The pernicious frame

Auditor General John Noseworthy has stated he would like to see an audit of constituency claims going back to 1989. That's the year when the constituency allowance was first introduced.

"Go mad" would be the likely response. "Fill your boots if that will get to the bottom of the problem."

Part of the problem with auditing that far back starts from the assumption that the same system exists today that existed in 1989.

Demonstrably it isn't, even on the basis of the limited information on the current House of Assembly spending scandal that is in the public domain. Here's why.

When constituency allowances were first established, they were limited amounts of money intended to cover the necessary expenses of representing the people of the province. The rules stated clearly that a member of the House of Assembly was entitled to claim expenses for pins, a mail-out, Christmas cards for constituents and similar items. The amounts didn't vary from district to district or if they did vary it wouldn't have been by much. On the face of it, a mail-out to residents of a Labrador district with 2, 000 members would cost less than a district in St. John's with over 10, 000.

Members of the House of Assembly appear to have several other allowances to claim against, most of it referred to in the budget as "allowances and assistance". There was a constituency amount - for the pins, flags, and public meetings, but there was also a travel budget and that's the bit that would have varied and been obviously varied widely. It costs a heck of a lot more to get around Torngat Mountains or on the south coast of the island than it would to represent a St. John's constituency on a bus route. There is likely also an entertainment budget and for some members of the House, such as the leader of the opposition, those particular allowances might be higher than those available to an ordinary member.

Based on several conversations over the past week and on the information the Auditor general has made public, Bond Papers has come to the conclusion that what changed was not how the amounts were presented but how the Internal Economy Commission looked at members' spending. Sometime around 1998, the view took hold that members' allowances were to be looked on as a global amount to be allocated as an individual member saw fit. Fewer restrictions were applied and, consistent with the approach taken in Ottawa, the Auditor General was kept out. If a member didn't overspend the total budget - or at least didn't overspend by much - then everything was viewed as being just fine.

That date - 1998¹ - matches up with the date for the $2.8 million in questionable spending described by the Auditor General on Tuesday. It also predates, but only by a year or so, the changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act in 2000 and subsequent decisions by the IEC that have already been identified has possibly having contributed to the scandalous events.

Another part of the problem auditing back to 1989 - at this point - comes from something mentioned by AG Noseworthy when talking about questionable payments to four companies.

For one thing, AG Noseworthy told the public on Tuesday that the former finance director of the House had the bizarre practice of over-writing his spreadsheets for each year. We have no idea how long this has been going on. As a result, AG Noseworthy and his officials have had to reconstruct the accounting system.

The size of that task would be daunting: hundreds of accounts and tens of thousands of transactions for one hundred or more individuals over the past sixteen years. Rebuilding those records would take years, and this is allowing that complete records of claims and cheques exist back to 1989.

Even at this stage AG Noseworthy could reasonable have only re-built a relatively small portion of the total picture. There may be enough to indicate there is a wider problem but there certainly isn't a clear picture of what the rules were, what monies were claimed and paid and where those monies went. He may have only been able to reconstruct a general outline so far and therefore cannot see the detail in which the various demons will surely be lurking.

The most obvious approach to take from here onward remains the same as it has been since the outset. Given the scope of the problem and the number of people potentially associated with the problem - many of them still sitting in the House - the House of Assembly or cabinet must appoint a public inquiry.

It can run simultaneously with the police investigation with both being supported by the best forensic auditors available.

If there is a need to investigate back to 1989 or even before that, then by all means let's do it.

But let's start with the period in front of our faces.

Let the investigation be conducted, in part, by a commission of inquiry.

The pernicious frame that has been applied to date and lately the unsubstantiated accusations by the Auditor General about events back to 1989 might lead us in the wrong direction.


___________________________________

¹ The Auditor General's report released to date follow the practice of referring to the fiscal year by the calendar year in which it ends. For example, the Auditor general would refer to the current fiscal year as FY2007 even though we are in calendar 2006 and the budget approved earlier in 2006 is set for Fiscal Year 2006.

By adjusting the dates given in the Tuesday report, the year identified as 1999 is actually FY 1998 by the way the budget would have been set.

Accused former legislature financial officer missing

Update [1200 hrs] : vocm.com is reporting that Murray was located at 3: 00 AM Sunday. No furthers details were reported by cbc.ca/nl or The Telegram.

The former financial officer accused in the multi-million dollar House of Assembly spending scandal is reportedly missing and police are seeking public help in locating the missing man.

Bill Murray has not been seen since Friday.

The RNC was asking for the public’s help with information about Murray’s whereabouts or his vehicle, described as a red 2005 Pontiac Montana with the licence plate HKP 544.

He’s described as 53 years old, five-foot-nine, 210 pounds, balding with grey hair on the sides, and with blue eyes.

He was reportedly last seen leaving his St. John’s home, wearing a long-sleeved denim shirt, light blue jeans and white sneakers. Murray was reported missing by his family.

In June, around the time of the anniversary of the scandal breaking, the provincial government announced it was launching a civil action against Murray seeking repayment of an undisclosed portion of the $4.0 million allegedly misspent.

The government's claim was based on the highly contentious allegation that Murray "signed or approved virtually 100% of the [constituency allowance] claims and sent them for processing and payment, and in doing so, was in reckless disregard for the limits." The claim is highly contentious since no action has yet been field against anyone else involved.

A report by Chief Justice Derek Green - received by government before the action against Murray - discusses responsibility for the scandal in a wider context, although Green did not address the role any individuals played nor did he address the issue of potential civil or criminal liability.

So far, two of five former members of the legislature are facing criminal charges over alleged misspending in the House of Assembly and police are reportedly continuing their investigations.

Murray is not facing criminal charges at this point.

No civil actions have been commenced against any of the former politicians named thus far.

The amounts that the police and the province's Auditor General alleges are involved are substantially less that the total overspending that did occur in the legislature between 1998 and 2006, as reported by Bond Papers last year in August and December and by the Green report this year.

-srbp-

Inquiring Minds? You don’t want to know. #nlpoli

Denial and evasion, wrote Andrew Coyne last week, are only making worse three political scandals. He’s referring to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and allegations of substance abuse, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Mike Duffy Affair, and former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and a police investigation into McGuinty’ s staff, missing e-mails and a gas plant.

Coyne is his usual insightful self.

What’s more, added Telegram editor Peter Jackson, these three have made matters worse by making “false or misleading statements”. Not a good idea, sez Peter, since people “are naturally suspicious.”  You can’t have a good conspiracy because people will sniff out the foolishness.

And in some cases, people will even make stuff up. Peter points to the 9/11 Truthers and the Obama birthers as examples of people who will connect the unconnected.

In short, it’s bad enough when irresponsible rumour-mongers start the ball rolling. 

The last thing politicians should do is feed the flames with fibs and subterfuge.

Wonderful stuff, that, if only we could all safely rely on those inquiring minds to quickly ferret out the truth. 

10 years later #nlpoli

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the first Sir Robert Bond Papers post.

In July 2004,  I wrote and released a paper that tried to “examine offshore oil revenues and the Atlantic Accord in light of what the Accord actually provides.It was an attempt to evaluate the provincial government's proposal based on what had been made public to that point.”

