I spy a trough...

I spy with my little eye a trough into which desperate politicians root for pork and votes.

Just five days after Transport Canada forces the provincial government to take care of its responsibilities for bridges and trestles along the T'Railway, Loyola Hearn turns up at a Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador event with cash to fix things up.

$1.5 million in cash from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

The feds are dropping cash from a business development agency into a provincial park?

From which program?

And by what application, Loyola?

Hmmmm.

This is very suspicious, what with the federal Conservatives gearing up for an election.

-srbp-

Oh Lord, shoot me now.

The latest utterances on the breast cancer inquiry, courtesy of Voice of the Cabinet Minister.

Danny Williams respects the decision.

We may all rest easy;  what else was he supposed to do?

According to VOCM: "Health Minister Ross Wiseman says the ruling will allow the Commission to get on with its work."

Now these two comments are interesting given that both men could have - at any point - directed Eastern Health to turn over the reports.  At the very least, had they exercised their powers earlier they would have saved everyone the embarrassment of watching Eastern Health officials testify under oath that the board's position was basically an invented crock of nonsense.

The whole fiasco just makes you wonder.

And if that wasn't enough, take a look at acting Eastern Health chief executive Louise Jones' latest offering:  according to VOCM, she is now thankful for the court decision. Apparently, Eastern Health couldn't make such a decision on its own.

Couldn't make a decision to release documents that she and her colleagues in senior management knew weren't peer reviews in conformance with corporate policy and couldn't be quality assurance reviews since there is no quality assurance policy/program at Eastern.

Wow.

This little VOCM report is a collection of penetrating insights into the obvious, vapid comments that make Paris Hilton seem like a Rocket Scientist and what appears to be the third entirely different strategic talking point in as many days for Jones.

None of it bodes well for public faith in the health care system.

One can only imagine what the talking points will be once the inquiry is underway and Wiseman is under oath.

-srbp-

Where was the provincial inspection?

While there has been some public kerfuffle over the announcement that bridges along the former railway will be closed pending further engineering inspections, did anyone notice that it was federal authorities who conducted the inspections and sounded the alarm?

It's there, plain as day in the government public advisory:

Transport Canada, under the authority of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, carried out inspections of 109 structures located along the T’Railway Provincial Park and has prepared a report on their findings.

Transport Canada indicates that 18 structures pose an unreasonable life safety risk to the public. The report also indicates that many other structures should be examined for life safety issues.

Well, of course, they noticed.

The Telegram's Rob Antle led his story with just that point.  Antle notes that the feds were inspecting the bridges that crossed federal responsibility for navigable waters. They looked up to see what might be coming down on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in boats from bridges that are entirely within the provincial government's jurisdiction.

Fourteen of the bridges were found to be in such a state of disrepair that they posed a hazard to people passing below.  Transport Canada has given the province until 11 March to submit an action place on the 14 most serious problems.

Interesting.

The provincial government - which actually owns the bridges  - had to get the hammer dropped on them by the feds.  The feds sent the province a message on Monday, along with the demand for the remedial work, and it took three days for the province to get going.

The federal message didn't cover all the bridges.  It only covered the ones over navigable waters.

In 2003, the Auditor General criticised the provincial public works department for its bridge inspection policy and a subsequent report in 2005 noted improvement.

Nowhere, so it seems, did anyone think of the bridges and trestles on the T'Railway.

This situation gets a little more interesting when the former executive assistant to the minister responsible for the T'Railway makes a comment about the whole thing that "Justice and the Auditor General have prevailed in making the government realize that they had ignored a potential liability for as long as they dare try." [Emphasis added]

If we take that comment at face value, the problem with the bridges and trestles has been known for some time. It's just been ignored  - or "managed, as the former EA prefers it - and not just by the former Liberal administration.  Nope, in order for these bridges to get into such a state that the feds have demanded the province take action, the situation must have continued to deteriorate under the current five-year-old administration.

Meanwhile, the same guy lumps the provincial action on the bridges along with the threat this week to close personal care homes that don't have fire sprinklers.  The homes still haven't complied with a 2003 order by the provincial fire commissioner.

Okay.

Well, let's not get carried away here.

