In 2010, the provincial government appointed Captain Mark Turner to look at the “province’s offshore oil spill prevention and response capabilities.”
He produced the 273 page report and the provincial government dutifully released it along with a lovely news release.
Then-natural resources minister Shawn Skinner committed that the provincial government would “study the report, and consult with the responsible stakeholders to ensure all recommendations are considered.”
Marni Soupcoff has got it right about the campaign finance scandal currently swirling around federal intergovernmental affairs minister Peter Penashue (pronounced Pen-ah-shoe-ay). People should be concerned about the money Peter Penashue used to get elected:
The part that stands out is the involvement of a federal member of parliament who seems to have, in the absence of an ability to balance his own campaign books, used money that was meant for the Innu community to get himself elected. Not only has he has not been taken to task for this by his Conservative government. He remains a cabinet minister. Now that the media has discovered the loan and Mr. Penashue’s questionable campaign spending, he is finally being asked the sort of questions for which Innu residents surely would like some answers.
As Chief Justice Derek Green reminded us in his report on the the House of Assembly patronage scandal, the way officials and politicians respond to issues such as accountability is set by the tone at the top.
Soupcoff said:
If the Conservatives truly believed in maintaining a government of principle, they would be demanding answers from Mr. Penashue about why money that was meant for a deprived First Nations community ended up in his campaign coffers.
Let’s see what happens.
-srbp-
The Office of the Auditor General is an independent and reliable source of the objective, fact-based information that the House of Assembly needs to fulfill one of its most important roles: holding the provincial government accountable for its stewardship of public funds.
That’s a paraphrase of the description of the auditor general’s job found on the federal auditor general’s website.
Let’s add a bit of a twist to that description, though. The Auditor General’s office is not just an officer for the legislature alone; the AG office is one of the officers the public must trust to ensure that government spends your tax dollars and mine properly.
Aside from anything else, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador must have confidence that the person who serves as Auditor General is not a partisan for any political party and is functioning free of any favour or threat from the government itself.
John Noseworthy likely shattered that confidence for a good few people in the province on Tuesday when he became the second Auditor General in a row to leave office and enter politics.
In this case, Noseworthy announced his new political career a mere 16 days after leaving the job that he wants to run as a candidate for the ruling provincial Conservatives in the fall general election.
But that’s not the whole story.
Noseworthy had a year or more left in his term when he announced last June that he was quitting to pursue “other professional opportunities.” Asked about political ambitions at the time, Noseworthy merely told reporters he was ruling nothing out.
News reports on Tuesday mentioned his role in uncovering the House of Assembly spending scandal. In interviews, Noseworthy was quick to call his own reports on government spending “scathing” and noted that he was critical of government.
That’s as maybe. The timing alone creates the impression of an unseemly haste to leave his job early in order to enter politics. His comments appear self-serving and - in light of some of his actions over the past seven or eight years - dubious.
Noseworthy has been a bit of a media darling since 2006 and the spending scandal. What that means is that local reporters have not questioned him even when there was good reason to doubt his comments, claims and conclusions.
For starters, Noseworthy has never accounted for millions of dollars of overspending that took place during the scandal period from 1996 to 2006. Instead, he looked at other issues.
Nor has he explained why his own reports actually ignored the overspending. You’ll only find reference to the actual degree of overspending here at SRBP and in Chief Justice Derek Green’s report on the spending scandal.
In the parts he did report on, your humble e-scribbler raised questions about his public comments at the time and how he was conducting his reviews. Chief Justice Green even recommended significant changes to sections of the law governing the Auditor General as a result of the inappropriate - and in some instances unfounded – accusations Noseworthy levelled at members of the legislature.
Then there’s the question of how both he and his old boss, now Tory Senator Elizabeth Marshall never made any comment on the level of overspending in the House of assembly accounts until 2006. They may not have had access to the House books for a part of the scandal period but they did have access to the Comptroller General’s records for the whole time and he wrote all the cheques used to shell out the cash. And they never raised the issue once, except for the one time when Marshall’s attempt to investigate a single cabinet minister – Liberal as it turns out – got shut down.
Noseworthy’s also been known to polish his own knob and that of his future political associates. In a 2009 report, Noseworthy actually made up a fictitious report recommendation and credited the government with following it.
A 2007 report claimed that the same agency produced a deficit and a surplus at the same time.
