Weird or what?

CBC’s otherwise outstanding website turned up a few weird glitches the past week or so.

In the video preview pane, the picture and the text didn’t match. 

This is probably the weirdest of the lot but it wasn’t the only one to have a bad picture/text mismatch. The image  - from Monday morning - is for the On Point segment about St. John’s city representation in cabinet. 

The guest was St. John’s city councillor Dapper Danny Breen.  A few of his Tory buddies might want to throw him off a cliff these days but that’s not what seems to be going on in this website glitch.

Meanwhile, to the left of that video snafu, the picture for the On Point link on the city of St. John’s was a shot of last week’s guest on the same show, cabinet minister Joan Burke.

The Burke mix-up was still there Monday night even though the video one was long fixed by then.

- srbp -

Dunderdale in tweet debate with opposition leader… or was she? #nlpoli

CBC has a story online about a Twitter exchange that supposedly took place between Premier Kathy Dunderdale and opposition leader Yvonne Jones.

One small problem:  is it really Kathy Dunderdale and Yvonne Jones?  Sure the Dunderdale tweets have all the arrogance of the Premier, but can anyone be really sure it’s Kathy herself?

And what about Jones:  Is it really her tweets?

You see it’s not like Dunderdale’s twitter account hasn’t sputtered out some odd tweets along the campaign trail, the kind of curious spellings that would make you very suspicious about whether or not Dunderdale is really clicking her thumbs for the account.

Someone toss up a picture of Dunderdale typing her own tweets and we can put this one to bed. Assurances from her publicity department – the people most likely to be ghost-tweeting for her, along with her personal aide – just won’t cut it.  Some enterprising young reporter should have a go at Dunderdale in a scrum.

Otherwise, let’s keep a healthy dose of scepticism about Dunderdale’s use of technology. After all, it’s not like there haven’t been a string of ghostwritten tweets that have popped up in the news and that’s from people a lot more tech savvy than Dunderdale:

• Guy Kawasaki
• Mark Davidson

As for the subject matter for the exchange – Muskrat Falls – Kathy Dunderdale (or her fake Tweeter) is the last person who should be talking about other people’s ignorance.

-srbp -

Bloc NDP wants more seats for Quebec

So apparently three’s not enough for the Bloc NDP, at least when it comes to adding seats in the House of Commons.

The humorously titled democratic reform critic David Christopherson is quoted in the Globe and Mail:

The NDP is demanding Stephen Harper respect his own 2006 motion that recognized Quebeckers as a nation within a united Canada by changing its new bill to give the province more than three seats in an expanded Commons.

“That motion meant something. It was meant to mean something to the people of Quebec,” Opposition democratic-reform critic David Christopherson told The Globe recently. “But it will only mean something if they see that the House is respecting the spirit of what that was.

Seats in the House of Commons should be apportioned according to population across the country.  That would be democratic. 

Rather than do that, the Bloc NDP wants to give one province an entirely artificial share of the seats in the lower chamber of parliament.  That’s decidedly undemocratic.

It’s also unsurprising, given that the party is now dominated by Quebec sovereignists.

Wonder how the Newfoundland sovereignists are going to explain their party’s stance on giving more power to Quebec.

Anyone heard from Ryan Cleary on this lately?

- srbp -

Remember those they left behind

From the Globe and Mail, Sergeant Ed Wadleigh reminds Canadians  to think of those the fallen left behind:

But if I could ask one thing of all Canadians for Remembrance Day, it would be this: Spare not a thought for the fallen. Think instead of those left behind, the families. All soldiers join knowing the risks, and all soldiers deploy to wars even more aware of those risks, and are willing to take them, for themselves, for the challenge, or simply because it is expected. But no family freely offers their loved one up. No family truly thinks it could happen to their loved one. But in the end, it is they who pay the sacrifice long after their loved one is gone. Think of them, remember them, this November 11.

- srbp -

Banging around the echo chamber #nlpoli

Last week’s top post was about media coverage of Jim Bennett’s decision to carry on his law practice  - albeit not full-time – while he sits as a member of the legislature:

What’s so striking about this is that it is a complete non-story.  As you’ll see part way down the page, the conflict of interest section of the House of Assembly Act quite rightly exempts ordinary members from the restrictions on carrying on with another job or outside business interests while serving in the legislature.

So why single Bennett out?

The post prompted a few tweets an e-mails, some of which pointed out other Liberal backbenchers who were likely also going to carry on businesses while in the legislature.

But here’s the thing:  the question wasn’t about why media reports singled out a Liberal member of the legislature. That includes the West Coast Morning Show that led into a discussion of the rules of the legislature using Bennett as the lead-in to a story they ran on October 28.  The Western Star ran a story a couple of days later, as did the Star’s sister paper, the Telegram.

The question your humble e-scribbler posed was about why the story picked out any one member of the legislature given that carrying on a business or practicing a profession is commonplace and has been for decades.

The answer is not some great conspiracy.It’s really another aspect of an issue we’ve batted around before at SRBP:  the echo chamber.  Today we have fewer media outlets than we had in the province a couple of decades and those fewer outlets are providing content to more platforms with fewer people. 