First of all, if the feds hadn't stepped into the bridge issue, there's no way of knowing how long the thing might have gone on being "managed".  The justice department and the Auditor general had little if anything to do with the T'Railway closure.

Second of all, there are more than a few questions surrounding this personal care home thing.

Sure it has taken a long while for government to act.  The provincial government is getting plenty of praise for supposedly putting personal safety ahead of some other undefined thing.

But has anyone bothered to ask why now?

Why in the middle of February with a maximum of 60 days to have the sprinklers installed or face closure?  The provincial officials in municipal affairs and in health are well aware of the issues involved with some of the homes that still haven't installed sprinklers and they aren't simple recalcitrance or neglect on the part of the owner-operators.

Nope, that simplistic view hasn't held up to the news coverage this week.  Some operators have had trouble getting a contractor to do the work.  Some are having trouble raising their share of the cost which, even allowing for the government subsidy, is still likely to require some to spend a hunk of cash from the bank. Some of those costs are due to the age of the buildings or problems with the water supply.  One operator will reportedly have to install a reservoir just to provide the needed water since the municipal supply can't meet the need.

The question of timing is also interesting if you consider the problem starting in 2003.  There were some 81 homes needing sprinklers, of which only 22 remain un-"sprinkled".  One went out of business.  That means the other 58 homes were done over the past five years.

That works out to 12 a year which - dare one consider - might just be the capacity of the local contracting marketplace for this work. That would give us about two more years to finish off the last of them.

The number of homes left to "sprinkle" could also reflect the cost and time involved in other structural alterations and any local permitting or rezoning.  One personal care operator opted to renovate and expand his facility.  After all, if you have to do some capital improvements why not do a bunch at once? He ran into zoning issues and is now looking at having to install sprinklers to meet the current order and at the same time look to abandon his current operation when he moves into a new site.  The time spans involved here have been measured in years since the bureaucracy at the provincial and municipal level tends to be a bit sluggish at times.  All understandable reasons in the practical world.

So you have to wonder why - very suddenly this week - a bunch of fire officials marched into 22 personal car home across the province delivering the closure orders, to be followed within minutes by a bunch of officials from the local health board to start talking about shifting potentially 290 seniors and developmentally delayed people to new digs.  New digs, by the by, which do not exist in the system.

The orders were clear: 30 days to get a signed contract for installation, with a maximum of 60 days to get the work finished or you're out of business and your residents will be shifted.

But if it is such a life safety issue that can no longer be "managed", one must wonder why this became such a sudden realization.  These personal care homes are regularly inspected and have been licensed annually.  Health officials know the issues - presumably - and have either approved of or demanded successfully  that the various homes put in place extra staff at night or whatever measures would be necessary to avoid a repeat of the infamous Chafe fire in 1976.

After all, it's not like the federales just showed up and complained.

The Tiffany fire, some have suggested.

Well, that's really an interesting choice.  The Tiffany is an apartment building.  It has a superintendent, just like all other apartment complexes and while it has a preponderance of elderly residents, it's not even close to being a personal care home with its staff who are there day-in and day-out to care for and protect the residents.

And that just brings us around again to wondering why - right out of the public blue - two departments decided to step in and tell 290 people they will possibly be moving to not just a new home but possibly a new town or a new part of the province, unplanned, just...just...because.

That's not to diminish the public safety issue.  But don't forget this is the same administration that over in another corner just this past week had to be told by another government to sort out a bunch of bridges over which thousands of people ride each year and thousands more ride under.

Someone else had to tell them about the bridges.

Bridges the provincial government owns.

A closure in November 2006 wasn't enough.

So on the bridges, where exactly was the provincial inspection program that missed all the problems?

And on the personal care homes, why now?

The answers to those are not obvious and, given the provincial government's penchant for obfuscation, we may never know.

-srbp-

The External Review Reports decision

While this will eventually make it to the Internet in other legal databases, here's a copy of the decision rendered by Mr. Justice Wayne Dymond in the application by Eastern Health on certain documents requested by the Cameron Inquiry into breast cancer screening.

This is an extremely enlightening document since it demonstrates fairly clearly that even the evidence led on direct or cross examination of Eastern Health's own witnesses contradicts acting chief executive office Louise Jones claim on Friday that these external reports are peer reviews and were considered so by Eastern Health.

