What residents of St. John's would cut to avoid the tax hike he and his fellow councillors voted to stick to the residents of the city of legendarily incompetent municipal politicians?
Bond Papers answers.
For one thing, Tom, we'd hack the $3.0 million in taxpayers cash you and your fellow councillors voted to pour into the great sinkhole known as Mile One.
Used to be Hann was a critic of the folly otherwise known as the Keith Coombs Money Pit.
That was before Hann got elected to council, got suckered into serving on the Mile One board and then was force-fed the Gower Street Kool-Aid. Now he slobbers the stuff up like old-pro Doc O'Keefe.
Now he stands up and tells us that the waste-of-cash is making such great progress on breaking even it needs even more of a taxpayer hand-out than it used to get.
When we are done cutting that, maybe we should hack out a few salaries from city council. So far we haven't been getting anything even close to our money's worth.
11 December 2006
AG misses half, ignores mandate, chases wine and paintings instead
[Revised]
Between Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 and 2005, the House of Assembly budget for allowances and assistance was overspent by a total of more than $3.2 million but Auditor General John Noseworthy's report on alleged overspending by five current and former members of the provincial legislature accounts for less than half that.
The figures come from a comparison of Noseworthy's reports with the Public Accounts for each fiscal year. The Public Accounts are the official financial statements for the provincial government, audited annually by Noseworthy (right, Photo: CBC) and his predecessor Elizabeth Marshall in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. The Public Accounts are compiled from records maintained by each department and confirmed by the comptroller general, the provincial government official whose office has been issuing cheques on behalf of the House of Assembly since 1999.
Bond Papers corrected the Auditor General's reporting of dates to coincide with the Public Accounts.
Sudden jumps in individual payments
Figure 1 (above) shows the results of Noseworthy's reports on five current and former legislators. Before 2001, payments over budgeted amounts to individual members of the legislature were relatively small. However, they skyrocket in 2001. One member who allegedly received $12,000 more than budgeted in FY 2000 with one member, allegedly received $118,000 the following year, followed by more than $128,000 in FY 2002 and $198,000 in FY 2003 before the overpayments suddenly stopped.
Another member, defeated in the 2003 general election, allegedly received approximately $9,900 in FY 2000, $41,800 in FY 2001 but more than $130,000 in FY 2003.
While three of the five members received no overpayments after FY 2003, two current members of the legislature received overpayments in FY 2004 and FY 2005.
The Public Accounts show that the House of Assembly's allowances and assistance budget - the line item that covers constituency allowances - was overspent in each year from FY 1998 to FY 2005.
Bulk of unexplained overspending occurred after April 2004
Figure 2 (above) shows a comparison of the total overspending on the allowances budget each year (red line) with the total overspending contained in the Auditor General's reports on alleged overspending by five current and former members (yellow line).
Except for two fiscal years, the alleged overpayments to individual members is far below the total overspending on the budget line item. Overspending in FY 1999, for example, totaled more than $529,000 but the Auditor General's reports only account for approximately $78,000.
Similarly, alleged payments to two members in FY 2004 and FY 2005 total slightly over $200,000. Total overspending reported in the Public Accounts for those same years totals more than $1.0 million, about half of the overspending still unexplained by the Auditor General after completing two separate reviews of overspending. Coupled with the questioned suppliers' payments (see below), the bulk of the alleged overspending and questionable payments occurred after 2004.
When he announced results of his first review of spending by Byrne, Noseworthy said that changes to the administrative rules in 2004 prevented overspending after that date.
No explanations; AG and Finance Minister get dates wrong
AG Noseworthy stated recently that his reviews of overspending are completed. His next public report will examine how members of the legislature spent their allowances beginning in 1989. He has not explained how he believes certain individuals received overpayments, nor has he explained the total overspending on allowances.
In releasing his latest report on individual overpayments, Noseworthy did note that the individual overpayments accelerated after the Auditor General's office was barred from reviewing the legislature's accounts, supposedly in FY 2000. In recent media interviews, finance minister Loyola Sullivan, a member of the legislature's internal economy commission since 2002, stated he regretted making the decision in FY 2000.
However, the decision to block the Auditor General's review was taken in 2002, not 2000. Sullivan (left) was a member of the IEC when the decision to block the Auditor general was actually taken. Changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act in 1999 and 2000 gave the IEC the power, among other things, to determine who would audit the legislature's books.
In April 2004, the Internal Economy Commission removed the bar on the auditor general but stipulated the audits would be from April 2004 forward. That restriction was only removed after Noseworthy's allegation in June 2006 when he was sent back to re-do his original work.
The Auditor General has been legally able to audit the House of Assembly accounts for all but a two year period. Under the Financial Administration Act, the AG cannot legally be barred from reviewing the comptroller general's payment records. Those records form the basis of the Public Accounts and include details of the overspending from FY 1998 to FY 2005 Noseworthy has thus far not discussed.
Neither Sullivan nor Noseworthy has explained the discrepancy in their version of events or why the auditor general's office did not comment on the consistent overspending of the allowances account between 1998 and 2005.
Suppliers' payments don't fill in gaps in story
Noseworthy has also questioned payments to four suppliers made by the legislature between 1998 and 2005.
Figure 3 (above) compares the payments, based on the Auditor General's reports
However, while Noseworthy has alleged some goods purchased from the companies was never received, he has not been able to demonstrate this conclusively. In his initial report, Noseworthy claimed his office had been unable to confirm that items - such as expensive but poorly made signet rings - had been delivered. Within an hour of Noseworthy's news conference last summer, several rings turned up.
As well, Noseworthy has only attributed only a small portion the $2.6 million apparently paid to the companies to the five individual members of the House of Assembly. Most notably, though, the payments to the companies made in FY 2004 and FY 2005 total more than the entire overspending for the period as reported in the Public Accounts.
AG admits definition of "inappropriate" will be highly subjective
Rather than provide a complete explanation of overspending in the House of Assembly, the Auditor General will now focus his attention on how members of the legislature spent money allocated for constituency expenses regardless of whether the members overspent their accounts.
This is actually outside the mandate given him by cabinet in July 2006, while a detailed accounting of the overspending between 1998 and 2005 would be exactly described in his charge to conduct "detailed audits" for the period.
Attention will be focused, some believe, on former finance minister Paul Dicks who allegedly purchased wine and artwork from his constituency budget. According to some reports, Noseworthy and his then-boss Elizabeth Marshall were reviewing Dicks' accounts when they were barred from the legislature books in 2002.