The answer to the problem is repackaging.  A few decades ago, you’d only see some of the smaller newsrooms lifting someone else’s news, rewriting it and pushing it out as their own. Now it’s par for the course. The people putting news together are no less intelligent than their predecessors, no less ethical, professional, dedicated, committed or anything else.  They are just coping with the pressures of their business.

You can see the pattern in this case.  One outlet runs a story.  Someone else repackages it, dropping an aspect or changing the emphasis, and runs the thing. That story with a local angle winds up going across the province, but no one else who repeats the story adds anything to the original piece.  They don’t have the time or the inclination. 

Such is the pressure to get stuff out there that tone newsroom just takes what’s there and runs with it.  Eventually it winds up as fodder for the province-wide radio talk shows. And by the time it gets there, the story has taken on a couple of new angles.  The morning show deals with it – and the politician – based on the simple question of what the guy is doing.  The afternoon show maybe puts a bit of spice on it but – and here’s the crucial bit – without the wider context of how many people are doing the same thing.

The original story isn’t wrong.  It’s factually accurate.  The subsequent versions are actually pretty accurate as well.  But because the stories  are missing the depth of information they need, the audience winds up misinformed or with a misleading understanding. All you get is the original ping and the echoes as they bounce around inside the confined space.

The people who have read SRBP have a different perspective.  They know about some of the other MHAs  - from all three parties in the House – who will be working another job besides their one in the legislature.  

But the people who rely on the conventional media have only heard about Jim Bennett.  They haven’t heard – and in all likelihood will never hear – about the others.

This sort of thing happens quite a bit.  Stories tend to stay inside the  lines set by the first version of it.  The House of Assembly spending scandal theme that credits Danny Williams for fixing it all came right out of the first news release.  None of the conventional media ever took a second look at it despite the fairly substantive evidence that piled up that the Conservatives didn’t do anything to correct the problem until the Auditor General’s people stumbled across it.

Fast forward a few years and you can see the same effect in Danny Williams’ claims about “Quebec” and hydro-electric transmission. What the Quebec energy regulator was deciding on – let alone what it actually decided – came from an initial ping from the political spin machine. 

Whether the ping comes from the politicians or the media itself, the echo chamber still functions the same way.

- srbp -

Funny how things come together #nlpoli

First, there’s a new post at the Monkey Cage that notes a discussion in economist circles about public discussions of economic subjects:

… economics lost communication with policymakers and practitioners leaving room for all sorts of “charlatans and cranks” to fill the void. In doing so, academics ceded important ground to think tanks aligned with one party or the other, to self-appointed economic experts, to business economists maximizing profit rather than public knowledge, and to a media that doesn’t always comprehend the economics that underlie a particular issue.

Second, there’s a short piece in the Telegram that torques the latest Statistics Canada labour force stats:

Newfoundland and Labrador is bucking the national trend, adding jobs in October, even after the rest of the country faces higher unemployment.

The bucking of the trend thing is zero point nine percent year-over-year.  Not necessarily something to write home about, especially considering the national decline the story runs with is actually an increase in employment of 1.2% year of year as well.

One month decline nationally but a year over year gain.  Growth provincially month-to-month and year-over-year.

Unfortunately that doesn’t fit with the accepted narrative of the economic miracle that is Newfoundland and Labrador these days, supposedly.

Third, as if to confirm the generally poor understanding of things economical, there’s the text of a speech Premier Kathy Dunderdale gave to an energy forum in the United States.  It includes copious references to the economic miracle thingy, along with a raft of other completely  - and demonstrably - false claims about Muskrat Falls.

Fourth, there’s a piece in the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies blog that  - purely by coincidence - takes up the economics ignorance theme and relates it to a politician who thinks a remittance economy is a good thing.

Fifth and for those who don’t know, that economic miracle thingy in Newfoundland and Labrador has been built in large measure on shipping workers outside the province and having them ship their paycheques back home. You can get a sense of that, and some of the previous discussions of this from a post at SRBP back in December 2008.

There are parts of the province that are almost entirely dependent on migrant labour and remittance workers.

In others - like Stephenville - the economic disaster of losing a pulp and paper mill on the Premier's watch didn't materialize solely because the workers there could find jobs in Alberta.

But yes, you say, there has been more people coming back to the province since 2007, you say.

At the time, they were coming back in advance of the huge recession.  Just as surely they started heading out again as the economy picked up again in other parts of the country.

Sixth, flip back to that first post on economists and public commentary.  Follow the link back to the original article.  There’s a fascinating discussion about the use and misuse of economic arguments and models. 