At paragraph 39 and subsequently, for example, it is clear from testimony by Dr. Oscar Howell - current vice president medical services - that the work done by two external consultants did not conform to establish Eastern Health policy on peer reviews:

More than one doctor was subject to the review; at least one of the doctors subject to the review had a hand in selecting the reviewers and ultimately, the reports continents were not distributed to the review subjects in the form of a "sentinel report."

On the related issue of the reviews being quality assurance reports, according to Howell's testimony:

Q. So, if the Health Care Corporation, because we’re going back, in fact there isn’t even a Peer Review Policy for Eastern Health – they’ve adopted and continued to apply for positions, the Health Care Corporation’s right?

A. That is correct.

Q. I think it’s important that the Court understands that there is nothing written, there is no Quality Assurance Committee written down anywhere is there?

A. No.

Q. You are going about setting in place a written Policy, aren’t you?

A. We are working through that process, that’s correct.

Q. And with a view to ensuring that, and being able to identify that committee as a s. 8.1 committee isn’t it?

A. That would certainly be very important.

No quality assurance committee. No policy currently in place. Dr. Howell was asked if it was his view that the two experts were being retained to conduct a peer review. He replied: "It is not."

Then there's the famous testimony of the doctor who organized the reviews:

Q. Yes, you -- sure you would, of course you would and this idea that the statement that Bannerjee and Wegrynowski [the external consultants] were designated Peer Review Committees or Quality Assurance Committees, that’s covered by the [Evidence] Act, that notion, or that whole idea only came up long afterwards, didn’t it?

A. That came up in the past six months, the past year or so, yes.

Q. Yeah, but it didn’t occur in the fall of 05?

A. No, I wasn’t thinking about that in the fall of 05.

Q. And, no one spoke to you about it at that time?

A. No.

The idea that the external reviews were peer reviews or quality assurance reports covered by the Evidence Act only emerged within the past year, i.e. since the Cameron Inquiry was established.

The entire decision is rendered in about 39 pages, including the obligatory title page. It's not a long document nor are the issues complex or convoluted. The words used are pretty straightforward, as legal decisions go.

What is fascinating is the information obtained from the sections of evidence - only some of the testimony entered - about the whole issue. We are starting to see the first glimpses of detail of this highly controversial issue.

In particular, though, at this early stage, it is really instructive to look at the position being taken by Eastern Health on certain issues and compare them to what was actually said in court. In some respects, it's not far off the gap between the public statements and the facts - as demonstrated in court - related to the Ruelokke Affair.

-srbp-

Government Blackberries directing EHA media work?

Eastern Health Authority's (EHA)willingness to get past the "peer review" fiasco lasted less than 24 hours apparently.

Discussing Eastern's plan to make public the two reports next week, get a load of these comments:

Louise Jones, the interim chief executive officer of Eastern Health, said Friday that despite Dymond's ruling, the authority maintains that its position was correct.

"We believe that this was peer review. We believe that they were set up under the Evidence Act," Jones said. "We told the peer reviewers and we told our physicians and our staff that that was the case."

There are some obvious problems with Jones comments: one factual, one strategic.

First, there's the matter of fact.

That was decided by Mr. Justice Wayne Dymond:

[122]   The Court finds that based on the evidence presented and the arguments set forward in counsel’s brief that the four Reports prepared by the internal reviewers are not Peer Review Reports or Quality Assurance Reports and are therefore not protected by s. 8.1 of the Evidence Act. They are not protected by the Wigmore Principles as set out above for reasons as stated.

We'll give you the full decision later today, but for now just take that simple statement.  There's no question:  the reports are not peer reviews. 

Period. 

End of discussion. 

The reason the medical association is comfortable with the decision is that it was based on a finding of fact - not of the law and the Evidence Act - that reports were most emphatically not peer reviews.

And to make it even more plain, let's all recall that the Eastern health official who set the damn things up testified under oath in a court of law, subject to penalties for telling lies that he never considered the reports to be peer reviews.

There is absolutely no value, legal or otherwise, of maintaining this position.

None.