Nothing was quite as bizarre, though, as Noseworthy’s sudden decision to try and audit the offshore regulatory board. At the time, Noseworthy’s office did not include the board in a list of government agencies the Ag felt he had the authority to audit.
Noseworthy made quite the stink about getting inside the board offices, issuing a special report.
But once he got in, the whole thing vanished.
No subsequent reports.
No updates.
No letters.
Nothing.
Not until your humble e-scribbler brought up the question of the vanished Earth-shattering issue and reporters trotted off to Noseworthy’s office to see what gives.
Access problems, Noseworthy harrumphed.
But no word on his silence on the whole matter for the better part of two and a half years.
There was just a little cock-up in a story on the whole thing by one local radio station.
Funny thing in that little episode as it turns out. Natural resources minister Shawn Skinner wound up reminding everyone of the sweeping changes to provincial laws that wound up effectively shielding so much of Nalcor’s operations from public oversight.
Noseworthy didn’t say boo about any of that as it sailed through the legislature and it didn’t make any reference to it in any of his comments since June when he announced his retirement.
Maybe Noseworthy will be like his predecessor Beth Marshall who, after entering politics, didn’t find any problems with giving politicians access to bags of cash they could hand out to constituents, often without receipts.
Ah yes, old-fashioned patronage politics and the importance of having a member on the government side to dole out the goodies.
And, by gosh, didn’t John Noseworthy mention just that - having someone on the government side - as he launched his career in politics.
Incompetence?
Normal practices?
Bias?
Whatever the cause, John Noseworthy’s announcement on Tuesday is the finest example yet of why our province desperately needs a fundamental, democratic revolution.
- srbp -
Opposition leader Danny Williams would have a field day with the Old Man he’s become as Premier.
The younger Danny would be kicking the Old Man’s ass all over the political map.
Take, for instance, the billion dollar secret deal with Nova Scotia he decided not to tell anyone about and that both provincial governments are still not talking about.
The Chronicle Herald managed to find out from NALCOR that the application to a federal funding program is for $375 million. But…
The Dexter government declined to release the amount last week, but Nalcor Energy, Newfoundland’s Crown power utility, did disclose it.
Nancy Watson, spokeswoman for the Energy Department here, confirmed the figure. She said the province wasn’t going to release it because it’s preliminary and the project would eventually be subject to private bids.
She said officials here thought it "more sensible to not talk about things before we had the details in place."
Maybe what they are trying to hide is that this line to Nova Scotia is a lot less than the Old Man tried to make it sound like.
Details not in place.
“Preliminary” cost estimates.
Maybe the whole thing is just a ploy.
Maybe it’s Danny just setting up a pre-emptive excuse when the feds turn down this half-baked, incomplete “preliminary” application.
No matter how you slice it, the whole thing just makes you want to scream at Dex and Danny:
“Mr. Premier, what are you trying to hide?”
- srbp -
Right on the heels of a new appointment for something called a “legislative assistant” comes a news release that tells us that Ed Buckingham - member of the House of Assembly for St. John’s East - filled in for Charlene Johnson at an announcement in Burgeo.
This raises some interesting questions, not the least of which is who paid Ed’s costs.
You see they weren’t ministerial expenses so they don’t turn up on the periodic disclosure of expenses by cabinet ministers.
And they weren’t expenses in the House of Assembly because this is a government job. Ed shouldn’t be expensing them in the legislature.
The department should be covering the bill.
But interestingly enough, they don’t have to disclose any of the costs for travel by this odd bird called the legislative assistant or even confirm what if any pay goes with the title unless someone goes through the exercise of submitting an access to information request.
Of course, you wouldn’t even think to do that because until the Paul Davis announcement, these little jobs flew under the radar screen. Sort of like “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Funny idea for a government that supposedly wants to be open, transparent and accountable.
- srbp -
What is it about Dipper leaders named Jack and their problems with having the Auditor General check over their expense claims?
Here’s Jack Layton using a worn out excuse that hasn’t been tried since well before the spending scandals in legislatures in St. John’s, Halifax and among Jack’s political brethren in Westminister:
"Well, those are already audited, so I don’t know why wasting money on a second audit of something that has already been audited would make sense," he said.
