Breast cancer inquiry opens

The Cameron Inquiry into breast cancer testing at Eastern Health started public hearings today, after a weather delay on Tuesday.

Hearings are being webcast (check the link above, under "Schedule and Witnesses").

The commission is interpreting its terms of reference to focus almost exclusively on the medical aspects of the issue. That's particularly interesting when it comes to Term (f):

Term (f) directs that recommendations be made as to how matters of this nature should be handled.  Though not exclusively, Part II will be largely directed to providing information to the Commission which would assist in making such recommendations.  To that end, six experts have been engaged to prepare papers. The papers, which are directed to aspects of the obligation to disclose, will be posted on the website in March, 2008.

That term relates to making recommendations for policy on any implications flowing from the other terms.

There isn't anything obvious from the schedule of witnesses released thus far or from the experts engaged for the second phase of the inquiry that would deal with Term (d):

(d) inquire into whether, once detected, the responsible authorities communicated in an appropriate and timely manner with the general public and internally within the health system about the issues and circumstances surrounding the change in test results and the new testing procedures;

That's the term which appeared, on first reading, to include Eastern Health's public relations operations. Apparently it doesn't. Most of the disclosure discussion planned for phase two examines only the legal and medical aspects of the question.

No paper appears to have been commissioned from him but the commission will hear from a journalism professor at the University of British Columbia on the role of the media in disclosure. That's interesting since the public relations function - identified in Term (d) - only becomes an issue of media ethics once a management decision has been taken on whether to disclose, how to disclose and what to disclose.

It will be hard to determine if the responsible authorities communicated in an appropriate and timely manner if no one providing evidence or opinion to the commission has experience in the the management of communications.

-srbp-

Irving and BP to partner on Saint John refinery

While the second refinery proposed for Newfoundland has hit a cash snag, the proposed refinery expansion at Saint John New Brunswick gained a new partner on Monday.

BP will contribute US$40 million under a memorandum of understanding with Irving Oil to look at the design, feasibility and engineering for the new refinery.

Irving Oil conducted initial feasibility work and informal public consultation in 2006, and has been engaged since January 2007 in permitting, public consultation, and engineering design for the proposed 300,000 barrel per day refinery. The refinery would be situated close to Irving Oil's existing 300,000 barrel per day refinery and the existing Irving Canaport deepwater crude oil terminal which receives VLCC cargoes of crude oil and is located 65 miles (105 km) from the US border.

This next phase of engineering, design and feasibility work, combined with ongoing permitting and community engagement activities represents over US$100 million of investment over the next 12-15 months.

-srbp-

Of gas prices, tourists and ptomaine

Ed Ring is right.  Having inspection reports on restaurants and other food service places accessible to the public is good.  It's a step in the right direction.

But while some people are busily patting themselves on the back, they might consider the aspects of the auditor general's report on health inspections a bit more closely.

There are a few issues that remain unresolved:

1.  The problem was with restaurants failing health inspections repeatedly and still being allowed to say open.  That hasn't changed. Some of them were serious failures, but apparently they weren't quite serious enough.

2. How many other restaurants are out there?  The six restaurants were only a sample.  CBC and the Telegram might be all over the six but, the auditors only took a sample of the thousands of inspection reports on thousands of food service establishments.

3.  Why do an inspection when the place is closed?  This whole issue is about how the inspectors conduct the inspections and enforce - or don't enforce - the rules. 

Now you have to wonder about the ministry of permits and licenses if its inspectors try to inspect a place at a time of the year when they know the seasonal establishment is closed.

In St. Lewis, Labrador in May 2006, at the Fisherman's Landing, inspectors found unsatisfactory hand-washing facilities and improper thermostats. Inspectors were unable to complete a January 2008 inspection because the restaurant was closed for [the] season.

Think about that.

Problems identified in May 2006.

Inspectors go back to the seasonal restaurant - on the coast of Labrador - almost two years later to see if the problems are still around.  It's not like these were insignificant issues.  And they can't get in because the restaurant isn't in operation at that time. 

Of course, we start to understand the depth of the problem when we consider the words of the minister responsible for health licensing. We've been operating under the assumption Kevin O'Brien and his inspectors are there to protect the public and keep it safe.

Turns out the task here is not so much the enforcement of standards  - to prevent the spread of deadly infections - but rather the education of people running food service establishments. 

In that little scenario, the people of the province O'Brien is supposed to be protecting are nothing more than the final exam in this little education process.

Call me funny, but I have a problem with being used as a test subject in O'Brien's little exercise in learning.

You see, when one of these restaurant people fail their exam in O'Brienology, my children and I wind up in hospital.

Or dead.

And if people who live here have a problem with Kevin O'Brien's bizarre view of his responsibilities, imagine how those thousands of potential visitors  - tourists - feel about being used in Kevin's lab as guinea pigs.

Gives new meaning to experiencing the local culture.

"Was that ptomaine or salmonella, dear?  Hmm, not sure.  Let's try the next place and see what develops."

Kinda makes concerns about gasoline prices and the impact on tourism just a bit trivial.

