Strengthening Search and Rescue, revisited #nlpoli

A couple of years ago, in the aftermath of Cougar 491, SRBP made some suggestions about how to improve search and rescue services on the east coast of Canada.

The recent tragedy in Makkovik had nothing to do with the Canadian Forces search and rescue service.  There’s been a huge public outcry aimed at Ottawa, egged on by politicians from all political parties who have misled people.  The Premier and the municipal affairs minister are just two of those politicians, even though they know or ought to know the rights of who was responsible for what.

The fact is that the ground search and rescue in Makkovik was all provincial.

Some of the ideas from that older post still apply, even if they likely wouldn;t have made a difference in Makkovik. If a major disaster occurred – like say an airliner crash – all the SAR and emergency response would have to come from the south, by air.  It’s a long way from Greenwood, Nova Scotia to Goose Bay and longer yet again to get up around Nain.

Some of those suggestions for improvements in the federal side still stand.  But what about the province?  Well, that’s where the people responsible could do a lot more than they have been.  The ground search and rescue system actually works quite well, despite the neglect or under-funding.  It largely works because of the huge number of volunteers, not because of the great attention paid to it by the political types.  Sure they are the first ones to claim credit but they are usually the last ones to do anything beneficial. 

So for starters let’s change that.  If Kathy Dunderdale really wants to do something in response to the tragedy in Makkovik, then here are some simple ideas. She should clean up her own act before she points fingers at anyone else.

Here’s the SRBP list for starters:

• The provincial government should create a system of volunteer SAR teams in all parts of the province. Right now it’s all volunteers who, like Rovers – have to ask for public donations to buy equipment and keep the lights on.  The provincial government should kick in some dedicated cash for ground search and rescue.
• The provincial government should beef up training support to these groups. 
• The provincial government should build and maintain GSAR operations centres, staffed by a cadre of Fire and Emergency Services personnel who keep the flashlights and radios charged up and ready to go.

 

- srbp -

The Tory Race #nlpoli

Ches Crosbie announced last week he is going to take another shot at entering the family business. The son of former Mulroney cabinet minister John Crosbie will spend some time travelling the province, getting to know provincial Conservatives and building a campaign for the party leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ches, whose grandfather was a delegate to the national convention, tried for a federal nomination for the 2015 election.  The federal party rejected him, apparently because of some donations he'd made to the Liberal party federally.

That's really no nevermind as Ches has as good a shot at anyone of taking the party leadership.  If he did so,  Ches also has a shot at succeeding his father and his great grandfather.  They were both named John, both were cabinet ministers in St. John's and elder of the two Johns served briefly as Prime Minister of Newfoundland in 1918.  The younger John wanted the job but never got it.

Ches' launch last week was not accompanied by great hoopla but his media interviews were as polished as one might expect of a professional political family.  Crosbie undoubtedly had some help in getting ready from veteran political consultant John Laschinger.  He's an old family friend, having run John's campaign for the Tory leadership in the 1970s and later helped provincial Progressive Conservatives win general election after general election.

NS debates election finance reform

Nova Scotia New Democrats are filibustering a bill on election finance reform currently being debated in the Nova Scotia legislature.

Proposed reforms would limit donations to political parties to a maximum of $5, 000 per year for individuals and organizations. They would outlaw donations from outside the province.

Nova Scotia New Democrats are proposing a $1,000 per year cap, using the federal electoral finance laws as a model.

Dubious donations

On the growing ethical issue of politicians and charities, check these online commentaries:

1. Dubious donations by C-SPAN corporate vice president general counsel Bruce Collins notes concerns that American politicians are using their personal charitable foundations as a way of circumventing American campaign finance laws.

2. A 2002 article from the National Center for Policy Analysis points to the number of American politicians who have been creating charities and then securing federal funds to support the charities. "Government funds for local pork projects usually flow to local government entities -- but setting up these charities eliminates the government middleman and allows politicians to receive the credit."

3. "Limits urged on political charities" is a news report from Boston on growing efforts to curb the use of charities by politicians as a way of evading American campaign finance restrictions.

The ghost of Richard Squires: party work with public money

According to the statement of facts in the Ed Byrne case, members of the House of Assembly were reimbursed for expenses incurred while representing their constituents.

In other words, work for a particular political party wouldn’t be covered by the expense accounts.

Here’s paragraph six of the agreed statement:

6. When MHAs incur out of pocket expenses while representing their constituents, they are later reimbursed for these costs from the House of Assembly’s Financial Accounts. During the time period in question, the IEC set the rules on eligible and ineligible expenses, per diem rates, general expense guidelines and actual expense limits related to Travel and Constituency Allowance (TCA) claims.

As outlined by the IEC in its annual report,

“Each Member (of the House of Assembly) is entitled to an accountable constituency allowance. This allowance is for the payment of expenditures incurred in the performance of constituency business and may cover such items as office rental, equipment, supplies, secretarial and other support services, informational material such as newspapers, advertising, purchase of flags, pins, etc.”

That’s one of the reasons why the whole section of the statement dealing with work done by the local law firm White, Ottenheimer, Baker is odd.

Charles White – senior partner with the firm – insists that in 2000 the firm did work for the Progressive Conservative Party for which it billed $10,000. The solicitor who did the work – now provincial Court Judge John Joy also insisted he did work for the party – not the opposition office – on some constitutional issue related to the fishery.

Lawyers aren’t known for being sloppy with their language so when White says that it was the PC Party – and not the opposition office as Byrne is noted as saying – you have to take notice of it.

Charles White confirmed that the law firm did some work for the PC Party in 2000 and that John Joy was the lawyer who did the work. He said they were engaged to do the study by Edward Byrne but the PC Party was their client.

One of the other reasons to look somewhat quizzically at the whole affair is how White says the firm got paid: two personal cheques from Ed Byrne. Not cheques from the party directly; not even cash from the party treasurer, but two personal cheques from the party leader at the time.

Charles White stated that they billed the PC Party $10,000 and they received two payments in the form of personal cheques from Edward
Byrne. One payment was for $4,000 and one payment of $5,000 and they wrote off the remaining $1,000. Charles White stated that this was the only work their law firm did on Edward Byrne's behalf.

When shown two cancelled cheques from Byrne, White confirmed those were the ones received and cashed by the form for work White and Joy say was done for the party.

In the party contributions reports for the calendar year 2000, the chief electoral office shows that Ed Byrne and his wife made donations to the Progressive Conservative Party totalling less than $7,000.

On top of that for the fiscal year ending in 2000, there’s no expense item for the PC Party that comes anywhere close to $10,000, at least not where one might expect to find it.

Now if the report is for the year ending in March 2001 - which would include most of 2000 – there is a PC caucus expense reported of slightly more than $47,000 but that’s pretty clearly attributed to supporting caucus expenses.

It isn’t for what White, Ottenheimer and Baker believed was party work. besides, if the party paid the expense, then why did Byrne bill his legislature accounts for it and pay the tab with a cheque drawn on his own personal accounts.

The line item for professional fees – where you’d expect to find a party expense for legal work – there is only a flat $2,500.

And since we know Byrne billed the $10,000 for White, Ottenheimer Baker to the account covering his constituency and travel bills as the member of the legislature for Kilbride, the whole thing doesn’t appear to be very clear at all.

Now just to be sure, there’s no indication that the old Tory chambers, the PCJ nor any of its barristers and solicitors involved in the firm did anything wrong; nor is there any reason to suspect them of anything.

The problem here is on the party side and the pretty obvious inconsistency with its reports, as presented by the elections office, and required by law under the Elections Acts.