Which is to be master?  was supposed to be the first of a series of papers on different public policy issues.  Each would have a different author.  They would appear from time to time in order to foster “public discussion of issues affecting Newfoundland and Labrador.”  The title of the series was going to be The Sir Robert Bond Papers.

Not fit for it #nlpoli

It’s not surprising that the provincial Conservatives and their supporters want to reduce the representations the people of the province have in the House of Assembly.

After all, the plan to cut 10 seats from the House of Assembly and make other changes in the interest of “modernisation” fits their pattern of behaviour over the past decade.

But there’s a bit more to it.

The lure of soft money

In the wake of the Watergate scandal over 30 years ago, the United States Congress implemented the first of many reforms that set limits the amounts of money that can be donated for and spent on elections and that required disclosure of the names of who gave money to candidates in federal elections.

The most recent round of reforms, in 2002 aimed at restricting access to so-called "soft money". This is money that was spent on purposes which were political in nature but which fell outside the rules on election financing. Unlike "hard money" that fell within the rules, soft money is often never disclosed in any way. Donors are invisible to the public. How the money is spent is also hidden or at least partially obscured from public view.

In the relentless pressure of American elections, both candidates and incumbents have become crafty in finding and using soft money. The most recent tactic is for incumbents to establish private charities that are legal, above-board and aimed at a specific purpose within the incumbents own electoral district. Armed with charitable status, the politician's private organization can now receive donations and issue tax receipts. It can spend money, giving the politician full credit - and all the associated publicity - for good work. In some instances, campaign staffers can find employment in between elections with the politician's charitable organization. Perhaps the most well-known of these soft money charities is the Ted Stevens Foundation, "an Alaska non-profit corporation created by Alaskans to recognize and honor the career and public service" of the senator from the most northern state.

Seen in that context, recent revelations that members of the House of Assembly use public money to make private gifts and donations around the province take on a decidedly different colour.

Newfoundland and Labrador has relatively few restrictions on election financing compared to other jurisdictions in Canada. However, the 1991 election reforms did restrict how much may be spent on campaigns during election periods. The spending cap is not high by modern standards but it is based - among other things - on the understanding that in a small place where turn-out on polling day is relatively small, a handful of votes can swing an election in a given district one way or another.

While it may not have been the intention, local politicians have created a particularly pernicious form of soft money spending through their perversion of the House of Assembly constituency accounts. Like all soft money, the gifts and donations are essentially invisible. While they may be backed by receipts, the details of who received money, how much money they got and when they got is not available for public scrutiny. The system set by the members of the legislature themselves is the epitome of unaccountability and opaqueness, no matter how many times politicians insisted otherwise.

And with all due respect to the commissioner for members' interests, our political society is long past the naive, almost child-like view that all politicians are honourable and must be presumed to be so until proven otherwise. For one thing, there is ample evidence from many jurisdictions, including our own, that while the majority of politicians are upstanding and ethical, there are always a few who will skirt the edges of propriety and, in some instances, the law.

For another thing, if the entire system of spending is as comfortably hidden from public scrutiny as the constituency allowances have been, there simply is no opportunity for anyone to demonstrate impropriety. The argument may be convenient, but it doesn't pass the most cursory scrutiny.

In the soft money context, the Williams Family Foundation (WFF) also takes on an interesting cast as well. From every perspective it is legally established, hands out money only to identified and worthy charitable purposes and complies with all the legal requirements; but these are the legal requirements for a charity.

This is no ordinary charity, however. It is intimately tied to an active politician. As the Premier and his staff have demonstrated repeatedly since 2001, they are not above drawing very loud, public attention to the generosity of politician Danny Williams.

We would be naive in the extreme - we would be willfully blind - if we did not understand that news media coverage of a cheque being handed from the "Danny Williams Foundation" did not produce a considerable political effect for politician Williams. It is the same effect, albeit on a much smaller scale, that public money has brought for politician Gerry Reid or a host of other politicians spending public money on gifts and donations.

Danny Williams apparently sustains the WFF with his political salary. Canada Revenue Agency documents appear to confirm this, although there are some questions that arise from the public information that is available. For example, even though WFF obtained charitable status in February 2003, it lists the total contributions for the year as being only $20, 000. It also appears to be missing several donations made after that date and in advance of the election.

Some of the Premier's defenders - many of them no doubt organized by the Premier's Office - have held the view that what the Premier does with his salary is his own business. This would be true were it not for two over-riding factors.

First, the Premier could claim his salary is private if he were a private citizen. He is not. Williams is an active politician and as much as he may whine about the goldfish bowl of scrutiny in which he lives, that scrutiny he finds so burdensome is the heart of the transparency and accountability he claims to embody.

Second, the Premier could claim his salary is private had he not made such a huge public issue of the fact that his overwhelming personal wealth has enabled him to donate his personal salary to charity. Danny Williams himself made the salary a public issue. Williams can scarcely claim privacy now when people are asking where the money goes any more than Brian Tobin, amid accusations Tobin was trying to finagle a job for his wife, could whine about his wife being a private person when Tobin used her as a political prop at every opportunity. One cannot have ones cake and eat it too.

Ultimately though, none of this is to suggest that the WFF is anything more than a well-intentioned charity, funded by Williams himself. He has gained and will continue to gain an undeniable personal advantage from spending public money - his salary - as gifts and donations through the family foundation. But the political and ethical issues raised by the WFF can be addressed by some simple administrative arrangements.

The real problem with this local version of soft money is the precedent Williams and his colleagues in the House of Assembly have set. Even if Chief Justice Derek Greene proposes to ban gifts and donations of public money for incumbetn legislators, Danny Williams and the WFF have given future wiley and unscrupulous politicians a model to use for purposes that may prove to be far less virtuous than those of Danny Williams.

The lure of soft money is a powerful one indeed. If all people were saints, as Chuck Furey assumes of politicians, then we would need no laws at all. However, all men and women are not as pure as we might wish and as virtuous as a single politician and his family charity might be, we cannot ignore the potential that others of much lower ethical standards will not take advantage of the precedent.

After all, it's not like we haven't seen a set of rules for constituency allowances set tightly and appropriately at one point only to find the rules tossed out the window by a later crowd of politicians.

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.

Pay heed to the silent majority

Political science professors often get quoted in media stories.

They are considered experts on politics.

Fair enough assumption.

Too often though, what comes out is nothing more than garden-variety opinion without much analysis.

Like this comment featured in a Canadian Press story on Thursday's by-election sweep by the ruling Progressive Conservatives under Danny Williams:

"Byelections are typically opportunities to send a message to government," [MUN political science prof Michael Temelini] he said in an interview. "There's no message here, other than, 'Keep on going, Danny!' "

By-elections are about a lot of things. It all depends on context, so a comment like the one above doesn't offer any insight.

What Temelini didn't apparently notice was that the turn-out in these by-elections was strikingly low. Canadian Press did and included references to fall-out from the legislature spending scandal.

None of the turn-outs are anything to crow about. The high was Port au Port where 51% of eligible voters showed up at the polls. In Kilbride, a traditional Conservative stronghold, only 33% of voters turned out to cast ballots. That continues a low turn-out trend set in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi where, as in Port au Port, Danny Williams personally campaigned extensively on behalf of his candidate.