Yep and there were audits in the House of Assembly too during the peak of the spending scandal. Layton should ask his defence critic Jack Harris who, as it turns out, is the former leader of the New Democrats in Newfoundland and Labrador. Here’s what he had to say in voting for a government bill that proved to be a key foundation stone for the spending scandal:
Similarly, we have a new provision which requires an annual audit of the accounts of the House of Assembly which I think is appropriate; that there be accountability through an annual audit.
That proved to be so incredibly effective, as a subsequent review by an Auditor General revealed. Heck, Jack Harris’ old bench mate wound up going to jail for his part in the whole business.
The days of the kind of unaccountable political privilege the two Jacks and the rest of the Ottawa Dippers are clinging to is long over.
A little sunshine in dark corners goes a long way to killing off any untoward activity that is taking place, the glare of public scrutiny also helps to keep it from taking root.
Imagine what might have been prevented if political donations were scrutinised more closely.
-srbp-
Here’s a picture of a government being held accountable for its actions.
At left is a picture of the parliamentary secretary to the government house leader in the House of Commons tabling responses to questions on the order paper put there by the opposition Liberals before the House rose for its summer break.
It could be subtitled: “How I spent my summer vacation.”
There are a few things to notice here.
First of all, there are thousands of pages of documents made public in response to questions asked by members of the national legislature.
It’s part of what they get paid to do, asking questions and it’s part of what the government gets paid to do: answer them.
Second of all, in Ottawa they still use the time-honoured tradition of questions on the order paper. These are inquiries into government decisions or policies that are posed in order to elicit as full and complete a response as possible. They are done free of charge, unlike ATIPs which carry costs.
In the 1980s, the Peckford crew kept the House closed so much they essentially forced the opposition to use freedom of information laws to get what they should have obtained for free in the House.
In the Tobin era, the members of the whole House came to the conclusion they should do away with order paper questions for most things. All in the House were more comfortable with that situation and evidently some of them needed more time to file expense claims.
That tradition continues such that the opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador doesn’t get to use the order paper as it is supposed to be used, they get fewer sitting days in the legislature to pose the questions they might pose in the first place, and then to make it worse, they have to submit access to information requests and pay for them out of the budget which the government deliberately keeps tight.
Talk about setting up a system that restricts the flow of information and thereby hampers accountability. Let’s not even get into the issue of how the government answers – or to be correct - tires desperately not to answer simple questions, regardless of who is posing them.
But don’t worry about that.
Just look at the mound of information the government had to cough up.
Would that governments that talked a good game on accountability could actually deliver in proportion to their self-congratulatory rhetoric.
-srbp-
In the United Kingdom, an inquiry into the expenses scandal at Whitehall is running into members of parliament griping about their quality of life. The MPs want improvements, so it seems, despite the excesses which have been revealed in the past few months.
Meanwhile, the Bow Wow parliament has a committee holding hearings before the committee submits recommendations on a new pay and allowances scheme for local politicians to the House of Assembly management committee.
Ostensibly, the committee wants to get public input. So far only five people have turned up to offer views to the committee at hearings held across the province.
That’s hardly surprising given that the committee is holding hearings during the time when most people in the province - including most politicians - take a nice long break from the business of politics.
But here’s the question no one seems to have asked in Newfoundland and Labrador: why is the committee out there in the first place?
The politicians will tell you they appointed the committee because it is in the Green bill, the legislation that came after the local spending scandal hit daylight. Now that is true, but there was considerable discretion available to the legislators.
Since they got their salaries set in 2007 at the time of the last election, they could have amended the legislation so that the next salary committee wouldn’t be appointed until after the next general election 2011. They also could have delayed appointing the current committee until some time in early 2011, thus giving members of the legislature a full four years at their old pay scheme before they would look at an increase.
Either of those approaches would have shown some restraint on the part of members. This might have been prudent given that the public is more than a wee bit soured on them after listening to the litany of miss-spending and excuses for same that poured forth from the honorable members.
And it’s not like the poor darlings wouldn’t have seen any pay hikes in the meantime. Under section 15(3) of the Green bill, they would have collected the same percentage increases the executive of the public got in any given year. That’s not bad for a crowd making a hefty wage anyways and given that almost half of them or more are drawing extra pay allotments, members of the legislature can hardly claim they’ve been hard done by.