The whole thing looks like something straight out of the old days when political leaders kept their personal accounts in one pants pocket and the party ones in the other.

All this goes a long way to undermining the claim of the current chief electoral officer – and former Tory party president - Paul Reynolds that everything is tickety-boo with election finance reports from his office.

-srbp-

Charlie White/John Joy (Work done by Ottenheimer White and Green)

38. On June 4, 2001, a travel and constituency allowance claim in the amount of $9,000 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached to this claim was a generic receipt for a payment of $9,000 to Charlie White for contractual work done on behalf of the official opposition of which Edward Byrne's behalf. There was a signature "Charlie White" on the receipt. A recap dated June 4, 2001, shows that Edward Byrne was paid $9,000 for this claim.

39. On September 22, 2000, a Travel and Constituency Allowance Claim in the amount of $10,000 was submitted by Edward J. Byrne. Attached to this claim was a generic receipt dated September 20, 2000, for a payment of $10,000 to John Joy for research conducted on behalf of the Official Opposition. There was a signature "John Joy" on this generic receipt. A recap generated on September 22, 2000, showed a payment of $10,000 to Edward Byrne for this claim.

40. Charles White is a senior partner in the law firm of White, Ottenheimer and Baker. John Joy is now a Provincial Court Judge in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but in 2000 was also a lawyer in the firm.

41. On August 7, 2007, one of the investigators spoke with His Honour Judge John Joy by telephone. Judge Joy advised that when he was a lawyer in the law firm of White, Ottenheimer and Baker he had done some work for the PC Party in relation to a constitutional issue regarding the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. Judge Joy said he couldn't recall signing any receipt. The investigator e-mailed Judge Joy a copy of the generic receipt. Judge Joy responded that he had never seen the generic receipt before and that it definitely wasn't his signature on the document. Judge Joy stated that he personally did not receive $10,000.

42. On August 15, 2007, the investigators interviewed Charles White. Charles White confirmed that the law firm did some work for the PC Party in 2000 and that John Joy was the lawyer who did the work. He said they were engaged to do the study by Edward Byrne but the PC Party was their client. Edward Byrne maintains that this work was done for the Official Opposition. Charles White stated that they billed the PC Party $10,000 and they received two payments in the form of personal cheques from Edward Byrne. One payment was for $4,000 and one payment of $5,000 and they wrote off the remaining $1,000. Charles White stated that this was the only work their law firm did on Edward Byrne's behalf.

43. Charles White was shown copies of the two personal cheques from Edward Byrne made payable to White, Ottenheimer and Baker. Charles White confirmed that these were copies of the cheques they had received. Charles White was also shown the generic receipt for $9,000 which was purportedly signed “Charlie White”. Charles White stated that he had never seen that document before and that it wasn't his signature on the document. Charles White was then shown the generic receipt pertaining to the $10,000 amount that John Joy was supposed to have received. Charles White stated that he knew John Joy's signature and the signature “John Joy” on the receipt was definitely not his signature.

44. Edward Byrne received $10,000 as a result of submitting the receipt purporting to bear the signature of John Joy. Although the receipt bearing the signature of Charles White is also apparently false, Charles White acknowledges that there was work done by their firm, and there was a payment of $9,000 as stated in the receipt.

Let's reform campaign finance laws too, Tom

Tom Rideout is the lead man for Danny Williams efforts to take the Humber Valley by any means necessary.

It's called desperation, but hey, if they have nothing better to do than try and overturn a vote by the electorate, that's their problem.

But when Tom Rideout starts talking about the by-election with tones like "we can now confirm..." he starts to sound a bit like the police inspector in Casablanca who declares "Gambling? At Rick's? I'm shocked!"

Rideout is intimately familiar with the province's election laws. It wouldn't be a surprise to find out that ballot boxes were moved about seniors homes in his own district.

But Rideout's efforts here seem aimed at the type of innuendo that often substitutes for the lack of evidence . By implication, Rideout is smearing the neutral elections officials who did nothing but follow the law and common practice in the way set down by the legislature.

Nothing new here. Public servants in the House of Assembly - all of them the same as elections officials - are used to being blamed for the failings of politicians.

It seems a common practice for this administration to take no responsibility even for things it does. In this case it seems that the loss of an election, despite the Premier's supreme efforts, must now be blamed on those who did nothing other than follows the rules, as established, that applied equally to all candidates and all parties.

In the meantime, Rideout seems unconcerned to reform election finance laws. There are plenty of issues there from out of province donations to soft money that need to be addressed too.

Unfortunately, those things - all of which would enhance accountability and fairness in the electoral process - wouldn't help in soothing the political frustration Danny Williams' is feeling right at the moment.

Heaven knows we can't have Danny frustrated.

Key Green provisions delayed to October 9 and beyond

Members of the House of Assembly will be spending their constituency and other allowances until after the next election as Bond Papers reported on 22 June 2007.

In addition, as The Telegram reported on Saturday, those members won't have to worry about accountability since the sections of the Green bill bringing the legislature under the province's access to information laws also won't take effect until October 9, 2007.

But even then members may not have to worry about the public discovering how they spent their allowances in the months leading up to the provincial election. Even on October 9, the access to information laws would not apply to the pre-election period. Outgoing speaker of the legislature Harvey Hodder told the Telegram:

"That has not been clarified," Hodder told The Telegram. "The intent of the legislation is that it would be on a go-forward basis."

A closer examination of the bill passed in the legislature in June 14 show that other key accountability provisions of the bill won't come into effect until October 9 or, in one case, August 2008.

The delayed provisions are:

1. October 9, 2007: Section 24, which provides a mechanism to deal with appealing expense claims that are rejected or that would allow members to obtain an opinion from the speaker on the permissibility of an expenditure before it is made.

2. August 31, 2008: Section 28(3)(l) that provides the clerk of the legislature, in his or her capacity as chief financial offer is responsible for "certifying to the commission as required that the House of Assembly and statutory offices have in place appropriate systems of internal control and that those systems are operating effectively".

Section 28(3)(h) as it relates to statutory offices is delayed until April 1, 2008. This section establishes the clerk is responsible for "authorizing and recording all financial commitments entered into on behalf of the House of Assembly and statutory offices."

In his report, Chief Justice Derek Green specifically notes a failures by the Internal Economy Commission and certain officials to certify compliance with established rules and procedures:

Over the years, the House and the IEC have repeatedly emphasized a commitment to the imperatives of transparency and accountability. Yet, as the forgoing indicates, there is reason for concern with respect to the manner in which the IEC and the administration of the House has handled its important obligations with respect to: compliance, reporting and public disclosure. [Emphasis added]

3. October 9, 2007: Section 31 requiring the clerk of the legislature to be accountable to the Public Accounts Committee of the House "for measures taken to organize the resources of the House of Assembly service to deliver the programs in compliance with established policies and procedures; measures taken to implement appropriate financial management policies; measures taken to maintain effective systems of internal control; certifications that are made under section 29; and performance of other specific duties assigned to him or her by or under this or another Act in relation to the administration of the House of Assembly service and the statutory offices."

That section also enables the clerk to seek advice from the deputy attorney general or the comptroller general in instances where a disagreement exists between the clerk and the Speaker on a matter of policy.

4. October 9, 2007: Sections 35 to 42 of the ethics and accountability section of the legislation that allow for the establishment of a code of conduct for members of the legislature, give a mechanism for lodging a a complaint against a member and resolving the complaint.