Look closer at the winning side and you see something as well. In Port au Port, Progressive Conservative candidate Tony Cornect took 31% of the eligible vote. That's in a district where the Premier and his entire caucus campaigned hard to convince voters they had to deliver a message to Ottawa and Big Oil with their votes.

In Ferryland and Kilbride, where voters didn't see the same Danny campaign machine in action and didn't get the same messages, the winners got respectively 34% and 26% of the eligible vote.

That hardly sounds like "Go Danny Go!"

The simple fact is that most voters sat on their hands.

In Port au Port where the Danny message was clearly a call to send an unmistakable sign to the foreign demons, more opted to sit quietly on the sidelines than voted for the Danny-boy candidate.

The question to answer is why they did that. Temelini clearly didn't know. Odds are good most of the commentary in the next few days will miss it too.

Perhaps the non-voters just supported Danny so much they didn't feel the need to vote. Highly unlikely. If there had been an election in January 2005, Danny Williams would have found more members on his side than there are seats in the legislature.

Perhaps some felt there was no point in voting since the outcomes was pre-ordained in a race where the Premier is apparently overwhelmingly popular. That's a possibility.

Perhaps some sat on their hands because they are simply disaffected from the political process as a direct result of the ongoing scandal. That's much more likely.

Other factors were also at work as well and taken together with that last likelihood, one can come up with a plausible explanation of the by-election result.

In the two Avalon peninsula ridings, the Liberal campaigns were vigorous on a local level but little was done to launch major attacks on the government as a way of hamstringing cabinet ministers and capitalizing on public discontent.

Neither party took the chance to attack cabinet ministers - like Kathy Dunderdale, for example - whose performance overall has been abysmal and who, shortly before Christmas, was caught in an embarrassing case of misleading the province on a public tendering scandal.

Ditto for transportation minister John Hickey, who sits in cabinet despite being the subject of a criminal investigation over alleged double-billing on his legislature allowances.

In each riding, the candidates fought very local battles. True, sitting members of the House campaigned door-to-door, but the province-wide political messages simply didn't exist.

For voters, especially voters intent on sending Danny Williams a rocket, there wasn't a clear alternative to Williams that they could stand behind. Neither the Liberals nor New Democrats look like a renewed and credible alternative devil to the one they already know. That reaction is all too common in Newfoundland and Labrador, the 1.5 party state.

In past cases where the Opposition has picked up seats, voters wanted to send a message to government. But that's usually been when the incumbents are in trouble and the major opposition party - Liberal or Conservative - looks like a pretty solid alternative. Otherwise, voters stay home and wash their hair or make sure all the spaghetti is lined up straight in the cupboard rather than vote. It's the equivalent of telling a public opinion pollster that they are "undecided"; there's no way to miss the meaning if you pay attention.

What's left on Thursday, then, is a situation where the highly organized, well-funded and aggressive political party - bolstered by incumbency - could identify its hard core supporters and get them to the polls. It isn't rocket science.

The only bright spot for the Liberals now remains Humber Valley where the capable and popular candidate will face mounting pressure over the weekend. As he goes door-to-door, Dwight Ball can simply tell people that Danny doesn't need one more seat to send a message. That job was done. They can instead make their choice based on something else.

Danny Williams did a curious thing in putting a label on the by-election results before they were known. He is already claiming a massive endorsement, of course, but in truth, both Stephen Harper and Big Oil are looking at Williams' victories with a more sophisticated eye than any of the commentary from news media and at least one poli sci prof would bring to bear.

For Harper, Williams' victories are largely irrelevant. Harper likely knows that there is a simple solution to the Equalization battle at hand. That makes Williams' Equalization battle a distraction intended primarily for domestic audiences. The reaction in the Langevin Block will likely be the common one to news from Dannystan: big freakin' deal.

Of course, Williams doesn't matter politically to Stephen Harper anyway since Williams' political influence west of Corner Brook is all but non-existant.

For the oil companies, knowing that Williams couldn't generate a massive groundswell of support is telling. If the by-elections mattered to them at all - and there is no reason to believe any of them pay any serious attention to that sort of thing - the public affairs analysts would tell them that Williams faces difficult times ahead and there is a mood of discontent that affects all current politicians.

Their conclusion would be the same one they already reached: Hebron is dead for at least five years. Hibernia South is on life-support. An emboldened Danny Williams is highly unlikely to come to any deal at all, no matter how sweet the pot gets. They will continue to wait on the energy plan - if it ever comes - or the gas royalty regime. Their interest in these documents has been largely academic since last April. Medium- to long-term spending commitments are already made. By the time they might have an interest in Hebron or Hibernia again, or if there is a significant discovery somewhere else offshore, Danny will be gone and the economic and political environment will be changed.

Danny Williams can claim there are discussions and negotiations with Big Oil.

People who know what's really going on understand that the fibreoptic phone lines from the Confederation Building to the oil companies are blacker than crude.

Telegram story,editorial miss important changes in accountability law

A story and editorial in the Saturday Telegram both miss important aspects of the House of Assembly accountability legislation.
From the story:

But a law passed by his government this summer sets out special treatment for MHAs and House staff who may have improperly retained public money, and gags the auditor general from talking about such situations.
...
The new law passed this summer exempts MHAs and key House staffers from Section 15.
“Section 15 of the Auditor General Act does not apply to a member, the clerk, clerk assistant or staff of the House of Assembly service,” the law notes.

And from the editorial:

What does that mean? Well, for starters, that there’s clearly one law for MHAs, and a different law for everyone else in the provincial civil service.

It also means that we will probably never see another scandal like the one uncovered by the AG. 

Why? Because, among other reasons, if an AG finds such a scandal, he or she is now specifically forbidden to tell us about it.

That isn't correct. 

While the Green bill does include the provision cited by the Telegram, section 45 sets out a much wider disclosure requirement for the Auditor General in any instance where he or she "becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money by a member, the clerk, the clerk assistant or staff of the House of Assembly service or the statutory offices or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act of the province or of Canada...".

Section 15 of the Auditor General Act requires only that a report be made to the finance minister on behalf of the executive council.

Section 45 of the House accountability, integrity and administration legislation mandates that a report on such information be provided to the Speaker, the chair of the House audit committee, the Premier, the leader of the political party to which the member or members belong, the attorney general and the finance minister. In addition, the auditor general must disclose the report, in general terms, to the public through his or her annual report.

One minister or the entire executive council could bury a report under the Auditor General Act alone and the provisions of that Act already constrain the AG.  The Green bill specifically expands the offices that must be notified in order to preclude a report being buried and the requirement to include a report in the annual, public AG report makes it difficult to imagine how such a report into alleged impropriety could escape public detection.

Section 15 of the AG Act may not apply to the House, but section 45 of the House Integrity Act does and that's far better.

There is an extensive discussion of this section of the bill in the Green report at chapters five and eight.  In his report, Chief Justice Derek Green sets out the purposes of the new, more detailed disclosure rules that are intended, in part, to ensure that any such report cannot be hidden from public view.

