Regatta Day, 2007

The start of a women's race at the 189th annual Royal St. John's Regatta, held today.

-srbp-

PMO bucklers-up again

Locally there are Hickey-ups, that's a political mistake properly called a a f*%ck-up, named after transportation minister John Hickey.

But since we don't want this blog declared NSFW (not safe for work), we take some inspiration from Abbie Hoffman and use a word you can say on television or in this case, can type without a bunch of squiggles. We don't even have to resort to spoonerisms.

Nope, we can use the local poster child instead.

Seems federally, communications foul-ups will become known as Buckler-ups. It's kinda like a cross between a bugger-up - which would be pathetic but innocuous - and the full-on f*%ck variety.

A buckler-up is the kinda of thing that is patently stupid on the face of it, that is compounded more by the added stupidity of being repeated over and over, and on top of all that suggests a stunning capacity for lampooning yourself without having much of a sense of humour.

Like the latest demonstration of the Stasi-like media tactics of the PMO press officer, Sandra Buckler, for whom the buckler-up is named. During the campaign you had political staffers assaulting reporters for no good reason. There was that long war over who gets to pick the questions at a scrum. Now there's ejecting a bunch of reporters from a hotel lobby so they can't speak to Connie politicians other than the ones hand-picked by the PMO to represent the shiny face of Canada's new open, accountable and transparent government.

In the latest incident, the Queen's Cowboys cleared a hotel lobby of reporters - specifically reporters - apparently on orders from the Prime Minister's Office.

On a slow summer's day, when most things are going along quite well, what better thing to have running across the country than another story about a petty policy of a petty government struggling to make it through the second year they never planned on having to work at.

The whole thing makes Buckler's boss look, well, petty, which is pretty much the opposite of what she gets paid to do.

But thanks, Sandy.

We of other political persuasions can't even begin to tell how much we'd pay to have someone just like you working for the prime minister we want to oust.

And it's not like there aren't smart Conservative politicos out there like Tim Murphy who know better than to send a bunch of guys whose organization - national icon no less - is under more than a small ethical cloud acting in manner that further tarnishes their image.

(h/t to the blog without a name)

-srbp-

A comms Hickey-up

Ryan Cleary at the Independent must be kicking himself for turning on his former researcher, Sue the talk show maven and self-styled Hydroqueen.

Seems she managed to find a contract announcement on 1 August 2007 by Exor, a multi-national software company, to deliver a new database management systems for the Newfoundland and Labrador works and services department to help John Hickey's crew share information on roads and road maintenance.

The release is full of techno-babble sure to cause a bad case of MEGO [My Eyes Glaze Over], but essentially the project will involve this:

The RNMS [road network management system] will eventually be used to evaluate and prioritise work on the network, manage road condition and evaluate the lifecycle of assets. The initial phase of the implementation will establish a maintenance environment for the Newfoundland and Labrador Road Network (NLRN) and associated departmental road physical features inventory.

There's no mention of the announcement or the project on the provincial government website.

That counts as a major communications Hickey-up.

Interestingly enough, the system purchase appears to come from a joint federal-provincial funding announcement in 2005 by then federal natural resources minister John Efford and provincial roads czar Tom Osborne.

But was this project ever put to tender?

-srbp-

The ease of governing

"Mr. Crosbie had his day in government, and he made his decisions in that time - that was a long time ago. Now we are the government and we are going to do what we think is in the best interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's exactly what we're doing here."

Premier Danny Williams, Telegram, August 1, 2007

Ever wonder why Danny Williams bitches about the difficulty of running Newfoundland and Labrador?

Take a look at the current ruckus over his plan to create a second university in the province and you can see just how easy governing is under Danny Williams' approach.

First, make a decision about something. In this case, it is to give Sir Wilfred Grenfell College something called "more autonomy". At that point, no one knew what more autonomy meant - and frankly they still don't - but the decision was made. You don't need anything other than a goal. There's no need for evidence or a business case. Just make a decision.