In recommending this section, Chief Justice Green noted:

In making this recommendation, I recognize that there are more elaborate mechanisms employed in some jurisdictions with respect to the way in which allegations of a breach of code of conduct may be investigated and enforcement action taken. I have declined to recommend a more elaborate scheme at the present time. This is partly because the provisions of Part II of the House of Assembly Act dealing with conflicts of interest of Members are not technically within the scope of my mandate and the whole area of the code of conduct, including conflict of interest, should be reviewed comprehensively. That would require a more detailed analysis than I was able to give to the matter for the purposes of this report. I regard the foregoing recommendation, therefore, as an interim measure, but an interim measure that should be proceeded with forthwith with a view to restoring public confidence. [Bold and italics added]

5. October 9, 2007: Section 53, which establishes clear a right of any person to seek a mandatory order directing "a member, the speaker, deputy speaker, clerk, clerk assistant or the commission" to observe or comply with a duty imposed under the Green Act.

Chief Justice Green described mandamus as another layer of accountability:

It is not unreasonable, therefore, that members of the public who become aware of a major failure to comply with a statutory duty should have an opportunity, out of sense of public duty, to seek enforcement of those duties through the courts where they perceive that others in the system are not taking appropriate enforcement action. [Italics added]

6. October 9, 2007: Section 67 which brings the House of Assembly - with certain specific exceptions - under the Access to Information and protection of Personal Privacy Act.

7. October 9, 2007: The Rules, contained in the schedule to the bill that among other things, prohibit members from spending public money on partisan activities or on gifts and donations, hold members personally liable for overspending and require members to keep records of spending.

Even the manner in which the Green bill was passed, along with its amendments delaying some provisions, repeated a pattern Green criticised severely. In a section of chapter four, titled "An ever-weakening legislative framework" Green described the unsatisfactory manner in which the members of the legislature amended the rules governing House operations:

When the IEC wished to change policy, it did so. If such policy was inconsistent with the rules, it changed the rules. If such policy was inconsistent with the legislation, the legislation was amended - and amended expeditiously. Changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act tended to be made in the last day or two of a session when efforts seemed to be focused on concluding business in order to close the House. From our review of Hansard, it appears the changes would be made with the pre-approval of all parties, minimal notice, minimal debate in the House and unanimous approval. [Emphasis added]

The reality is that the normal checks and balances that are inherent in an adversarial parliamentary system do not effectively operate where the subject under discussion directly engages the self-interest of all members regardless of political affiliation. Some mechanism must be found to improve the likelihood that important changes to the legislative framework involving MHA compensation and allowances will receive considered reflective attention in the House and cannot be pushed through without debate in the rush to bring a legislative session to a close.

When the bill was hastily passed on June 14, members of the legislature who spoke publicly left the clear impression that the entire bill was in effect immediately. In the wake of the first Bond Papers report, Deputy Premier Tom Rideout initially dismissed the matter as "poppycock". Later in the day, he admitted to reporters that the rules would come into effect on October 9.

He made no mention of other sections of the bill that would be delayed and offered no explanation beyond mentioning that implementation of some provisions required staff training and new software.

In addressing the issue of delayed implementation of the access to information provisions, Rideout said:"There was no recommendation (from) Green as to when it came into effect, so nobody, including myself, read anything into this...".

In fact, Recommendation 80 described the need to introduce the bill as soon as possible for debate and enactment with the attached schedule of rules being presented forthwith. "Forthwith" means "immediately; without delay or hesitation; with no time intervening."

In Rideout's view, by contrast, some provisions will come into effect today, while others will come tomorrow "and tomorrow is October 9". If tomorrow will not arrive until October 9, April 1 and, in one instance, August 31, one might wonder exactly when "today" is.

-srbp-

The lure of soft money redux

Initial news coverage and most public reaction to the latest report on the House of Assembly scandal will focus on the easy and the obvious.

Wine, artwork, pens, jewelry, cigarettes, travel, and hockey tickets.

On the eve of a provincial general election, Premier Danny Williams is encouraging people to look beyond the scandal now that reforms are supposedly in place:

But at the end of the day, do not lose faith in the political system in this province because our democracy is too important for the electorate to lose faith.

Our democracy is too important for people to lose faith in it and in the people elected to lead. However, we should not be rushed past this latest report with the admonishment of the New York cop to gawkers at a skyscraper suicide: "Move along, there Johnny, nothing to see here. " Nor should we be distracted by the baubles and trinkets that too many focused on already.

Rather, we should focus on the core damage done to our democracy by a decade in which politicians of all shades, new and old, handed out public money as gifts to constituents based solely on their own discretion and almost entirely hidden from wide public view, let alone scrutiny.

Bond Papers has hit this point before - the lure of soft money - and earned the Premier's ire for it. The Auditor General's report on Friday brings home the point once more. Of the $2.2 million in questionable spending John Noseworthy identified, $1,471,108 (63%) went to what have been incorrectly called donations.

No one should miss the point that the highest years of total inappropriate spending identified by Noseworthy were the most recent:

2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005-06
$217,200	$272,729	$388,948	$284,725	$299,261

As a matter of simple observation one can see that after a peak in the last election year, inappropriate spending did not decline; it increased. For all the assurances of change, even as the scandal broke, clearly something continued to be amiss. Even after the public received the Green report - and its scathing condemnation of the gifting practice - members of the legislature still opted to keep the rules in place that allowed gifting, at least until after the election.

For those who may not be sure of what we are driving at here, let us simply quote Chief Justice Derek Green on the point:

First and foremost, the practice of making financial contributions and spending in this way supports the unacceptable notion that the politician’s success is tied to buying support with favours. Such things, especially the buying of drinks, tickets and other items at events, has overtones of the old practice of treating - providing food, drink or entertainment for the purpose of influencing a decision to vote or not to vote. As I wrote in Chapter 9, it demeans the role of the elected representative and reinforces the view that the standards of the politician are not grounded in principle. In fact, I would go further. The old practice of treating was usually undertaken using the politician’s own funds or his or her campaign funds. To the extent that the current practice involves the use of public funds, it is doubly objectionable.

Related to the notion of using public funds to ingratiate oneself with voters is the
unfair advantage that the ability to do that gives to the incumbent politician over other contenders in the next election.

To put it simply, gifting erodes our democracy in a far more insidious way than does anything else the Auditor General has described. Nothing revealed in his report is acceptable, but it is the widespread nature of gifting that should make it more odious than some of our politicians appear to appreciate.

Beyond that, gifting, as practiced over the past decade calls into serious question the judgements of legislators. The money was given for things that either used to be or were covered by government programs that were as fairly, equitably and impartially distributed as might be possible. These include eyeglasses and medical devices, funding for volunteer fire departments, accommodations and transportation.

Some of money given as gifts actually replaced programs such as medical assistance transportation eliminated from a budget voted by the same legislators. In no small irony, it would seem that just this past election summer, the members on the government side had found a way to continue making gifts of public money, this time through line departments. The lure of soft money has not dissipated; the siren merely sings its tune from another cliff.

Gifting knows no party boundaries.

Look at the top 10 gifters in the study period, by dollar volume. All, coincidentally, are or were cabinet ministers; some served as members of the Internal Economy Commission while on the opposition benches, while in government, or both:

Rank	Name	Party	Amount
1.	Wally Anderson	Liberal	$88,954
2.	Judy Foote	Liberal	$69,131
3.	Ed Byrne	PC	$63,284
4.	Loyola Sullivan	PC	$44,848
5.	Tom Osborne	PC	$44,770
6.	Anna Thistle	Liberal	$43,445
7.	Percy Barrett	Liberal	$43,444
8.	Sandra Kelly	Liberal	$42,398
9.	Paul Shelley	PC	$37,331
10.	John Ottenheimer	PC	$36,868

But to make sure the picture is clear , let us also consider the top 10 gifters by percentage of allowance given as gifts. What will become apparent is that gifting is not merely a hold-over from the days before 2003. They all represent constituencies on the northeast Avalon, arguably the most prosperous portion of the province.