-srbp-

Living in a lost episode of Star Trek: TOS

One of the basic ideas we've been pushing around these parts is that Danny Williams is merely continuing the general policy approach of his predecessor.

Yes, it infuriates the D o' D's  (Disciples of Danny), but then again they wouldn't be disciples if they didn't fervently believe beyond all reason and evidence that theirs is the true secular messiah sent down from Heaven to deliver things like 'Pride" which have been so long denied His Chosen, but sadly Long Neglected People.

Take a look at the string of Throne Speeches from 2001 to the present.

Notice the continuation of policies and even the similar language from year to year.

The only new words:  the sudden appearance of "My First Minister", usually in he context of heaping praise on MFM, a.k.a. ODP, for his spendiferously marvellous smiting of the evil giants in the Battle of Accord.

So for your consideration, on a snowy Sunday morning, here's a news release from no less a personage than Tom Hedderson.  At the time, Hedderson was education critic.  He was taking a strip off government for knowing about mould in schools and not doing anything about it.

Sounds more than bit familiar, doesn't it?

Government knowing about a problem and doing nothing about it, or delaying doing something about for one reason or another.

Like knowing about the hospitals and yet doing nothing year after year for some completely unfathomable reason. And not just hospitals  - mind you  - in St. John's but in seven or eight facilities at least in Eastern Health region and likely more beyond that elsewhere in the province.

And then when asked about when he knew of the problems, the Premier first gives a story which turns out to be completely false.

As in not true.

Like in the middle of the scandal in the media and polling period he was suddenly struck with a memory lapse about what he knew, and when he knew it.

Oh no, he says, I only learned about it this week. 

Turns out he knew about it at least last fall, by his own admission. 

Now, given that we know he has made one false statement on the subject already, what are the odds he has known about the state of the hospitals for some time before that and just isn't telling us an accurate version of it?  And open accountable and transparent version?

And it makes ya wonder what else has he said about other subjects which isn't accurate, correct or in keeping with established facts.

Anyway, for the record, here's Tom Hedderson when he wasn't a cabinet minister accusing those that were of knowing something and not doing anything about it.

Major difference though:  Hedderson was only accused of ignoring a problem for - get this - less than a year.  The reports on Eastern Health are three years old and even now that the Premier is directly involved, he's still not promising to actually deal with the issue thoroughly.

The New Approach evidently means the old approach but longer. If Grimes took five months,  the New Improved ODP Approach will take five years. 

The New Approach:  it's like living in a province run by  Mr. Scott from some backwards Star Trek universe.  Scottie tells you something will take hours to complete.  It really takes years, if it ever gets done.

Oh yeah and  - whenever he gets caught screwing up - he promises the screw ups will never happen again.

Over and

over and

over.

 

NEWS RELEASE

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Education department knew last spring of air problems at St. Thomas of Villanova


ST. JOHN'S, November 1, 2000 — Opposition Education critic Tom
Hedderson says the Department of Education knew last spring of air
quality problems threatening students and teachers at St. Thomas of
Villanova in Manuels, yet has left the decision to begin addressing the
problem until two months into the 2000-01 school year.

The school has now been closed due to mould problems, and arrangements
are now being made to relocate students to other schools, at great
disruption to them and their teachers two months into their school
year. Reconstruction will probably not be completed until some time
during or at the end of the next school year (2001-02).

Hedderson says, "Everything that is known to the Avalon East School
Board and the Department of Education now was known to government and
the board last spring. Despite a 1998 environmental study recommending
a schedule of constant air quality monitoring in this particular
building, obviously no further monitoring was done. In other words,
despite knowing there was an air quality problem at the school that
needed attention, they neglected to do anything about it."

"The Avalon East School Board has to take some of the blame for not
confronting the Department of Education more aggressively on this issue
and forcing a showdown so proper plans could be made to start fixing
the problem and firming up alternate arrangements over the summer to
ensure minimal impact on students," said Hedderson.

"The real blame, however, rests on the shoulders of the Department of
Education for second-guessing school boards, cherry-picking on a
political basis which schools get replaced or renovated, and ignoring
not only the priority list for renovations but also the glaring
evidence of problems needing remediation," said Hedderson.

"The government has been making decisions on capital expenditures in
schools on a purely political basis. St. Thomas of Villanova is just
the most obvious and dramatic example of many situations around the
province where Liberal political patronage takes precedence over
educational interests and the health and safety of students," he said.


- 30 -
For more information:
Tom Hedderson, MHA Harbour Main-Whitbourne
(709) 729-6924

Charades

Igor: Sed-a...

Inga: Sed-a...

Igor: Dirty word! He said a dirty word!

 

The normally straightforward innovation minister looked a bit like a character out of Young Frankenstein this past week.

Dr. Fronkensteen, being strangled by his creation, tries to tell his assistants what to do to quiet the monster, but without actually saying the words.

He played charades.

Making odd gestures, tugging his ear and flashing various fingers in the air and on his forearm are about the only things Trevor Taylor didn't do this week to avoid answering a simple question.

Opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons asked Taylor for the names of three companies named recently in the Auditor General's annual report.  The companies were identified as Company A, Company B and Company C in the report.

Taylor refused to say the three names out loud.  Taylor said they weren't named by the Auditor General because "the Auditor General’s statements are usually masked somewhat in the terms of the name of the company because it would compromise their ability to raise capital or keep business."

Taylor offered to pass them on to Parsons privately, adding that public disclosure of the names and the consequences for the companies would then fall on Parsons' head.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I just told him that if he wants to step up here, somewhere where I can talk to him in confidence and tell him what the companies names are – now, if he wants to be irresponsible and release those names publicly and potentially compromise the companies that we have, as he said, around $1 million in, if he wants to do that and he wants to live with that and see maybe one of those companies, as a result of that, lose a customer they are after right now or, Mr. Speaker, lose another $100,000 in financing from a private lender, a chartered bank or something like that, then he can go and do it. I am not going to be that irresponsible but if he wants to he can.

He tried to deflect, by stating - incorrectly - that the Auditor General had found nothing wrong in his audit of the programs.

Taylor claimed that he couldn't say the names publicly since that might jeopardize the financial health of the companies and their ability to secure private sector financing.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I just told him that if he wants to step up here, somewhere where I can talk to him in confidence and tell him what the companies names are – now, if he wants to be irresponsible and release those names publicly and potentially compromise the companies that we have, as he said, around $1 million in, if he wants to do that and he wants to live with that and see maybe one of those companies, as a result of that, lose a customer they are after right now or, Mr. Speaker, lose another $100,000 in financing from a private lender, a chartered bank or something like that, then he can go and do it. I am not going to be that irresponsible but if he wants to he can.

The only problem for Taylor is that his arguments don't hold up.

For starters, the Auditor General didn't identify the companies since, for his purposes, the companies are irrelevant.  The AG was concerned with the government's administration of the program for handing out cash to private sector companies, to wit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there's the issue of financial consequences. In answering questions about SAC manufacturing, earlier this year, Taylor that government expected 65% of the companies it invested in to go under.  He then released the names of nine other companies like SAC which his department had funded.

Apparently having the minister brand those companies as high risk investments  - such that even government expected to see two thirds go under - didn't bother him the slightest.

And if all that wasn't true, there's still the question of the names of the three companies.

If the Auditor General had concerns about damaging the financial viability of the companies, as Taylor claims, he went about hiding them in an odd way.  The Auditor General's report gives a general description of the companies, but then describes in precise detail the financial transactions, the number of shares and so forth such that any reasonably savvy person  - like say an investment officer or private investor - could match the report and the Public Accounts and come up with the names.

Nope.

There's some other reason why Taylor ducked and dodged wildly this past week about these three companies.  The reasons he offered were not so much the stuff of Fonkensteen's game-playing ability as Eyegor's abysmal success at guessing from clues. Maybe we'll get the reasons when the House opens again this week for a brief few days before closing down for Easter.

Perhaps we'll get more of the game:

Two words.

First word.

A little word.

A? The?  At?  In.

Second word.

Sounds like "bird".

Curd? Herd? Nerd?

Ahhhhh.

It's the acronym for the department.

Again.

The only real question would be: "Why?"

-srbp-

Second refinery project hits capital snag

Plans for a second refinery in the province are being affected by a tightening capital market, according to Bloomberg.com.

Design and engineering work will continue, but the estimated $5.0 billion green field project will not proceed until financing is sorted out.  According to Bloomberg, Newfoundland and Labrador Refining had planned to fund upwards of half the project with debt.

"Effectively, the debt markets are closed at the moment,'' Dalton said.

"It's not a pricing issue, it's just a general availability issue.'' The start of construction "depends very much on when the markets open. We're not going to start it unless we know we can finish it, that's for sure.''

The company's project update, issued Friday,  isn't quite as clear on the financing issue.

In April 2007, NL Refining was seeking at least one financial backer with deep pockets. In January 2007, Bond Papers noted the difficulties likely to come for anyone trying to raise cash for a green field refinery project while at the same time, an expansion project would have considerably less cost and therefore lesser difficulty accessing capital.

By contrast, Harvest Energy announced in February it was considering a $1.0 billion investment to expand capacity at its refinery at Come by Chance.

-srbp-

AG office shuts door to access request

The Office of the Auditor General has declined a request for a copy of a legal opinion cited by Auditor General John Noseworthy in support of his demand to audit the board regulating the province's offshore industry.

The official response stated that, under the Auditor General Act, "all information related to our work is confidential and cannot be released."

Under the Auditor General Act, working papers related to specific audits are confidential. Officials are also required to keep confidential information obtained in the conduct of their work.

The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) is covered by the province's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act under changes made in the Green bill. The OAG's sweeping definition of what is confidential could effectively keep the operations of the Auditor General's office from public scrutiny despite the clear intention of the House of Assembly and Chief Justice Derek Green.