There is no value in taking the position that "I don't care what the judge said.  We were right all along."

That's the second problem here.  Aside from the matter of fact having been settled, Jones comments repeat the public relations mistake inherent in the whole thing in the first place. 

The faux magnanimity of the release issued on the day of the decision was at least magnanimous:  let's get past this and move on in the wider public good.

These comments sound suspiciously familiar.

Do we know anyone else who is fond of saying that sort of thing?  Sorta like:  I don't care that the judge ruled against me - for the umpteenth time - I know I was right all along.

Geez.

Who might say something like that?

Did she say Dymond got up on the wrong side of the bed?

Okay. You're getting the point.

Dymond's comments are so overwhelmingly similar to a classic Danny Williams line that it would hard to believe the two lines didn't come from the same place or from the same inspiration. 

There's been a detectible change in Eastern's media work since Christmas, starting with the sudden appearance of Jones on Open Line.  She did an appalling job of defending this whole legal appeal in the first place, but the fact was she was there, taking the heat off the minister - Ross Wiseman - to whom media had started directing questions on the whole matter.

Uncomfortable spot for Wiseman and the whole provincial cabinet.

This would be Ross Wiseman who has the power to order Eastern Health to do things when it suits his political purposes - i.e. Fred Kasirye - and to crow about it all the while in public.  But then in other cases, he becomes but the humble slave of the people with the real decision-making power, those at Eastern Health.  That would be like this one say.

You see Wiseman could look like the Protector of the Public on Kasirye.  Even if, as it turned out, the review didn't turn up anything in public that looked abnormal, the guy was shot, in public for the optics of it.  He couldn't have been any more expendable if he was wearing a red shirt on a landing party standing right next to Jim Kirk.

On the breast thingy, leaving aside Wiseman's eventual testimony, this one is pretty much a political loser and the Blackberries in the administration wouldn't want him anywhere near that.  They could even have little stickers across the top of the screen to remind the thumbs that  "The buck stops somewhere else" but that's another story.

There's been such a change in Eastern Health's media work just in the past few weeks you'd almost think there was some direct connection between the two.  Almost like there was a direct connection between the top and EHA. A two degrees of separation kinda connection.

if that's true, then it isn't good.

The Blackberries aren't that good when it comes to media relations in a crisis. 

Happy, happy crappy is their forte. 

Stinky messes?

The crap lands somewhere else.

Only problem is that five years in, the Blackberries haven't figured out yet that the smell they are getting is coming from their own shoes.

-srbp-

Taking lessons from Danny

Seems Ed Stelmach has taken a leaf from Danny Williams' book by appointing a raft of Tory partisans to positions in the Alberta elections office.

 

Weakest election laws in the country?

The reporter needs to check with Newfoundland and Labrador where election finance laws are as slack as a Swiss banker's ethical standards and the appointment of a Tory district association member as the chief electoral officer warranted scarcely a notice from media and opposition politicians.

A doff of the Bondian bowler to daveberta for the link

-srbp-

Silence isn't golden

Neither the province's recycling board nor the environment minister will talk to CBC's Zach Goudie about paper recycling in St. John's.

Specifically, they won't talk about a request from the local recycler who'd been looking for $100,000 to fund the project.

The recycling board had a surplus of about $2.0 million last year so it isn't like they are short of cash.

More and more people are finding that the provincial government's communications people may have the word in their title, but it isn't in their job function.

In fact, as in the environment case, non-communication is the primary job or if it isn't a complete lack of response, it's a delayed, incomplete, super spun or generally useless response.

- Environment.

- Multi-Materials Stewardship Board.

- Public Service Commission.

- Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

- Department of Health and Community Services and its subordinate bits.

- Attorney General on the privacy breach at the worker's compensation board.

One is an anomaly.

Two is curious.

Three is troubling.

Four is a trend.

Five or 10, as we have here?

That pretty much establishes obfuscation as government policy.

So much for "accountability" and "transparency".

-srbp-

How magnanimous

Mr. Justice Wayne Dymond ruled today that two reviews conducted of Eastern Health labs are not peer reviews or quality assurance reports and as such will be made available to the public inquiry into breast cancer screening.