Just for the fun of it, then, consider:

• the amount of media coverage the most recent pronouncement by a certain economist on the Hebron project even though it was nothing more than an update of previous assumptions using new assumptions and that they are all – wait for it – assumptions.
• Note, in particular, the references to the relatively better prospects for Hebron  - heavy sour crude in a highly fractured structure - compared to Hibernia, lots of light sweet crude and a fair bit of natural gas. Despite the fact that Hibernia will generate more than double the economic benefit to the province in terms of royalties over its lifespan than Hebron – even using the most recent assumptions – the lesser of the two is apparently worth more.
• Of course that sort of conclusion has nothing to do with the fact that the same economist criticised Hibernia when it occurred and that his old predictions of horror never showed up, in practice.  In no way could his previous, dubious predictions or any other non-economic consideration have in any way influenced his most recent assessment of relative gloriosity for Hebron.
• It’s not like the guy has made some boner projections based on knowledge he acquired from his consulting work for the provincial government and its agencies. Sure he’s talked about debt problems that the provincial government folks might not like but he avoided a discussion of Muskrat because he’s been doing some consulting on the project.
• And it’s not like his public comments for different audiences haven’t sometimes crossed each other much to his embarrassment.
• The one guy has a colleague who has also been known to produce some ideologically tainted bits of commentary.

The media’s relationship to economists is almost as bad as their attachment to the equally dismal science of the pollsters.

But what is truly remarkable here is the way a whole bunch of economist related stuff wound up appearing in different places for different reasons in the same week.

And it all ties together.

- srbp -

Always Remember the Fifth of November…

“How did this happen?

Who's to blame?

Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? … There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, … .

He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.”

- srbp -

Traffic from Hallowe’en to Guy Fawkes Night

1. Working stiffs and lazy ones
2. And these guys came in second…
3. Kent demoted by Dunderdale
4. Muskrat Review Muddle and Nalcor Competence
5. The value of nothing or Pater knows best, redux
6. Truth in small things
7. The Apprentice
8. I knew Marilyn Monroe
9. Accessible Post-Secondary Education
10. Five for Friday Round-Up

- srbp -

Five for Friday Round-UP

To round out the week, here are five curious posts on different subjects to send you off into the weekend.

And don’t forget this Saturday* is Guy Fawkes Day.

1. Via Crooked Timber, a post at the New Statesman about the particularly abusive comments hurled at women bloggers.
2. Maybe provincial justice minister Felix Collins and his provincial Conservative colleagues should just suck it up and stop whining about the costs of the federal Conservatives’ omnibus crime bill.  After all, Felix and the gang campaigned for the harper crowd. And it’s not like the provincial Conservatives didn’t know about the crime bill before they voted.
3. This is is a practical way to promote bras.
4. One the one hand Scotiabank’s chief economist thinks everything in Newfoundland and Labrador will be ducky over the next five years.
5. And on the other hand, money is moving from commodities – like oil – into credit.  Do those two things go together?

- srbp -

*  Not Sunday

And these guys came in second…

Yes, yes. 

Everyone knows that Hallowe’en happens in October and that Mardi Gras – Fat Tuesday – is in the spring time, before lent which is before Easter.

That doesn’t matter.

For some reason the locals have a Mardi Gras celebration in October for Hallowe’en.

Go figure.

Take a look at this picture of the costumes four enterprising young men entered in the contest that is part of the celebration.

Talk about skill and creativity with a bit of foam and some paper and stuff.

And these guys came in second.

- srbp -

Muskrat review muddle and Nalcor competence #nlpoli

Natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy is a smart guy.

It’s not that he is the smartest guy in a cabinet of dunderheads.

Kennedy would be one of the smartest people in any cabinet the province has ever had.

And that’s why it is safe to assume that Kennedy knows the most recent problems with the Muskrat Falls review – it’s on an indefinite hold – will take more than doing “ a better job in terms of making our [case?], getting our message out there," as he reportedly told CBC News.

For some completely inexplicable reason Nalcor, the provincial government’s energy corporation,  cannot pull together information on the Muskrat Falls project for a review by the public utilities board that it knew was coming.  Nalcor has gone through one gigantic review of the project already.  it’s not like this is their first time.

What’s even more astonishing about this latest failure is that Nalcor and its provincial cabinet backers set up the PUB review, determined exactly what the question would be and, therefore, what the outcome would be.

In other words, the review they are currently buggering up is one they control.  There are no surprises in it at all.  It is supposed to be a cakewalk.

And yet the information Nalcor cannot deliver – as it seems – is stuff they should already have by the box-load since it is all stuff they supposedly already reviewed on their own.

Just to give you a good sense of how badly buggered Nalcor is, consider the letter sent October 25 from the public utilities board to Nalcor about the delays.  There are seven specific disputes:

1. At a meeting on June 17th Nalcor stated its Submission would be filed by the end of July. This was confirmed in our letter of July 12th and at a meeting attended by a Nalcor representative on July 20th . We are therefore surprised to read in your letter that Nalcor "had not committed to that date".

2. The Board was not involved in any "collective decision" that the Submission would be delayed until the completion by Nalcor of requests for information from Manitoba Hydro International Ltd. ("MHl").

3. As confirmed at the meetings on July 20th and September 12th it was always contemplated that the MHI report would be finalized and filed after Nalcor's Submission.