Bond Papers requested a copy of the legal opinion since it is not an audit working paper but is central to a controversy over the offshore board. A second request, citing sections of the Auditor General Act and the access to information statute received the same response, namely that "all information related to our work" cannot be released.

The next step is to appeal the matter to the province's information commissioner, Ed Ring.

When he released his report claiming to have been blocked from an auditor of the offshore regulator, Noseworthy said he should be given access "in the spirit of openness, accountability, transparency."

“I’m only trying to get some information here that I think the assembly should have. And, yet, the door is shut, and I really don’t know if there’s a good reason why. Why would they not want me to come in?”

-srbp-

Obama camp fisks Clinton

Don't know what fisking is?

Don't feel bad.  Most people have seen it online, but never knew there was a name for systematically tearing an argument to pieces and leaving the remnants to blow in the wind.

Now you know.

Follow this link and laugh.

-srbp-

Toward a future that works: we live in a fiscal house of cards

Finance minister Tom Marshall tabled a record-setting interim supply bill on Tuesday, seeking almost $2.0 billion to cover government spending for the first third of the next fiscal year. Based on that, the provincial budget estimates will come in as close to $6.0 billion as not.

In comments last month, Marshall said that spending on health, education and social welfare will consume 70% of spending in the coming fiscal year. At the same time, Marshall has been talking up the need to deal with the provincial government's debt load.

Bond Papers has noted before that Marshall's comments on the debt, while apparently sincere, have a hollow ring about them.  After all, Marshall has served since 2003 in a cabinet that has been doing plenty of talking about the provincial debt, yet the same cabinet has done precious little about it.

In fact, a closer look at government spending over the past four years shows the extent to which the current cabinet has followed a fiscal policy built on a house of cards.

Figure 1, left,  shows the growth in provincial government spending from 2003 to 2007. Overall, spending has increased 23% and consistent with the planned spending for the current fiscal year, this figure is more than double the cumulative rate of inflation in the same time period. [Note:  Amounts shown are in thousands of Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.]

Some specific categories of spending have increased more dramatically.  Spending on the natural resources department, tourism, innovation, and agriculture has grown by 55%.  Transportation and communications spending has grown by 43% and spending on general government operations was 53% higher in 2007 than it was in 2003.

Spending in other departments grew by lesser amounts.  For example, health - by far the largest single spending item - received $1.64 billion in 2007, up from $1.3 billion in 2003.   [Figure 2, right, below] That represents an increase of 26.4%.  Education is up by 20.5% and social welfare spending has increased by 15%.

Debt servicing, interestingly enough, has actually declined by 6% and dropped consistently from 2003 until the 2007 estimates.  For some inexplicable reason, the finance department predicted an increase in debt servicing.

It's inexplicable since the current exchange rate coupled with low interest rates would suggest that the cost of merely paying the interest on public debt would continue to decline. 

Even at an estimated $511 million for 2007, debt servicing consumes a mere 10% of the annual provincial budget. Compare that to health care,for example, at 32% of expenditure or education at about 20% of spending. Debt servicing is the only category of government expenditure to experience any decrease in the past four years.

And that reduced servicing cost isn't due to any government action.  Contrary to the popular impression, the current administration has actually increased the public sector debt load, that is the accumulated deficits and direct borrowing. [Figure 3, left]  Direct debt, that is the amount owed directly by the provincial government had been declining steadily for the years before 2005. Since then, it has been increasing.

Total debt, that is direct debt plus debt owed by Crown agencies, is $500 million larger in 2007 than it was in 2003, the last year of the Roger Grimes administration.

To make the point absolutely clear, bear in mind that the debt has increased at the same time that provincial government revenue has increased at an unprecedented pace. 

Revenue growth is driven entirely by high oil prices and mineral prices;  that point has been made repeatedly by Marshall and his predecessor. That revenue growth has permitted the spending increases from Figure 1.  That revenue growth comes from non-renewable resources and the peculiar global market situation which cannot be expected to last.

The extent of the revenue growth, though, is often lost in recent public commentary that focuses entirely on surpluses, especially the surplus of nearly $1.0 billion estimated for the current fiscal year.

Figure 4, right, compares spending growth with revenue growth.  The red line shows revenue growth as estimated in the original 2007 budget.  The purple line represents an additional $1.0 billion in revenue.  That may overstate the result this year, but if it does, then the exaggeration is not that great.

Finance minister Tom Marshall's second budget will increase the steep upward climb in public spending, fuelled entirely by anticipated growth in revenues from two economic sectors.

The provincial government's budget policy is built on a fiscal house of cards. In the next post in this series, we'll take a look at the provincial economy as a whole, with some projections as to what may occur in the near to medium term.

-srbp-

NL to boost public spending by seven times forecast rate of inflation

An interim supply bill table on Tuesday in the provincial legislature anticipates a provincial budget for 2008 of about $6.0 billion.

Finance minister Tom Marshall told members of the House of Assembly Committee of Supply that the interim supply bill increased spending by 14% over last year's interim supply bill.  The 2007 bill boosted spending by 12% over the previous fiscal year. Marshall said the increase covered inflation plus projected growth in program spending.