Noseworthy has indicated this portion of his review - which may or may not be completed before the next general election - will examine spending dating back to 1989. Noseworthy's hunt for overspending by individual members found nothing before 1997. Bond Papers predicted as much in June.
At the same time, some members of the legislature, including Liberal opposition leader Gerry Reid and Speaker Harvey Hodder, the Progressive Conservative member of the legislature for Waterford Valley have admitted to providing donations to groups in their districts and purchasing personal advertising from their constituency allowances.
In an interview with CBC television's Debbie Cooper, Noseworthy said he will be basing his assessment of "appropriate" spending by compiling a database of what members were spending allowances on. He told Cooper his definition of "appropriate" would be subjective.
Between Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 and 2005, the House of Assembly budget for allowances and assistance was overspent by a total of more than $3.2 million but Auditor General John Noseworthy's report on alleged overspending by five current and former members of the provincial legislature accounts for less than half that.
The figures come from a comparison of Noseworthy's reports with the Public Accounts for each fiscal year. The Public Accounts are the official financial statements for the provincial government, audited annually by Noseworthy (right, Photo: CBC) and his predecessor Elizabeth Marshall in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. The Public Accounts are compiled from records maintained by each department and confirmed by the comptroller general, the provincial government official whose office has been issuing cheques on behalf of the House of Assembly since 1999.Bond Papers corrected the Auditor General's reporting of dates to coincide with the Public Accounts.
Sudden jumps in individual payments
Figure 1 (above) shows the results of Noseworthy's reports on five current and former legislators. Before 2001, payments over budgeted amounts to individual members of the legislature were relatively small. However, they skyrocket in 2001. One member who allegedly received $12,000 more than budgeted in FY 2000 with one member, allegedly received $118,000 the following year, followed by more than $128,000 in FY 2002 and $198,000 in FY 2003 before the overpayments suddenly stopped.Another member, defeated in the 2003 general election, allegedly received approximately $9,900 in FY 2000, $41,800 in FY 2001 but more than $130,000 in FY 2003.
While three of the five members received no overpayments after FY 2003, two current members of the legislature received overpayments in FY 2004 and FY 2005.
The Public Accounts show that the House of Assembly's allowances and assistance budget - the line item that covers constituency allowances - was overspent in each year from FY 1998 to FY 2005.
Bulk of unexplained overspending occurred after April 2004
Figure 2 (above) shows a comparison of the total overspending on the allowances budget each year (red line) with the total overspending contained in the Auditor General's reports on alleged overspending by five current and former members (yellow line).Except for two fiscal years, the alleged overpayments to individual members is far below the total overspending on the budget line item. Overspending in FY 1999, for example, totaled more than $529,000 but the Auditor General's reports only account for approximately $78,000.
Similarly, alleged payments to two members in FY 2004 and FY 2005 total slightly over $200,000. Total overspending reported in the Public Accounts for those same years totals more than $1.0 million, about half of the overspending still unexplained by the Auditor General after completing two separate reviews of overspending. Coupled with the questioned suppliers' payments (see below), the bulk of the alleged overspending and questionable payments occurred after 2004.
When he announced results of his first review of spending by Byrne, Noseworthy said that changes to the administrative rules in 2004 prevented overspending after that date.
No explanations; AG and Finance Minister get dates wrong
AG Noseworthy stated recently that his reviews of overspending are completed. His next public report will examine how members of the legislature spent their allowances beginning in 1989. He has not explained how he believes certain individuals received overpayments, nor has he explained the total overspending on allowances.
In releasing his latest report on individual overpayments, Noseworthy did note that the individual overpayments accelerated after the Auditor General's office was barred from reviewing the legislature's accounts, supposedly in FY 2000. In recent media interviews, finance minister Loyola Sullivan, a member of the legislature's internal economy commission since 2002, stated he regretted making the decision in FY 2000.
However, the decision to block the Auditor General's review was taken in 2002, not 2000. Sullivan (left) was a member of the IEC when the decision to block the Auditor general was actually taken. Changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act in 1999 and 2000 gave the IEC the power, among other things, to determine who would audit the legislature's books.In April 2004, the Internal Economy Commission removed the bar on the auditor general but stipulated the audits would be from April 2004 forward. That restriction was only removed after Noseworthy's allegation in June 2006 when he was sent back to re-do his original work.
The Auditor General has been legally able to audit the House of Assembly accounts for all but a two year period. Under the Financial Administration Act, the AG cannot legally be barred from reviewing the comptroller general's payment records. Those records form the basis of the Public Accounts and include details of the overspending from FY 1998 to FY 2005 Noseworthy has thus far not discussed.
Neither Sullivan nor Noseworthy has explained the discrepancy in their version of events or why the auditor general's office did not comment on the consistent overspending of the allowances account between 1998 and 2005.
Suppliers' payments don't fill in gaps in story
Noseworthy has also questioned payments to four suppliers made by the legislature between 1998 and 2005.Figure 3 (above) compares the payments, based on the Auditor General's reports
However, while Noseworthy has alleged some goods purchased from the companies was never received, he has not been able to demonstrate this conclusively. In his initial report, Noseworthy claimed his office had been unable to confirm that items - such as expensive but poorly made signet rings - had been delivered. Within an hour of Noseworthy's news conference last summer, several rings turned up.
As well, Noseworthy has only attributed only a small portion the $2.6 million apparently paid to the companies to the five individual members of the House of Assembly. Most notably, though, the payments to the companies made in FY 2004 and FY 2005 total more than the entire overspending for the period as reported in the Public Accounts.
AG admits definition of "inappropriate" will be highly subjective
Rather than provide a complete explanation of overspending in the House of Assembly, the Auditor General will now focus his attention on how members of the legislature spent money allocated for constituency expenses regardless of whether the members overspent their accounts.
This is actually outside the mandate given him by cabinet in July 2006, while a detailed accounting of the overspending between 1998 and 2005 would be exactly described in his charge to conduct "detailed audits" for the period.
Attention will be focused, some believe, on former finance minister Paul Dicks who allegedly purchased wine and artwork from his constituency budget. According to some reports, Noseworthy and his then-boss Elizabeth Marshall were reviewing Dicks' accounts when they were barred from the legislature books in 2002.