They are almost all some of the newest members of the legislature (other than those elected in recent by-elections) and all embraced the gifting system with an enthusiasm that outshines the ardor of longer-serving members of any political party.

Rank	Name	Party	Percentage
1.	Diane Whelan	PC	49.05
2.	Shawn Skinner	PC	46.96
3.	Kathy Dunderdale	PC	46.90
4.	Bob Ridgley	PC	38.21
5.	Elizabeth Marshall	PC	34.23
6.	Tom Osborne	PC	30.16
7.	Hubert Kitchen	Liberal	30.10
8.	Sheila Osborne	PC	26.30
9.	David Denine	PC	25.96
10.	John Ottenheimer	PC	25.49

The formal election campaign begins on Monday. Many have talked of an election about sweeps by the majority party, unprecedented popularity, the poor performance of the opposition parties and resource deals worth billions. As a result of the Auditor General's latest report, the focus of the campaign for many voters may wind up being questions of ethics, judgment and propriety.

If this report and the practice of gifting it reveals is an indication, those are exactly what we should think about before casting our votes.

-srbp-

Campaign blog

It's hard to find out all that candidates are doing on line without googling each one individually.  Facebook is popular with candidates from all parties, but you have to search them within Facebook individually.

We've already highlighted progressive Conservative candidate Steve Kent's website.

Now let's take a look at the Liberal in St. John's centre. 

Lori Ann Campbell-Martino, left,  is a social and environmental activist and a former Green Party organizer. Her website is simple, clean and easy to navigate.  There are pictures and a link to a video of a conversation she had with Ron Fitzpatrick of Turnings. She's got a Facebook group and a blog of her own.

The blog is the epitome of social media applied to politics, the ultimate social activity.  It's personal  - obviously written by the candidate - and hence very engaging.

While watching my children play I decided to ask other parents and caregivers for their opinions on the $1000 baby bonus proposed by Danny Williams. Of course everyone laughs. "It would take more help than that for me to have another one!" was one woman's response. One older gentleman pushing his grandson on a baby swing explained that his daughter cannot afford to pay for daycare for her son she got now, even with a subsidy from government, because of her high student loan payments and that's why he is helping care for the child.

The whole conversation called to mind another story I heard at one door in the district about an elderly lady who receives a pension cheque of $14.00, because 'the only work she ever done was raise nine children'. It seems that historically and today there has been an overall lack of investment in services for families precisely because it is difficult to economically quantify the 'benefits' of providing support of 'future' generations-unlike oil, gas and hydroelectricity projects. But good governance should require the ability to think and act beyond the short term 'today'!

The key word here is engaging.  Campbell-Martino engages people in the district in conversation about what matters to them and that is clearly reflected in her online presence. Other candidates undoubtedly do that too, but here the evidence is seen. Using social media also allows Campbell-Martino to engage others outside the district and make them aware of the views and lives of individuals she hopes to represent in the House of Assembly.

The tools are there.  They aren't hard to use and as Lori Ann demonstrates, it is possible to do it simply, inexpensively and effectively.

it doesn't matter whether she wins or loses;  Lori Ann has already used the Internet more effectively than any other member of any political party currently represented in the House of Assembly. How many of the former members - retired or incumbents seeking re-election  - used the Internet for communicating with constituents, preferring instead to follow the Speaker's lead and lower legitimate costs in favour of maximizing the money available for donations?

-srbp-

The Insiders on Polls during Elections #nlpoli

Just when you thought it was safe to stick your head up now that the poll-talk was gone, along comes three party insiders talking to Peter Mansbridge about polls.

Take the time to watch this video. The front segment on polls is short. You will learn a lot about how political strategists use their own polls to drive campaign decision-making.

And you’ll also hear a pretty frank and largely dismissive discussion about the polls you read in the media.  Most of that discussion will sound very familiar to you. 

The simple answer as to why the public polls are so spectacularly wrong is, as David Herle notes, that the public polls don’t look at voters.  They are actually looking at the population as a whole and with turn-outs dropping, those polls just don’t do a very good job at picking up on opinion in a progressively smaller bit of the electorate.

People lie to pollsters.  What a shock.  People lied to pollsters regularly and quite openly in the polls in this province during the recent general election. 

The pollsters won’t talk about that or their abysmal accuracy because the polls they release are marketing tools.  The media won’t talk about the wildly inaccurate polls because they are marketing tools for them as well.

Kathleen Monk adds a nice bit of colour on how the NDP used polling to determine the emphasis they placed on Jack during the last campaign compared to anything else.

And Jaime Watt adds the fine touch of noting that party people use a bunch of different information – he calls them data points – to figure out what is happening with the campaign.  Polling is one thing.  Canvassing is another and cash flow from donations is yet another of several points.

That last one will tell you why the spreadsheeters like threehundredeight.com go off in the trees.  Not only are they relying on inherently faulty data – those inaccurate public polls – but they rely on basically one type of data to try and forecast how seats were going.

Just to give you a sense of how inadequate that approach can be, realise that your humble e-scribbler chewed over with a colleague used a variation on the poll analysis approach. It turned up some curious things as the polls flowed in the last provincial election.  As the NDP numbers grew and the Tories dropped,  a bunch of seats showed as coming into play.

St. John’s Centre and East would look like they were swinging.

But so too did Virginia Waters.

And Bellevue.

And the Isles of Notre Dame.

The only way you’d cross those off the list of seats that might actually swing is by pulling in other sources of information.  The Straits never showed up on the chart and, frankly, without any signs of anything from that one seat, no one likely saw the change to the NDP coming.

For what it’s worth, your humble e–scribbler’s sister dazzled some of her townie Tory friends by naming seats in Sin Jawns that definitely flipped to the NDP. She never told them where she got the information but it came from an analysis of the polls and other tidbits.

You work with what you’ve got, even if it some of it is inaccurate, but with enough data points you can still build a pretty reliable picture of what’s going on.

The townies never saw  the changes coming largely because the media never reported any of the battle.  But after the votes were counted, her friends figured she was some sort of magician or witch.  A little information can make a lot of difference.

- srbp -

 

.

School Board Elections #nlpoli

Some folks were a bit agitated over the weekend about how hard it is going to be  - supposedly - to vote in the school board election.


Voter turn-out may be down, according to Amanda Bittner, a  political science professor at Memorial University.  According to the Telegram, Bittner "said a lack of accessibility to voter information has made it hard even to figure out where to mark a ballot. After visiting the officialwebsite and scrolling through a 364-page PDF of polling stations, she was not convinced it did the process any favours."

Bittner said that “at first it took a while for me to figure out, well, how do I actually figure out who’s going to run? How do I figure out how it works if I could nominate somebody? Every single step along the way has been a bit confusing, and that’s definitely something we don’t want if we care about turnout...".

Problems with a website will keep voters from turning out?  

Well, no.

Be it ever so humble...

... there's no place like the home office, apparently, for deputy premier Tom Rideout, right.

An investigation by The Telegram revealed that Rideout claimed rental for a house in his constituency of Lewisporte and an additional claim for accommodations while in the district between 2004 and 2007. The story, which appeared in the Saturday edition of the St. John's daily, is not available online. A copy is reproduced below.

Rideout, whose 43-day term as premier was ended by the Liberal victory in the 1989 general election, rented the house from the vice-president of his district association.