Eastern Health issued a statement which CBC reported thusly:

In a statement, Eastern Health said it will not stand in the way of the reports' release.

The decision "clears the way for Eastern Health to continue to work with the Judicial Commission of Inquiry on the estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR) issue," the authority said in a statement.

How magnanimous of the authority.

Perhaps someone at Eastern Health thought no one would notice that under s. 13 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2006 - the section under which Eastern Health sought to have the reports withheld from the commission - they had no right of appeal of the judge's decision.

Perhaps no one explained to them that the authority had no choice but abide by the judge's decision.

Having already damaged its public relations position by pursuing this court appeal in the first place, this sort of comment certainly won't improve public perceptions. The way would have been cleared had the authority exercised its option not to file a loser appeal in the first place.

-srbp-

Oh, the spin of it all

Voice of the Cabinet Minister has an interesting take on Danny Williams' decision today to reverse his position on Andy Wells.  Where before Williams was happy to let Wells keep two jobs, he's now decided the political controversy is such that Wells will become chair of the public utilities board after he quits as mayor of Sin Jawns.

Here's what the Premier's news release said:

The Honourable Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, today confirmed that Mayor Andy Wells will step down from his position as mayor of St. John’s before starting in his new position as the Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (PUB).

The premier "confirmed" that Wells will be stepping down from the mayor's job  before taking up the PUB post.

There's no wording like "Andy has to chose."

So it's really curious that VOCM states this:

Andy Wells isn't saying what he will do in light of what amounts to an ultimatum from the premier.

Ultimatum?

Not even close.

The Premier told us exactly what he and Wells decided in light of the political pushback the two have been facing:  Wells will quit as mayor and then take the PUB job.

Job done.

They agreed to this version of it, just like they agreed originally that Wells could keep two jobs and the provincial government didn't care.

Don't believe the two jobs deal was agreed to all along?

Here's David Cochrane's interview with an unusually unabrasive Wells. Take note of Wells' comments after he says the issue is the Premier's "file".  Williams' call modified the original job offer:  "...here's the condition that arose after the fact, after the job was offered...".  It doesn't get any plainer than that when it comes to understanding that the whole two jobs fiasco was agreed from the beginning.

Later in the interview Wells also says that the "one job" version came afterwards as a result of the political controversy surrounding the original "two jobs" arrangement.  The only thing for Andy to do now is decide when he gives up the mayor's chair.

VOCM makes it sound like he might not take the PUB job.

The Telegram got it dead right.

CBC got it right.

VOCM didn't.

Not by a long shot.

Then consider the VOCM version of a release by Liberal leader Yvonne Jones:

Opposition Leader Yvonne Jones says the Premier made the right decision.

Not exactly.

What she actually said was:

Opposition Leader Yvonne Jones says the decision by Premier Danny Williams not to appoint Andy Wells as Chair of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) until he resigns as mayor of St. John’s is the right decision. Jones believes that Andy Wells’ decision to hold two full-time positions at the same time undermined the role and responsibility of the PUB.

Look at the second sentence.

The decision to hold two positions undermined the PUB.  The only thing Jones didn't do in the body of the release was commend the Premier for changing his mind.

Then again, it was kinda hard to miss the headline.  It was there in all it's 14 point glory right at the top of the news release:

Jones pleased Premier rethinks decision on Wells appointment

How exactly could you miss it?

-srbp-

Andy, Danny, the PUB and polls

Andy Wells won't be staying on as mayor of St. John's when he takes on a new job as chairman and chief executive officer of the public utilities board after all.

Premier Danny Williams said so today in a news release.

This is no small development.  Williams and Wells had arranged for Andy to keep both jobs.  The reasons are unclear but Wells himself raised the issue of his own outstanding legal bills from failed defamation lawsuits.  They had a set of media lines they stuck to, relentlessly, starting with the idea that there was only one tiny potential of conflict of interest.

The Premier repeats them again in the release:

I stand by my belief that the mayor is quite capable of doing both the job as mayor and running the PUB. We have reconfirmed repeatedly that no conflict of interest exists, with the exception of land expropriation where we have already stated Mayor Wells would excuse himself.