Second, hire a pair of consultants for $120,000 to provide the rationale for the decision. If you can make the announcement a few days before Christmas, all the better.

Incidentally, anyone can see that the outcome of the consulting exercise was determined from the outset. Take a look at the terms of the contract between the two consultants and the provincial government's education department:

WHEREAS the Department enters into an agreement with the Consultants to conduct a review of the various degrees of autonomy for Sir Wilfred Grenfell College (SWGC) up to and including full university status, (hereinafter called “the Review”) and report their findings to government so that it [government] can make an informed decision on the future of the College with the aim of increasing Grenfell’s autonomy. [Emphasis added]

Third, receive the report and sit on it until the decision is ready to be announced as part of the government's election year budget. In the process, ignore the political commitment to release reports within 60 days of their being received.

Fourth, when people start to criticise or complain do any or all of the following:

- repeat the statement that the decision is in the best interest of the province, but never explain how it is in the best interests;

- characterize the decision as strengthening rural Newfoundland, but again do not give a concrete example;

- characterize the whole ruckus in terms of the "St. John's campus" - read as "townies" - and the need to let decisions be made outside the overpass;

- deploy supporters to call in support of the decision;

- organize calls to attack critics, including calling newsrooms across St. John's to attack John Crosbie before Crosbie even uttered a single word; and,

- refer to criticism of the decision as efforts to "sabotage" the government's decision.

For good measure, characterize the whole thing - even implicitly as a case of standing for the little guys against the "higher ups".

Now maybe, just maybe creating a second university with a new president, a bunch of vice-presidents, a senate and other expenses is the way to solve problems like delays in issuing tenders for new trucks. But leaving aside the facetious comments, let's just start from the premise that it might be a good thing for the province to have a second university.

What sort of things might you wonder about to determine if a second university in the province was feasible?

Well, you might take a look at the prospective student population to see how many students are out there who might reasonably be expected to come to your new university. Look at the local population and for good measure look at the possible student market outside the province and even outside the country.

You might also look at possible teaching programs to see if there is a niche that needs to be filled or look at how existing programs could be expanded.

In building a case for a new university, you would go through those, look at the cost implications of each and come to a conclusion.

That's what one might expect to get for a consultants' report costing upwards of $120,000.

And if that consultant's report found there wasn't a basis for having a second complete university, it might just turn up enough information to justify expanding the programs at Grenfell College within the existing administrative structure.

After all, if Grenfell has grown successfully in its existing management arrangement, solid evidence supporting further expansion would be hard to refute. A stronger Grenfell College attracting new students and offering new programs would enrich the province as a whole in many ways.

Creating a second university to compete with the first one for the same students wouldn't really make much sense.

Well, if that's the logical approach you'd expect to take, don't expect to find any of those questions answered in the consultants' report the provincial government is using to justify the decisions on Grenfell College and its impending independence.

There is no analysis of the possible student market. This is a critical shortcoming since the report authors recommend doubling the size of the student population in short order, from a current enrolment of about 1,150 (not including 200 nursing students) to about 2,000.

The section on possible academic programs is nothing more than a list without any supporting evidence or analysis. In fact, if you look quickly at the list, you'll see that many of the new programs for Grenfell actually would duplicate programs already at Memorial University in St. John's.

They aren't new or different; most are the same as larger programs offered at MUN St. John's. Like a health sciences program with a possible focus on gerontology. Or a program in geology. And without the detailed analysis of possible student demand, they are essentially useless as the basis for making a decision.

Yet, that really isn't important, is it? Well no, because the decision on Grenfell was made at the beginning before the analysis was even conducted.

Even the version of the decision announced in April - the so-called Option 1(a) - is now morphing into having Grenfell as an entirely separate university. As education minister Joan Burke put it recently, she wants Grenfell to be "independent" by 2008. If you read the consultants' report, you'll appreciate that is the goal they had in mind as well, despite their endorsement of some sort of shared governance.