Noseworthy has indicated this portion of his review - which may or may not be completed before the next general election - will examine spending dating back to 1989. Noseworthy's hunt for overspending by individual members found nothing before 1997. Bond Papers predicted as much in June.
At the same time, some members of the legislature, including Liberal opposition leader Gerry Reid and Speaker Harvey Hodder, the Progressive Conservative member of the legislature for Waterford Valley have admitted to providing donations to groups in their districts and purchasing personal advertising from their constituency allowances.
In an interview with CBC television's Debbie Cooper, Noseworthy said he will be basing his assessment of "appropriate" spending by compiling a database of what members were spending allowances on. He told Cooper his definition of "appropriate" would be subjective.
08 December 2006
Mine is not as small as yours.
VOCM radio listeners were treated a little while ago to a cabinet minister with nothing better to do than compare his political shortcomings to those of the Opposition leader.
Opposition leader Gerry Reid apparently earlier made the observation that the current session of the House is the shortest in some time.
Never and Can't minister John Hickey apparently took some time from finding the signed contract for the Trans-Labrador Highway to go check Hansard to see if Reid's claim was correct.
Turns out there was an eight day session in December 2000 during the brief interlude between Brian Tobin and Roger Grimes.
Ok. So the current session, at a mere 15 days isn't the shortest on recent record. It is worth noting, however, that the session Hickey mentioned was never likely to be a time of great legislation.
Not say like what we would expect from a government in the third year of its mandate and presumably with signed roads contracts to bring before the legislature or anything.
But the really odd thing about Hickey's comment is that it was the opposite of the usual testosterone-fueled competition one expects from some politicians. Rather than arguing that his was bigger than Reid's, Hickey argued that while his session may be small, Reid's was in fact smaller.
Hmmm.
Perhaps we shouldn't remind Hickey and Reid that in the early 1990s the House routinely sat for 90 odd days a year.
That would make mine bigger than both of theirs put together.
Opposition leader Gerry Reid apparently earlier made the observation that the current session of the House is the shortest in some time.
Never and Can't minister John Hickey apparently took some time from finding the signed contract for the Trans-Labrador Highway to go check Hansard to see if Reid's claim was correct.
Turns out there was an eight day session in December 2000 during the brief interlude between Brian Tobin and Roger Grimes.
Ok. So the current session, at a mere 15 days isn't the shortest on recent record. It is worth noting, however, that the session Hickey mentioned was never likely to be a time of great legislation.
Not say like what we would expect from a government in the third year of its mandate and presumably with signed roads contracts to bring before the legislature or anything.
But the really odd thing about Hickey's comment is that it was the opposite of the usual testosterone-fueled competition one expects from some politicians. Rather than arguing that his was bigger than Reid's, Hickey argued that while his session may be small, Reid's was in fact smaller.
Hmmm.
Perhaps we shouldn't remind Hickey and Reid that in the early 1990s the House routinely sat for 90 odd days a year.
That would make mine bigger than both of theirs put together.
Is it just me...
or is there something appropriate in the actor - (Kevin Noble, right, not exactly as illustrated) - who made a career impersonating Joe Smallwood (Below left, not exactly as illustrated, either) now spending his days calling talk shows and using lines spoken - virtually word for word - not so long ago by the current Premier?
If the Premier's publicity department is sending out scripts, it must make sense to have an actor deliver them.And while, we are talking about it, The Telegram editorial makes some choice observations about recent goings-on in the world of talk radio:
Even open-line hosts will admit that few of their callers are everyday people anymore. The shows have become political soapboxes, free political broadcast time for both cabinet members and the opposition.
And when the official politicians hang up, they hand the phone lines over to imaginary man-on-the-street supporters - supporters who are just as organized as FakeMySpace's twice-weekly fake e-mails.
Recognizing this - and not happy to be a tool in someone else's political machine - radio hosts are becoming chippier. The seasoned ones know that when they hear someone parroting the official "messaging" - "Forget about that fibre-optic deal, Bill. I'm just glad we have a leader like Danny Williams with vision ..." - it's time for the gloves to come off.
Let's hope some of the hosts see the value of unmasking those callers who are little more than models with scripted messages. Otherwise, the value of having a public radio forum will be severely diminished.
Williams government announces investment in public cynicism
While Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be a revenue generator for the province, the provincial government will be pumping money into the company two ways in order to keep Hydro rates artificially low during an election year.
The announcement on Friday comes near the end of the most difficult political session the Williams administration has faced since it was first elected in October 2003.
Read the Hydro release here and the provincial government announcement here.
Hydro has withdrawn its original application for a rate increase based on injections of over $10 million by the Williams administration. The $10 million was previously announced. Friday's announcement includes $400,000 in 2007 and another $200,000 in 2008 to keep consumer rates low.
As the government release notes, their cash injection merely forestalls the original rate increase until 2008.
The provincial general election will take place in October 2007.
The announcement on Friday comes near the end of the most difficult political session the Williams administration has faced since it was first elected in October 2003.
Read the Hydro release here and the provincial government announcement here.
Hydro has withdrawn its original application for a rate increase based on injections of over $10 million by the Williams administration. The $10 million was previously announced. Friday's announcement includes $400,000 in 2007 and another $200,000 in 2008 to keep consumer rates low.
As the government release notes, their cash injection merely forestalls the original rate increase until 2008.
The provincial general election will take place in October 2007.
07 December 2006
Cleary sacked
Less than two weeks after defending Bull Arm Corporation boss Joan Cleary over allegations a contract had been improperly let, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale announced suddenly in the House of Assembly today that she had sacked Cleary over questions about another tender.
A hastily drafted news release emerged from the provincial government at 5:35 pm today, over three hours after Dunderdale's announcement.
Dunderdale's announcement is a de facto admission that her previous defence of Cleary wasn't motivated by the facts but by something else like political expediency. Cleary - the former Tory candidate in Bellevue district - was appointed to the president's job despite her evident lack of qualifications and despite the fact Bull Arm Corp has survived for years without a senior executive.
The Liberal comments about Bull Arm being a haven of patronage are a little hypocritical given the record of appointing prominent Liberals to positions at the offshore fabrication site.
But the key point is that the current administration was supposed to do things differently.
So much for the New Approach...yet again.
A hastily drafted news release emerged from the provincial government at 5:35 pm today, over three hours after Dunderdale's announcement.