Of course, there are numerous conflicts of interest and other policy problems with the Premier's original plan.  That's been pointed out by everyone from Ron Smith to CBC to your humble e-scribbler. Despite the claims to the contrary the Premier's news release is an admission the original plan he had was fatally flawed.

Williams and Wells likely figured they could tough out any public criticism.  They might well have been able to do so were it not for two things.

First of all, they clearly misjudged the willingness of people to voice their clear, reasoned opposition to the appointment scheme based not on personalities but on the facts of the matter. it simply didn't matter who was being appointed to hold two jobs:  the whole idea was flawed.

Second of all, they clearly came up against the looming Corporate Research Associates polling period.  The Wells story had legs and it was simply too risky for the pair to risk the government's high polling numbers on an avoidable controversy. 

It wouldn't be surprising to find that the Premier's Office had some private polling commissioned in the last week or so that helped convince them of the political danger of persisting in an untenable position.  It's not like that hasn't happened before. Remember the flag flap and the premier's insistence "those flags" would stay down until the federal government relented?  It's no accident the flags suddenly sprang to the top of flag staffs at government buildings across the province once the Premier had in hand the results of a public opinion poll.

This "issue", as the premier calls it without defining it, may not be dead, though. 

Andy Wells attitudes about the environment, specifically his rejection of human involvement in global warming, may well make it interesting when the PUB is asked to review capital works programs aimed at dealing with environmental impacts related to global warming.

That, of course, may well call into question the Premier's insistence that Wells is the best qualified person for the PUB job. He's undoubtedly got a strong record in public service.  But that alone is not sufficient for anyone to take on a job heading a quasi-judicial regulatory agency.

That question could have been easily put to rest, however, had the public service competition originally started for this job been completed.  Apparently, it stopped for some reason. Not only has the Public Service Commission been vague in responding to inquires on the matter, but also, at no point has the Premier trotted out that piece of evidence in support of his claims about Wells' qualifications.

The Premier's office may think the Wells "issue" has gone away with this news release.

Likely it won't.

There are other aspects to the issue than have been explored to date.

Polling period and public opinion polls may influence the government's actions.  The rest of us aren't so constrained.

-srbp-

He'll be "environmentally efficient"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Junk science.

That would be the stuff Wells likes to quote.

-srbp-

Spot the teacher

There's a decent profile of a fledgling politician in the latest edition of the Advertiser. Many people don't know what the job is like; even people who run for the job get a rude shock when they finally get into office.

Sullivan appears straightforward, sincere and quite engaging. She comes across as typical of the people who get into politics in this province and elsewhere.

Most people would call what Sullivan has been through an orientation session to give her the basic administrative details of her new job. The constant references to "in-servicing" labels her as a teacher. Maybe the writer is but odds are she is just repeating the word Sullivan used.

Perhaps her constant requests for the "rubric" kept some of the presenters smiling and ensured the otherwise boring proceedings were somewhat bearable. Undoubtedly, Sullivan found the "exemplars" to be especially useful since after all, a mere "example" wouldn't suffice if one is engaged in instructional pursuits. (j/k)

On a serious note, isn't it interesting that this MHA has discovered it makes sense to have her constituency assistant in St. John's?

Did he really say that?

We believe that a strengthened public service will ensure that individuals are being hired on their merits as opposed to who they know in government.

According to the Telly editorial on Monday, those were the words Premier Danny Williams spoke in 2004. He said them, on province-wide television in the infamous January 5, 2004 speech about government's financial plans.

It is a laudable sentiment and the provincial government's 2005 action in creating a public service secretariat within the government itself is a commendable step to making merit-based hiring a reality throughout government.

That's why a competition for commissioners and a chief executive officer for the public utilities board was a great leap forward in handling appointments traditionally made by cabinet from a rather closed process that didn't always appear to be based on merit as most of us would understand the term.

The 2007 public competition showed signs of a real change, despite the efforts made to work around the process for selecting the chair and chief executive at the offshore regulatory board.

In light of all that, it remains very odd that the provincial government made no effort to point out that the selection of Andy Wells as head of the public utilities board came out of a merit-based hiring process, the one the provincial government itself started.