The Bank of Canada forecast inflation at 2% for 2008.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador spends more per capita in its annual budget than any provincial government in the country, except for Alberta.

-srbp-

Chevron shows Hebron project for 2012+, currently in 'evaluation'

In its most recent presentation to financial analysts, Chevron lists the Hebron project as currently being in the "evaluation" phase, with a possible start up sometime after 2012.

The company also lists planned exploration drilling in the Orphan Basin in 2008.

-srbp-

Flak Bait or CJC?

Why didn't the innovation department ever reveal anything about SAC Manufacturing until after Bond Papers and the Telegram started poking around?

According to innovation minister Trevor Taylor, it was due to some problems in "communications protocols". That's the explanation he gave on Tuesday in the House of Assembly.

Some of the communication protocols, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, were somewhat lax in the early going of the development of these programs. I have asked our department, our communications director and our executive to review our communications protocols to ensure that that instance does not happen in the future. I can assure the House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, there was no attempt to try and hide this information from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we will be making changes, as I have said, to our communication strategy to ensure that this does not happen in the future, Mr. Speaker.

Uh huh.

Riiiiight.

So apparently, having a protocol of openness, transparency and accountability wasn't enough.  No word of the cash when it was handed out.  No word of the cash when the company hightailed it to Alberta and definitely no word to the public - or apparently the Auditor General, either - when the company went under a mere nine months after getting the provincial government cheque from Taylor's department.

Makes sense though since a protocol of releasing reports within 30 days wasn't clear enough even for the guy who wrote it to make him wonder why three year old reports were just coming to his attention in February - as he first said - or sometime early last fall as he now admits.

And just for good measure Taylor slipped in the stock response whenever this administration screws up:  "it won't happen again."

People handling communications are used to being on the receiving end of moaning and complaining from reporters.

It's called taking flak, as in the German abbreviation for fliegerabwehrkanone - anti aircraft cannon.  Turns out Trevor's comms director is taking flak from the back now too.

Honestly, though, Taylor's buck-passing probably feels a bit more like his comms director got promoted from flak bait to Chief Javelin Catcher.

-srbp-

Williams contradicts own claim he didn't know secret hospitals report existed

Premier Danny Williams admitted today he knew of a report on the state of city hospitals early last fall despite his claim in late February  [link to March 3 version of story from Western Star] that he didn't know the reports existed.

As he told the Telegram's Rob Antle: "I didn’t know that report existed myself... But this came to my attention this week."

Under questioning from opposition leader Yvonne Jones, Williams said he learned of the reports in a request from Eastern Health to fund a consultant's study on health care in the region.

Williams likely received the memo he mentioned on Tuesday when the provincial cabinet began considering the 2008 budget.

As the Telegram reported two weeks ago [01 Mar 08, not on line]  cabinet approved a $2.0 million increase in the capital repairs budget for 2008 - up from $14 million - but Williams said the budget was increased to $20 million after the scandal became public.

Williams told reporters today outside the legislature that he knew the reports existed but had not read them.  There was no explanation of why Williams didn't probe further, considering that his administration supposedly has a policy of releasing reports within 30 days and of releasing an action plan within 60 days of a report being received.

There's also no explanation of why he said he'd denied knowing the reports existed and yet suddenly admitted he was aware of them all along.

Williams's admission goes a long way to explaining why he has taken no disciplinary action against cabinet ministers and officials for keeping the report secret.

Hansard update:

It's always interesting listening to a lawyer answer questions.  They don't think like normal people and words take on curious properties they don't have when spoken by other humans.

Here's what the Premier said specifically in answer to a question about when he - that is Danny Williams, Q.C. - first became aware of the existence of reports on hospitals and other health care facilities in the province.

Recall that in his first answer - two weeks ago when the issue was hot and the pollsters were gathering data -  Williams said he'd never heard of the reports.

The questions was simple and direct: "When did you become aware of these reports, that they even existed, and the recommendations that they contained?"

The answer was considerably less direct:

From my own perspective, I have never seen that report; but, having said that, the first time that we would have even become aware of it as a government – I remember back – it would have been early last fall when the Cabinet was asked to provide a half-million dollars for a consultant report in order to consider infrastructure issues and site planning, and that was part of that overall plan, but I have never personally seen the report myself over the thirty months.

Right off the bat, he wasn't asked if he'd seen the report.  Williams was asked when he became aware of their existence.

Next he gives an answer which contradicts his public comment in late February.  There's a huge difference between saying you never knew the reports existed and then saying  that "we" as a government became aware of them last fall some time.

It's actually possible Williams himself was aware of the report when it was originally prepared or shortly thereafter.

Notice the phrasing:  "we"  and "as a government".  This isn't the usual royal "we".  This is obfuscation.  Williams is speaking about the reports being brought formally to cabinet. The answer doesn't preclude the prospect that the reports were hidden from view and not formally entered into the budget process.  Cabinet ministers and the premier may well have known about the reports and informally agreed not to deal with them.  Only much later did they notice them "as a government."