Dunderdale's announcement is a de facto admission that her previous defence of Cleary wasn't motivated by the facts but by something else like political expediency. Cleary - the former Tory candidate in Bellevue district - was appointed to the president's job despite her evident lack of qualifications and despite the fact Bull Arm Corp has survived for years without a senior executive.
The Liberal comments about Bull Arm being a haven of patronage are a little hypocritical given the record of appointing prominent Liberals to positions at the offshore fabrication site.
But the key point is that the current administration was supposed to do things differently.
So much for the New Approach...yet again.
Rain Man drippy
I'm a strong believer that every cent of money that was received inappropriately should be paid back. It's taxpayers' money.
That's a quote from finance minister Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan (left, looking a tad dyspeptic) speaking about overpayments allegedly made to current and former members of the House of Assembly.But here's the thing: while no sane person would disagree with Sullivan's comments, every sane person in the province wonders about the comment coming from the individual who sat on the House of Assembly's Internal Economy Commission for a good chunk of the overspending period. Sullivan's tenure included the time of some of the worst overspending, if we accept at face value the Auditor General's reports.
As such he knew or should have known what was going on. If he didn't, then we need to know why he didn't.
Sullivan's comments get a little more odd - if that's possible - considering that for two of the years involved he served both on IEC and as finance minister. As such he had financial reports coming to him from both the House of Assembly and from the province's Comptroller General. Some of us would like to know given that situation how Sullivan was blissfully unaware of the alleged financial improprieties.
Let's not even get into having Loyola explain how he could present grossly incorrect figures to the House of Assembly for two budgets in a row. The real figures - eventually released in the official Public Accounts - showed total overspending in members' allowances in the legislature of more than $1.0 million in 2004 and 2005 combined. Loyola's Estimates showed members' allowances as being exactly on budget.
Methinks the Rain Man is all wet.
Remember...
the talking point drafted by the premier's publicity department and circulated widely among cabinet ministers, government members and the Pitcher Plant callers that used to clog radio call-in shows?
It was the reason not to have a public inquiry into the entire spending scandal at the House of Assembly. An inquiry that would include commissioners with the power to subpoena testimony and documents and basically get to the bottom of everything likely long before the next election.
An inquiry that would stand in contrast to the one by Chief Justice Green - who only appears to have subpoena powers (I read the order in council) - or Auditor General John Noseworthy who will spend more than a year scowering the books and come up about where he already is.
Remember, they all said a public inquiry would cost too much.
I guess they never figured the Premier's approach to managing the crisis would cost more and deliver far less in the way of reliable information on everyone who has some responsibility for the mess than a public inquiry.
It was the reason not to have a public inquiry into the entire spending scandal at the House of Assembly. An inquiry that would include commissioners with the power to subpoena testimony and documents and basically get to the bottom of everything likely long before the next election.
An inquiry that would stand in contrast to the one by Chief Justice Green - who only appears to have subpoena powers (I read the order in council) - or Auditor General John Noseworthy who will spend more than a year scowering the books and come up about where he already is.
Remember, they all said a public inquiry would cost too much.
I guess they never figured the Premier's approach to managing the crisis would cost more and deliver far less in the way of reliable information on everyone who has some responsibility for the mess than a public inquiry.
Payback is a mother
[Originally posted 06 Dec 06.]
Ok.
So if Auditor General John "Baubles" Noseworthy thinks that everyone he has accused should automatically pay back the amounts he has identified, let's up the ante.
Premier Danny Williams had it right. If due process - something Noseworthy clearly knows nothing about - determines facts and responsibility, then there are legal means to recover any money misappropriated. The Premier correctly said that we should all let the process work.
If Noseworthy turns out to be right, then yeah the people involved should make restitution. All of 'em, including the people on the Internal Economy Commission Noseworthy seems reluctant to discuss for some inexplicable reason.
But only after due process.
On the other hand if it turns out Noseworthy conducted as fundamentally flawed a set of audits as Bond Papers would contend - incompetent might be a better word - then let John dig into his bank account and repay to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador every red cent spent since he made his first accusation.
It's only fair.
________________________
Update [07 Dec 06]: Apparently Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan, minister of finance and oddly enough a guy who has much to answer for in this scandal himself, hasn't consulted Danny Williams on recovering money. Sullivan told news media he already has an "office" looking into collecting the cash.
Sullivan was a member of the Commission of Internal Economy during much of the period when overspending took place. Sullivan spoke in support of changes to the IEC legislation in 1999 that Auditor general John Noseworthy has criticized. IEC is an executive committee of the legislature responsible for approving budgets, budget over-runs and generally overseeing House operations.
It is odd that Sullivan wasn't aware not only of the overspending Noseworthy found but also the half million dollars overspent by members of the legislature in each year since Sullivan has been finance and a member of the IEC.
Both Sullivan and Noseworthy knew about that overspending and approved it. Incidentally, Noseworthy only accounted for $200K of the total for '04 and '05. Noseworthy still hasn't explained the other $800K in overspending for those years.
Update Update: And then there's the rest of the cash. Not only has Auditor General John Noseworthy cost taxpayers the better part of a million bucks on his "audits" thus far, CBC Radio is now reporting that Chief Justice Derek Green and his retinue of part-time lawyers and researchers has set the public back about $600,000 for their review designed to recommend a new set of rules for pay and allowances for members.
Green is almost finished his report; he has committed to getting the paperwork handed in by the end of January. Noseworthy said this week the rest of his "audit" will take well into 2008. Noseworthy's office alone will wind up costing taxpayers more than he allegedly found in overspending by members. All told, taxpapers will be lucky if the total tab resulting from Noseworthy's allegations doesn't exceed the $4.4 million he alleges was diddlied.
In the meantime, we still don't have current Public Accounts and Noseworthy still hasn't explained the overspending that occured in 2004 and 2005.
Does the AG get paid by the hour?
Ok.
So if Auditor General John "Baubles" Noseworthy thinks that everyone he has accused should automatically pay back the amounts he has identified, let's up the ante.
Premier Danny Williams had it right. If due process - something Noseworthy clearly knows nothing about - determines facts and responsibility, then there are legal means to recover any money misappropriated. The Premier correctly said that we should all let the process work.
If Noseworthy turns out to be right, then yeah the people involved should make restitution. All of 'em, including the people on the Internal Economy Commission Noseworthy seems reluctant to discuss for some inexplicable reason.
But only after due process.