Not only that, but as Bond Papers pointed out on Friday, there isn't any public indication of what happened to the competition. Resumes were assessed but after that, there's been no sign of the whole affair. There are still two commissioner positions vacant at the board.

There's no question that Danny Williams made it a policy of government to move to merit-based hiring throughout government.

He did it on province-wide television in 2004.

So what happened to the PUB competition?

-srbp-

...thy father's spirit

By the clicking of the thumbs, something wicked this way comes.

There is a ghost at the old CBC building on the Parkway, so it seems.

The ghost of one news producer long since past not from the Earth but from the building.

Your humble e-scribbler dialed a familiar number this weekend, in order to follow up on the strange case of the missing SAC story.

The number rang and rang, as it should on a weekend.

But instead of going off to message manager as it usually does, an unfamiliar voice suddenly entoned that the call had reached the desk of Bob Wakeham.

Bob was apparently not available but the call was then re-routed to the newsroom where some kind - and hopefully non-spectral - voice answered.

No message, sez your e-scribbler, maybe the cell phone is working properly.

Eerie that calls should go to Wakeham when one is inquiring about why a major political story never made to air at CBC. It's the kind of story people of Wakeham's time would have delved into until every ounce of information had been wrung from it.

Those sort of things never seem to happen in these days of Crackberries.

Odd that.

-srbp-

Time to worry: CBC and Indy both omit big story

Two different people with no connection to each other posed the same question to your humble e-scribbler yesterday:

Why hasn't CBC mentioned the SAC Mfg story?

It's a good question.

Every other news outlet in the province - except the Indy - has mentioned the story.

That's pretty odd company for the Mother Corp to be keeping.

Time to make some calls and fire off some e-mails.

More to follow.

-srbp-

Separated at birth: the Gong Show version

City councillor Gerry Colbert, right, who is rumoured to be starring in an off-off-off-Broadway run of Duck Soup next fall, as well as hosting a new version of "You Bet Your Life" on the gameshow channel.

And Kazakistan's greatest export, Borat Sagdiyev, left.

Conoco hints all not well in local oil patch

ConocoPhillips is working to counteract the impression left in a National Post story Friday that it was unhappy with the provincial government's equity demand for offshore oil and gas projects.

The Post reported that the company was having a hard time justifying an exploration program in the Laurentian sub-basin off the south coast of Newfoundland, based on the equity demand:

Kevin Meyers, president of ConocoPhillips' Canadian subsidiary, said yesterday one of the well's challenges is that the new regime involves the province taking an equity stake if the well produces a discovery, but not sharing in the cost of exploration, which could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars.

"That makes it a much more tolerable risk scenario for them - if you find something and it's economic, then they participate," Mr. Meyers said in an interview.

"But it does add an extra burden on the people who have to carry the exploration cost, so they are essentially carrying that ownership, and so that is one of the challenges in the regime."

As the Telegram reports on Saturday, the company issued a terse statement late Friday afternoon. The statement - issued by the vice-president of corporate communication said, in full:

"ConocoPhillips Canada continues to be interested in its deep water exploration project off the southern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

"This is a high-risk, high-cost project located in a harsh environment, and thus has considerable technical and economic challenges.

"We have been working with the province to progress the project and to gain better understanding of the recently released energy plan, and we appreciate the government's willingness in doing so.

"The implication portrayed in (Friday's) National Post article is that ConocoPhillips is challenging the province and the premier and that is simply not the case.

"ConocoPhillips looks forward to continuing to work with the province in order to test this unexplored region."

Go read the Post story again.

There's no implication that the company is challenging the provincial government. The operations vice president pointed to the obvious concern the company shares with others interested in further exploration. Sure there are projects underway and the province has acquired small shares of projects that have been already developed or where the so-called "equity" stake can be calculated and the financial implications controlled.

It's very different for exploration where there is more risk than guaranteed return. Exploration is the key to the long-term future of the province's oil and gas industry.

Drilling in deep water is costly. The provincial government's position is that it will assume no risk for the cost of exploration. If the wells are dry, the company or companies eat the cost fully. If the wells produce, the provincial government wants a slice of the gold medal, but no share of the pain incurred to get to the podium.

