's along the lines of Well's comments last September.

There's only one reason O'Keefe is pissed:  Wells is right.

And for the first time in a long while someone is calling out the arrogant, secretive O'Keefe on the shit-show he's been running in the city for the past five or six years.

Do they give awards for non-news?

Presidency position goes public.  The provincial government decides to posts ads for people interested in being head of the status of women council.  Voice of the cabinet minister runs a news story on the event.

It’s not news that provincial government is running job ads for cabinet-appointed jobs.

The provincial government advertised for a new chairman for the province’s public utilities board in 2007.

They held a competition.

Then cabinet stuffed Andy Wells into the job even though he wasn’t in the competition.

Of course, then again there’s the offshore board boss job. 

Competition, complete with ads.

Danny tries to stuff Andy into the thing anyway.

Competition dies.

They appoint a panel to pick someone.

Andy still doesn’t get the job.

It would be news if the provincial public service commission held a competition for a cabinet appointment and the cabinet appointed the person who actually won.

Oh yeah, and that PUB story turned out to be a masterpiece of unaccountability in the public service.  Simple question:  no answer.

-srbp-

Nice work if you can get it, patronage appointments version

Voice of the cabinet minister puts a happy government- face on the news that the provincial government just appointed Ed Drover to the offshore regulatory board on a “part-time” basis.  That’s a wee bit odd since the board isn’t a full-time job anyway.

Well, it’s also a bit odd that a radio station that started out claiming to be the Voice of the Common Man has flipped 180 degrees, but that’s another issue.

CBC’s Here and Now reminded everyone in the province tonight of two things.

First, the guy who got the plum is a well-known Provincial Conservative fundraiser.

Second, they reminded us – as CBC reported last April  - that the guy and the company he worked for are being sued by a former employee of the life insurance company who claims “she was verbally abused, harassed and bullied while on the job.”

No less a personage than Olympic gold medalist and Danny icon Brad Gushue had a few observations about the guy as well:

Gushue was employed as an adviser selling London Life products for nine months beginning in 2001. When he quit in June 2002, Gushue wrote to company vice-president Jim O'Neill, saying the office was led through "intimidation and fear."

Gushue alleged Drover addressed him in a "very unprofessional and inappropriate manner" in a meeting, and also said that when he quit, Drover called him "a failure."

So what is it about this cabinet and appointments to the offshore regulatory board?  Andy Wells and now this guy, neither of whom have any obvious background or experience in anything related to the offshore industry.

-srbp-

He'll be "environmentally efficient"

Premier Danny Williams was confronted today with another question about his plan to appoint Andy Wells to head the public utilities board at an annual salary of $175,000 and let him also keep his mayor's job for another $100K or so.

This time the question came from reporters about Wells' view that this whole global warming thing is a crock of hooey resulting from junk science.

In an odd twist from his threats to sue people and remove free speech from the legislature last February, this February the Premier is endorsing contrarianism and the presentation of unpopular views as the hallmark of a free and democratic society.

There was a funny moment when - in the heat of the scrum - Williams said he was confident that Wells would be "environmentally efficient" in his new role.

Yes, but not fiscally efficient, given that he will suck down two salaries and likely not be able to fulfill the duties of both jobs full-time. No human being could, especially when the public utilities board is short two commissioners. No human being could when, as CBC television news pointed out this evening, there are a raft of issues the PUB will deal with that will force Wells to excuse himself. That would include excuse himself from managing, as the chairman is supposed to do in his capacity as chief executive officer. Hard to keep hands off a situation where there's a conflict of interest when you have to assign work responsibilities.

No matter what, though, we can bet the Premier won't be taking Wells as his date to the 21st annual testimonial dinner sponsored by the Public Policy Forum. The Premier is co-chairing the event and one of the honorees is Sheila Watt-Cloutier. She's a noted environmental activist and the event is likely to draw a crowd from people who actually understand what junk science is.

Junk science.

That would be the stuff Wells likes to quote.

-srbp-

PUB job competition: what happened to it?

Last summer, the Public Service Commission (PSC) held a competition for the position of chief executive officer of the public utilities board.