Asked about the appropriateness of renting from his party's district vice-president, Rideout said he was not aware of Freake's position in the party.

"I don't know if was or if he wasn't (vice-president)," Rideout said. "I couldn't say."

Rex Freake is, in fact, listed as vice-president of the Lewisporte PC district association in the party's 2005 convention booklet - next to a large photo of Rideout.

During the same time period, Rideout operated a rent-free constituency office in a nearby government office building. At the time, House of Assembly rules prohibited members from charging taxpayers for the cost of renting a home or apratment in the constituency.

This is not the first controversy for Rideout related to the constituency spending scandal.

In June, 2007, Bond Papers revealed that key provisions of new legislation designed correct excesses revealed by the House spending scandal would not take effect until after the provincial election in October, despite comments from members of the legislature suggesting the entire Act had come into force in June. Rideout, who was a member of the Internal Economy Commission that barred the auditor general from reviewing the legislature's accounts in 2000, turned time and the English language in knots attempting to excuse the political misdirection:

Since Green didn't say the act comes into effect today, we, in consultation with him, said what can come into effect today comes into effect today, what needs time to come into effect tomorrow comes into effect tomorrow, and tomorrow is Oct. 9, 2007.

He said that in June.

In August, the Telegram reported that Rideout had made a $5,000 donation to a charity in his constituency, long after the controversy over the issue had surfaced. The donation was delivered in Fiscal year 2007 but had actually been held over from the previous fiscal year. The Telegram reported that Rideout used upwards of half of his constituency allowance in 2006 for donations of various kinds in his district.

-srbp-

The Telegram 

15 Dec 07


Rideout rental raises issues
Deputy premier claimed house rent, plus per diems

Rob Antle; Jamie Baker

Deputy premier Tom Rideout claimed more than $23,000 for "rental
accommodations" in his district of Lewisporte from late 2004 to early
2007, while tacking on an additional $53 per day for accommodations
whenever he stayed in the area.

Rideout acknowledged Friday he spent the $23,000 out of his
constituency allowance to rent a house in Lewisporte.

The landlord who received the cash was a key local Progressive
Conservative party organizer.

House rules in effect at the time barred MHAs from charging taxpayers
the cost of renting a home or apartment in their district - no matter
who they rented it from.

Rideout justified the claims by saying that his Lewisporte rental home
contained an office - even though he also operated a rent-free
constituency office in a government-owned building less than a
kilometre down the road.

MHAs were permitted to claim a per diem of $53 without receipts for
accommodations whenever they visited their constituency.

Rideout charged both - a monthly house rental of between $750 and $850,
and $53 each day he stayed in Lewisporte.

That amounted to a minimum of 123 per-diem claims from the fiscal
period of 2004-05 through 2006-07 alone. The MHA pocketed more than
$6,500 in per-diem claims for accommodations in Lewisporte during those
three years, while also charging taxpayers separately for his
Lewisporte house rental.

Arrangement approved

Rideout said the arrangement was approved by the House of Assembly.

"Before I rented property in Lewisporte, I went and sat down with the
staff at the House of Assembly, told them my situation, that I didn't
live in the district," Rideout told The Telegram on Friday.

"I was told I could rent a place that I could use as an office - with a
room in it to sleep in, that's fine too - and that rental would be
covered, and there was a per diem that goes with your travel. You
submitted that as part of your claim too. I went and sat down eyeball
to eyeball, face to face. I never sent an assistant to do it, I went
and did it myself."

Rideout said he met with House staff at the time, but didn't identify
who they were.

But officials at the legislature said Friday they were unaware Rideout
was living at the Lewisporte location he was claiming as his office,
until contacted by The Telegram.

In fact, Rideout's situation appeared to be unique, said William
MacKenzie, clerk of the House of Assembly.

"Office expenses were certainly eligible under the old rules,"
MacKenzie said. "I'm not aware of other instances where the office was
also used for personal accommodations."

MacKenzie said House officials would now review the matter with Rideout.

He suggested the per-diem claims by Rideout for accommodations may not
fall "within the spirit of those rules" in effect at the time.

"If the rental costs that the House was reimbursing for the office also
included private accommodations, it doesn't appear that the per diem
should have been claimed," MacKenzie said.

Under the old expense regime, MHAs could claim $53 without receipts for
accommodations away from their home or other residence. They could file
receipts for amounts greater than $53 - hotel bills, for example.

Rideout paid landlord Rex Freake - a two-time failed Tory candidate and
longtime party supporter - $750 a month for rental accommodations from
October 2004 through December 2005, according to constituency claims
filed by the MHA and obtained by The Telegram under the province's open-
records laws.

The monthly rent payment rose to $800 in January 2006, and again to
$850 in January 2007.

There are 30 monthly claims for rental charges from Freake over the
three fiscal years 2004-05 through 2006-07.

The claims totalled more than $23,000.

Rideout served as Lewisporte MHA from 1999 through October 2007, before
running successfully in Baie Verte-Springdale. The constituency
documents obtained by The Telegram only cover the three fiscal years
from April 2004 through March 2007.

Asked about the appropriateness of renting from his party's district
vice-president, Rideout said he was not aware of Freake's position in
the party.

"I don't know if was or if he wasn't (vice-president)," Rideout
said. "I couldn't say."

Rex Freake is, in fact, listed as vice-president of the Lewisporte PC
district association in the party's 2005 convention booklet - next to a
large photo of Rideout.

Freake is also a party fundraiser in the district. Wade Verge, the
newly-elected Tory MHA for Lewisporte, publicly thanked Freake for
helping with his October election victory. "This couldn't have been
done without fundraisers Don Manuel and Rex Freake as well as all the
financial supporters, poll captions, inside agents and the voters,"
Verge said in the Oct. 17 edition of the Lewisporte Pilot.

Rideout said he previously rented a basement apartment and another home
in Lewisporte before beginning his rental arrangement with Freake in
2004.

Freake could not be immediately reached for comment Friday. The
provincial PC office did not respond to phone calls inquiring about his
current status in the party.

Rideout said his constituency assistant operated out of a nearby
Department of Transportation office from 2004 to 2007.

The MHA said he did constituency work out of an office in his rental
home.

"I still continued to rent and I used part of the house as an office,
part of it to hang my hat in," Rideout said.

He said he is now looking for an office to rent in Baie Verte.

One last trip to the trough?

To commence a new era of accountability in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislative assembly, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity, and Administration Act was introduced, which is a piece of legislation that incorporates the recommendations of the Green Report.

News release:"House Leader Extremely Pleased with Productivity During HOA Spring Session"
Government House leader Tom Rideout,
14 June 2007

[Updated with new post script. originally posted 9:00 PM, 21 Jun 07]]

Deputy Premier Tom Rideout may be pleased, but most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians likely don't realize that Rideout and his fellow legislators quietly shelved some key provisions of Chief Justice Derek Green's legislation aimed at cleaning up the House of Assembly spending scandal until after the fall election.

The members delayed implementing restrictions that, among other things, ban the practice of handing out gifts and donations from constituency allowances.

Here's one section on hold until after October 9:

46 (5) A member, in his or her capacity as a member, shall not make a donation or gift, whether of a charitable nature or not, to any person, group or community except as may be contemplated by subsection (3) and section 27. [Emphasis added]

(6) Where a member makes a donation or gift, whether of a charitable nature or not, in a personal capacity, the member shall, in making the donation or gift, stipulate that any acknowledgment of the donation or gift shall not identify him or her as a member.