Notice as well, that in answer to a subsequent question on the planning and budgeting cycle, the Premier remains vague:

There was no detailed presentation on this particular report as, in fact, as I understand it, it was a buildings assessment - is exactly what it was. So it was discussed in the context of the overall infrastructure program and site planning and maintenance and repair generally.

-srbp-

NL gov orders empty care home to close for "life safety"

One of the personal care homes ordered by the provincial government to install sprinklers or close has closed, despite having no residents, according to a news release issued Monday by the province's health minister and his municipal affairs colleague.

The home closed effective Monday.  Another home, with just four residents, also closed.  The closure ordered resulted from a 2003 directive from the province's fire commissioner that personal care homes with five or more beds had to install sprinkler systems.

The original order affected 81 homes across the province. The homes were licensed annually by the province's health department, despite what the Monday release claimed was a lack of emergency procedures.

However, under a government regulation in effect since 2001, all personal care homes are required to carry out monthly fire and emergency evacuation procedure drills.

17. A personal care home shall carry out monthly fire and emergency evacuation procedures in accordance with the required standards.

In February, 22 homes were ordered to install sprinklers or make arrangements to install sprinklers within 30 days or cease operations. The government news release issued at the time said the closure orders were issued because of concerns about the safety of residents.

In a related story, 10 hospital and nursing homes operated by the provincial government remain in operation despite a lack of sprinklers. Patients in those facilities require a higher level of care than those in personal care homes and would require considerably more assistance to evacuate in the event of an emergency.

Fire Commissioner Fred Hollett said Friday he found no immediate fire or life safety issues in the 10 hospitals and nursing homes.

-srbp-

Why did the reporter cross the road?

[Cross-posted to The Persuasion Business]

Geoff Meeker poses an interesting question in a couple of posts at his Telegram blog.  Meeker himself is a former journalist who crossed over to what many reporters refer to only half jokingly as the Dark Side.

Geoff's asking for some comments and with any luck reporters and people from the communications/public relations world will join the conversation.

He poses some questions to get things started:

What is driving this exodus? I suspect that it’s primarily a matter of money. Do governments and corporations pay that much more than the media (okay, I know, but how much more)? What should news outlets do to stem the tide and keep their people (and can they afford it)? Is this migration diminishing the quality of journalism in the province? Is the supply of young people coming into journalism enough to meet the demand? If you’ve recently made the jump, do you have any regrets? Or are you feeling good about the move? What do journalism students think about this issue?

To help stimulate the conversation, here are some observations from the perspective of someone in the public relations business who isn't a former reporter or a graduate of a public relations program.

1.  Why did the reporter cross the road?  Because he/she can.

Over the past four or five years, the number of reporters crossing to public relations in this province has been astonishing.  It's not unusual to see people walking straight out of a newsroom and straight into a mid-level position that was advertised as requiring a minimum - a minimum  -of five years experience in public relations including experience providing issues management advice to senior decision makers.

If there is no perceived difference in being a reporter and being a public relations practitioner, some people will switch careers just because they can.

There is no set path into the persuasion business. The track Jamie Baker is taking makes perfect sense.  he's going from writing copy for a newspaper to producing an in-house magazine for a local union.  There are plenty of communications jobs working for a university or a business that are essentially the same as working for a news outlet.

Public relations does require a massive shift in thinking, though, and in many cases requires a skill set for planning and management a reporter working in a newsroom wouldn't have.

PR isn't rocket science, but that doesn't mean it's easy either.  It comes with its own problems and pressures, just the same as any other job.

Many organizations make the mistake of assuming that PR is about media and therefore the best person to handle the job of fending off reporters' calls is another reporter.  Managing media relations is only one part of a broader set of public relations responsibilities. 

Fundamentally, though, the shift is from being an observer to being an advocate. Ideally, journalists gather information and present an account of what they found usually in a specific medium.

Public relations is about persuasion.  It's about having a point of view and presenting it fairly and with integrity.   Picking the medium is just a small aspect of the overall job. 

2.  The flow is one way.  At the same time, and at least in the local marketplace, while reporters cross effortlessly to communications jobs, the same isn't true the other way. That's not something confined to Newfoundland and Labrador; it's common across Canada.  A former communications director for the American president can wind up with a Sunday morning news show, but try to find a single example of the same thing happening in Canada.

Columnist maybe.

But PR professional to reporter?  How about to an editor's job?

Keep thinking.  You might recall one.

Now think of the number of reports who've moved from the newsroom to a PR management job.

3.  The money is better. Townie Bastard Craig Welsh offered some observations on the cross-over phenomenon in January. The post was prompted by a former colleague of his who was quitting the reporting game to take a job in a hardware store.  The back story - which he didn't share in detail - is appalling but undoubtedly money and time is a factor.

As Craig notes, in his own case the switch was driven by a family move to a new locale.  There are many reasons for switching jobs.

4.  The stress is lower.  Okay.  That one is just funny.

5.  The switch from "hack" to "flack" isn't a local phenom either.

Here are some relevant links:

-  From journalism to PR to teacher.