It's worth reproducing an entire section of the Green report in which the Chief Justice notes the basis for his recommendations on the new disclosure requirements:

The [existing AG] legislation does not contemplate that a written report be issued to the public or the media, or that a news conference be held, or that interviews be given to the media amplifying what is in the report. This is as it should be. Undue publication of the information in a report at such an early stage - before decisions are taken to lay charges, or prosecute or seek reimbursement - risks interfering with important constitutional and other values. Given the relatively low threshold justifying the making of a report, even though its issuance may cause considerable damage to an individual’s reputation that may be difficult to repair if it is ultimately shown that there is an innocent explanation, one ought to be careful about bandying details about in the public domain. Furthermore, undue publication of the information with its implicit suggestion of impropriety or criminality may have an effect on a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial if charges are ultimately laid. 

As a general rule, therefore, the reporting function of the Auditor General should be limited to making the official reports to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and the House as contemplated by section 15. I note that, as a general rule, even at the stage of the decision
to prosecute, where the threshold for acting is higher, the police do not make a habit of
making public announcements that charges have been laid. 

While I recognize that there is a possibility that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council might not do its duty on receipt of a report and disregard it, that risk is minimized by the fact that ultimately there has to be public disclosure - at least with respect to a “general description” - of the incident in the Auditor General’s annual report to the House. 

These observations, I believe, are all the more important when one comes to dealing with situations involving public figures such as MHAs. They are particularly vulnerable to attacks on their reputations. Allegations of impropriety - even if ultimately shown to be unfounded - may have the effect, given the tendency of the public to ascribe low motives to politicians, of making the MHA’s continuing job untenable, and may irrevocably affect reelection chances. Caution in the manner of dealing with such situations is called for. 

It is outside my mandate to make recommendations with respect to the continuing operation of section 15 generally. However, I believe it to be appropriate to address the matter with respect to matters involving MHAs. After all, it was the issuance of section 15 reports that became the catalyst for the current inquiry. 

In the first place, I believe it important - indeed a fundamental aspect of fairness - that in undertaking the analysis of whether the Auditor General should exercise his or her  discretion to issue a section 15 report, the Auditor General should make full disclosure to the Member concerned, give him or her an adequate opportunity to provide any additional information as well as an explanation for what has been found, and consider those responses as part of his or her discretionary decision making. 

Additionally, I believe the role of the Auditor General, at least when dealing with identified discrepancies involving Members, to be one of preparing and delivering to the appropriate officials a comprehensive report detailing the transactions being questioned, why he or she believes that a report is warranted, and containing any recommendations he or she considers appropriate to make. I do not believe it appropriate, however, to make the report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as section 15 now contemplates. The Auditor General is an officer of the House and provides his or her audit services to the House. The report should therefore be to the Speaker. In addition, however, the report should be given to other persons who have a vital stake in the information disclosed.

Green then lists the specific offices to which information should be released.

There are other sections of the report the deal with some problems with the release of information by the current Auditor General and the way he conducted his reviews.  For example, the new accountability bill requires the Auditor General to give the member or members involved complete information and the opportunity to respond to the Auditor General's accusations before the report is filed.  Sadly, that was seldom the case with Auditor General John Noseworthy's series of reports. 

There are two standards for the Auditor General to follow when making a report of alleged impropriety.  In the case of the Green bill, the standards are higher in relation to the House of Assembly and that's a good thing.  Many of the problems Chief Justice Green identified have already been seen and his revised procedures are designed to restore both transparency and integrity to a process that showed little of either.

If the public does not see another scandal in the House of Assembly it won't be because the Auditor General is gagged. He isn't and in fact the situation that exists today is as far from the one described by the Telegram as possible.

The only two things to lament here are these:

1.  That the Auditor General did not conduct his reviews with more thoroughness in the first place after the scandal broke  and did not exercise sufficient care in his public comments thereafter.  The public has seen enough of the unsubstantiated allegations, inconsistent information and insufficient information coming from AG reports.  We've seen the names of individuals dragged through the mud based on flimsy evidence and half-baked conclusions. 

We've also seen some allegations that have led to charges being laid but, there remains a question as to whether or not the problems with the AG's work will undermine the process in one way or another. The public should not be left to face the prospect that after all the revelations of inappropriate spending, little if anything will come of it save for the new Green bill. 

2.  That the Telegram managed to miss such a key part of the Green bill. The Telegram perhaps moreso than most local newsrooms has done yeoman public service in digging into this scandal and exposing details of it that otherwise may never have come to light. Such is not the case with this story.  Let's not dismiss the Telly's work for one gaffe.

It's become accepted wisdom that the Auditor General has done a great public service in unveiling the scandal. His work is marred by deficiencies and some of the issues arising from the AG reports and how they were handled have been corrected by the Green bill.

At the same time, it might be tempting to imagine that things haven't changed at the House of Assembly among the politicians. That's as maybe; Chief Justice Green left the members of the legislature little alternative but to change.  Try as they might, they haven't been able to escape public scrutiny thus far.

-srbp-

The return to “normal”

If you are looking for a good read, take a wander over to cbc.ca/nl and soak up Andrew Button’s observations on a recent visit to the House of Assembly

But, if the days I spent observing the house are any indication, the peanut gallery has more representation than anyone else in our province's legislature. With the non-stop heckling that goes on there, the house of assembly evokes the detention hall more than the hallowed offices of the Queen's own chamber.

Button is right. 

But that’s not what’s worth noting here.

Rather, pay attention to the fact the piece appeared.  The producers and editors at the Ceeb may have had this underway before Danny Williams hightailed it out of here but your humble e-scribbler is willing to bet there’ll be more of these sorts of pieces in the weeks and months ahead.

You see, the House of Assembly didn’t turn into a drool academy in the past couple of days.  Members of the House have been displaying this sort of behaviour for years.  Arguably, things have gotten notably worse in the past decade, as older hands retired and a new crowd took over.

The taunts are audible from the gallery, as Button noticed, even if the official record didn’t contain it. Some of the stuff hurled back and forth has been quite personal and quite savage.  And the bias of the Speaker in dealing with this sort of behaviour is simply unavoidable.

Yet,for some reason, the number of times this issue turned up in local media in the past seven years is one you can count on the fingers of one severely mangled hand.  it’s not like reporters didn’t see and hear the behaviour

Odd is that, especially considering it is a reflection – as much as anything else – of what Chief Justice Green referred to several times in his report on the House of Assembly spending scandal.  It’s called the “tone at the top.”  That new crowd that started flooding the chamber after 2003 learned their attitude toward the legislature and the people in it from their boss. And not surprisingly, the attitude turned out to be a bad one.

It isn’t odd if you connect it up with another piece of information.  According to at least one editor, Danny Williams and his crew used to mention that infamous Craig Westcott e-mail to reporters and editors whenever the opportunity arose over the 20 months between the date Westcott sent the e-mail and when he made it public via Kevin O’Brien.

Blatant breach of the province’s privacy laws.  An effort to attack a reporter’s credibility.  A sign of the intensely personal way Williams used to take everything.  Any of those reasons might have been cause for someone to have reported the fact Williams’ office was talking up the e-mail.

Even just mention the episode, in passing.

But they didn’t.

Not once.

For those who like to remember those days, think of what happened as being a bit like Brian Tobin’s time.  Tobin learned that he could place a decent story on both television newscasts if he fed it to the Telegram for their front page first. 