Right behind it is another provision that further restricts what public money can be spent on:

47. (1) An expense of a type listed in subsection 46(3) may not be

reimbursed if

(a) it is not directly connected with the member’s responsibilities as a member in relation to the ordinary and proper representation of constituents and the public;

(b) it is incurred in relation to partisan political activities or promotion; or

(c) one or more of the following persons has a financial interest in the contract or other arrangement under which the expense is incurred or in a corporation that has a financial interest in the contract or other arrangement under which the expense is incurred:

(i) the member,

(ii) an associated person in relation to the member,

(iii) another member, and

(iv) the spouse or child of another member. [Emphasis added]

The amendment was made at the committee stage on the very last day of the session as everyone was looking to get the last bits of work cleared up. The seemingly innocuous changes were moved by Rideout and passed on a voice vote all in the space of a few minutes.

The change was made even more speedily and without any public comment. By contrast, even the hasty changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act in 1999 that barred the auditor general from the Assembly accounts garnered a few remarks from each of the House leaders in turn.

The changes to the Green bill were more like a St. John's City Council pay hike vote. Here's the extract from Hansard, in which Deputy Premier Tom Rideout moved an amendment:

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move that the bill be amended by adding immediately after clause 71 the following: 71.1.(1) "The rules contained in the Schedule shall be treated for all purposes as if they had been made by the commission under section 64 and, to the extent necessary, to have been adopted by the House of Assembly under subsection 20(7)."

Also, subsection (2) "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the rules contained in the Schedule may be dealt with by the commission under section 64 as if they had been made by the commission."

CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that clause 71 be amended. The Chair rules that the amendment as put forward by the hon. Government House Leader to clause 71 is in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 71?

All those in favour, ‘Aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.

Carried.

Motion amendment, carried.

CLERK: Clause 72.

CHAIR: Clause 72.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move subclause 72(2) of the bill be amended by adding immediately after paragraph (b) the following: (c) "The Schedule comes into force on October 9, 2007."

CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that clause 72 be amended. The Chair rules that the amendment as put forward by the Government House Leader is in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 72?

All those in favour, ‘Aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.

Carried.

On motion amendment, carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 72 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.

Clause 72, as amended, is carried.

On motion, clause 72, as amended, carried.

That's it.

It all looks like gobbledlygook or trivia until you check the bill, as passed and see what the amendment to section 71 and of course section 72 did.

Turns out the amendments meant that certain provisions of the bill wouldn't come into force until after the next election. Those sections are largely the set of rules on allowances and spending - actually titled "Rules", incidentally - that are intended to:

(a) to provide resources to members to assist them to fulfill their public duties and responsibilities as members of the House, for the benefit of the residents of the province;

(b) to promote accountability in, and transparency with respect to, the expenditure of public funds; and, [Emphasis added]

(c) to facilitate public understanding of the use of public funds in fulfillment of members’ obligations.

Basically, all the sections of the bill setting controls on constituency allowances aren't in place and won't be in place until after the next election. One of the strong rules that won't be in effect until after October 9 would hold a member liable for over-runs on his or her allowance. Chief Justice Green's analysis, similar to observations made by Bond Papers last fall, suggests members of the legislature were more inclined to run up their allowance spending in the period immediately before an election.

-srbp-

Postscript:

Apparently, not a single member of the legislature quoted in Rob Antle's otherwise fine story in the Telegram mentioned that some provisions of the bill - particularly about constituency allowances - were being shelved until after the fall election.

Legislature green-lights Green report; House adopts recommendations of report issued by chief justice

The recommendations of Chief Justice Derek Green are now black-letter law.

The House of Assembly swiftly passed Bill 33 Thursday. The new law incorporates the recommendations of Green's report into financial arrangements at the legislature. Green provided draft legislation as part of his sweeping review.

It was the last piece of business attended to during the spring session of the House. Lt.-Gov. Ed Roberts gave the new law royal assent.

Bill 33 contains a series of new requirements aimed at fixing financial controls at the legislature.

Those include new layers of audits, a more transparent salary structure for MHAs, stricter ethics and accountability rules for politicians, and a revamped commission overseeing the affairs of the House.

The legislature will also be thrown open to the province's freedom of information laws.

Members from all parties lauded the new law during debate in the House of Assembly.

Finance Minister Tom Marshall said that changes to things like salaries for politicians will be done through the legislature "in full sight of the people of the province."

Liberal Opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons lauded the fact that future dealings in the House will be transparent and accountable.

NDP Leader Lorraine Michael thanked Green for his work.

"All we can do now is move forward," Michael noted. She said Green's recommendations allow the legislature to do that.

Topsail MHA Elizabeth Marshall made a personal observation - she never anticipated becoming an MHA and voting on a piece of legislation that righted the wrongs of the past.

She was auditor general in 2000 when politicians barred her from examining the books of the House.

A series of law and policy changes over the years enhanced benefits for politicians, and reduced public access to information about how tax dollars were being spent.

Auditors were allowed back in to the House after the Tory government took power in 2003.

Auditor General John Noseworthy's subsequent findings sparked a series of ongoing police investigations into current and former MHAs and a key House staffer. Noseworthy found questionable spending of at least $4.4 million. He is still reviewing the appropriateness of all constituency allowance claims back to 1989.

Marshall said the passage of the new law means "transparency, openness and accountability at the House of Assembly probably for the first time ever."

Update II

The 10 Commandments didn't come with a start date.

Moses took good dictation, and when he came down off Sinai, he had the whole ready to go from that instant.

There's more than something odd that when Chief Justice Derek Green handed down clear rules, the members of the House of Assembly decided they'd put off living under them for a few months; conveniently, until the election is over.

Official spokespeople will not doubt raise some lame excuse like the need to set up the new system.

Problem with that excuse is that the rules could have been implemented the day the legislation passed. They work under the old administrative system or the new one, because the rules say things like "No donations" or "If you overspend your account, you will pay out of your own pocket."

After all, how many times did we hear someone like education minister Joan Burke tell us that there were no rules and she needed someone to hand her rules to follow? or Paul Oram tell us exactly the same thing: we need rules, 'cause right now we don't have rules, so we need rules and now that we have rules, Linda/Randy/Bill, everything will be fine.

What the members of legislature missed of course is that for the past year we have had reminder after reminder about the need for accountability. Slipping through amendments and not mentioning it at all - like the 2800 secret bucks - is fundamentally the opposite of being accountable and transparent.

"Transparency and accountability are the building blocks of public confidence," Chief Justice Derek Green of the Newfoundland Supreme Court's Trial Division wrote in a 1,300-page report released Thursday. [From the Telegram]

Penetrating insight into the obvious.

But it was so obvious that the members of the legislature didn't get it.

Just like they didn't get it at any point over the past decade.

House management committee reveals more fumbles on the road from perdition

Rejoice!

The members of the House of Assembly's internal management committee have voted to prevent members of the legislature from making claims against their constituency allowance once an election has been formally called. They met for the first time this week.

In an effort to appear more attentive to controls on public spending, Speaker Harvey Hodder is quoted in a CBC news story, linked above, as saying that:

"If members who are incumbents can access their constituency funds during the election period, that in my mind does not facilitate a level playing field for all candidates."

Sounds wonderful, until you realize that this decision came in a fairly obvious response to the revelation that the old rules on constituency allowances - not the tighter Green ones - will be in place until October 9. Members can still make donations from their funds, even though Green decried it and his new rules prohibit it.

As you may recall, deputy premier Tom Rideout turned himself and the very concept of time in knots trying to explain away that bit of business.

In any event, the members of the new commission - which incidentally includes many faces from the old committee - also voted to take away cell phones from members of the legislature once the election is formally called.