They also held a competition apparently for the vacant commissioner positions at the same time.

Bond Papers e-mailed the PSC on Friday and asked for confirmation the competitions had been held, and whether they had been completed or cancelled.

The reply confirmed that a competition was held for "CEO, Public Utilities Board" and that "the resumes of the candidates who applied for the opportunity were assessed" by one of the PSC commissioners and a representative of the Clerk of the Executive Council.

That's it.

A second e-mail asked - for the third time, all told - if the competition was actually completed.

You see, saying that someone assessed the resumes doesn't say anything at all. That would be one step in a full selection process that included interviews, some kind of written test and then a final set of recommendations. Then again, if the resumes were deemed lacking qualification after they were assessed, the whole process might have come to a screeching halt.

The second e-mail has gone unanswered. The one from last Friday likewise has gone unanswered.

This aspect of the current public utilities board controversy is really quite interesting.

Recall that in the offshore board matter, the provincial government twice agreed to a process to select a person for the chair/chief executive job based on merit criteria. Andy Wells wasn't even in the first competition. That was halted when the Premier injected Wells into the whole thing.

In the second go-round, based on a statutory process, Wells didn't get the job then either.

Now this whole Public Service Commission angle pops up and the whole thing takes on another aspect.

First, the vagueness - let alone incompleteness - of the PSC reply is suggestive there is more to the story.

Second, there have been no appointments made since the competition to fill two vacant commissioner jobs at the board.

Third, the news release announcing Andy Wells would collect a second big salary for a second big job contained not a single reference to Wells having been selected by a competitive hiring process based on merit. you see, while senior appointments don't normally refer to the selection process, in this case the successful conclusion of a process would be a really good thing. These sorts of appointments haven't been handled that way and establishing competition based on merit goes a long way to giving cabinet appointments more credibility than they have.

Of course, the news release omitted a description of the public utilities boards full set of statutory responsibilities - like municipal water and sewer rates - so maybe there's nothing to it. That's like saying there was a competition for CEO of the PUB when the position was merged with that of board chair in 2006.

Then again, given that the whole appointment looks suspiciously familiar, maybe there was a failed or interrupted public service competition in this case as well.

Andy Wells and the conflicts of interest

Surely no one who has been following the strange case of St. John's Mayor Andy "Two Jobs" Wells was surprised at the revelations this past week that both Wells and Premier Danny Williams had discussed Wells serving as head of the public utilities board and staying on as mayor.

Note however, that they discussed it, as it appears, not after the issue was raised publicly, but before Wells was appointed to the public utilities board in the first place. An army of lawyers scoured the books to make sure there were no obvious impediments, like, say wording to the effect that the chairman can't hold down two jobs.

There is no conflict of interest, we are assured.

The lawyers from the city, the province and utilities board - presumably the ones who scoured originally - were dutifully trotted out to attest that there was no conflict in Wells serving as the mayor of a city which operates a public utility governed by the act - i.e. water and sewer services - and sitting as the head of the body that regulates the utility.

Well, sort of.

The board's in-house counsel, Dwanda Newman, wasn't quite as sure of the thing as some people seem to suggest, at least if you take a look at her comments in the Transcontinental story:

"The board has certainly — not to my knowledge — treated the City of St. John's as a public utility," said Newman. "That's certainly not the intention (of the PUB Act) to capture a large municipality that's incorporated by its own legislation. That's what I'd guess. I'm sure the intention was to capture a private company that's offering the service. But that's just a guess. I've only been here six years. I'm not aware of any history whereby the city was ever regulated by us."

Look at that last part again:

"...But that's just a guess. I've only been here six years. I'm not aware of any history whereby the city was ever regulated by us."

My lawyer guesses, I get the shakes.

Like my accountant telling me to go ahead and claim it and let's see what happens.

Or my doctor saying "geez, never saw that before."

Ms. Newman's cautions seems to derive from the clear intention of the public utilities act itself , in section 81, for example, to bring municipalities under the act for the purpose of fixing rates for providing certain public utilities. That section of the act dates from 1989.