4. Nalcor had not provided a list of confidential exhibits to the Consumer Advocate as stated on October 20th, the date of your letter. We understand that this list was provided late on October 21st, after it had been brought to your attention that such list had not been provided as stated.

5. The Review was initiated in mid-June, which is more than four months ago, not three as stated.

6. While the numbers are continually changing as new information is filed, Nalcor had, as of October 20th , (the date of your letter) filed answers to 166 requests for information and not 187 as stated.

7. There were responses to six requests for information (not five) outstanding for MHI as of October 20th.

The PUB corporate secretary drives home the point about delays by Nalcor in filing its own submission to its own review.  To make them a bit easier to read, here they are with the original words but with the specific dates separated out by bullets:

• “At a meeting attended by a Nalcor representative on July 20th , a written preliminary schedule was discussed which stated, based on Nalcor's previous advice, that the Submission would be filed by July 27th followed by the MHI report in September and then public consultations.
• “On August 2nd Nalcor sent a status update to the Board on outstanding information requests which stated that the Submission was then ‘target mid to late August’.
• “By e-mail dated August 3rd , to Nalcor, Board staff stated that ‘We are very concerned that certain information will not be available until late August, including possibly
  your submission ‘.
• “On September 8th, a meeting was requested with Nalcor which occurred on September 12th to discuss the outstanding information, including the Submission, and its
  impact on the Review and the schedule, including finalization of the MHI report. If there were "a collective decision" by Nalcor and Board staff to delay the Submission until after responses to MHI requests for information or issuance of MHI's report, there would have
  been no need for the August 3rd e-mail or the discussion at the September meeting on the Submission date or the letter of September 14th.”

Clearly, Nalcor cannot gets its presentations together, cannot meet deadlines it sets, cannot recall the details of the agreed deadlines accurately and in many instances simply cannot count.

If this is what the company does with a set-piece hearing on its own terms, one can only imagine what problems it might have with a genuinely independent review.

Hang on.

No need for imagination.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency reviewed the entire Lower Churchill project.  It found the company failed to demonstrate the need for the project not once but twice.

And then there is the hearings before the Quebec energy regulator over a series of appeals Nalcor used as part of its series of negotiations with Hydro-Quebec over transmission access through Quebec. Nalcor failed on each appeal, in one instance largely because the company did not call any evidence to refute the contention of an expert presented by Hydro-Quebec.

Given all this, no one should be surprised that as more people learn about Muskrat Falls, and as Nalcor ramps up its efforts to sell the project to people, those same people are walking away from the project.  Polls by Telelink for NTV found that between February and September, support for the project fell from 71% to 42%.

Given all this, no one should be surprised if more and more people started to question not just the project but the Nalcor senior management team itself. Nalcor’s repeated failures of this magnitude speak to a deep-seated problem not just in the Muskrat Falls project but in the group of people running the project and the company.  Nalcor’s failures  - and they are nothing other than failures - will turn not just the voters of the province from it but potential investors and customers as well.

The Muskrat falls project is in trouble.

Kennedy’s smart enough to know it.

Jerome Kennedy has a tough job ahead of him.

Kennedy’s smart enough to know that too.

He’s tough enough to sort it out as well.

The only question is whether Kathy Dunderdale will let him.

- srbp -

The value of nothing or Pater knows best, redux #nlpoli

Talk show host Randy Simms has a fine column in the most recent Saturday edition of the Telegram.

Our House of Assembly needs fixing, writes Simms.

It hardly sits.

It has no functioning committees.

Laws receive cursory discussion at best.

Simms quotes from an article by Memorial University professor Alex Marland that you can find in the latest issue of the Canadian Parliamentary Review.

Simms quotes:

The House is closed for 88 per cent of the year and talk radio has effectively replaced it as the people’s voice. Legislation is not sufficiently scrutinized. The committee of the whole is greatly overused, there are too few opposition MHAs to assess bills sufficiently and standing committees are embarrassingly underused to the point of being dysfunctional.

Simms notes in another spot that the last time a piece of legislation went off to a House committee for specific review was 2001. Note the date.

All true.

Russell Wangersky adds a couple of other details in a column of his own but  regular SRBP readers are familiar with these issues:

• 2006:  the half-time legislature
• 2007:  Danny Williams muses about taking freedom of speech from the House of Assembly
• 2010:  The Biased Speaker
• 2010:  Paternalism
• 2011:  The Persistence of Patronage Politics

The problem with the current state of the legislature is not just that the members aren’t working as hard as those in other places or that they are among the highest paid in the country.

The problems now are the same one your humble e-scribbler has been raising all these years:

• No one is holding the government to account in public as it should, and,
• The government is making decisions that will affect the province for decades to come without disclosing what they are doing and why.

The most glaring example of the sort of mess the dysfunctional House can produce is the Abitibi expropriation.  But you can equally add the unsustainable growth in public spending since 2003, the Conservatives’ love affair with secrecy, dismantling of the access to information laws,  and the ongoing management problems that have beset the Williams and Dunderdale administrations.

The answer to the problem in Newfoundland and Labrador’s political culture is not to shut down the legislature and have a committee run around to see what others are doing.