And coincidentally, the Telegram seemed to lay off the sort of investigative reporting on things like travel expenses that they used to produce regularly.  With a strong leader, it seems some people think it makes more sense to try and be part of the choir.

And then Brian left the province. 

Poof. 

The Telly does a series on how the provincial government did such a piss-poor job of handling access to information requests.  Over in another corner, it took a national CBC program to reveal that Brian Tobin was on track in 2000 to be the highest spending premier in the country. The sort of stuff that normally would have appeared in local media didn’t; well, didn’t appear not until Brian headed back to Ottawa.

Then, as if by magic, all sorts of stuff started to pour out of every media orifice in the province.  Things might be different these days from the immediate aftermath of Tobin’s time, but events of the past few days suggest that old habits are hard to break.

Things seem to be returning to normal, whatever normal is around these parts.

- srbp -

Freedom from Information: another missing report by Bill Marshall

Coincidence of coincidences.

Your humble e-scribbler mentions Bill Marshall in jest in a post that connects back to the whole Ed Byrne Tory-gate spending scandal.

As it turns out, on the very same day that Danny Williams decided to tell the world about the auditor general’s investigation of Ed Byrne back in June 2006  justice minister Tom Marshall released government’s response to the Lamer commission report into wrongful convictions.  Williams had known of the AG investigation since the middle of the day before he made it public, apparently, but that’s another story.

Anyway…

June 21, 2006.

Gee.

And right there in the middle of the release is an announcement that former cabinet minister and retired supreme court judge Bill Marshall would be running a review of the Crown prosecutor’s office, as Antonio Lamer recommended:

Establishing an independent review of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is one of the recommendations Minister [Tom] Marshall [no relation to Bill] said government will implement immediately.  Commissioner Lamer recommends that an independent review be called to ensure that steps have been taken or will be taken to eliminate the "Crown culture" that contributed to the wrongful conviction of Gregory Parsons, and was also evident in the prosecution of Randy Druken. 

"This is an important recommendation on which government must act immediately and we are pleased that retired Court of Appeal Justice, William Marshall, will immediately head up the review," said Minister Marshall. "The review will be very thorough, independent and at arms length; it will examine resources, training, morale and the systemic issues identified in the report." [bold and italics added]

Immediately head up the review but not immediately finish the thing, as it turns out.

Just  a few weeks shy of three years after Bill Marshall immediately headed up the review into Lamer’s recommendation 18, there’s no apparent sign the work of the government’s favourite Grand Inquisitor is anywhere near done. [the link in the picture is dead]
 
Perhaps the former Supreme Court Justice and Tory cabinet minister has been too busy with another review, this one of inland fisheries. 

The second one was a sort of star chamber, since the whole thing was never announced. 
Indeed, government has never revealed either the scope of inland fisheries probe or when Marshall started work on it.  Opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons asked a question in the House about an access to information request that wanted to find out some basic stuff about the judge’s inquest – like how much it had cost so far – but the minister answered with a mere two sentences:

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the review being undertaken by retired Judge William Marshall, I believe the review is not completed to this point. Obviously, the information could not be disclosed until we have the results of the review.

That, dear friends, is all we know of that one.

So now we have it:

Two investigations.

Same guy, running both.

Zero results.

Unknown costs.

And it’s not like Bill Marshall isn’t popular when it comes to the current administration. 

Way back in October 2003, the guy who started campaigning for the premier’s job in the now infamous St. Barbe by-election appointed Bill Marshall as sort of a watchdog:

Bill Marshall, a recently retired Appeal Court judge and former PC cabinet minister, will act as the liaison between Williams and departing premier Roger Grimes. 

Liberals warned against new contracts 

Williams says the outgoing Liberal government should not make any plans for spending announcements. 

"I don't expect them to do that, "he says. "That would be irresponsible for an outgoing government that, no longer has a mandate to take those kind of actions. So, I'm trusting that Mr. Grimes and his government will do the honourable thing, and I expect them to do that."

The whole thing was just another of the nasty, mean-spirited, petty, small-minded, miserable  little insinuations about others that Danny Williams likes to make, as we have come to learn.

As it also turns out, the guy who started his latest political life as the Premier’s watchdog has, in his retirement, become a sort of Tory Torquemada – if you will plant your tongue firmly in cheek – ready, nay eager, to take on any investigation, inquiry or inquisition that needs to be done.

Too bad he apparently can’t finish them.

-srbp-

“Feeling queasy”: Is quieter better?

People in Newfoundland and Labrador must surely be looking with some puzzlement on the flap over federal Conservatives handing out government money as if it was their own.

In this province, their provincial Conservative cousins have the thing down to a science. The use of public money for partisan benefit is an old one in Newfoundland and Labrador but this current crowd have raised it to a fine  art. 

The House of Assembly spending scandal was – for the most part – a scam worked up to push free and untraceable cash that politicians could hand out to all and sundry in their district for any purpose the politician could think of approving.

So pervasive was the practice that a review by the auditor general found scarcely a single politician from any political party who sat in the House after the scam started in 1998 who did not use it to some extent. 

The review also revealed that the politicians elected after 2003 used it with an enthusiasm their federal cousins could only envy.  Of the top ten spenders as a percentage of their constituency operations allowance, six were elected after 2003 and all but one was a Tory.

As it turned out, one of the biggest supporters of the public cash for partisan benefit scheme was a former auditor general.  Ironically, she was the one the House management commission blocked from looking at some aspects of the scam while it was first organizing.  Beth Marshall also felt no qualms about handing out cash in small and larger amounts, nor did she feel any difficulty that there was a skimpy audit trail for the cash or that money was going to duplicate  existing government programs in some cases.

The use of public money for partisan purposes was not confined to individual members of the legislature and that’s where the parallel with the federal Conservatives really becomes apparent.  Since 2003, the Provincial Conservatives have worked to make sure that local partisan benefit came from any available pot of public cash:

-  As we found out when Tom Rideout packed it in, road paving and construction is over-seen by a political staffer in the Premier’s office.

Since 2003, it has been consistently managed in a way to maximise the benefit to Conservative districts and to punish those that voted for another party.

-  Fire trucks are a recent favourite for the spending announcement with the local MHA. With the recent by-elections and political upheaval, the fire truck announcements are coming about one a week.

The one they’ve consistently used is the small time cash being handed out by one department or another.  The money is from a legitimate departmental program but when the cash is handed out someone from the government caucus gets the credit.  It is inevitably called a “donation” or a “contribution” to make the free cash sound like anything but what it is.

There’s nothing new about it.  Back in 2007, Bond Papers linked to an old CBC news story that dates from the early 1970s that mentions the same practice dating back three or four decades and more.

But just because something is old is not a reason to think it is okay.  Not all traditions are fine or honorable.

Nor is it any better that it is done quietly in these parts as opposed to brazenly at the federal level.  The quiet nature of the local practice makes it all the more insidious.

Done loudly or quietly, though the practice is enough to make anyone concerned for the state of our democracy feel very queasy indeed.

-srbp-

Mr. Walsh goes to jail

Former Liberal cabinet minister Jim Walsh will be spending a few months behind bars for his part in the House of Assembly spending scandal.

Judge David Orr sentenced Walsh to 22 months for fraud and 12 months for breach of trust.  The sentences will be served concurrently.