What the consultants recommended is actually using Memorial University's name, reputation and resources to assist in the growth of a Corner Brook university:

It is believed therefore that the newly named institution should not only remain as part of Memorial University, but it should take its name as the Memorial University (Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland or Grenfell). In the discussion below, Memorial University (St. John’s) is taken to include the Marine Institute, and Memorial University (Corner Brook) is taken to represent the new designation of Grenfell College, possibly including the Western Regional School of Nursing whose status is currently under separate review. This designation would be of vital assistance in the immediate development strategy of the new university at Corner Brook, in all its academic areas, but in particular, in

• national and international student recruitment,
• the attracting of highly qualified academic staff,
• the development of graduate programs, and
• the securing of greater federal research funding and corporate support.

The case too for the retention of the academic and administrative support systems currently provided to Grenfell College from the Memorial in St John’s campus, in particular the library services, is a strong one, and whilst these services may perhaps, but not necessarily, be weaned off one by one in due course as the systems grow in the new status Grenfell, they should certainly be retained for the immediate future. (p. 31, Emphasis added)

However, at no point do the consultants address what are the problems with their own proposal. That's hardly surprising since they really don't give any sound rationale for their conclusions anyway. Nonetheless, take a look at the list of advantages and disadvantages of the so-called Option 1(a):

Advantages:

- increases Grenfell’s academic and administrative autonomy
- remains within Memorial system
- provides status as a university institution

Disadvantages:

- potential fragmentation of academic authority and divergence in academic standards and practice
- limited academic programme range for university status
- substantial additional costs

Look at those last three.

Essentially, those are the points made by Chancellor Crosbie and Memorial University President Axel Meisen.

They are also the points dismissed by the Premier, education minister and the finance minister.

It's easy to dismiss those points though, when the decision is already made and has been made for at least two years.

It's easy to govern when decisions can be made and then justified ex post facto. It's a cinch to govern when critics can be attacked personally and demonised for pointing out - essentially - that the government has a goal but no solid plan on how to get there.

It's a cinch to govern when, as with just about every other administration since Confederation, you view government as being little more than your turn to make the decisions.

After all, isn't that what Danny Williams told John Crosbie?

-srbp-

Bill Rowe: townie twit

From labradore, the record is corrected once again.

Correcting Rowe's silliness - like calling the House of Assembly the House of Commons - is a full-time job.

On top of that, the fellow is still shamelessly kissing the butts of the people who sent off as Ambassador to Disneyland on the Rideau during which time he accomplished exactly zilch for the province.

-srbp-

An acceptable level of shag-ups

In the news reporting on reinstatement of a Gander radiologists suspended after questions were raised about his work, Central Health chief executive Karen McGrath is quoted as pointed to the absence of benchmarks for judging physician performance in conducting the evaluation.

Meanwhile, Central Health chief executive officer Karen McGrath said the authority would like provincial and federal governments to develop clear rules on how to review the competence of physicians.

"It would have been much easier for us if we had definitive information with respect to benchmarks," she said. "The reality was we had to go with the best information we had."

That's similar to her comments on the day McGrath announced the doctor would be reinstated and that, as vocm.com reported,"no significant adverse patient results have been discovered."

As cbc.ca/nl is reporting on Tuesday,

McGrath said that of a sample of about 500 tests generated by the Paton Hospital radiologist, fewer than 10 per cent were questionable. She said that is within an acceptable margin of error.

McGrath's comments are curious for several reasons.

Firstly, notice the numbers. Out of the 500 reports reviewed, less than 10% were found to have results that were "questionable."

That means that fewer than 50 of those reports weren't accurate.

But to say "questionable" - if that's the word McGrath used - is pretty vague, and it's needlessly vague.

A quick search of the Internet will reveal more than a few discussions in peer reviewed journals on error rates - often called missed observations - among radiologists.

Medically significant missed observations do occur; that is, radiologists sometimes miss things that are important to the treatment of a patient. They may do it for very good reason, like a cancerous mass obscured by body fat.

