AG raises issues with public cash in three private ventures

in his annual report, the Auditor general examined the provincial government's investment programs for business, including three businesses which fell outside the programs already established.

The three companies are identified as High Technology Company A, High Technology Company B and High Technology R&D Company. They are, in order, Blue Line, Consilient and Trans Ocean, as revealed by comparing Volume II of the Public Accounts with the AG report.

The Auditor General's conclusions on the three were:

We are of the opinion that there is no explicit authority under the Financial Administration Act
for the Department to make direct investments in companies. During 2005-06, the Department made three such investments totalling $1,050,000 to three companies. Furthermore, there are no documented procedures for approving, disbursing and monitoring such unique investments and, as a result, these investments were not subject to the same due diligence required for investments under the SME Fund. As a result, there were deficiencies. For example:

- none of the three companies were required to repay the investment contingent on either income earned or a maximum seven year period;

- one company was not required to submit documentation to support specific expenditures;

- shareholders for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company A) who received $500,000 were not required to make new equity investments as part of their contribution to the project; instead,
previous investments were accepted;

- shareholders for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company B) who received $500,000 were not required to provide personal net worth statements; and

- Department officials were not entitled to attend any company meetings for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company B) even though the company was provided with funding totalling $500,000

The innovation department responded:

With respect to other investments outside our normal programs, we do not concur with your interpretation that there is no explicit authority under the Financial Administration Act for the Department to make direct investments in companies. We understand that there is a separate section
in the Report on the Financial Administration Act to which the Department of Finance has responded.

Government, as has always been the case, receives proposals from companies seeking financial assistance of various types and levels that do not fit our normal business programs. Government reviews each case based on its own merit, including full due diligence, and, when considered appropriate, has provided assistance to some of these companies. The process that is followed in these cases is the Cabinet process. Economic development and business growth, especially new growth sectors, are priorities. Access to capital is an important issue for these SMEs in this Province. These investments levered additional funding for these companies and involved young entrepreneurs, leading edge technology, the potential to increase export sales and to increase quality employment opportunities in new growth sectors for our post-secondary graduates.

As noted, these investments were approved, with the required analysis and due diligence outside the SME program and therefore were not subject to the same requirements for auditing purposes. At the time of the approval, the Department did not have a program to support commercial research and development, and/or invest in businesses at the pre-commercial stage of operation. Since then, the Department has established a Commercialization Program that accommodates projects of this nature.

Given that these transactions took place two fiscal years ago, perhaps the Auditor General will report on some more recent transactions similar to the ones cited above - which took place since then - when he issues his next report: January 2009.

-srbp-

AG considers Sept '07 report to cover improper retention or misappropriation of public money or other similar action

In his annual report for 2007, Auditor General John Noseworthy includes his massive September 2007 Report on a Review of Constituency Allowance Claims from 1989-90 through to 2005-06 as a report under section 15 of the Auditor General Act.

As the AG cites, section 15 provides:

Where during the course of an audit, the auditor general becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act, the auditor general shall immediately report the improper retention or misappropriation of public money or other activity to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Under the AG Act, the auditor general is required to provide the report to the minister of finance.

Under a similar provision in the new Green bill on House accountability and integrity - in force in September 2007 - Noseworthy was required to advise six offices of the report, including the Speaker, the Attorney General, the Premier and the Minister of Finance.

The Auditor General has refused all public comment on the September report, citing the provisions of the Green bill. Under section 45, the Auditor General is prohibited from confirming or denying the existence of such a report on a member or other official of the legislature except to include a reference in his next annual report.

Bond Papers contacted the House of Assembly earlier in January asking if the Auditor General had filed any section 15 reports in addition to those related to certain companies, three former members of the legislature and five individuals currently facing criminal charges. The official response was to decline comment on the question. The report does include information on the former members of the legislature, but nothing that had not been included in previous reports since the focus of the report was broader in scope and purpose.

There is no constraint in the Green bill on the six offices receiving a section 15/section 45 report similar to the restriction on the Auditor General.

Under the order in council authorizing the September 2007 report, the Auditor General was detailed to conducted annual audits of the House of Assembly for the periods Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Year 2003 and to review constituency allowance spending from 1989 to 2004 to determine if overspending occurred beyond approved amounts. neither of the two reports cited by the Auditor General as resulting from that order in council appears to meet either term of the order.

-srbp-

No charges for Barrett

Liberal member of the House of Assembly Percy Barrett won't be facing criminal charges over allegations made last year by the province's auditor general, John Noseworthy.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary said today that after an investigation, there was insufficient evidence to lay a charge.

Noseworthy claimed that Barrett had improperly received over $117,000, although Barrett own efforts reduced the amount of alleged overpayments by approximately $30,000. For those doing the math, that's an error on Noseworthy's part of 25%. The actual discrepancy may be significantly higher, suggesting that there are other problems with Noseworthy's audit of the legislature.

Bond Papers has already noted that Noseworthy's review missed entirely substantive discrepancies between budgeted amounts and actual spending in the province's legislature for the period from 1998 to 2006. In the illustration above, the red line represents the actual discrepancy between budget and actual, while the yellow represents the amounts reported by Noseworthy. The numbers used in the red line were confirmed by the Green report.

While directed by cabinet last summer to complete a detailed audit of the period from 1998 to 2004, Noseworthy has reported on other matters instead , including a detailed examination of spending by individual members dating back to 1989. That report is due before October 9.

So far, no word on the detailed audit of the legislature.

-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-

AG to get fibreoptic documents

After months of insisting that provincial law prevented cabinet from releasing cabinet documents to the Auditor General, cabinet has decided to give Auditor General John Noseworthy access to documents relevant to his review of a controversial fibreoptic cable deal between government and a private sector consortium.

No explanation for the change is included in the CBC story linked above, but the decision by cabinet is consistent with an idea advanced by Bond Papers before Christmas (first link above) that the Ag could be given access based on cabinet discretion.

Partisan abuse of AG even worse

The use of the AG's office for partisan purposes is worse than first thought.

Here's what Premier Danny Williams said to reporters, yesterday:

If three quarters of the people who were reported on happen to be Tory, then — if that was the case and there was some negativity — there then it would be disproportionate to the Tories," Williams said.

"If we do this over the complete period of time, it's a fair representation, because it's all relative."

Even though the problems in the House started after 1997 (by the AG's own reports), Danny Williams wants to use a whole bunch of other members of the House, mostly Liberal, to try and counterbalance what happened over the past decade.

Notice, by the way, that in the past decade, Danny Williams himself has been in the House of Assembly either as Leader of the Opposition or as Premier for six years.

60% of the key period.

Whatever the Auditor General was originally going to do was directly relevant to judging the behaviour of all people seeking re-election. It's especially relevant to use detailed information to balance what those individuals knew and did with what they promised to do.

The Premier also said this:

"If people are going to decide on what's right or wrong in regards of what [incumbents] did was appropriate or inappropriate, then they are in a position to measure what went on before and what went on with other governments, and what the standard was," Williams said.

That assumes that what voters see is a complete record, let alone one that is relevant to the goings-on in the House over the past decade.

Don't count on that level of disclosure.

After all, the Premier still hasn't come clean on what he knew about the the secret bonus cash, when.

And that's really the crux of the problem for the Premier.

He set the bar.

He should be judged against what undertakings he gave to the electorate.

What Clyde Wells did should be irrelevant. Danny Williams just made it germane.

He won't like the consequences of that comparison.

Weighed.

Measured.

Came up really short.