By contrast, former provincial Conservative leader, natural resources minister and government leader in the House of Assembly Ed Byrne got two years less a day for fraud and 18 months for breach of trust, also served concurrently, for his part in the affair.

Walsh is the only one of the politicians charged thus far who opted to plead not guilty and face a trial.  That likely had something to do with the sentence. The Crown recommended 18 months while the defence suggested no more than half that time to be served conditionally.

Former Liberal cabinet minister Wally Anderson was sentenced last year to 15 months for forgery and none months for breach of trust.

Former New Democrat member Randy Collins will be sentenced January 15.

-srbp-

The charge of the light brigade

He just doesn't get it, does he?

Walter Noel, that is.

Determined to wear the House of Assembly spending scandal forever and a day.

Here's a clue, Walter:  it isn't a case of guts, even capelin guts.

It's a matter of sheer stupidity to continue to defend an abuse of public funds (along with the rest of your colleagues).

It's incomprehensibly dumb to claim that "spending was all in keeping with regulations, and approved by the highest officials of the House of Assembly"  when it's pretty clear there were no regulations of any consequence and the "highest officials" would have - and very often did - approve just about any expense claim for anything at all.

Walter Noel clearly doesn't get it, some 18 months after the rest of the world found out about the unmitigated mess in the House of Assembly.

And as long as Noel continues to shoot himself between the eyes, that's not the only thing Walter won't get come the middle of October.

-srbp-

Low Turn-out

As the Telegram editorial pointed up on Thursday, the winners in a series of recent by-elections took what is ostensibly one of the province’s most important and prestigious jobs based on the endorsement of the less than 30% of the eligible voters in the districts involved.

The Telegram blames the voters for this problem:

If you couldn’t even get off your backside to vote, you have no right to complain about how lousy, venial or downright pathetic your representation turns out to be. Heck, if they steal from you (as some of our politicians recently did), you hardly have a right to complain; you took no part in picking them, so they hardly betrayed your trust.

With possibly one brief period, politics in Newfoundland and Labrador has never been based on mobilisation of voters around a common goal or agenda based on their fundamental equality and on their shared and equal right to determine the future of the province.

Typically politics in Newfoundland and Labrador is based on the idea that citizens surrender their power to the patron who will deliver such benefits to the district – in the form of jobs and public spending – as he might be able.  Typically that sort of idea is reinforced by the sort of politics we’ve seen in the recent by-election in Humber West. 

In his campaign foray, Danny Williams took pains to remind voters how good he and his colleagues had been to the region.  That’s none-too-subtle coded for “look how much pork we brought” and now pay us back with a vote for my guy.  That’s pretty much the same sort of thing he said after the embarrassing defeat in the Straits.  Williams famously expressed disdain that voters could be so ungrateful to him – perhaps personally – for not electing his candidate after all the money that Williams and his colleagues had delivered to the district.

That basic message in provincial politics is what lay at the heart of the spending scandal.  Individual politicians got to distribute pork to their districts or to withhold it as they saw fit.  No one pretended to distribute the money fairly.  No one, including a former auditor general, thought that government programs – administered impartially by departments – were the right way to handle health and social services assistance of the kind many politicians claimed to be delivering out of money meant to maintain constituency offices and the like.

The current Conservative administration isn’t doing anything radically new in comparison to most of their predecessors. Like poll goosing, they are just doing it more aggressively and much more blatantly.  Fighting public disclosure of information? Discouraging public debate?  Closing and restricting membership in a supposedly open party?  All reflect the basic attitude that the majority of citizens have no role to play in the political system except to obey and acquiesce.

It is hardly surprising in that sort of political environment that people don’t participate in by-elections:  they aren’t supposed to turn out, beyond the identified party faithful.  And beyond the incumbent party, it takes a certain level of courage to swim against the stream.  The shouts of quisling and traitor aren’t designed to encourage discussion and it isn’t surprising that this sort of thuggery and intimidation has been as prominent as it has been during one of the most paternalistic regimes in the province’s history.    

It’s also not surprising that the most recent general election produced one of the lowest participation rates in the province’s history, right in line with the last time a paternalistic and patronage riddled party ruled the province.

So perhaps the next time the telegram editorialist is penning a finger-wagger, he or she might explain how it is the voter’s fault for not being braver when  the local political culture discourages participation.

Well, discourages participation beyond tugging the forelock.

- srbp -

Our accountants can work wonders...

but they must have receipts.

The Telegram editorial this hot summer Wednesday nails down another aspect of the House of Assembly spending scandal, namely the unwillingness of members to disclose their expense claims.

Perhaps those same politicians have forgotten the most important adage of all: that actions speak louder than words.

Here's the fact - we offered the province's MHAs an opportunity to show that they weren'’t involved in constituency allowance misspending.

Not one MHA felt confident enough to actually have public scrutiny of the propriety of their constituency spending.

Like it or not, any MHA who decides to hide behind the Speaker's legal opinion will have earned the reputation they wear.

The Telly will not be winning any friends in the House of Assembly with this editorial, but then again, editors don't make their money saying things that arecomfortablee all the time.

As the host of one radio call-in show noted this week, it's ironic that all those faithful, loyal and unquestioning supporters of the current crop of politicians praised a local newspaper whenever it slagged Liberals and took up the cudgels on the Premier's cause du jour. These same people are now turning savagely on the same paper for printing stories that are - explicitly or implicitly - critical of the Premier.

The Telly-torialists make an oblique reference to The Independent in the editorial this week. While the Indy has not exactly been scoring coups with its coverage and in some instances has provided inaccurate and incomplete information, at least they have asked a few questions. Hopefully, it hasn't poisoned the well of information out there nor has the Premier's savage reaction deterred others from asking simple questions.

The Telly editorial today makes the point simply and eloquently when it points out that when it comes to disclosure (the congenital twin of transparency), actions speak far louder than mere words.

Another piece of the puzzle

Answering a question from Night Line host Linda Swain on Thursday, Health minister Tom Osborne let slip another little bit of the House of Assembly spending scandal.

He didn't mean to do so obviously, but he did it just the same.

Just like Speaker Harvey Hodder gave away something significant when he told the Telegram last week that he had not received reports from the Auditor General and therefore the AG was supposedly still working.

I digress.

AFter repeating that he had been cautioned to let the police conduct their investigation, Osborne said something to the effect that as we now know, the rings were purchased to mark the 50th anniversary of Confederation.

Actually, Tom we didn't know that at all.

Then Tom added that he had been offered a ring by the former financial director of the House as a gift but for some unexp0lained reason Osborne claims he offered Bill Murray $100 for the ring.

There's a bunch of stuff that doesn't add up here.

First of all, no one had mentioned previously that the rings were purchased in 1999 to mark the Confederation anniversary.

Second, if they were anniversary rings, then ever member of the House likely received one, with new members receiving them as they were elected. Osborne was elected in 1996 and re-elected in 1999 so he ought to have known about the whole project from the beginning. The Auditor General indicated rings were purchased between April 1998 and December 2005 which would suggest an on-going purchase program and it is hard to imagine a member of the legislature since 1996 wouldn't have asked his colleagues - like his own mom, f'rinstance - where they got the lovely rings.