Other observations may be missed simply because they aren't medically significant. They may not be missed - in that the doctor didn't see them - they may just be not reported because in the expert opinion of the doctor reviewing the records, they aren't worth mentioning.

It's a judgement call. If it isn't medically important, then not reporting them isn't "questionable" whether McGrath used that word or a similar term.

McGrath apparently didn't make that sort of distinction. If she did, it is extremely important for someone in authority to correct the news report. If she didn't, McGrath may want to be a bit more precise in her language.

If there were no medically significant errors - that is, if no changes to treatment were required - then that simple fact should have been indicated clearly to reporters.

Secondly, each regional health authority and even each hospital can and should establish standards of acceptable medical performance. If nothing else, having those standards is a way of ensuring that people working in a hospital are actually doing the job they are supposed to be doing in keeping with best practices.

It's astonishing that McGrath would even raise the question about a supposed lack of standards. Her comment is akin to members of the House of Assembly - who set the rules for how they manage their own cash - claiming that there were no rules, when in fact there were rules, and the person complaining is the one responsible for setting the rules.

To say there were no benchmarks to use suggests that people have been winging it in Gander.

Now if, by some bizarre chance, neither McGrath nor her medical staff had the vaguest clue about how to judge a radiologist's job performance - that's the implication of her comment - then she and her officials can consult other health authorities, the provincial association representing radiologists, the national radiology association or the provincial college governing doctors and asked any or all of them for help.

If the issue that turned up her was a matter of insignificant missed observations, then McGrath and her senior administrative staff are completely within their authority to establish minimum reporting standards.

Thirdly, one can easily consider that McGrath's comment was a call for setting an acceptable number of mistakes a radiologist can commit. That isn't what she intended and the interpretation is somewhat facetious.

But if you think about it for a second, saying there are no standards to judge performance and that less than 10% is acceptable in this case, McGrath is signalling to both patients and their doctors that there is or should be an entirely arbitrary benchmark for shag-ups.

The reality is that both doctors and patients expect the standard is zero errors. Doctors work diligently to avoid any mistakes, let alone ones that will cause problems for the patient. They recognize, however, that mistakes do occur for many reasons.

The doctors, the hospital administration and ultimately the medical regulatory authorities have developed systems to minimise the chance of medically significant error, to figure out what occurred when mistakes happen and then to take appropriate action to make sure mistakes don't happen again.

Each case has to be handled on its merits and, where circumstances warrant, the provincial college of physicians and surgeons can and should be involved. It's part of a system and it's a system that generally works. That isn't the message one gets from McGrath's remarks.

The way McGrath's remarks have been reported, a patient in the province can think that the health care system is flying a bit by the seat of everyone's britches. It's not exactly a way to restore public confidence in the system generally and in a town like Gander - where likely everyone knows the name of the suspended radiologist - it's hardly a way to restore confidence in his or her abilities.

To be fair, Central Health hasn't had to carry the burden of the minister's office on this case, so overall their handling of it has been better than the experience in Eastern Health on a similar matter.

But still.

Health care is the one area where people generally don't think there is an acceptable level of shag-ups.

No one should be suggesting otherwise. More information, let alone more accurate information, would go a long way to dispelling any concerns, avoid misconceptions and restore public confidence.

And if all this is based on inaccurate reporting, then maybe Central Health should consider posting the facts - maybe in a news release - on its website.

This could have been the first one.

-srbp-

Clyde Wells on the economy and stuff, circa, 1994

From broadcasttherock.com, Clyde Wells' 1994 speech to the graduating class at the School of Business.

We won't imbed these clips since they are set up to start automatically once you load the page. This is a quirk Broadcast should work out.

This is part one, including a tiny piece of the introduction and here's part two of the speech.

-srbp-

Long, lingering death

Fishery Products International (TSX: FPIL) postponed its annual meeting from August until October.

"Negotiations between FPI and these two companies are ongoing, and there is no certainty that definitive agreements and transactions will result," the company said in a release.

FPI said the postponement will allow it and its buyers to wrap up negotiations.