-  The National Press Club (Washington, DC) had a professional development session on the topic.

-  A profile of three cross-overs, courtesy of Kings J school alumni magazine.

-  A profile of Susan Murray, in which Susan uses the "s" word approvingly.

-  Another profile of reporters who made the switch, again from Kings.

-srbp-

A green throne speech by e.e. cummings

The bright new realities awaiting Newfoundland and Labrador demand the new way of thinking that My Government has boldly embraced. No longer can we afford to listen to those who try to impose on us their own outdated way of thinking. The time has come for us to chart our own course, to determine our own destiny, to think outside the box that others have tried to confine us within. New realities require new approaches. As the world continues to change, we must continue to adjust our game plan to ensure the approach we take is working.

2008 Speech from the Throne

The latest throne speech from the Williams Administration is a masterpiece of environmental policy.  It recycles everything from policies to themes to specific phrases.

It begins with the now cliche praise for someone else's accomplishments.

There is the obligatory mention of the 2005 federal handout agreement in a phrase which includes claims for things which the administration did not do:

As a result of our collective efforts to wrestle down the deficit, to ratchet up growth and to reach an agreement that fulfilled the promise of the Atlantic Accord, we are – for the first time in our history – poised to come off equalization very soon.

The annual deficits were slain and economic growth achieved due entirely to high oil prices and to oil and mineral development agreements negotiated before October 2003. The provincial government will achieve "have" status because of the achievements of people other than the ones currently sitting at the cabinet table.

Claiming credit for other people's money is not a new theme for this administration and the throne speech adds to the litany:

My Government has made significant investments in new health infrastructure and capital repairs and maintenance in health facilities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador over the last four years, totalling $128 million.

...

Our health care system has been further strengthened by an injection of $76 million over the last four years in capital equipment, which included such major investments as the addition of five new CT scanners throughout the province, an MRI machine in Corner Brook, a third MRI for the Janeway Children’s Hospital, and funding for two new radiation bunkers and radiation treatment machines for the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre.

The capital purchases were made with federal cash and, by the provincial governments own calculations, its repair and maintenance budget has been less than 414 million per year.  To do the math, simply deduct the $76 million from the $128 million.  The remainder works out to the four year total. In light of recent revelations about secret reports on the state of health care facilities in the province, such self-praise is surprising even for an administration that has never been afraid to polish its own knob.

Above all, this speech continues the administration's annual homage to e.e. cummings, a practice established with the Premier's first province-wide address.  There is no cliche too shop-worn, no phrase stripped of meaning from overuse to be trotted out yet again.

Ultimately, though, this throne speech proves to be riddled with the internally contradictory claims which beset the administration's policies.  In the same speech that proclaims a goal of self-reliance, there is the bitter moaning about hand-outs not delivered as promised. 

There is reference to strong government, but nothing on fixing the evident problems in an administration that have kept secret reports on hospitals, that have seen bridges used by thousands go without a proper engineering inspection, and that has seen some of the most serious breaches of personal privacy in the country.  The promise of whistle-blower protection laws will have to stand the test of experience.  After all, this is an administration which holds itself to be accountable and transparent, yet which took four years to proclaim its own accountability law and whose lobbyist registration legislation is honoured more in the breach than by the observance.

"quite frankly

on a go forward basis

we cannot be a die-ing race,

proud, strong and determined

net importer of people

masters of our own destiny

energy warehouse

my First Minister will oversee

my First Minister will

keep us whole

wrestle and ratchet and reach self-reliance

to chart our own course

our day is now beginning to dawn

to determine our own destiny

to think outside the box

with pride, hope and self-assurance

under the leadership of My First Minister

continue the journey we have started together

nothing could be further from the truth"

He spoke angrily.  And drank a glass of water.

-srbp-

From the Conservative Gospels

A reading from the Book of Loyola, beginning at the seventh chapter, ...

Now this is how you write, Ivan.

-srbp-

Dunderdale blows smoke on the offshore

The province's energy minister thinks that just one drill rig doing exploration work offshore makes Newfoundland and Labrador "a top destination for international oil and gas exploration investment".

That's not bluster.

That's nonsense.

Plain and simple.

Nonsense.

And in the words of the Premier, "[w]e can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand."

The Henry Goodrich will actually be shared among companies doing both exploration and delineation drilling offshore. If this really was a top destination, the companies would each have landed their own rigs and pulled them from other projects to work here.  If this was a top destination, the rig shortage wouldn't prevent companies from investing accordingly.

They haven't sent a bunch of rigs to the local offshore area.

They've sent just one and worked out a time-share on it.

That's because this isn't a "top destination" for international oil and gas exploration or development.  What's worse, energy minister Kathy Dunderdale knows  - or ought to know - that her news release is complete garbage. The only people she is fooling with it are people who know nothing of the oil and gas industry.

Aside from rig activity, another good indicator of being a "top destination" for exploration would be the number of land parcels offered each year by the offshore regulatory board for bids. Land is offered for license based largely on interest expressed by potential bidders.

Last year, there was one.

Just one.