Rather than do either of those things, the members of the legislature - most or all of whom are members of the successor to the old internal economy commission - decided to go for a restructuring of their pay and allowances scheme in addition to the annual percentage hikes a mere two years after the system came into effect in the first place.
They decided to do it at a time when the public are – for the most part – simply not paying attention to things political. The politicians discussed postponing things until the fall, incidentally, but decided to carry on such that the bulk of the work was being done at the worst possible time of the year.
Well, worst possible time if one was serious about getting public input. The resolution appointing the committee went through the House in May. The committee must report no later than the end of October. The hearings will be over and done – save for one – by the end of August.
Their report will then find its way back to the House of Assembly where it will be passed, one expects, as quickly and as quietly as possible in what has become a notoriously lightweight and very short fall sitting of the House.
That’s pretty much how most things involving pay and allowances for members have been handled over the past decade. Despite all the public furor, despite all the revelations of miss-spending, the members of the provincial legislature are carrying on much as they have always done when their pay and allowances are involved.
Old habits - it seems - die very hard indeed.
-srbp-
That would be an inability to recognise realise that what one is saying is humourous because it contradicts the claim:
Oram said verbal briefings aren't an attempt to avoid putting anything in writing.
He said he can't remember if he was supplied with written briefing documents when he took over the business department in 2007.
But of course, not having any written briefing notes is exactly intended to avoid having anything in writing. That way, there is nothing to contradict cabinet minister Paul Oram’s faulty memory. In this instance, Oram cannot remember what he did less than two years ago in taking on the single most important job of his working life. His mind is a complete blank slate.
Yet…
He would have us believe - despite having an evidently sieve-like memory - he can successfully administer $2.6 billion in public money and account for his actions when needed.
Paul Oram is not alone. Joan Burke and likely most of their cabinet colleagues - update: the Aural Majority - have adopted the paperless office approach. The tendency to a paperless ministry is nothing new nor is it confined to Newfoundland and Labrador. Donald Savoie, among others, has documented the trend and they have also firmly fixed the reason: avoiding accountability.
In itself, that’s a pretty dramatic development for a government that sought office in 2003 on a platform that included accountability and transparency as a cornerstone. It would also pretty much make a mockery of former deputy minister Doug House’s claim in 2005 that the “Williams government is exceptional in the extent to which its electoral platform, Our Blueprint for the Future (commonly referred to as "the Blue Book") is actually being adhered to in implementing government policies.”
Now, one of the possibilities unexplored by either CBC or The Telegram – both have covered this same issue based on separate open records requests – is that the response from government is actually not completely in accord with the facts. One of the other tendencies noted over the past couple of years is for government officials to respond to certain access to information requests in a way which is false.
For example, the now infamous case of the purple files, every knows that purple files exist. The person requesting them saw them. Both premier and an official of his office have confirmed they exist. Yet, the official written response was that there were no such records.
In other instances, officials have invented a category of documents simply to avoid releasing them.
Now at this point, no reasonable person in the province should need convincing that a problem exists and that it needs a solution. We don’t need to see another story of another cabinet who claims to have a decent memory but who mysteriously can’t recall anything when asked about it.
The only real question is what, if anything, the current administration will do to correct the situation.
They started out with a platform that would have put this province in the forefront of public accountability, openness and government accessibility. Where they’ve wound up is significantly less accountable, less open and far less accessible to voters than the government they attacked in 2003 with their pledge of 23 positive actions.
The only question right now is: will they do what they promised six years ago?
-srbp-
The issues raised by the Paul Oram case just got a whole lot worse, politically:
…Oram replied that "if you look at any business people that are involved in government you'd have to ask the same question."
"I'm not the only one that owns businesses within government and owns shares within government, and has been a director of a business within government. There's all sorts of people that are involved there."
Expect reporters and others to ask some logical questions:
That last one remains the crucial one for your humble e-scribbler. This entire issue was one of the easiest to manage with a little preventive action.
As a result of that initial decision, Paul Oram’s answer to The Telegram just opened up a whole new line of inquiry where really there shouldn’t need to be one.
-srbp-
We've invited you here today to address what I see as one of the greatest challenges facing elected governments today. As a result of recent developments at both the provincial and national level, I firmly believe that the public is losing confidence in their elected officials.
We've seen blatant abuse of office and taxpayers' money, allegations concerning conflict of interest, questions of fundraising contributions, and suggestions of impropriety during leadership conventions. These are very serious issues that are eroding the people's confidence in government.