On the other hand if it turns out Noseworthy conducted as fundamentally flawed a set of audits as Bond Papers would contend - incompetent might be a better word - then let John dig into his bank account and repay to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador every red cent spent since he made his first accusation.
It's only fair.
________________________
Update [07 Dec 06]: Apparently Loyola "Rain Man" Sullivan, minister of finance and oddly enough a guy who has much to answer for in this scandal himself, hasn't consulted Danny Williams on recovering money. Sullivan told news media he already has an "office" looking into collecting the cash.
Sullivan was a member of the Commission of Internal Economy during much of the period when overspending took place. Sullivan spoke in support of changes to the IEC legislation in 1999 that Auditor general John Noseworthy has criticized. IEC is an executive committee of the legislature responsible for approving budgets, budget over-runs and generally overseeing House operations.
It is odd that Sullivan wasn't aware not only of the overspending Noseworthy found but also the half million dollars overspent by members of the legislature in each year since Sullivan has been finance and a member of the IEC.
Both Sullivan and Noseworthy knew about that overspending and approved it. Incidentally, Noseworthy only accounted for $200K of the total for '04 and '05. Noseworthy still hasn't explained the other $800K in overspending for those years.
Update Update: And then there's the rest of the cash. Not only has Auditor General John Noseworthy cost taxpayers the better part of a million bucks on his "audits" thus far, CBC Radio is now reporting that Chief Justice Derek Green and his retinue of part-time lawyers and researchers has set the public back about $600,000 for their review designed to recommend a new set of rules for pay and allowances for members.
Green is almost finished his report; he has committed to getting the paperwork handed in by the end of January. Noseworthy said this week the rest of his "audit" will take well into 2008. Noseworthy's office alone will wind up costing taxpayers more than he allegedly found in overspending by members. All told, taxpapers will be lucky if the total tab resulting from Noseworthy's allegations doesn't exceed the $4.4 million he alleges was diddlied.
In the meantime, we still don't have current Public Accounts and Noseworthy still hasn't explained the overspending that occured in 2004 and 2005.
Does the AG get paid by the hour?
Out in the cold
A few years ago, I used to slave in the coalmines of Confederation Building. One of my tasks was dealing with requests for people to hold protests, demonstrations or speeches in the lobby of the building's East Block.
Convention since Joe Smallwood's day was that the East Block was part of the House of Assembly or at least shared with it and as such the lobby was pretty much open to gatherings. Provided of course the stuff was non-violent. Over ths seven years I was there we had a few loud groups and more than few 20s of Lambs or Morgan got passed around at the bigger ones. By and large, though, things went off smoothly.
As much as it might have been painful sometimes, we facilitated the protests. Sometimes, we even earned a few small brownie points for respecting people's right to tell the administration I worked for that we were all the products of successive generations of first cousin intermarriage.
That wasn't a unique put-down, by the way; every Newfoundland government since the year dot is apparently composed of inbreeding the likes of which is unknown outside certain European royal families.
But I digress.
So why was it that the multiple sclerosis people - holding a small demonstration to get help for catastrophic medical costs - had to stage their protest in the cold and snow on the front steps of the Confederation Building?
As Bond Papers got the story, the whole thing was originally signed off and approved to be indoors.
That is until the wonderful crew in Transportation and Works(John "I have a signed contract on my desk in front of me" Hickey, minister) realized these protests were going to criticize the Williams administration, albeit in a polite way. The front line official checked with the powers that be - likely including the comms director -and the people with multiple sclerosis were told that unless they had a sponsoring department, they were SOL.
As it turns out, that's not far off what they have been told anyway by the Department of Health on their request for financial help, but that's another story.
But here's the thing. Departments don't "sponsor" anyone but friendly groups. So unless you are going to stand in the lobby of Confed Building and sing hymns of praise to the current administration, better think again about exercising your right to free speech in a public building anytime at all soon.
According to the department known generally as Never and Can't - never works and can't transport - the public lobby of a public building adjacent to the House of Assembly is no place for political free speech.
Convention since Joe Smallwood's day was that the East Block was part of the House of Assembly or at least shared with it and as such the lobby was pretty much open to gatherings. Provided of course the stuff was non-violent. Over ths seven years I was there we had a few loud groups and more than few 20s of Lambs or Morgan got passed around at the bigger ones. By and large, though, things went off smoothly.
As much as it might have been painful sometimes, we facilitated the protests. Sometimes, we even earned a few small brownie points for respecting people's right to tell the administration I worked for that we were all the products of successive generations of first cousin intermarriage.
That wasn't a unique put-down, by the way; every Newfoundland government since the year dot is apparently composed of inbreeding the likes of which is unknown outside certain European royal families.
But I digress.
So why was it that the multiple sclerosis people - holding a small demonstration to get help for catastrophic medical costs - had to stage their protest in the cold and snow on the front steps of the Confederation Building?
As Bond Papers got the story, the whole thing was originally signed off and approved to be indoors.
That is until the wonderful crew in Transportation and Works(John "I have a signed contract on my desk in front of me" Hickey, minister) realized these protests were going to criticize the Williams administration, albeit in a polite way. The front line official checked with the powers that be - likely including the comms director -and the people with multiple sclerosis were told that unless they had a sponsoring department, they were SOL.
As it turns out, that's not far off what they have been told anyway by the Department of Health on their request for financial help, but that's another story.
But here's the thing. Departments don't "sponsor" anyone but friendly groups. So unless you are going to stand in the lobby of Confed Building and sing hymns of praise to the current administration, better think again about exercising your right to free speech in a public building anytime at all soon.
According to the department known generally as Never and Can't - never works and can't transport - the public lobby of a public building adjacent to the House of Assembly is no place for political free speech.
06 December 2006
Scandal checklist
Scroll down the right-hand column and you will find a set of links to previous posts on the House of Assembly spending scandal.
When the story was new and hot there was plenty to scribble about.
In light of some of this week's events - including AG John Noseworthy's return to an accusation he previously admitted can't back up - it's useful to check on what happened before. You see, Noseworthy likes to accuse people of participating in a criminal conspiracy because he has forms and cheques with signatures at the bottom of them. If the name is yours, he will accuse you of fiddling the Crown out of cash.
Well, not only hasn't Noseworthy checked into the accounts themselves to see where the money went, he also hadn't even bothered to rule out fraud and forgery before he pointed his finger at anyone he felt deserved it.