It is by no means clear what the other lawyers are arguing given the plain English meaning of the statute's wording. Maybe they were referring not so much to the law as to the fact that the city of St. John's doesn't use the board to set water rates for its residents.

For his part, Wells is quoted by Transcontinental as saying:

"I was on the PUB 18 years ago and that definition was there [That the City of St. John's wasn't covered by the PUB]. And I was a member of council. The bottom line is that the city is not a utility within the meaning of that definition. So there is no conflict of interest there."

What Wells ignores - perhaps due to a faulty memory - is that in 1989 the utilities board was reorganized, with a changed role. Section 81, for example, applied after Wells left the board. Whatever definitions were used before 1989 may not count since the whole thing changed. Incidentally, there is some useful information in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wells' subsequent law suit for compensation for the portion of his original term cut short by the re-organization.

There are other aspects of the conflict of interest inherent in Wells serving as mayor of the city and as the chief commissioner of a public regulatory body which oversees, among other things, municipalities providing certain services. These aspects of the conflict of interest has been ignored to date.

A mayor is the elected chief representative of the people of the city of St. John's. He or she is responsible for defending their interests in dealings with the provincial government. While undoubtedly the role of mayor is defined under various provincial statutes, a mayor will inevitably be required to advocate for citizens collectively and sometimes find himself in conflict with the provincial government.

Wells is no stranger to conflict and it is his forthright advocacy on behalf of his constituents collectively which Wells often cites as one of his strengths.

However, as the Supreme Court consistently noted, Wells occupied - and now occupies again - a public service position at a senior level in a quasi-judicial body. He will be paid handsomely for that job, in fact almost double his municipal salary and mayor and chief executive of the city.

His position at the PUB is tenured for at least 10 years and he serves in the appointment during good behaviour. However, it is a cabinet appointment and, given the situation, government may elect to re-organize the PUB as it did in 1989 or take some other action which will relieve Wells of his sinecure. As the Supreme Court noted, the legislature may do that, as long as they provide compensation as they would for any other employee.

So when it gets down to it, there are several problems inherent in appointing the full-time mayor of a city as the full-time chair/chief executive of the province's public utilities board:

1. There is a conflict in a fellow doing what are clearly two full-time jobs running two full-time organizations. It's not like having a day job and moonlighting at a fast food outlet or doing some other kind of job in your off hours. These are jobs that were clearly intended - both evident from legislation and from Wells' own words - to be held by someone without outside distractions. Full-time mayor used to mean working more than eight hours, according to Wells. Now he seems to believe he can fit the job in when needed or fit the PUB into the city.

Something's gotta give in the demands of two full-time jobs and the giving shouldn't be the obligations of either job. There are other people who could be mayor. or there are other people who could run the PUB.

2. There is a potential conflict in the mayor of the capital city running a board to which other municipalities in the area may be subject. Regional co-operation has been hard enough to achieve in the past. Wells' views on amalgamation and on how other cities and towns are run are well known. Imagine the idea of say Conception Bay South or Mount Pearl looking to have rates set by the PUB with the mayor of St. John's running the show. Sure he could remove himself from a hearing itself, but take a look at the Act: the chairman and chief executive officer is responsible for work assignments and scheduling.

3. There is a potential conflict of employers. Does Andy work for the citizens of St. John's or the provincial government? He can't realistically do both jobs cleanly since at some point the interests will collide. How that collision is reconciled will tell much.

And before anyone brings up public servants serving on town and city councils, let's just say that this is a conflict of interest which has gone unaddressed for some time. Just because no one has dealt with it doesn't mean it isn't an issue or that it doesn't exist.

4. There is a potential conflict of future public interest. With a single person as mayor and chair - take Andy personally out of the equation - the provincial government may have to face policy choices it shouldn't have to face.

Take municipal services. Currently, the PUB looks at water and sewerage. It wouldn't be unreasonable to consider a future point in which solid waste disposal - garbage to you and me - would be brought under the PUB to ensure that both public and private operators provide a proper service at suitable rates to the consumer.