The first step would be to acknowledge what the problem is, exactly.  if you missed it, read back a couple of paragraphs.

The second step would be for people to acknowledge it isn’t a problem with the legislature alone.  It’s much bigger and goes into the issues Wangersky points out.

The third step would be perhaps the hardest.  For that one, people would have to recognise that the legislature got the way it is because they placed a higher value on conformity or cheerleading than on democracy.

Danny didn’t do. 

Kathy didn’t do it.

Other people, including the two columnists now calling for reform,  allowed them to do it with comments like this:

“That being said, for the last seven years, Danny Williams has been the right choice to run this province, and, regardless of any number of complaints, he’s done it well.”

Rooting for Danny and/or and otherwise staying silent – even when what he was saying or doing was truly appalling in a civilised society – basically gave Williams and his associates free reign to dismantle the legislature and the rules by which we are all governed.

Kathy Dunderdale is just carrying on with the same approach.

Pater didn’t know best, after all.

- srbp -

Working stiffs and lazy ones #nlpoli

For some reason, TransCon papers carried a story on newly elected Liberal member of the House of Assembly Jim Bennett and his plan to carry on a law practice while he sits as an opposition member in the legislature.

The Telegram even put the thing in its Saturday paper.  Here’s a link the version carried by the Western Star.

What’s so striking about this is that it is a complete non-story.  As you’ll see part way down the page, the conflict of interest section of the House of Assembly Act quite rightly exempts ordinary members from the restrictions on carrying on with another job or outside business interests while serving in the legislature.

So why single Bennett out?

Good question.

The story turned out to be a bit of fodder for at least one of the local radio talk-shows.  But there again you have to wonder why they singled Bennett out for comment and, in some instances, for criticism. It’s not like others haven’t done the same sort of thing in the past or aren’t doing it now.

For example, Paul Oram carried on several businesses while he served as a backbencher in the Tory caucus.

New Democratic Party leader Jack Harris carried on an active law practice the whole time he sat in the legislature. Other backbench lawyers have done the same thing.

St. John’s South MHA Tom Osborne runs a music promotion business called 5th String Entertainment. On the right, you’ll find the online registration for the company with Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nothing odd about politicians and entertainment:  once upon a time, not so very long ago,  another Tory ran a popular downtown nightspot while he sat in the legislature.

Enterprising young fellow that he is, Steve Kent used to have a small consulting company. 

Since he’s been in the legislature, though, Steve’s been running a driver training business with his wife as partner.

Steve also serves as chair of the board president and chief commissioner of Scouts Canada.

There is nothing unusual about backbench members of the legislature carrying on with private businesses or a career while they are also in the legislature.

So why did some local media single out Jim Bennett?

Hopefully it was nothing more than laziness and sloppiness.

If they weren’t lazy and/or sloppy, they could have done a quick check and turned up all sorts of people.  And the list here contains only the ones your humble e-scribbler noted over the years. 

Undoubtedly ,someone going through the individual member’s disclosure statements could find other businesses or professional practices backbenchers are still carrying on.  The cabinet ministers will all have their stuff in blind trusts  But backbenchers can continue to work a second job.  There’s no legal or ethical reason for them to stop unless the second job interferes with their ability to do their elected job.

More to the point, though, there’s no reason why any of us should expect backbench members of the legislature to give up their other interests. That’s especially true for licensed professionals who would have to stay current in their profession in order to stay licensed.

It’s interesting to note that while Chief Justice Green spent a considerable part of his report discussing the idea that holding a seat in the legislature to become a full-time job in itself. Green discusses the issue at some length and makes the following observations:

If one can tease an underlying legislative policy from this subsection [27 of the House of Assembly Act] , and extrapolate into the broader arena, it is that the life of an MHA does contemplate other non-political activities; and where there is a conflict between those other activities and the Member’s duties, the test for determining whether the Member is properly fulfilling those duties is not a quantitative one (i.e., not defined by reference  to numbers of days or weeks, vacation entitlement, etc.) but a qualitative one (i.e., to use the words of ss. 27(4), “… so long as the member, notwithstanding the activity, is able to fulfil the member’s obligations …”).

The issue under discussion is not theoretical.  In the 1970s, a Member attended university full-time outside of Canada for the better part of a year.  In the 1980s a Member continued to act as a deputy mayor of a municipality.  More recently, since my appointment,
two issues have entered the public domain relating, respectively, to certain Members who were  allegedly “moonlighting” by carrying on the practice of law
and a Member who allegedly was unavailable to deal with a public issue in her district because she had been working outside the province as a nurse. [p. 9-28]

In the end of that section, Green recommended, among other things that:

To eliminate confusion on the point [full-time versus part-time] , the legislation should also state that a Member, qua Member, is not prohibited from carrying on a business or engaging in other employment or a profession, provided that the nature of the business, work or profession is such that it does not prevent him or her from attendance in the House when it is in session and from devoting time primarily to the discharge of his or
her duties as a Member when the House is not in session.

- srbp -

The Apprentice #nlpoli

“We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganization; and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.''