Sounds marvelous, until you realize that under changes to the Elections Act also made last spring, voting is actually already underway.

That's right. The legislature has not been dissolved and candidates are not legally in place but people have actually voted already, as they have been legally entitled to do since August 20.

Sounds wonderful too, until you realize that once an election is called, there are actually no members of the House of Assembly to file claims. The election is formally called when the Premier visits Government House and advises His Honour to dissolve the House.

By definition, dissolving the legislature puts everyone on the street and everyone - including incumbents - becomes nothing more than a candidate. They have no right, legally or otherwise, to lay a claim on the public purse for a single nickel of expenditure from their constituency allowances. They have no right to travel expenses or cellular telephones or any of the other perks of office since - by the most obvious of obvious points - they no longer hold office.

(As an aside, cabinet ministers remain cabinet ministers since they actually hold those appoints separately from their place as members of the House. Government administration carries on even without a legislature. Their incomes should drop as well, given that they are not entitled to pay as members of the legislature during a period when - legally - they aren't members of the legislature.)

So what went on here?

Mr. Speaker Hodder claims that the management committee were correcting a problem with Chief Justice Green's report. According to the CBC story, Chief Justice Green "recommended that incumbent members of the house should be able to use government money to do their constituency work after the writ is dropped."

Of course, there is no such recommendation among the list of recommendations in the Green report. It is hard to imagine the Chief Justice consciously creating a complete nonsense. By reputation, Derek Green doesn't do nonsense.

There is an anomaly in s. 14 of the Green bill that would entitle members to claim allowances and expenses until the date of the next election. (That's easy to explain given the size of the report and the amount of work involved.)

The section, as it stands, would literally mean voting day, but, as such, it clearly contradicts the legal order dissolving the legislature and therefore vacating every seat in the House. The two things can't exist at the same time and, as much as your humble e-scribbler is not a lawyer, it would be a safe bet that any court worth its stuff would toss that section of the Act out the window on the face of it.

In their haste to get the Green bill through the legislature last year and appear to be making substantive changes, the members and their lawyers obviously missed this point. They were able to delay the bits of the legislation that would have genuinely restricted spending by members, until after the election - although they didn't tell us that - but they missed the little anomaly that really ought not to have caused much concern.

What the management committee did today was tidy up an oversight and then claim a great moral victory by blaming the mess on Chief Justice Green. Pure fluff and nonsense.

It's good they fixed the problem, but frankly, trying to claim credit for doing something that they all know couldn't really exist in the first place seems just a bit of a stretch.

Of course, restricting the thing to the period after a writ drops seems a waste of time given that these same legislators are able to claim expenses during the real election which, as we've said, started on August 20.

But here's an interesting question:

Even though that little section of the Green bill wouldn't stand up to a court challenge, what about the sections of the Elections Act that allow voting in an election that hasn't been called yet?

Is that constitutional?

Update: Voting has started and, apparently so has the amateur political commentary from I.P Freely. This stuff turned up during the by-elections during the winter and it seems to have returned.

-srbp-

Tom's ongoing expense claim travails

The Telegram's ongoing investigation into spending at the House of Assembly turned up another tidbit on deputy premier Tom Rideout, right, in Sunday's edition.

That's right on the heels of another expense claim story the Telly ran on Saturday starring Rideout.

Between 2004 and the middle of 2006, Rideout claimed travel outside his district of Lewisporte mostly to the west coast and to Baie Verte. in itself, that isn't unusual.

Members of the legislature will travel to parts of the province than their constituency on legitimate constituency business from time to time.  Some will do it quite a bit for legitimate reasons.

There are a couple of odd things about the travel Rideout claimed:

1.   Distances/costs don't match:  Rideout has a pretty simple explanation and apparently a standard charge for travel on a circuit.  You can see it set out with the same destinations and the same totals.

-  Except that Rideout's explanation covers a total bill of 1,050 kilometres per trip not the 3,000 plus billed per trip.

-  Except too that the one charge where the route would have been longer, the total claimed was less. That's the one that included a side trip to Bay de Verde, not the usual Baie Verte. The trip still took Rideout to Corner Brook.

2.  Odd claims:  The one in April 2006 where the information doesn't seem to add up/match up to the claim.

3.  Trips to Baie Verte. It's more than a bit unusual that Rideout found so much constituency business in his old neck of the woods.  After all, the guy is from Fleur de Lys and represented the Baie Verte-White Bay district from 1975 to 1991. Odd that he'd find so many trips to the Baie Verte peninsula and - if the Telly actually got all the claims for the period between 2004 and 2007 - nowhere else.

Now this travel and housing situation is most emphatically not a case of Rideout having some sort of special arrangement just like one that supposedly applied to Oliver Langdon. That argument offered by Kevin Aylward's former executive assistant misses the substance of the matter in order to come to a convenient conclusion in one example, and to a simplistic view in the second kick at it; namely things are so much better now that there are rules for everyone to follow.

Things have changed from the way they used to be. Yes, the house management committee meets in public whereas the one didn't let cameras in the room.

But one would be naive in the extreme or engaged in an effort to mislead the public if one tried to argue that, for example, the members of the committee didn't come to agreements on issues facing the committee before they get to the meeting.  The three government members of the commission surely met privately in advance of the most recent meeting and came to an agreement on how to respond to opposition party demands for more resources.  How else can one explain the similarity in their responses? 

In this specific case, though we have something else. Rideout's housing expenses clearly flouted the rules, and yes, ladies and gentlemen, despite the efforts to say otherwise, there were rules and guidelines before 2007 for expenses in the House of Assembly.

Rideout knew the rules or ought to have known them. After all, he sat on the House management committee that set the rules.  He sat next to Kevin Aylward, incidentally, the year that the committee approved the infamous rules that blocked Beth Marshall from auditing the legislature's books.

Rideout's travel, though, is another matter.  The same rules that applied to Oliver Langdon and Tom Rideout applied to every member of the legislature equally, like say Kevin Aylward. If Oliver and Tom didn't have to submit detailed claims for travel, Kevin didn't either.  There were no special arrangements on travel, at least as they have come to light so far.

In general, we can establish that it was acceptable for members of the legislature to claim expenses for constituency work done outside the specific district the member represented. Yet there are some curiosities in the Rideout claims, some variance from what one would expect to see in the claims to warrant some further digging. 

If the travel claims were all that turned up on Rideout, then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have nothing much to ponder.  There are so many questionable expense claims, though - large donations using public cash, holding donations from one fiscal year to the other, donating half his expense amount in a given fiscal year, renting a house from his district association vice president  - to warrant a more thorough review. 
Incidentally, Rideout's bravado - of the "I marched right down there and sorted this arrangement out myself" variety - doesn't really wash, heck it raises even more concerns.

You see, not only is Rideout a former premier and former opposition leader, he is today the deputy premier and the government house leader.  By any estimate, he is the senior government official on the House management committee overseeing how the rules are to be implemented.  he holds some of the most powerful and influential positions in the legislature and in the administration.

The range of questionable claims coupled with Rideout's apparent indifference to how serious the issues involved are suggest that Rideout is not up to the demands of the jobs he holds.  At the very least, Rideout ought to step down - or be removed - until a more thorough review of the matter can be conducted by an impartial third party.

After all, how can he sit in judgment of others with so many questions swirling around his own actions?