Rather than all providers - public and private - heading off to an impartial adjudicator, they'd be staring at a stacked deck. The private company may wonder if the rates set truly are reasonable and fair if the municipality has some interest in continuing to control services within its own municipality or regionally.

When it gets right down to it, there simply is no legitimate, defensible reason to let Andy Wells - or any other full-time mayor - hold down the full-time job of chairman and chief executive officer of the public utilities board. The only reason this situation exists is because Andy and the cabinet created it.

Why they did so is not much of a mystery; Wells himself has talked about paying off his legal bills. That's a reason to pass the hat among your friends or just knuckle down and pay the bills out of your own pocket, over time. Heck, take the higher paying job and get the debt off the books faster.

None of what has been offered up by the Premier, the Mayor or the legion of lawyers can get against the inherent conflicts of interest in the arrangement the Mayor and the Premier have put together.

Then again it's not the first time we've seen this administration embrace conflict of interest as its favourite policy option.

-srbp-

It must be a good idea.

Andy Wells opposes it.

Councilor Frank Galgay suggested selling the Mile One money pit at a council meeting last night. he was attacked immediately by Mayor Andy Wells. The boorish mayor demanded that Galgay tell him how much someone in the private sector might pay for the facility. Then His Boorishness proceeded to lament the sorry state of the province's educational system.

The start of the conversation was tabling of the financial reports for the Money Pit.

A loss of $640,000 in the last fiscal year.

Bear in mind that council deliberately increased the subsidy to the Pit last year claiming that somehow a financially successful money pit actually needed more free cash.

But here's the thing.

If one considers the $500,000 added subsidy as part of the shortfall, then the Money Pit's operating shortfall in Fiscal Year 2006 is...

wait for it...$1.14 million.

The deficit from the previous year? Why one tenth of that figure.

It's not reported in the story linked above but other reports have the shortfall from the previous year at around $130,000.

Wow.

The $640,000 shortfall is bad enough, but the real shortfall is staggering. It becomes stupefying when one considers that the annual subsidy before the boost was about $1.0 million.

In other words, the stadium lost as much money in 2006 as the taxpayers of St. John's pumped into it in subsidy.

But really that subsidy is an operating loss as well.

The taxpayers of St. John's don't make any money on this venture. They get the privilege of paying - this number will shock you - $1.5 million in subsidy plus the $640,000 shortfall for a total loss of $2.14 million.

Holy crap.

And what does the mayor think?

"It's well in the mix, so this is not — contrary to what some people are saying — this is not a major drain on the taxpayers of St. John's. It's working pretty well."

Working pretty well, huh.

At least no one will need to ask the mayor the same question he posed to Galgay at last night's meeting.

Suggesting that Mile One is working pretty well makes the answer plain.

Sell the Money Pit.

No matter what cash we'd get for it, the taxpayers will be better off in the long run.

-srbp-

Update: Andy Wells is proud of Mile One, so proud he claims the stadium has a per-user subsidy like the Mews Centre or the Wedgewood Park Centre.

Apples? Meet Oranges.

For those who don't know, the latter are community recreation centres operated by the city for the benefit of residents. It's fair to talk about a per-user subsidy for those facilities which are, by definition, used by citizens individually for their own personal fitness. If my family goes to the place, we get the direct benefit of it in the way of improving our fitness and health. We should expect the place to break even but, in the event there is a shortfall in operating expenses, it's reasonable for council to provide a small subsidy of some kind.

Mile One is completely different.

It's a facility built as a commercial venue for concerts, ice hockey and a variety of similar large events. Using some kind of "per-user" comparison for subsidies is more than a bit misleading.

For the purposes of determining cost and benefit, it would be more useful to look at Mile One as a commercial venture and look at how much money it loses. It should be making a profit. Breaking even, the goal we should set for all taxpayer-owned facilities, would be acceptable but profit would be nicer.

$1.5 million in operating subsidy, plus covering the $640,000 shortfall on the last fiscal year.

More than $2.0 million.

Hmmm.

Not good.

Then we look at the general trend.