The Newfoundland and Labrador government approved the sale and breakup of FPI, one of Canada’s largest seafood processors, to rivals Ocean Choice and High Liner in May.

Russ Carrigan, a spokesman for FPI, said the news release doesn’t mean a deal is any less likely than when talks started in late May.

However, he said discussions over the value of the assets are complex because of the breakup of FPI into component parts.

-srbp-

Telegram endorses job protection legislation

From today's Telegram.

-srbp-

Post-secondary education blog

Dale Kirby's creatively titled blog that deals with post-secondary education.

Worth the time whether you are an educator or not.

-srbp-

Funny thing about daylight...

Some things shrivel up when exposed.

Is it a coincidence that when the news media and others focus on the raft of cash announcements and other campaign-related stuff coming from the provincial government, it vanishes the very next business week?

-srbp-

Central Health reinstates radiologist

After reviewing 500 radiology reports by a suspended radiologist, Central Regional Integrated Health Authority is reinstating the doctor.

Central Health CEO Karen McGrath says in the absence of provincial or national benchmarks, they looked over other sources of information that suggests a variance rate of clinically significant findings of between two and twenty percent. Central Health says that based on the information they have received on the matter, no significant adverse patient results have been discovered. [Emphasis added]

So how exactly does that affect another radiologist suspended in May?

If Central Health could review 500 records in the space of six weeks and determine that no action needed to be taken - beyond reinstating the doctor - it seems odd that Eastern Health will be taking until sometime in the fall to determine the future of a radiologist suspended there.

-srbp-

Govt' considers job protection legislation

Newfoundland and Labrador reserve soldiers, sailors and aircrew may get job protection legislation.

-srbp-

Albatross sighted near Cape Race

What flavour is it?

Do you get wafers with it?

-srbp-

Carl Powell wrong? Say it ain't so

From labradore, the facts that are typically missing from calls by one Open Line regular.

-srbp-

The value of research

Iceland is an island almost 1,000 kilometres from its nearest potential export customer for electricity.

That's almost twice the distance of the NorNed line.

Iceland doesn't export electricity because geography, technology and economics make it impractical.

Iceland and the United Kingdom explored the idea of a transmission link in the early 1990s. It was considered a high risk, low return venture. It might come back, again.

Iceland doesn't export electricity, but it's not from a lack of desire.

It's because it is an island.

-srbp-

The value of an "equity" stake

In this Telegram story on White Rose royalty rates, Petro-Canada's Ron Brenneman notes that the Hebron partners would expect the province to pay full market value or a fair market price for any equity position in that project.

Ok.

Well, let's get it clear.

Equity is not about ownership as people like the Premier would like to have us believe.

Rather it is about operating an oil company or, as in the case of the Canada Hibernia Holding Company, reaping the benefits and sharing the costs of the oil companies. The Government of Canada picked up an 8.5% stake in Hibernia when Gulf Canada pulled out in 1992; if they hadn't done so, the project would have folded.

Danny Williams has only once ever put any figure on the "equity" stake he wants in Hebron. Net value to the provincial treasury?

$1.5 billion over the 20 year anticipated lifespan of the project.

That's right.

$75 million bucks a year.

To put that in perspective that's actually more than the provincial government has paid on the debt each of the past two years. Put every nickel of that equity profit into paying down debt - for example - and it would take us 171 years to pay off the $12 billion we owe.

Or put it this way: the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador takes in more from gambling each year than it would make on PetroNewf and that's by Danny William's own estimate. In 2007, the province will get $92 million from the lottery and that doesn't come with any of the environmental risk from operating an oil company.

By contrast, the province's generic oil royalty regime would drop upwards of $10 billion into the provincial treasury over the same 20 year lifespan. That would pretty much pay off the debt entirely in 20 years.

20 years versus 171 years.

$75 million versus $10,000 million.

That's the difference between "equity" and what you get from real ownership of the resource, a solid royalty regime and an actual development deal.