Cavalier isn't strong enough an adjective to describe his attitude.
When the story was new and hot there was plenty to scribble about.
In light of some of this week's events - including AG John Noseworthy's return to an accusation he previously admitted can't back up - it's useful to check on what happened before. You see, Noseworthy likes to accuse people of participating in a criminal conspiracy because he has forms and cheques with signatures at the bottom of them. If the name is yours, he will accuse you of fiddling the Crown out of cash.
Well, not only hasn't Noseworthy checked into the accounts themselves to see where the money went, he also hadn't even bothered to rule out fraud and forgery before he pointed his finger at anyone he felt deserved it.
Cavalier isn't strong enough an adjective to describe his attitude.
Auditor General missed about a million in recent overspending?
While everyone may have been on holidays when this one broke, here's a Bond Paper from August that notes the House of Assembly overspent members' allowances by over half a million dollars in each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
For those who remember, that's two fiscal years after Auditor General John Noseworthy originally contended problems with the House accounts were fixed. It's also considerably more than the amounts Noseworthy alleges were paid to two sitting members of the House during those years.
On top of that, Bond Papers pointed out in August that for two successive budgets, finance minister Loyola Sullivan misreported House of Assembly spending during his term as finance minister. The financial statement released in August also contained columns of figures that were presented in a way that suggested they had previously been released. As such, the presentation diverted attention from the misrepresentations in the spring budgets.
The figures hadn't been made public at all.
The finance minister knew or should have known the correct figures on actual spending. Those figures come from the Comptroller General's office which issues cheques for all departments and the House of Assembly. If accounts were overspent, the Comptroller General caught it or should have caught it and reported it to his boss, Loyola Sullivan.
Has anyone asked Loyola Sullivan why his Estimates numbers for the House of Assembly were wrong two years in a row?
Has anyone asked Auditor General John Noseworthy to explain the discrepancy between his figures and the Comptroller General's numbers?
Incidentally, Noseworthy audits and approves the Public Accounts statements normally published every year in November. So where are the audited public accounts for 2005?
The Financial Administration Act gives Loyola and John until February 1 to produce them, but surely the figures aren't so complex they have to be postponed, especially since Sullivan was able to release what amounts to Volume III of the Public Accounts back in August.
For those who remember, that's two fiscal years after Auditor General John Noseworthy originally contended problems with the House accounts were fixed. It's also considerably more than the amounts Noseworthy alleges were paid to two sitting members of the House during those years.
On top of that, Bond Papers pointed out in August that for two successive budgets, finance minister Loyola Sullivan misreported House of Assembly spending during his term as finance minister. The financial statement released in August also contained columns of figures that were presented in a way that suggested they had previously been released. As such, the presentation diverted attention from the misrepresentations in the spring budgets.
The figures hadn't been made public at all.
The finance minister knew or should have known the correct figures on actual spending. Those figures come from the Comptroller General's office which issues cheques for all departments and the House of Assembly. If accounts were overspent, the Comptroller General caught it or should have caught it and reported it to his boss, Loyola Sullivan.
Has anyone asked Loyola Sullivan why his Estimates numbers for the House of Assembly were wrong two years in a row?
Has anyone asked Auditor General John Noseworthy to explain the discrepancy between his figures and the Comptroller General's numbers?
Incidentally, Noseworthy audits and approves the Public Accounts statements normally published every year in November. So where are the audited public accounts for 2005?
The Financial Administration Act gives Loyola and John until February 1 to produce them, but surely the figures aren't so complex they have to be postponed, especially since Sullivan was able to release what amounts to Volume III of the Public Accounts back in August.
NL government breaking medicare principles
600 MS patients cannot access medically-necessary drug treatments due to lack of government support
December 6, 2006, St. John's, NL -- The Multiple Sclerosis Society took its campaign for universal drug coverage to the House of Assembly today to highlight that Newfoundland and Labrador's lack of drug coverage for MS patients is inconsistent with the principles of medicare.
Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada that does not provide universal coverage of MS drugs. While the provincial government covers the drug costs of people on social assistance, seniors and those in long-term care, the lack of universal coverage has left over 600 Newfoundlanders without access to the drugs they need to manage their disease and slow its progression. Many others with MS have been forced to go on social assistance in order to qualify for drug coverage.
"Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare, used to say that no one should have to lose their farm because of an illness," said Sean Kirby, vice chair of the MS SociAtlantictlantic division board. "MS patients in this province should not have to quit their jobs, give up their life savings and raise their families in poverty because of their illness. Nor should they have to do without medically-necessary drugs that are available to patients in every other province. The government's refusal to provide drug coverage to all MS patients is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our health system."
"The sad truth is that MS patients are better off in every other province in the country than they are here," said Kirby. "Patients in Newfoundland and Labrador should get the same care as other Canadians."
Margaret Rideout, a fisherwoman from Burin Peninsula who was diagnosed with MS three years ago, is one of many MS patients in Newfoundland and Labrador who have chosen to continue working to help support their families instead of going on social assistance to get government drug coverage. Ms. Rideout, who is married and has a four year old daughter, cannot afford to pay the cost of the drugs ($17,000-$27,000 per year), so she simply does without. The provincial government would pay for her drugs if she quit work and went on social assistance.
"Someone with MS basically has to be poverty-stricken to get any help from the provincial government," said Ms. Rideout. "Not only would I have to quit work and go on social assistance to get drug coverage, my husband and I would have to get rid of our investments and never save anything for retirement to meet the government's financial rules. Getting government drug coverage would mean committing my family to a life of poverty forever."
"I want to work and set a good example for my daughter. I want to contribute to the province and not be a drain on it," said Ms. Rideout. "It is wrong that the government is forcing me to choose between supporting my family and getting access to the drug treatments I need."
The lack of universal drug coverage also has terrible impacts on the provincial government's finances, the economy and communities. When MS patients cannot take their drugs, their health deteriorates and government health care costs increase as a result. When MS patients are forced to go on social assistance to get drug coverage, the provincial government ends up paying their drug costs plus social assistance payments and other related costs. In other words, it would be cheaper for the government to pay the drug costs for all MS patients than it is force them into poverty in order to meet government drug program rules.
Most MS patients are diagnosed when they are relatively young - between the ages of 15 and 40. With universal drug coverage, most would be able to contribute to the province, the economy and their communities for their entire lifetimes. Without universal drug coverage, they are forced into a life of poverty and deteriorating health.