Definitely bad, since the loss to the taxpayers resulting from operating the facility seems to be going up. It's pretty bad when losses go up in an otherwise good year economically in the region. To see losses climb by 10 times (the inflated subsidy is really a mask for the deeper operating problem) and you've got a pretty - obviously - significant problem on your hands.

To make matters worse, the mayor expects that expenses for the stadium will always exceed revenue. In that environment, the residents of the city can only expect things to get worse. The mayor not only tries to find excuses for the loses, he actually thinks they will go on and on as some sort of natural occurence. City officials have no incentive to make things better and officials at the stadium/conference centre have no incentive to improve. The mayor has the excuses already written out.

Where else but St. John's would this sorry excuse for municipal government be allowed to continue?

A good start, the City Hall version

The City of St. John's is short on its budget for next year.

$6.0 million short.

So councilors are considering axing funding for community groups and skimping on New Year's celebrations.

Here's a simpler idea that would save at least $3.0 million a year:

Sell the Mile One sinkhole.

-srbp-

Andy Wells' Homer Simpson moment

St. John's mayor Andy Wells thinks that David Suzuki is a junk scientist.

At a regular city council meeting on Monday, Wells launched into once of his trademark tirades on the subject of pesticides.

Wells said anti-pesticide groups are fear-mongering, and that his own research shows that pesticides are safe and necessary to produce food. [Emphasis added]

Wells should read literature distributed by his own city to householders the day after his tirade. Turns out Wells had a vintage Homer moment.

What is so harmful about pesticides?

The runoff from pesticides can pollute water supplies, and can be lethal to aquatic species that inhabit these water supplies. Pesticides can also have an effect on human health. [Emphasis added] For a number of years the City of St. John's has not used cosmetic pesticides on public lands, and has encouraged staff to ensure pests are handled in a non-chemical manner. Only the province has the authority to ban or regulate the use of pesticides. The City recommends if residents must use chemical pesticides, that they use them in a way that is both safe and efficient.

D'oh!

-srbp-

Beware of junk merchants

A story originally in The Telegram has turned up on the CanWest news service across the country.

It is a short piece that only discusses some of the more outdated and, consequently humorous, sections of the City of St. John's Act that are still on the books.

There's even a quote from St. John's Mayor Andy Wells, who is shown at right in the illustration, along with the Telegram's headline on the story:

The act is the bane of Mayor Andy Wells. "A lot of the content of the act is junk," Mr. Wells said.

[Telegram Photo: Joe Gibbons]

One of the sections Wells thinks to be junk?

The section of the act empowering the province's auditor general to review the City's books and operations.

You have to go to the Telegram version for that:

The auditor general (currently John Noseworthy) - whose reports annually shed an embarrassing light on the provincial government - could turn his attention to city hall if he wanted.

But Wells said there is no need, because the city already has an external audit process which produces reports annually.

No need because an outside auditor - hired by city council - can do the job.

Like we haven't heard that one offered up by politicians before.

That was exactly the same excuse used by politicians who blocked the auditor general from reviewing the House of Assembly accounts during years when millions were allegedly misspent.

Maybe the residents of St. John's should be suspicious of a politician who considers independent review of public spending by an appointed, impartial official to be a problem.

In the meantime, they can give Wells a shovel and have him repair the city's crumbling infrastructure of roads, sidewalks and water and sewer works.

Like this little gem that erupted in the middle of the last municipal election:

-srbp-

Andy Wells: Not in the public interest

Anyone familiar with St. John's Mayor and likely Dan-didate wannabe Andy Wells, left, [Photo cbc.ca]understands that one result of his presence anywhere is that a functional entity like a board or a municipal council quickly becomes dysfunctional.

It quickly becomes distracted by the Wellsian bluster, sheer bullsh** and his trademark: vicious personal attacks against those who resist his boorish ways.

Premier Danny Williams is more than passing familiar both with Andy Wells and his ways.

The Telegram rightly notes the current situation at the offshore regulatory board, although the editorial seems to suggest dysfunction is merely a coincidence rather than a direct consequence of Wells' presence.

Ok.