It’s a great quote even if it has been misattributed to a raft of people, including someone named Petronius Arbiter who lived so long ago that some people can’t even agree on whether or not he was a Roman or a Greek.

But the quote is still appropriate, especially if you look at the provincial government.

Remember how in an earlier post, your humble e-scribbler noted that last weeks second Dunderdale cabinet was a lot less than it was cracked up to be?

Well, in the Tuesday Telegram Joan Burke gave an amazing insight into just exactly how the Tories came to create this new department Burke is running. Be warned before you go read the whole thing that it is a puff piece of the first order, but do read the whole piece just because of what it tells you about how the current administration functions.

At its core, Burke said the shift is about apprentices, skilled trades and filling the jobs of the future.

…

“The whole apprenticeship issue has become more and more complicated,” Burke said.

“We have 6,000 apprentices registered in the province, so where are they? You know, we should be well underway of filling all the labour gaps.”

On the very first full day of the election campaign this fall, Premier Kathy Dunderdale promised to do more about apprentices.

At the time she called it a “bottleneck” in the skilled trades process.

It was the apprenticeship issue, primarily, that drove the marriage between Education and HRLE, Burke said.

A single issue led the government to create a whole new department that consumes not only the university but also the entire government apparatus designed to deliver income support to thousands of residents of the province.

Now it is by no means a trivial matter, but sorting out a problem with apprentices is no reason to create a whole new department.  That’s the sort of issue that comes up all the time in government.  What happens?  Well, usually someone gets told to sort it out.  Could be a deputy minister or it could be a cabinet minister or a group of cabinet ministers.

As for the labour shortage, that’s an old issue.  The report mentioned in the article actually just gives the latest description of a problem that’s been identified for a decade or more. 

Again, it’s not a problem that needs a whole new department to figure out.  If the schools that train skilled trades workers haven’t been doing their job in meeting known market demands, a new department won’t fix that.  This is the sort of stuff they are already supposed to be doing. 

And if they aren’t doing it, then that seems to be a high-end management problem:

• People who are supposed to decide things apparently aren’t deciding., or,
• There’s a problem getting word out about decisions, or,
• People who are supposed to decide things farther down the food chain are too frightened to take decisions, or,
• They are so pre-occupied with chasing their tails that they can’t get on with the job of governing.

Creating this new department is starting to look more like a sign of the underlying problem than an answer to it.  This is, after all, a government that can’t seem to get its capital works done, that has legislation laying about unfinished and that seems to have a chronic problem managing more than one issue at a time.

Re-organizing makes it look like something is going on when it actually isn’t.

- srbp -

Related:

• Massive cost over-runs now par for the course
• One Judge Short
• The Court Security Acts
• The missing Sustainable Development Act
• “And there shall be plans…”
• One thing at a time in Labrador
• The Le Petomane School of Government
• There’s no greater fraud…

SRBP’s Shocktober Traffic

1. Kent demoted by Dunderdale
2. CBC torques poll coverage
3. Here’s what an opposition party looks like
4. Telelink releases campaign’s only independent poll
5. Whither the Liberals
6. Astroturf
7. Muskrat Falls support plummets:  poll
8. When is “nutbar” an unacceptable term?
9. Williams set to offer comms director plum patronage job
10. The Morning After the Night Before

- srbp -

Accessible Post-Secondary Education #nlpoli

Lots of people  like the idea of free tuition at post-secondary institutions like Memorial University or the College of the North Atlantic.

In the recent provincial general election, the provincial New Democrats included it as one of their major policy ideas.

A Memorial University engineering professor took up the argument last week in a letter to the editor at the Telegram:

By not having free tuition at MUN, we are basically discriminating against poor people and the middle class.

That’s one of the popular misconceptions about access to higher education.  People think it’s about cost and that people who have less money can’t afford to attend.

Research like the studies mentioned in earlier posts don’t back up the popular belief.  A recent study of experience in Ireland, for example, found that the “only obvious effect of the policy was to provide a windfall gain to middle-class parents who no longer had to pay fees. [p. 14]”.

What worked against people from low income and middle income families – according to other studies – was academic achievement in grade schools. 

Tough luck for them.  The same engineering prof who wants free tuition also wants to toughen the entrance stands:

Because not everyone can handle the workload at a university, to be eligible for free tuition a student would need a high school average greater than, say, 80 per cent.

To keep it, a student would have to maintain that average at MUN.

The inevitable result of that policy  - free tuition coupled with tough academic entry standards  - would be to further skew the benefit of free tuition to those who don’t actually need the leg up in the first place.

The usual alternative to free tuition is an approach that targets financial assistance at specific groups.  In his 2005 review of the Ontario post-secondary system, Bob Rae recommended – among other things – that the provincial government provide improved grants, adjust the student loans program and promote scholarships and similar financial support for students who qualify on economic grounds.

Inevitably, though, these approaches rely on government funding of university and college education. The only difference is how much the government will pay out of general revenues at the front end. 