Now, we can either choose to ignore these issues and continue with the status quo or we can attempt to deal with them and restore the public's confidence. I'm saying that it's time to deal with them and begin to restore the public's confidence.Public confidence likely took a further dip with the revelations of what occurred in the legislature between 1997 and 2006.
Serial
|
Commitment
|
Action
|
1
| “We will legislate maximum donations to candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.” |
No action taken.
|
2
| “We will set out in legislation that the cash contribution to the party from an individual or corporation shall not exceed $10,000.” | No action taken. |
3
| “We will also legislate maximum expenditures by candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.” | No action taken. |
4
| “Furthermore, we will require the full public disclosure of all donations to, and expenditures by, candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.” |
No action taken.
|
5
| “With respect to Party leadership races, we will require that donations must be disclosed when they occur, and all expenditures must be independently audited and fully disclosed within three months after the election of a new leader.” |
No action taken.
|
6
| “We will also enact provisions governing the ownership of unused contributions donated to candidates in leadership races. These legislative provisions will ensure that all unused donations are returned to the donors”. |
No action taken.
|
7
| “We will amend the Elections Act to require that provincial elections be held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly.” | |
8
| “The legislation will ensure that, if the Premier resigns or the Premier's office is vacated within the first three years of a term, an extraordinary election will be held within twelve months and a new government will be elected to a fixed four-year term.” | |
9
| “We will also amend the Elections Act to require a by-election to be called within 60 days of a vacancy and held within 90 days of a vacancy, so as to ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are appropriately represented in the legislature.” | |
10
| “We will establish a new procedure to provide for the proper auditing and disclosure of the expenses of Members of the House of Assembly.” | Significant new procedures were not implemented until after the disclosure of the spending scandal and not until passage of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act in 2007. |
11
| “We will amend the Access to Information legislation to enhance the transparency of government actions and decisions.” | Amendments to the Energy Corporation Act in 2008 and the research and development corporation act 2009 significantly reduced access to information related to these two bodies. There have been no amendments to the ATIPPA to “enhance the transparency of government actions.” |
12
| “The Access to Information legislation proposed and passed by the Grimes government in 2001 (though it has not yet been proclaimed) allows the government to exclude a great deal of information from release to the public under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences". We will limit that exemption so more information that rightly belongs in the public domain will be accessible to the public.” | No action to limit the exemption. A request for disclosure of polling (specifically listed in the 2002 legislation as not being exempt from disclosure) was denied initially on the grounds it may disclose cabinet confidences. |
13
| “Also, the legislation will be changed so any information that continues to fall under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences" will be released earlier.” | No action taken |
14
| “We will enact changes to tighten up the exceptions to the release of information.” |
Amendments to two other acts in 2008 and 2009 created new mandatory exemptions.
|
15
| “We will remove provisions that allow the cabinet to override the legislative provisions of the Act by regulation at their discretion.” | No action taken. |
16
| “Finally, we will shorten the time lines for the release of information so information that rightly belongs in the public domain is available to the people of the province on a timely basis. Access delayed is sometimes access denied.” | No action taken. |
17
| “A Progressive Conservative government will commission a process of public consultation directly or through a special committee of the House of Assembly to develop appropriate and strict legislation for the registration of lobbyists operating in this province.” | |
18
| “The primary objective of the legislation will be to establish a registry so the public can see by whom their Members and their government are being lobbied.” | Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004. |
19
| “The legislation will require that lobbyists report their activities. It may also require those who hold public office to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.” |
Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
Public office holders are not required to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied. |
20
| “The legislation may require lobbyists to file their general objectives and/or their specific lobbying activities.” |
Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
|
21
| “The legislation may differentiate between those who are paid to lobby government and those who represent volunteer or non-profit agencies.” |
Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
|
22
| “The legislation will impose significant penalties for those who violate these provisions.” | The only penalty that may be imposed is the cancellation of a registration or the refusal to register a lobbyist for period not to exceed one year in duration. |
23
| “We will also ask the legislature to adopt a strict code of conduct for all Members, to be enforced by the Commissioner of Members' Interests, emphasizing their accountability to the wider public interest and to their constituents, and the need for openness, honesty and integrity in their dealings with the public, constituents and lobbying organizations.” | A code of conduct for members of the House of Assembly was included in the House accountability act in 2007 on the recommendation of Chief Justice Derek Green. Prior to the disclosure of the House of Assembly spending scandal, no action appears to have been taken on this. |
Just before Christmas, the provincial government released a batch of expense claims for provincial cabinet ministers in a policy supposedly aimed at fulfilling the government’s commitment to transparency.