Maybe it is.

But it isn't like there isn't a bit more than a coincidence.

Andy Wells shows up.

Positive stuff tends not to happen, except in spite of Wells' efforts.

Tons of histrionics.

Not much else.

Public Utilities Board.

St. John's City Council.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Regulatory Board.

So the questions that we should consider are these:

1. Given the obvious pattern, why would anyone - especially Premier Danny Williams - appoint Andy Wells to a board whose proper functioning has such a profound influence on the province's future well being?

The answer to that one might actually be easier if you consider first:

2. Whose interest is served by turning the offshore board from a functioning one (without Andy Wells) into the dysfunctional one described by the Telegram?

Frankly, your humble e-scribbler wouldn't suggest the offshore board is dysfunctional yet.

The board itself is perfectly capable of carrying out its crucial role. It has highly competent, board members with knowledge of the oil industry, with the obvious exception of Andy Wells.

Just how little Andy Wells knows must be painfully obvious at every board meeting with the likes of Hal Stanley at the table. It must be personally mortifying for Wells - a crushing blow to the considerable and distended ego - to be so painfully, so obviously out of his depth.

Maybe that's why he has resorted to the public grandstanding seen in recent days. He doesn't have anything of substance to offer.

Of course, the board's professional staff is second to none when it comes to the job of regulating offshore oil and gas development.

But given all that anyone knows about Wells' behaviour, whose interest is served by having him be the monkey-wrench in the offshore board works?

It certainly isn't in the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-

Andy Wells to run?

Steve Kent decided around Christmas to run for the House of Assembly.

He didn't formally declare until yesterday.

A week after he spoke at the Rally for Danny.

In the meantime, he had a few things, including a boundary dispute, to keep his profile up there as a fighting Mount Pearler.

Follow so far?

Good.

Mayor Andy Wells.

Being his usual annoying, abrasive - and uninformed - self.

Behaving at the offshore regulatory board the same way he used to carry on at the public utilities border 20 years ago. Insulting people with terms that could be better used to describe himself.

Same boring stuff.

Someone leaked a letter to CBC Radio from the chair of the offshore board complaining about Wells. Wasn't the federal minister. Likely wasn't the provincial minister. Definitely wasn't the offshore board.

Who's left?

The same guy who leaked the story of his failed nomination for the top job at the board in the first place?

Good guess.

You see the same letter wound up in the hands of the Independent along with a marvelous, long-winded interview full of quotes.

But here's the thing.

The whole issue didn't need to pop up in the public domain right now. After all the letter was written almost a month ago and the incident involved goes back months before that.

So it gets the thoughts flowing.

If one mayor in the region is running for Danny, maybe the other big mayor will be running for him as well. Maybe this is just another one of those cheesy little stunts to keep Andy Wells' name in the news. Lord knows fixing the streets wouldn't be quite as newsworthy as Wells calling someone a hack, a word incidentally which describes the mayor to a tee.

So where would he run?

In Kent's case, both his intentions and his seat choice were wrapped up in a neat little bow, right next to the "it's all about leadership" crap that he would use to explain away what appears to many to be a track record of political opportunism.

In Well's case - if he were to run - there are actually a couple of options.

St. John's East is a safe Tory seat. It's currently held by intergovernmental affairs minister John Ottenheimer. Now Ottenheimer - surely one of the finest cabinet ministers in a while in this province - is not expected to run again.

But Andy doesn't quite fit the St. John's east profile.

That's a seat better suited to say, Dean MacDonald.

(Now there's an announcement that wouldn't surprise anyone. All that would be left to complete the set after that is a seat for Ken and job for Mel. Call it Cable Newfoundland and Labrador. An unregulated political monopoly. But I digress.)

Anyway, the seat most likely to suit any ambitions Andy might have would be the one currently held by the New Democrat leader, Lorraine Michael.

So there you have it. Speculation of the week. Andy Wells will be running for Danny in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

And some smart bunny out there will undoubtedly connect up the rest of the political dots federally and provincially on his or her own.

Wells to offshore board chair: "He can get stuffed on that."