Government subsidised education has one feature that people often don’t consider. Subsidy.  That’s what it is, by the way, whether you talk about free tuition or the sort of approach in Newfoundland and Labrador today. The only difference is whether the subsidy is 100%, as in the free scenario, or some other percentage.

Subsidised education puts the focus of discussion about education costs to the students rather than the education itself.  The alternative – like in the American approach – values the education.  Universities set tuition as a source of income.  The level of tuition can reflect the cost of delivering the education plus any premium for the type of degree or the institution itself.

One alternative that blends the two approaches together is the graduate tax.  In its simplest form,  tuition costs can be set based on the cost of delivering the education or a market calculation of of what the degree or diploma is worth.

The student does not pay while attending college or university.  After graduation, the student pays a percentage as an additional tax on income for a fixed period of time. 

Such an approach has one significant advantage over the current Canadian model or any of the variations some have proposed:  it eliminates the regressive nature of the policy that sees the entire society providing a benefit to specific individuals at a partial or near complete discount. 

With a graduate tax, the beneficiary of the education winds up paying for it.  What’s more the beneficiary pays based on the value of the education itself as reflected in post-graduate employment.

None of that addresses the accessibility issue for university, but at least it holds out the prospect of creating a post-secondary education system that is fairer than the one that currently exists in Newfoundland and Labrador.

- srbp -

.

Jingle Bell Walk/Run for Arthritis

 

Come Jingle With Us!

17th Annual Jingle Bell Walk and Run for Arthritis!

Sunday, November 13, 2011

 

What does the Jingle Bell Walk and Run look like?

• People can come dressed in great Christmas costumes to start the festive season off early! Take a look at some of last year's participants in the picture above.  

• All participants are given jingle bells to wear as they complete the walk/run to make some noise about arthritis.

• Participants may run, walk, wheel or jog for a distance of 1km or 4km- Jingling the whole way!

• Enjoy delicious McDonald's muffins and coffee, Central Dairies milk and yogurt, and apples, bananas and cake!

• There are tons of greats prizes to be won, and something to suit everyone's tastes! 

• Face paintings by Miss Newfoundland and Labrador is sure to be something the kids will look forward to!

• Join us this year for an afternoon filled with festive music and great company! We look forward to seeing you there!

This year, The Fry Family Foundation and VOCM Cares are each donating $20 to The Arthritis Society for every finisher!

Therefore, just by coming out and crossing the finish line you will be raising an additional $40 for The Arthritis Society!

Registration Rates:

Adults - $35 or fundraise a minimum of $65
Youth - $20 or fundraise a minimum of $20
Family - $90 or fundraise a minimum of $150 

Start a Team and Sign up Today!

If you would like to join the fight against arthritis - Register Here!

Early Bird registration will take place at The Running Room, November 9^th from 6 - 8 p.m.  9 Rowan St., St. John's

For more information, please visit www.jinglebellwalkandrun.ca or contact:

Amy Tiller

atiller@nl.arthritis.ca

579 - 8190

Quick Links:

Online Registration - Start Today!
Jingle Bell Walk and Run Poster
Jingle Bell Walk and Run Pledge Form

Truth in small things #nlpoli

If the truth may be found in the smallest of things, then the shifts and changes in Kathy Dunderdale’s second cabinet reveal a great deal.

“It is very important to me that our government operates as efficiently as possible, while providing quality programs and services that meet the needs of the people of our province,” said Premier Dunderdale. “Re-aligning departments and adjusting ministries to ensure they are best positioned to take on the challenges and opportunities before us is very important.”

Here’s how the official news release laid out the re-aligning and adjusting:

• Combine the old Human Resources, Labour and Employment department with the post-secondary education section of the Education department to create the  Department of Advanced Education and Skills.  The new department will “focus on supplying highly educated graduates and skilled workers for a fast-growing economy.”
• Merge the aboriginal affairs department with the Intergovernmental Affairs department to create the Department of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.
• Put the Business department with Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to create Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

This release puts the big information at the back end.  Eliminating the business department ends an eight year fiasco. In effect, the Conservatives created the “business” department in 2003 by breaking off some sections of the industry, trade and rural development department.  Now they’ve just put it all back the way it was, complete with the Beaton Tulk-era Rural Secretariat

After eight years of accomplishing nothing, the Conservatives have just put the economic development resources of government back to where they were in 2003. Danny Williams created the department to give a vehicle for his personal business acumen to create thousands of jobs and single-handedly produce a economic miracle in the province.  Williams did nothing while he was minister of his own department, often going weeks without meeting his deputy minister. He handed it off to a succession of second and third tier ministers like Fairity O’Brien or Paul Oram.  Even someone like Ross Wiseman couldn’t do anything except make speeches and hand out gobs of free cash to private companies.

The result of those eight years is a very fragile economy is is more heavily dependent than ever on government spending. The new minister – Keith Hutchings – has exactly zilch in the experience department when it comes to economic development:

Mr. Hutchings graduated from Memorial University with a Bachelor of Arts, Majoring in Political Science and obtained a Certificate in Public Administration from Memorial, as well as an Occupational Health and Safety Program from Ryerson University in Toronto.