That was on the west coast, adjacent to a series of parcels that are already being explored, mostly from shore.

Four parcels were advertised last year for possible gas exploration offshore Labrador.  That sale actually closes this year in one of the longest offering periods on record.

They may not go, however, unless the provincial government actually finishes its generic gas royalty regime.  It's only been in the works for 10 years, five of them under the current administration.  All that's been released in that time period is a single draft.

The uncertainty in the offshore produced by government policy is having a measurable, negative impact on investment and the rig release is a good sign of it.  If there actually was great interest, Dunderdale and her staff wouldn't have time to issue releases heralding it.  They'd be too busy doing the work involved.  They wouldn't need to write self-congratulatory news releases.  The evidence of the interest would be the huge number of rigs offshore, the large number of foreign accents everywhere on the East Coast and the cash flowing in St. John's more heavily than the affections of the corner boys and girls along George Street.

There are other, less colourful indications that the local offshore is not the top destination for exploration.

As the chart at left shows, the past two years have been among the lowest in the history of lands sales in the offshore area. [Data source: CNLOPB]

By contrast, the period after release of the generic oil royalty regime in 1997 were some of the most prolific both in terms of parcels offered and in licenses issued.

Notice that the drop in interest in the offshore coincides with the collapse of the Hebron talks in 2006.

And before anyone points to the record year of sales experienced just after the October 2003 election, recall that those parcels were offered based on the climate established before the new administration's policies took hold.  Since the policies were unfurled, the local offshore hasn't been that attractive.

We can all wish it was otherwise, but the facts speak for themselves.

-srbp-

AG innuendo prompts audit invite

The offshore regulatory board released a copy of an invitation to the federal and provincial auditors general to conduct an audit of the board.

The invitation was extended on 29 February but posted to the board's website 07 March, along with other correspondence with provincial auditor general John Noseworthy.

In the letter, chairman and chief executive officer Max Ruelokke notes that the board is concerned about "recent comments in the media concerning its finances which may be construed to imply some impropriety in the Board's finances."

That would be comments by Noseworthy, who is no stranger to making unsubstantiated accusations.

The offshore board also released the full exchange of correspondence with Noseworthy.  It's especially revealing to see that at no point does Noseworthy even attempt to back his position with facts or legislation.  He merely makes the claim that the offshore board is within his jurisdiction.

This directly contradicts his own official view, maintained on his office's website , that does not list the board as an entity subject to audit by the provincial auditor general.

The exchange of correspondence is relatively short and lasts over the course of a month.  It concludes with a copy of a report  in which Noseworthy falsely accuses the board of refusing to provide the auditor general with unrestricted access to the board's records.  it didn't.  As the correspondence plainly indicates, the board expressed its view that both the federal and provincial auditors general should conduct a joint review of the joint federal-provincial board.

-srbp-

The quarterly advertising poll

Bond Papers has raised questions before about CRA's quarterly omnibus polls.

At the time of writing, there's no link to the official release.

The graph at left is a reminder of the gap between the actual vote result last fall and CRA poll results.

The blue line is the CRA PC support for "decided" voters". 

The red line is the CRA result as a percent of all respondents.

The orange line is the CRA category for "undecided", "no answer", and "will not vote."

The election results are represented by dots.  The brownish one is the PC popular, that is the share of people who actually voted.  The blue triangle is the share of all eligible voters and the green circle is the actual percentage of eligible voters who didn't vote.

Take a hard look at the image.

Get a ruler if you have to and measure the gaps.

They're big. The gap between CRA's Tory vote, as a share of all respondents, matched to its correct October comparison - the actual vote as a percentage of all voters - and you'll find a different of 20 percentage points.

CRA consistently inflates the level of Tory support in the province and, while the figures aren't shown here, they consistent deflate the support for the other two political parties.  It doesn't matter why; the most likely reason is the way CRA conducts the poll.  The fact that the numbers are off by a wide margin is undeniable.

-srbp-

 

Related posts: (Some links may not work due to URL changes at source.)

• Shaggin' polls - a discussion of poll results and the New Brunswick election.
• Playing the numbers - part of a series on poll goosing.
• Polls and the stuff they tell you - discusses poll results in 2005 with a reference to party support over time. be wary of the statements about records you may read in news accounts.  They sometimes confuse poll questions.
• Pull the other one - from September 2007 and comments by CRA president Don Mills about the timing of certain government announcements.
• Williams PCs only 3 points ahead of Rideout's PCs 17 years later - From 2006, comparing CRA and Telelink poll results.
• The secret of their success:  Roger Grimes - an interpretation of CRA polling data that might surprise some people.
• The answer is simple: it's polling time - the most likely reason for the sudden resurgence of the ABC campaign.
• Andy, Danny, the PUB and the polls - why did Danny Williams suddenly change his mind about Andy Wells? As we know now and the Premier knew at the time, CRA started polling on 12 February.  Check the date of the post.
• Something's off:  Newfoundland and Labrador political polls.
• The projections, the polls and the political reporters.
• First poll results.  From the 2007 general election campaign.