In a situation that is likely no surprise to anyone, St. John's mayor Andy Wells is in hot water with the chairman of the offshore regulatory board.

CBC News is reporting that Max Ruelokke, chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Board complaining about comments made by Wells in a recent oil magazine article. Wells, who is a provincial appointee to the board, reportedly called the board "incompetent" in its recent handling of a development application.

The provincial government vetoed the board's approval claiming a lack of information, even though the provincial government did nothing while the application was in process to obtain the information it claimed it needed.

In January, the board took the unprecedented step of releasing its decision and associated correspondence, although the documents have been removed from the board's website.

"He can get stuffed on that," Wells said.

"He's not going to be telling me how I'm going to respond to any issues that come before this board. I'm not going to stand by and allow some bureaucratic hack to tell me what I can and cannot say on matters of public interest," he said.

Wells was Premier Danny Williams surprise choice in 2005 to head the board, coming as it did despite the fact that the selection process agreed to by both the federal and provincial governments was well under way.

Wells didn't get the job, even after a second process as established under the Atlantic Accord (1985).

Wells has commented publicly on the decision previously.

-srbp-

A veritable GPS to the butts of the politically powerful

From the Telegram, Bill Rowe demonstrates once again that he is good at nothing else if not sucking up to autocrats.

Hence his successful service in both the Smallwood and Williams administrations, where he probably spoke truth to power daily using the vocabulary worthy of a Rhodes scholar:

"Yes, Mr. Premier, I do believe the obscurating clouds have now been successfully dissipated and the glorious solar orb is now once more emitting its miraculous benefit at full luminosity safe ensconced from between your nether cheeks".

Rowe endorses the idea of Sir Danny the Good leading a band of seven virtuous sons (and daughters) of The Cause on a Quest for the Holy Grail of More Hand-outs from Ottawa.

Rowe nominates Danny for the lead role. He genuflects so strenuously in doing so (even in writing) that one fears Rowe will poke out an eye or two if he does not calm down.

Andy Wells is cast as, one expects, Sir Lancelot. In true suck-arse fashion, Rowe credits Andy Wells - the other amigo in the little band - for calling this band the Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador. Since Rowe long since abandoned the party he once led - up to a sorry encounter with some brown envelopes - he likely forgets that credit for inventing the most ludicrous idea in Newfoundland political history since A.B. Morine as minister of justice goes to:

Roger Grimes. A Liberal leader who  - unlike Rowe - can say more of his political career than Brian Tobin used to hand out envelopes for him.

Rowe himself?

Likely Bedevere from the Monty Python incarnation of the fairy tale: "and that my Liege is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped...".

That's about the only way one can explain not only the farcical Bloc but lines like this, which Rowe types with all earnestness:

It would be a double whammy. One, Danny could punish Harper for his treachery by helping to deny him a majority government. Two, like Quebec, we’d have a solid group of MPs pulling on the same oar, dedicated solely to this province’s best interests.

Deny Harper a majority government.

Right.

Even the much-vaunted Bloc, which for all the praise it gets from people like Rowe has produced exactly what for Quebec from the Government of Canada...

Zip?

Nada?

Bupkis?

And outside of a few chuckles, that - s.f.a. - is what Bill's latest column is worth.

If the Bloc's 57 or 60 or whatever number they've achieved cannot produce one ounce of influence on anyone outside Quebec, then there is simply no means by which seven could do more.

Power rests in the cabinet, and particularly in the first minister's office. The Blocheads will never see the inside of either, and that is why a Bloc, whether from Quebec, Prince Edward Island or Dannystan would be as useless as, well, writing a book commentary without having read the book.

How odd that Rowe, who has shown himself to be a reliable compass needle for local political butt-lickers, could not figure out the location of the same power source in Ottawa.

Bill's needle is off on this Bloc one.

But, as it did 40 years ago, it still faithfully indicates the motherlode of Newfoundland political magnetism.

Vote early. Vote often

Angus Reid's on-line survey.

Sign up.

Get to vote on questions like "Is Andy Wells doing a good job as mayor?".