And you don't have to just accept those figures. Compare them to what the Government Canada gets through its equity stake in just one production license at Hibernia.

There are all sorts of wild claims out there by everyone from Sue to Danny - not as much of a gap as it might first appear, come to think of it - but the fact is that the feds have pocketed a total of $678 million in net profits since 1997, when oil started to flow.

Less than $70 million a year.

If you stretch that from 1992, it's actually about $45 million a year and that's an equity stake bigger than the one Danny talked about on Hebron.

Of course, it's all moot because the Hebron talks collapsed. The companies and the provincial government are exchanging information but there are no negotiations. There is no sign of when negotiations might start again, although, Premier Danny Williams has followed his usual negotiating tactic of establishing a unilateral and entirely artificial timeline, stating he would expect talks to begin in the fall.

But the "equity" stake, even if it is feasible, will not generate as much cash as many people seem to think.

-srbp-

Welcome aboard, Mr. Raleigh!

Serious Business: Newfoundland and Labrador Politics is a new political blog in the province.

Richard Raleigh - a pseudonym, shurely - claims a 20 year background in politics and promises "to deliver critical, hard-hitting analysis of today's serious issues that confront the province and the country as a whole."

Since Andy Wells got the first taste of Mr. Raleigh's sarcastic wit, we can only imagine what will come over the next few months.

-srbp-

Breaking wind news

While natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale was turning sod on a much-delayed wind power project in St. Lawrence, Ventus Energy Inc today announced the sale of that company to French-owned Suez for $124 million.

The St. Lawrence wind project has yet to be finished. Meanwhile, Ventus announced in May that it had signed a deal to export power to the United States from its operation in Prince Edward Island, via New Brunswick.

In January 2006, Ventus and the Labrador Metis Nation proposed what was touted as the largest wind energy project in Canada with a stated capacity of 1,000 megawatts available for either domestic use or export.

The Ventus proposal was reportedly entirely financed from private sources, while the St. Lawrence project will see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro purchase power from the 27 megawatt NeWind operation, with no export potential.

Then natural resources minister Ed Byrne and his colleagues in cabinet pushed off consideration of the proposal claiming that they needed to complete the province's energy plan first. That was 18 months ago, and was a condition not applied to the St. Lawrence project for unknown reasons.

At the end of January 2006, Byrne said:

"Wind is becoming an emerging resource and our responsibility as a government is to ensure that this resource is developed in a way that maximizes benefits for the people of the province. We are not going to give away 1,000 megawatts of power until we understand what opportunities there are for this province."

Byrne went further in the House of Assembly, dismissing the obviously successful Ventus. What was obvious from Byrne's comments was that the provincial government had still not developed a taxation (royalty) regime for private sector wind companies. That is, two successive administrations - Grimes and Williams - had failed to figure out a taxation regime for export wind power despite having pursued wind power as a means of electricity generation since 2001.
No details of the power purchase agreement have been released, but the Town of St. Lawrence will only receive about $125,000 per year in taxes from the project under a special tax deal signed earlier this year. The tax payments don't begin until 2009, the anticipated year of first power generation. in the meantime, NeWind will pay the town $45, 000 in the first year and $55,000 in the second year of a two year agreement largely to support municipal recreation infrastructure.

Hydro stated the project will replace 165,000 barrels of crude currently used by the Holyrood generating plant. Estimating cost of the oil at US$50 per barrel, that would mean electricity costing approximately $8.25 million per year.

-srbp-

"Williams: My background is...job creation and negotiation."

From CBC television in September 2003, Danny Williams setting out his program if elected:

David Cochrane: "What are the top two policy priorities of you and your team if you form government?

Danny Williams: "I'd have to say jobs and economic development, the economy generally would be the top two...

When asked how he'd do it, Williams said: "My background is growing businesses, economic development, job creation and negotiation. The strength I think I bring to the table will be creating jobs and growing the economy. That's what I've done in the private sector."

Watch it again, likely for the first time since it was aired.

-srbp-