Mr. Hutchings’ professional career has included 11 years with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. He also served as Chief of Staff and Executive Assistant to then Leader of the Official Opposition in the Provincial House of Assembly (1996 -1998) and successfully ran his own consulting business.

The Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs department basically recreates what used to exist 20 years and more ago as the Intergovernmental Affairs secretariat, and adds Labrador Affairs and the non-profit and voluntary secretariat for good measure. The first two are relatively small, functionally oriented sections that could easily be rolled inside the Executive Council where they once lived.  The latter two sections are meaningless political sops that serve only to increase bureaucracy without enhancing service delivery. Dunderdale could have eliminated them entirely while likely improving the overall efficiency of government.

The ministry went to newbie Keith McGrath in order to make sure there was a cabinet minister from Labrador. This reorganization is a minor administrative change.

The new Advanced Education department actually combines the pre-2003 post-secondary education ministry with the department that handled job training programs.  That’s it. 

The organization makes sense if it was aimed solely at ensuring that the provincial job-training resources lined up to meet – belatedly – the labour crunch in the province. 

Adding Memorial University to the mix could severely hinder the university’s development by burying it inside a department aimed at something other than what it does.  Memorial doesn’t exist in order to be a glorified trade school.

This is Joan Burke’s big reward for backing Dunderdale, nothing more, nothing less.

What’s more interesting about the labour market focus of the department is that it won’t include any of the labour relations elements.  They are all part of the provincial government’s traditional function of regulating industry and ensuring a healthy and productive labour relations climate.

But under the most recent re-organization, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission reports to the government services department and the labour relations agency reports to the environment department. Such a re-alignment ensures that the “silos” the new minister claims the re-organization would cure remain in place.

In  every other respect and distinct from these three adjustments, the departmental organization stays the same. 

When it comes to who got a new job and who didn’t, those seemingly small points also tell a larger story.

Besides Joan Burke, Susan Sullivan got a big reward for her political loyalty to the Premier. She takes over the health portfolio.  Sullivan may not feel quite so lucky in a few weeks or months – health is a difficult portfolio – but it is the largest department and the one that typically goes to those the Premier holds in high regard. If she does well, Sullivan could become a contender to replace Dunderdale when the Premier leaves before 2015.

Jerome Kennedy’s new gig at natural resources gives him a well-deserved respite from the health minister’s job. Kennedy took over that job at a hard time and navigated the department though some tough times.  he got out of it with both his health and his reputation intact.  That’s a rare achievement.

At natural resources, Kennedy faces the challenge of mounting problems with the Muskrat Falls project.  Kennedy can be a forceful proponent for an argument like Muskrat Falls.  He can also be a diligent house-cleaner when problems occur. if Dunderdale had to kill off Muskrat, Kennedy could handle that effectively too.

In the next four years, Kennedy will also have to deal with the border issue in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the future of a string of law suits related to the Lower Churchill. 

Danny Williams appointed Kathy Dunderdale to natural resources safe in the knowledge that he was really looking after things.  He didn’t need a minister who understood much and Dunderdale fit the bill.  With Kennedy, Dunderdale has a minister who will – in all likelihood – lead this crucial department in more than name only and take the heightened public profile along with it.  Kennedy could be well set when Dunderdale leaves.

Kennedy’s appointment as Government House Leader is a clear sign the Conservatives are going to approach the legislature with a strong arm and an iron fist.

Darin King took the poisoned chalice of fisheries in the recent cabinet shuffle.  The provincial Conservatives haven’t been able to find a policy they can all agree on.  As a result, the fishery remains a festering political pustule that breaks from time to time, splattering the minister of the moment. King can kiss his leadership aspirations good-bye.

Derrick Dalley got the Conservatives’ community pork portfolio as minister of  tourism, culture and recreation.  He succeeds Terry French who got a quiet and relatively easy portfolio in what is usually the home of ministers on the way into cabinet or those on the way out.

- srbp -

Coming up next week at SRBP…

On Monday:  Detailed commentary on Kathy Dunderdale’s second cabinet and her reorganization of departments, including some of the comments from posts that hit Number One and Number Nine last week.

On Tuesday:  “Financing Post-Secondary Education” - another instalment in the 15 Ideas series.

On Wednesday:  "The Value of Nothing and Nothing of Value:  Democratic Reform Revisited"

- srbp -

What he said: education bureaucrats version #nlpoli

The Telegram’s Brian Jones puts the new school board policy on  dishonesty in the correct perspective:

Behaviour is not separate from their beloved “academic outcomes” (curses on educational jargon; in former times, teachers simply and more accurately referred to “results”).

In fact, behaviour is an essential aspect of academics.

Responsible parents encourage their children to be diligent, hardworking and interested in their studies: put in effort; don’t be lazy; do your best.

The district’s new policy on cheating makes a mockery of parents’ efforts.

More importantly, the policy mocks students who don’t cheat. It insults their honest efforts to study and to learn.

Read the whole column.  Jones nails a bunch of other aspects.

- srbp -