Watch the results currently answering that question in the negative, 55% to 45%.

How much is enough? Part Two

St. John's mayor Andy Wells backs Premier Danny Williams unequivocally on whatever policies Williams espouses.

No surprise there, since Williams gave Wells the best part-time job he'll ever have.

Of course, Wells can't explain the Williams policies any better than the Premier can himself.

To wit:

Wells says a seat at the owners' table of major offshore projects is the only way to get an inside view of the industry.

"It's important that we have a presence at the table when the big decisions are being made."

Under the Atlantic Accord (1985), the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has all the rights of the resource owner to set royalties and to approve or disapprove of projects.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador already has a seat at the table when the big decisions get made.

In fact, as the provincial government has demonstrated at Hebron and Hibernia South, there isn't anyone else sitting at the table.

Nobody else is even in the room.

That's because, under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the provincial government sets royalties for the offshore. If it doesn't get the deal it wants, there's no project.

Similarly, as in Hibernia South, the government can simply sit back and veto a project, despite having failed to exercise any diligence in collecting information before a decision was required.

What is Mr. Wells talking about? He evidently doesn't know and therefore no one else can figure it out either.

"You've got to fundamentally establish your right to a reasonable measure of control over the industry. I want to see a situation where we do have the information and we do have the presence and we do have the right - that's what this is fundamentally all about."

Mr. Wells really does need to read the 1985 Accord, perhaps for the first time. He certainly needs to listen to the briefings offered up to board members at the offshore regulatory board.

The Accord establishes that the provincial government already has extensive control over the offshore. Some might even call it unreasonable control given that the provincial government can apparently neglect its responsibilities for over a year on Hibernia South and then simply veto the project on the flimsiest of excuses.

As for information, Mr. Wells could easily consult with the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at the offshore board. They already know far more than Mr. Wells or his advisors could know about any aspect of the industry.

What's Mr. Wells talking about? It isn't clear again that even he knows.

"I consider it fundamental that this issue of equity - the 4.9 per cent - be satisfactorily addressed. I don't understand the companies' reluctance with respect to this issue, particularly considering the premier's not asking for it for free."

If Mr. Wells does not understand the position taken by the oil companies perhaps he might take some time to enlighten himself on the matter. It has been well-covered in the news media and company officials are quite willing to make their position known.

Bond Papers has discussed it extensively. It centres on a simple matter of conflict of interest.

But, let us assume that the cost of the thing was an issue.

The so-called equity position was described by the premier as having a total net value to the provincial treasury of a mere $1.5 billion over the 20 year anticipated lifespan of the project. Put that against the estimated provincial revenues of $10 billion.

The premier also said that the tax concessions sought by the companies had a total cost to the treasury of $400 million. Total. Not annual. Total.

The premier said this amount negated the value of the rest of the deal.

Aside from the problems with math evident in the premier's comments - $400 million is less than $1.5 billion - it is difficult to imagine how that sum could obliterate all the benefits of having what Mr. Wells describes as a seat at the table where the big decisions are made, of having information and a "reasonable" level of control.

Leaving even all that aside, though, perhaps Mr. Wells could explain to us how much the Premier offered to pay and how he proposed to pay for it, given that the provincial treasury is stretched a bit thin.

What is Mr. Wells talking about here? Again, one suspects that even he doesn't know.

If - by some chance - he does, then perhaps Mr. Wells would be good enough to enlighten the rest of us.

Otherwise, all we have in this Telegram story is another example of Mr. Wells saying one thing now, when he said something different before.

When the provincial government moved taxpayers out of his jurisdiction to other parts of the province, Mr. Wells thought the idea silly. The prospect of fat federal job s being transferred to his jurisdiction last year had him signing a different tune.

In 1997, six months engineering work was a monumental loss to the province. Now, the loss of innumerable high-paid jobs and the larger value of continuity resulting from the Hebron and Hibernia South projects, is simply the short-term pain for some undefined long-term gain.

What we actually have here is most likely the pain - short- and long-term from Williams' decisions and the equally large pain of Wells' vague comments.

-30-