-srbp-

The Telegram 
16 December 2007

Rideout defends travel claims
Deputy premier filed constituency charges outside home district

Jamie Baker; Rob Antle
Deputy premier Tom Rideout charged his taxpayer-funded constituency allowance with more than a dozen trips to the west coastin a 20-month period from 2004 to 2006, even though he represented the central Newfoundland district of Lewisporte at the time.
"My understanding of constituency allowance is that if I was invited to attend some function or be in some place as an MHA, then it didn't matter what district I represented - it would be a charge to my constituency allowance," Rideout told The Telegram.
"If I was invited to go to Baie Verte to take in their summer festival, if I chose to attend, that was a charge against the constituency allowance for Lewisporte."
At least eight of the trips took Rideout to Baie Verte, where he ran in the Oct. 9 provincial election.
Rideout stressed that there was no political aspect to those visits.
"Absolutely not. One was in October 2004 and I didn't run downthere until October 2007. (Then-Tory MHA) Paul Shelley was still the member when those expenses were charged, so I had no idea that Paul Shelley would have been resigning."
The MHA said there was no line on old expense claims for identifying the purpose of a trip.
After first being contacted by The Telegram, he matched up expense claims and his schedule. Rideout said he has explanationsfor all of the trips save two, but expects to have those shortly.
The purposes for those trips included:
Attending funerals;
Going to meetings in Corner Brook related to forestry matters,because the forestry office for the Lewisporte area is in Corner Brook;

Driving to Deer Lake from Lewisporte to catch flights to otherlocations for government business;
Some "co-mingling" of expenses with ministerial business. Rideout said he claimed mileage from Lewisporte and charged it to his constituency account and tagged airfare to ministerial meetings to his department's budget.
Rideout said he also attended Hockey Day in Canada in Stephenville on Jan. 7, 2006, because of local ties to the event.
The west coast trip claims abruptly stopped after Ed Byrne wasfired from cabinet in June 2006.
Byrne was the first casualty of Auditor General John Noseworthy's review of MHA constituency allowance spending.
But Rideout said there was no directive sent out to rein in out-of-district spending at the time.
"I don't recall that being the case," the deputy premier said."I don't think we were ever told that. I think that would be coincidental. I think in my case, you know, from the middle of 2006 on, if you were to look at my ministerial travel, I thinkyou would see I still had west coast travel but it would be easily defined as ministerial."
He cited an August aboriginal women's function as such an example.
Mileage claims
Most of Rideout's mileage claims were for set amounts that appeared to exceed the actual point-to-point distance.
For his west coast trips from the capital city, with a stop inhis district, Rideout generally claimed 3,086 kilometres - just about enough to drive from St. John's to Moncton, N.B., and back.
Rideout said most of his claims contained a good deal of "in-district" travel.
"I think I always put in a standard from St. John's to Lewisporte plus in-district travel of 1,050 kilometres," Rideout noted. "From St. John's to Lewisporte is about a four-hour drive (each way). In-district, if you're out there a few days, it's not much trouble to put a couple of hundred kilometres on goingfrom Lewisporte, Norris Arm, Birchy Bay to Boyd's Cove or whatever.
"The district one we used (was) pretty much a standard going back to 1999, and there was never any question by anybody who we submitted our claims to (at) the House of Assembly on that mileage standard."
On Saturday, The Telegram reported that Rideout spent $23,000 out of his constituency allowance to rent a house in Lewisporte from a local Tory party organizer for a 2-1/2 year period between late 2004 and early 2007.
House rules in effect at the time prohibited MHAs from charging taxpayers the cost of renting a home or apartment in their district - no matter who they rented it from.
Rideout justified the claims by saying his Lewisporte rental home contained an office - even though he also operated a rent-free constituency office in a government-owned building less than a kilometre down the road.
MHAs were permitted to claim a per diem of $53 without receipts for accommodations whenever they visited their constituency.
Rideout charged both - a monthly house rental of between $750 and $850, and $53 each day he stayed in Lewisporte.
He said he had permission to do so. But officials at the legislature told The Telegram they were unaware of the arrangement,and will address the issue with Rideout.
The Telegram obtained Rideout's constituency allowance claims for three fiscal years - 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 - under the province's access-to-information laws.
jbaker@thetelegram.com rantle@thetelegram.com
Box: TOM'S TRAVELS
Deputy Premier Tom Rideout represented the central Newfoundland district of Lewisporte between 1999 and October 2007.
But over a 20-month period - from October 2004 through June 2006 - Rideout charged his taxpayer-funded constituency allowance for more than a dozen trips to Corner Brook, Deer Lake and Baie Verte.
Those journeys took him hundreds of kilometres west of his district's boundaries.
Here is a listing of those trips:
Oct. 8-14, 2004 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Baie Verte-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
Dec. 30, 2004 to Jan. 9, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Baie Verte-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
March 23-31, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Baie Verte-Corner Brook-Baie Verte-Lewisporte, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
May 26 to June 6, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Corner Brook-Baie Verte-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
June 10-12, 2005 - 980 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Corner Brook,plus in-district travel. June 17-19, 2005 - 860 km. Corner Brook-Lewisporte-Corner Brook, plus in-district travel. June 28-29, 2005 - 980 km. Corner Brook-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Total - 2,820 km. Mileage claim: $888.30.
July 7-26, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Grand-Falls-Windsor-Baie Verte-Corner Brook-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Total claim: $972.09.
Aug. 18-29, 2005 - 3,086 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Corner Brook-Baie Verte-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel. Mileage claim: $972.09.
Oct. 4-10, 2005 - 2,465 km. St. John's-Bay de Verde-Lewisporte- Corner Brook-Lewisporte-St. John's, plus in-district travel.Mileage claim: $876.48.
Dec. 23, 2005 to Jan. 8, 2006 - 3,240 km. St. John's-Lewisporte-Corner Brook-Lewisporte-Baie Verte-Corner Brook-Stephenville-Corner Brook-Lewisporte-St. John's. Mileage claim: $1,098.36.
Jan. 1-2, 2006 - flight from Deer Lake-St. John's-Deer Lake toattend a funeral. Total claim: $618.87.
April 12, 2006 - flight from St. John's to Deer Lake. Airfare travel claim: $423.97. Avis car rental, April 12-14, 2006. Total distance driven: 496 km. Rental claim: $148.04. This distance is not enough to take him to his district and back; there were also claims for a CanadianTire gas bar in Corner Brook, and the Baie Vista Inn in Baie Verte during the same time frame.
May 4-7, 2006 - flight from St. John's to Deer Lake to St. John's. 
Airfare travel claim: $847.95. Avis car rental, May 4-7. Totalkilometres driven, 360 km. Rental claim: $222.07. This was notfor travel to his district; there is also a Holiday Inn chargein Stephenville for May 5-6. Hotel claim: $227.70.
June 1, 2006 - flight from St. John's to Deer Lake. June 7, 2006 - flight from Gander to St. John's. Airfare travel claim: $729.01. Avis car rental, Deer Lake to Gander. Rental cost: $675.41. Rideout also spent time in Corner Brook on this trip; there is a Canadian Tire gas bar receipt included in this time frame, although the exact date is illegible.
June 16-19, 2006 - Avis car rental, Deer Lake. 1,011 km. Rental cost: $222.07.
On June 21, 2006, Premier Danny Williams turfed Natural Resources Minister Ed Byrne from cabinet after the auditor general questioned Byrne's constituency claims.
There is only one subsequent claim made by Rideout for travel to or from the west coast - a July 6, 2006 flight to St. John's from Deer Lake for an emergency meeting of the Internal Economy Commission. That travel claim was specifically approved bythen-House Speaker Harvey Hodder.
Source: House of Assembly constituency allowance claims filed by MHA 
Tom Rideout for fiscal years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.