Third, Osborne's story of accepting the ring as a gift and then offering $100 doesn't make sense. Right off the bat, people aren't usually in the habit of accepting gifts and then offering to pay for the gift. If that wasn't enough, the House of Assembly is too small a place for members not to be aware of a ring purchase program or to be unable to find out about one if it occured.

Heck, if he had a problem, Tom could have just asked his mom Sheila about it. She's one of the most wired-in politicos in the House let alone the Progressive Conservative party.

Yessirree, Tommy Osborne has added some curious new information to the little saga of House mis-spending.

He's also given us a half-baked little story that isn't likely to stand up to much scrutiny, especially if there is an allowance claim form or other document authorizing the deduction from his House of Assembly budget.

If the Premier would just be as open, accountable and transparent as he claims he is, we would not have the sorry spectacle of ministers sheepishly telling little stories. The whole sordid mess would be in public. We would all know what happened and who knew what, when.

Disclosure of what the member saw might even speed up the police investigation. The cops wouldn't have wade through the mounds of bafflegab some people are likely going to throw up to avoid being connected to one of the most embarrassing and serious scandals in our political history.

Osborne sounded a tad uncomfortable answering questions tonight.

Almost like he was wishing he could pick a fight with ExxonMobil.

Everything old is new again

According to a great story in today's Telegram, veteran political scribe Rob Antle reports that the House of Assembly has put in place what are described as new rules governing the accounting and administration of expense claims by members of the provincial legislature.

Don't bother checking thetelegram.com; the "news story" in the online edition is a puff piece about the SmartCar.

Go figure.

Anyway...

The new rules are simple: every claim must have receipts and any questions are to be directed to the chief financial officer.

They replace the old rules in which all expense claims had to be supported by receipts and questions were directed to the chief financial officer.

This is no joke.

The new rules are exactly the same as the old rules.

And it took a memorandum from no less than three people and a meeting of political staff in the House of Assembly to ensure everyone understood the new rules...

which were, of course, exactly the same as the old rules.

The only actual change is that from July 10 2006 onward, the entire claim must go to the Comptroller General before a cheque will be cut. This is a step forward, but evidently a determined program could frustrate the Comptroller General's last line of checks in the system.

Heck, even in the system that used to exist, the Comptroller General apparently never noticed that $1.0 million in cheques were cut to four individuals beyond the publicly available limits set by the Internal Economy Commission.

That said, this Telegram story demonstrates that when the province's finance minister, the Speaker and the Auditor General assured everyone in the province that changes already made in 2004 would prevent financial problems, these three august individuals were not telling factual and accurate information.

Nope.

If changes had been made in April 2004, the House of Assembly would not need to introduce changes in mid-July in the wake of a spending scandal.

One of the things that hasn't changed is the ability of members of the House to make donations of any kind and amount they deem fit out of money allocated for the operation of constituency offices and for discharging their duties as parliamentarians.

Apparently, there is also no requirement that the claims for donations or any other spending will be made available to the public as occurs in the provincial government through the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In other words, the system remains as fundamentally unaccountable and opaque to the voting public as it has ever been.

Change evidently means more of the same.

The question of democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador #cdnpoli #nlpoli

“A democracy only works really well,” according to Kathy Dunderdale, “when people are asking questions.”

Opposition Leader Dwight Ball told a Western Star interviewer that “my job is to ask questions with substance…”.

Not to be outdone in the spate of year-end interviews, New Democratic Party leader Lorraine Michael tied the health of democracy to asking questions:

If our natural resources standing committee ... were operating like a House of Commons committee or like the committees in Nova Scotia, we’d have a fully open discussion on Muskrat Falls.

Not surprisingly, all three party leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador agree on what constitutes democracy in the province.  They lead parties that agree on everything but the fine details. 

Not surprisingly, the three leaders discuss democracy solely in terms of what happens in the provincial legislature.  The only disagreement they have, such as it is, centres on the questions the opposition parties ask.  The NDP want more time to ask questions.  The Liberals want to ask better questions and the Conservatives claim variously that there is enough time for questions as things stand or that the quality of them is low anyway so more time wouldn’t make things better.

In one sense, democracy is about questions.

It is about people who want power – like Kathy Dunderdale, Lorraine Michael and Dwight Ball – asking the rest of us in the community to support them at election time.  We support them with the one thing that we all have in common:  our individual vote. Everyone in the community has exactly the same kind of vote. And it is our individual vote that is the foundation of everything else that happens in our democracy.

In between elections, democracy is about those people who get enough support to form a government asking “May I” when they want to do something. That’s essentially what they do in the House of Assembly.

They pose the question to the other members of the House, whether from their own party or the other parties and individuals who won enough votes to sit in the legislature. 

You’ll find that quite literally in the procedure.  The Speaker will “put the question” on a motion, a resolution or a bill to the House and ask the members to vote.

Ask a question. 

Vote on an answer.

Decision made.

All starting from the fundamental question put to individual voters at an election to chose individuals who will represent those voters in the legislature.

Things weren’t always that way.  But starting almost 800 years ago, in those countries that follow the British parliamentary tradition, people started to place limits on what the government could do without the agreement of the people ruled by the government.

The 1689 Bill of Rights brought together many of the features of our modern democracy that we often assume have always been around and that people have always accepted.  Freedom of speech,  freedom to stand for and to vote in elections to the legislature and the need for the legislature to meet regularly are all contained in the 1689 Bill of Rights. They survive today: some changed, some the same.

At the core of the whole thing is choice.  People chose their representatives to sit in the legislature.  We select those representatives to stand in for each of us every day between elections.

We do not elect a government.  We elect people to the legislature, to the House of Assembly.  Out of those people, we get a group to run the government.  And those people running the government must come back to our direct representatives for approval for what they want to do, especially when it comes to spending public money.

There are two other ideas that go along with choice and who gets to chose.  One of these is that choices must be based on information.  The legislature’s day-to-day business is built around debate and the exchange of information. 

The other idea is that the information and choice must be in public.  The legislature has space for people to sit and watch what happens.  News media and others can report on what happens.  The legislature keeps an official record – Hansard – that people can read.

Seen from that perspective, those political comments about questions and the legislature don’t look all that good or convincing.  Looking at some recent history, one can find a host of examples  – from the spending scandal to the Abitibi expropriation fiasco  - that show the bad things that happen when politicians operate in secret. 

You can also see that the Premier’s excuses for keeping the legislature closed simply don’t make sense.  If she feels that her current job is a “rare privilege”, then Kathy Dunderdale needn’t remind herself of that fact every day, in secret, in her office. 

She can show up in the legislature and demonstrate that she gets the point:  if you want power in this province, the you have to stand up in the legislature and ask “May I?”

The purpose of the House is to subject those with power to public examination and to the test of debate, discussion and disclosure.  The Premier and her colleagues should want the legislature to be open as much as possible.  They should want to tell us about their plans, present their case and convince us all that they have good ideas.

How very odd it is, then, that the Premier admitted at the end of last year that she and her colleagues don’t have any thing ready to present to the House.  This is the case despite the fact they’ve been in office since 2003 and the Premier herself has held her job for more than a year.

At other times, Dunderdale has said that she kept the legislature closed because the House was dysfunctional.  The opposition parties were weak. Who will hold them accountable for what they say, she wondered. 