The MS Society is urging the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish in its 2007 budget an MS-specific drug program that ensures every person with MS receives the drug treatments they need to manage their disease.
-30-
Contact:
Sarah Cowan
Manager of Communications and Government Relations
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)
Cell: (902) 981-4996
Sean Kirby
Vice Chair of the Board
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)
Cell: (902) 222-6930
December 6, 2006, St. John's, NL -- The Multiple Sclerosis Society took its campaign for universal drug coverage to the House of Assembly today to highlight that Newfoundland and Labrador's lack of drug coverage for MS patients is inconsistent with the principles of medicare.
Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada that does not provide universal coverage of MS drugs. While the provincial government covers the drug costs of people on social assistance, seniors and those in long-term care, the lack of universal coverage has left over 600 Newfoundlanders without access to the drugs they need to manage their disease and slow its progression. Many others with MS have been forced to go on social assistance in order to qualify for drug coverage.
"Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare, used to say that no one should have to lose their farm because of an illness," said Sean Kirby, vice chair of the MS SociAtlantictlantic division board. "MS patients in this province should not have to quit their jobs, give up their life savings and raise their families in poverty because of their illness. Nor should they have to do without medically-necessary drugs that are available to patients in every other province. The government's refusal to provide drug coverage to all MS patients is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our health system."
"The sad truth is that MS patients are better off in every other province in the country than they are here," said Kirby. "Patients in Newfoundland and Labrador should get the same care as other Canadians."
Margaret Rideout, a fisherwoman from Burin Peninsula who was diagnosed with MS three years ago, is one of many MS patients in Newfoundland and Labrador who have chosen to continue working to help support their families instead of going on social assistance to get government drug coverage. Ms. Rideout, who is married and has a four year old daughter, cannot afford to pay the cost of the drugs ($17,000-$27,000 per year), so she simply does without. The provincial government would pay for her drugs if she quit work and went on social assistance.
"Someone with MS basically has to be poverty-stricken to get any help from the provincial government," said Ms. Rideout. "Not only would I have to quit work and go on social assistance to get drug coverage, my husband and I would have to get rid of our investments and never save anything for retirement to meet the government's financial rules. Getting government drug coverage would mean committing my family to a life of poverty forever."
"I want to work and set a good example for my daughter. I want to contribute to the province and not be a drain on it," said Ms. Rideout. "It is wrong that the government is forcing me to choose between supporting my family and getting access to the drug treatments I need."
The lack of universal drug coverage also has terrible impacts on the provincial government's finances, the economy and communities. When MS patients cannot take their drugs, their health deteriorates and government health care costs increase as a result. When MS patients are forced to go on social assistance to get drug coverage, the provincial government ends up paying their drug costs plus social assistance payments and other related costs. In other words, it would be cheaper for the government to pay the drug costs for all MS patients than it is force them into poverty in order to meet government drug program rules.
Most MS patients are diagnosed when they are relatively young - between the ages of 15 and 40. With universal drug coverage, most would be able to contribute to the province, the economy and their communities for their entire lifetimes. Without universal drug coverage, they are forced into a life of poverty and deteriorating health.
The MS Society is urging the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish in its 2007 budget an MS-specific drug program that ensures every person with MS receives the drug treatments they need to manage their disease.
-30-
Contact:
Sarah Cowan
Manager of Communications and Government Relations
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)
Cell: (902) 981-4996
Sean Kirby
Vice Chair of the Board
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)
Cell: (902) 222-6930
05 December 2006
Another N.B. Premier for Danny to fight
Enter Shawn Graham and the Conference of Atlantic Premiers' meeting in St. John's on December 6.
Will Danny respect a premier standing up for his province or pick a fight with the guy because he doesn't agree with Danny on Equalization?
Will Danny respect a premier standing up for his province or pick a fight with the guy because he doesn't agree with Danny on Equalization?
Any day now
Corporate Research Associates released results of its Prince Edward Island quarterly political polling on Tuesday.
If past patterns hold, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will be next followed by Newfoundland and Labrador on Friday or next Monday. CRA might skip NB this time since the Graham government is so new in office.
No predictions, but it is noticeable that government hasn't really been doing as much poll goosing this time around.
If past patterns hold, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will be next followed by Newfoundland and Labrador on Friday or next Monday. CRA might skip NB this time since the Graham government is so new in office.
No predictions, but it is noticeable that government hasn't really been doing as much poll goosing this time around.
Noseworthy order-in-council [dated 19 July 2006]
Revised: 11:30 AM 05 Dec 06
Following is the text of the order-in-council directing the Auditor General to conduct certain reviews of House of Assembly accounts:
Following is the text of the order-in-council directing the Auditor General to conduct certain reviews of House of Assembly accounts:
MC2006-0366. [Minute of Council 0366 issued in 2006]
Under the authority of section 16 of the Auditor General Act, and consistent with the Resolution of the Internal Economy Commission, the Lieutenant Governor in Council hereby requests that the Auditor General carry out the following:
i) annual audits of the accounts of the House of Assembly from fiscal years 1999/2000 to 2003/2004; and,
ii) a review of constituency allowances between 1989 and 2004 further to the Morgan Commission Report, to determine whether overspending occurred at the constituency level beyond funds which were approved, authorized, or provided for through Internal Economy Commission policy.
//signed//
Robert C. Thompson
Clerk of the Executive Council
______________________
Bond Papers Explanatory Notes
1. As with all similar documents, this one is headed: "Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Executive Council of Newfoundland and Labrador approved by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on..." This is followed by the date for this MC: "2006/07/19".
2. MC = Minute of Council.
3. On the left hand, the document contains an order in council number and a distribution list.
OC2006-295 [Order in council 295 issued in 2006. This is the number cited by the Auditor General]
P[Premier; Bold is used here to distinguish the entry from the explanatory notes]]
Hon T. Rideout (A) [Indicates deputy premier Tom Rideout. (A) normally denotes someone functioning in an acting capacity]
J. Noel [John Noel, former clerk of the House of Assembly, secretary of the Internal Economy Commission]
H. Hodder [Harvey Hodder, Speaker of the House of Assembly, chair of the Internal Economy Commission]
AG [Auditor General (?) John Noseworthy]
Deputy Clerk [of the Executive Council]
File [Denotes a copy is to be retained on file in accordance with normal documents management processes.]