Kevin Meyers also made public what has been known in the oil patch for some time: the companies still don't have clarity on the financial implications of the province's energy plan and that is affecting decisions on exploration. Uncertainty or shifting provincial demands may also be affecting conclusion of the Hebron deal.

The energy plan - announced as part of last fall's election campaign after a decade of development by the provincial government - eliminated the existing generic oil royalty regime entirely promising that a new one would be developed at some undefined point in the future. Meanwhile, a draft gas royalty regime was unveiled, but it is still at the draft stage. A version shared with the oil companies before the plan was released was reportedly criticised sharply, in private. That's why the energy plan contained a "draft" and not a final royalty regime.

As such, companies interested in exploration suddenly found themselves with less certainty about the future than greater certainty. Meyer's comments contradicted the political spin from the provincial government that the energy plan was completed and had restored "clarity" to the ofshore's fiscal issues.

Companies like ConocoPhilips - which has potential for natural gas in it's south coast licenses - have to justify exploration costs without knowing what the overall financial implications might be resulting from a discovery. That's a difficult exercise where exploration costs are escalating anyway, outside the added costs of working in deep water.

A well drilled in the Orphan Basin last year cost a reported US$200 million, double the cost of a typical well offshore Newfoundland. Changes in the strength of the Canadian dollar also effectively increased the cost of drilling offshore by removing the dollar's discount bonus.

The companies appear to have been trying to keep their dissatisfaction quiet in the hopes that the problems could be solved more effectively behind closed doors. Meyer's remarks undermined the media blackout, hence the quick reaction by the corporate communicators to slap a happy face seal on further comment.

If the Premier responds at all and does so calmly, then the whole thing will blow over and the problems can be sorted out.

If he's having an off day and vents a little spleen, the whole offshore mess - currently contained - could spill on the streets of St. John's like a political Exxon Valdez.

-srbp-

SAC one of largest investments under new program

SAC Mfg, the defunct natural gas company, received one of the largest provincial government investments under its commercialization program, according to a report by Rob Antle in Saturday's Telegram.

SAC received $500,000 - the maximum possible - from the program in December 2006 but ceased operations in September 2007 after relocating to Alberta. Since 2006, the provincial government has spent $2.6 million in investments of varying sizes in local ventures.

SAC is the only company of the 10 to fail. The others are going concerns, some with highly successful products and services being marketed globally.

SAC is also the only investment from this program in which the provincial government took shares. Similar investments, i.e. equity stakes, in three other operations - Blue Line, Consilient and Orphan Industries - occurred in 2005.

Of the other investments, only NewLab Clinical Research also received the maximum. NewLab recently announced the company's merger with Newfound Genomics, another local company doing similar or compatible research.

VMT - Virtual Marine Technology - received $450,000. The company provides training simulators for lifeboat operators. Data Sentinel, which markets a USB-based computer data backup storage system, received $400,000.

Northern Radar of St. John's received $374,900 from the provincial government in February 2007. It manufactures a locally-developed high frequency surface wave radar system marketed by Raytheon. The company has one sale in Sri Lanka with others confirmed or pending, according to media reports earlier this year.

A development and acquisition program with the Department of National Defence was cancelled in 2006. A research program is pending but the Government of Canada is planning an open tender call which would see the radar developer compete with other companies to continue work on its own project. Two test and demonstration sites in Newfoundland operated for the Canadian navy have ceased operation since the project cancellation.

Superior Waterproof Coatings, of Gander, received $153,600 from the province for its exterior rubber sealant coating for residential and commercial buildings.

St. John's-based Jackman Brand Marketing received $125,000. No details of any of the investments were reported in the Telegram. [Corrected:] Mediclink received $57,900. The company develops and markets practice management software for optometrists and optic stores.

Dockside Appetizers received $31,000 and [corrected] a car safety apparatus for pets called Koby Seat received $2,132.

Only three of the 10 projects were announced publicly. Two other announcements are pending, according to the Telegram.

-srbp-

PUB job competition: what happened to it?

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

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

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

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

That's it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Wells and the conflicts of interest

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

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

There is no conflict of interest, we are assured.

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

Well, sort of.

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

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

Look at that last part again:

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

My lawyer guesses, I get the shakes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-srbp-