The answer is simple:  the ordinary people of Newfoundland and Labrador will.  If the opposition political parties are as weak as Dunderdale claims, then they won’t be able to hide away from public scrutiny either.  Exposing yourself to examination works both for those with power and those who want it.

The fact that the Premier and her colleagues avoid the House as they do and denigrate the legislature as the Premier does, she demonstrates nothing less than contempt for the people of the province.

To be fair, though, none of the parties in the House can really escape blame on this point.  All parties have  helped to create the current climate. Dunderdale controls how often the House sits.  But the other parties went along unquestioningly with the special ballot laws that undermine the right of individuals to stand for election.  Some even openly suggested making this a one party state.  Perhaps that explains why they slipped things through the House with a nod and a wink and stood idly by as their colleagues abused the fundamental rights we have enjoyed. Now they may not see it that way. They may believe that what they have done is absolutely right in every respect.

But they were not right.

It is not okay.

The attitude and actions of politicians in the province in recent decades are why the state of democracy in our province is, itself, in question.

- srbp -

The frame and the iron fist of cabinet

Less than a week after cautioning residents of Newfoundland and Labrador not to make hasty judgments about the financial scandal affecting the House of Assembly, Premier Danny Williams announced today measures that he claims will address the matter. The actions he is taking are guided, as much as anything else, by the frame he has placed around the issue.

That frame focuses on the Office of Auditor General and on moving forward from here with the Premier being seen as acting decisively to correct a problem.

Take a look at the release. It fits the frame perfectly. In a news release, the most important information for the reader is contained in the first sentence - sometimes called the lede - and in the opening paragraph. Here's the lede for the latest news release:

In light of recent findings of the Auditor General into the finances of the House of Assembly, Premier Danny Williams today announced that his government will build upon the successful reforms already implemented since forming government. The Williams Administration [sic] committed to transparency and accountability, and has demonstrated this commitment with several initiatives including passing the new Transparency and Accountability Act, Lobbyist Act and Access to Information legislation.¹

The second paragraph then builds off the first, confirming that the Premier is satisfied he was right all along and is doing all that needs to be done to handle the problems that have been made public. The actions announced on Monday include changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act that will clearly state the Auditor General can audit the House accounts, the appointment of Chief Justice Derek Greene of the Supreme Court Trials division to review member’s' salaries and allowances on a "“go-forward basis"” and implementation of other changes needed to correct the House of Assembly's internal controls and compliance.

Overall, one must know what occured and why before one can take corrective action on any problem. In this instance, the Premier is acting without knowing very much of anything save that something has occured. The Auditor General is still furiously reviewing the House accounts and producing tiny reports with the ink still wet. His copious media interviews contain claims but his one report thus far says little of substance beyond demonstrating that something wrong occured.

As well, the police investigation is only now underway and the larger issue of how the Internal Economy Commission operated will simply not be examined (see below).

Let's take the Premier's initiatives in order.

As far as the Auditor General is concerned, while this has been a key element of the Premier'’s frame for the House of Assembly misappropriation issue, it is not really the most important one in understanding what happened and why. The Auditor General can only detect problems after they have occurred. Since the Auditor General was allowed back to review the House books, the Premier'’s change to the IEC Act proposed on Monday is largely a cosmetic one.

Chief Justice Greene'’s task is one of the most curious aspects of a very curious approach to handling a scandal of this magnitude. Firstly, the Premier'’s news release makes it clear that while Chief Justice Greene will review salaries and allowances of members, the Chief Justice will not be acting with powers under the Public Inquires Act.

Under section 13 of the Internal Economy Commission Act, the House may appoint a committee of no more than three persons to review salaries, indemnities and other benefits with the powers of a public inquiry. The review is to be completed within 90 days and handed to the Internal Economies Commission for action. This confirms that the House is master of its own destiny and that members of the House are collectively responsible for appointing an independent commission to review salaries and benefits.

The Premier's charge to Chief Justice Greene is significant since it specifically prevents the Chief Justice from reviewing any aspects of the current scandal which may have arisen from the way in which the IEC discharged its responsibilities and which may affect any recommendations he makes. Since the Chief Justice does not have the powers of a public inquiry he cannot compel evidence from a witness or cause the production of any records. His powers are being clearly limited; the purpose of the limit is far from clear.

In short, Chief Justice Greene has been given a task that appears to be similar to requirements under the House of Assembly Act for setting salaries and benefits however he is reporting in this instance to the Premier and the cabinet to determine salaries for the House of Assembly.

As for the administrative changes, the Premier'’s news release on Monday makes it clear that the House of Assembly practices that likely contributed to the current scandal did not change in 2004. Rather, the only thing changed was the access to the legislature accounts for the Auditor General.

This is a significant acknowledgement on the one hand, however, it raises at least two unanswered questions that have potential significant implications. The most obvious question is why the IEC in 2004 did not put in place the simple administrative checks and balances which were obvious as long ago as 2000 when the IEC Act was changed.

There is also no potential for determining if the nature and amount of allowances is appropriate but that the IEC acted inappropriately. This is something Chief Justice Greene cannot determine since his powers have been purposely limited.

Did abuse continue after 2004? AG misreports date of audits

More importantly though, the second question is what, if any, misappropriation took place after 2004. The Auditor General has stated he is reviewing spending by the House of Assembly for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004. This would cover the period from April 2003 to March 2005, given the government'’s fiscal year system.

However, the attachment to the Auditor General'’s one page report on Ed Byrne misidentifies the time period for the audit. The headings are for FY 2003 and FY 2004. The dates, though, are for FY 2002 and FY 2003. Only two payments appear to have been made in FY 2004 however it would appear, on the face of it that these payments actually relate to FY 2003.

This is no small matter. The Auditor General may have reviewed spending since May 2004 but his reports thus far have not indicated if he actually reviewed FY 2004 and found nothing or if he has simply not audited the period at all.

If administrative practices had actually changed in March/April 2004, then there would be no need for the Premier to announce those changes in 2006.

In "Reframing the issue", the Bond Papers raised the concern that, in his sincere desire to address an obviously grave issue, the Premier has effectively usurped legal powers he does not have. Monday'’s release confirms that this practice is continuing, although the Premier is suddenly conscious of this aspect. His news release concludes:

The Premier noted that the IEC is an autonomous body with representation from the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties. Any changes to the operations of the House of Assembly would require approval of the SpeakerÂ’s Office and the IEC, and Premier Williams said he will be instructing his caucus members to ensure appropriate measures are undertaken.

Having already taken responsibility for decisions that are actually not his to make, this last paragraph raises even more questions. The Premier'’s news release on Monday suggests that he will ensure that salaries and benefits for the House of Assembly will be set by cabinet and imposed by the power of the government caucus. Even with the acknowledgement that the Premier lacks the legal power to do what he has undertaken, his comments suggest he will do it anyway.

It would be interesting to know if former New Democratic Party leader Jack Harris still holds the view he held in 2004, when he told the House of Assembly that the legislature made "provision for the Internal Economy Commission so the House of Assembly was not subject to the iron fist of the cabinet in telling the House of Assembly what to do."”
_____________________________________

¹ The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was passed by the legislature prior to the 2003 general Election but not proclaimed by the grimes administration.