04 December 2006
Latest AG report on Tuesday
Provincial auditor general John "Baubles" Noseworthy will release his latest report on spending in the House of Assembly on Tuesday at 10:00 AM local time.
True to form for Noseworthy, it is unclear from the news release whether Noseworthy will release both portions of his report or just one.
In July Noseworthy was tasked by cabinet with conducting comprehensive audits of the House of Assembly accounts for the period from Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Year 2003.
To be clear, Noseworthy previously confused the dates when conducting his reviews and releasing his information. This should mean that this portion of Noseworthy's report would cover from 01 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.
Part of that period was already covered by previous reports. While it was not previously described this way by government or House of Assembly officials, Noseworthy was given revised terms of reference to offset a procedural problem with his earlier audits.
The second part of his mandate was to review any excess expenditure of constituency allowances by members of the House of Assembly beyond what was approved by the House Internal Economy Commission. This portion of the review would cover the period from 01 April 1989 to the present.
Noseworthy's release describes his report on Tuesday as being about "excess constituency allowance claims by Members of the House of Assembly."
Taken at face value, this would mean he would be releasing the larger and more complex review dating back almost 18 years and involved over 100 current and former members of the legislature. This may turn out to be the easiest to complete, though, since Noseworthy was only tasked with reviewing one of several allowances available to members of the legislature.
Furthermore, he was only tasked with identifying overspending that had not been approved by the IEC. Operating like treasury board or an executive committee, IEC has the authority to approve expenditures beyond budgeted amounts based on agreed-upon criteria. Overspending could occur, but if approved by IEC it would be beyond Noseworthy's mandate to discuss it. Former finance minister Paul Dicks made this point.
Considerable confusion in Noseworthy's earlier reports suggested that the Auditor General and his auditors did not understand the House expenditures. Constituency allowances, as defined by the 1989 Morgan Commission report was one of several district-related allowances available to members of the legislature to cover costs of serving as a full-time elected representative.
In his earlier reports, Noseworthy routinely lumped constituency allowances with travel and other allowances. This occurred despite Noseworthy's including the Morgan Commission report's definition of constituency allowances in each of his reports. See, for example, the report on New Democrat legislator Randy Collins. There were also discrepancies among the reports on all four current and former legislators.
The gold standard of professional public auditing remains the Auditor General of Canada. Her most recent report included allegations against a senior public servant. The allegations were back by both meticulous research and meticulous reporting of the research. Take a look at the report at the AG website, and then compare it to whatever her local counterpart releases on Tuesday.
True to form for Noseworthy, it is unclear from the news release whether Noseworthy will release both portions of his report or just one.
In July Noseworthy was tasked by cabinet with conducting comprehensive audits of the House of Assembly accounts for the period from Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Year 2003.
To be clear, Noseworthy previously confused the dates when conducting his reviews and releasing his information. This should mean that this portion of Noseworthy's report would cover from 01 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.
Part of that period was already covered by previous reports. While it was not previously described this way by government or House of Assembly officials, Noseworthy was given revised terms of reference to offset a procedural problem with his earlier audits.
The second part of his mandate was to review any excess expenditure of constituency allowances by members of the House of Assembly beyond what was approved by the House Internal Economy Commission. This portion of the review would cover the period from 01 April 1989 to the present.
Noseworthy's release describes his report on Tuesday as being about "excess constituency allowance claims by Members of the House of Assembly."
Taken at face value, this would mean he would be releasing the larger and more complex review dating back almost 18 years and involved over 100 current and former members of the legislature. This may turn out to be the easiest to complete, though, since Noseworthy was only tasked with reviewing one of several allowances available to members of the legislature.
Furthermore, he was only tasked with identifying overspending that had not been approved by the IEC. Operating like treasury board or an executive committee, IEC has the authority to approve expenditures beyond budgeted amounts based on agreed-upon criteria. Overspending could occur, but if approved by IEC it would be beyond Noseworthy's mandate to discuss it. Former finance minister Paul Dicks made this point.
Considerable confusion in Noseworthy's earlier reports suggested that the Auditor General and his auditors did not understand the House expenditures. Constituency allowances, as defined by the 1989 Morgan Commission report was one of several district-related allowances available to members of the legislature to cover costs of serving as a full-time elected representative.
In his earlier reports, Noseworthy routinely lumped constituency allowances with travel and other allowances. This occurred despite Noseworthy's including the Morgan Commission report's definition of constituency allowances in each of his reports. See, for example, the report on New Democrat legislator Randy Collins. There were also discrepancies among the reports on all four current and former legislators.
The gold standard of professional public auditing remains the Auditor General of Canada. Her most recent report included allegations against a senior public servant. The allegations were back by both meticulous research and meticulous reporting of the research. Take a look at the report at the AG website, and then compare it to whatever her local counterpart releases on Tuesday.
Kilbride Tories have a battle
Well, at least among themselves for the nomination.
Former teacher and St. John's city councilor John Dinn already declared.
Today, the Telegram reports that 32-year old Sean Hammond, scion of another BFT family in the district, is looking for the Tory nomination to replace Ed Byrne.
Hammond grew up across the street from your humble e-scribbler. He's a smart and aggressive young guy back by impressive Tory connections and credentials.
Meanwhile, the Liberal establishment seems to have already decided on its candidate. District association president Bob Clarke announced his candidacy shortly before the party announced its nomination call would be inexplicably really short.
Maybe, Bond was a little premature to congratulation Dinn. Let's revise our congrats to Dinn or Hammond, depending on which one wins the nomination. Either way, the Libs have already ceded the by-election.
The New Democrats still haven't announced what they plan to do.
Former teacher and St. John's city councilor John Dinn already declared.
Today, the Telegram reports that 32-year old Sean Hammond, scion of another BFT family in the district, is looking for the Tory nomination to replace Ed Byrne.
Hammond grew up across the street from your humble e-scribbler. He's a smart and aggressive young guy back by impressive Tory connections and credentials.
Meanwhile, the Liberal establishment seems to have already decided on its candidate. District association president Bob Clarke announced his candidacy shortly before the party announced its nomination call would be inexplicably really short.
Maybe, Bond was a little premature to congratulation Dinn. Let's revise our congrats to Dinn or Hammond, depending on which one wins the nomination. Either way, the Libs have already ceded the by-election.
The New Democrats still haven't announced what they plan to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)