The claims reports will be issued twice, yearly, covering six months of the calendar year. (January to June and July to December) As such, the reports don’t match the government’s own fiscal reporting year (April to March) and they only cover claims paid during the period. Any claims made in December 2008, for example, won’t be included unless they were paid before the report was issued before month-end. As such, any claims made for December won’t be revealed to the public until June 2009.
The government accounting system is much more flexible than this and would easily allow government to report on the quarterly basis already used by the federal government for its proactive disclosure. The feds also reveal any contracts let by departments on a quarterly basis and include expense claims for senior political staff. The federal reports thus provide considerably more disclosure and are considerably more transparent than the provincial ones.
Any more detailed information on the claims would require an access to information act request with all the associated fees and charges, delays and censoring. As your humble e-scribbler discovered last year, Executive Council is so vigorous in discouraging requests for information that it doesn’t even apply its own policies as posted on the government website.
Informal requests are non-existent - at least when it comes to the central hub controlling government information - and the office will only start processing a request once a form has been completed and a fee submitted. That isn’t what the policy states:
Before you make a request using the legislation, you may wish to try other, informal means to obtain the records you are seeking. Contact the public body (Access and Privacy Coordinators) which you believe has the records. Often, you can get the information you want in this informal way, without using the legislation. This route will often be faster for you and less expensive for public bodies to administer.
This new expense claim disclosure policy is a baby step in the right direction but there’s a long way to go before people who believe in government transparency and in access to information will stop referring to current provincial government policy as freedom from information rather than freedom of information.
-srbp-
Used to be, not so long ago, that public servants were different from political staff.
The distinction was important as one served to keep a check on the other.
No longer.
According to CBC News, the premier has appointed a top “aide” – a term normally used to refer to political staff – as deputy minister of natural resources, a position at the top leadership level of the public service.
The distinction between the top echelons of the public service - typically non-partisan permanent employees of government - and the political staff took a while to erase but in the decade since Brian Tobin really started to undermine the difference, the two have now fused together.
The damage to government and the public service has yet to be calculated.
In some respects though we can already see it.
Only last spring, Tom Rideout resigned in a dispute within cabinet over road work for his district. The premier admitted that a senior member of his political staff oversaw the allocation of spending, ostensibly to ensure it was done fairly. of course, the result was anything but fair and impartial according to a set of standards applied transparently and equitably to all cases, irrespective of partisan, political considerations.
Not a single news outlet in the province reported that road paving was decided by political staff.
Instead, they parroted the premier’s characterisation of the situation as “normal” even though it was - quite obviously - far from that.
Is it any wonder that government here and elsewhere continues to be unaccountable, when even news organizations that are usually pretty careful about their use of language can’t get the rights of things?
-srbp-
Danny Williams receives personal files on reporters who interview him.
He confirmed that fact, telling reporters the files are to help him prepare for those interviews.
"When I am provided with a personal file it's an information file to get me ready for an interview with the press," he told reporters at the news conference. "It is not the down and dirty on you or you or you or anybody else."
The Telegram learned of the files last December when one of its reporters received a government e-mail by mistake that asked a political staffer to prepare "purple files on both" that reporter and another who had also requested an interview with the Premier.
Not for both, as in for the interviews, but on both, clearly implying the files were to be prepared on the reporters.
Briefing notes and talking points are routine material prepared for interviews. They include background information, suggested responses to questions and other similar information that focuses on the subject matter of the interview.
They typically don't focus on the reporter personally, unless the reporter has been following a particular - usually contentious - issue for a while and hence has an understanding or interpretation of an issue that's already established. Even then, the clippings are only useful to get a perspective on how the issue has been approached, not on the reporter personally.
In the Telegram case, the interviews were for year-end wrap-ups.
"A reporter basically came in the room one day and saw a purple file on the desk and assumed it was a purple file about that reporter... absolutely untrue," Williams said. "That insinuation, I've got to tell you, is really offensive."
What insinuation, you may ask?
As usual it's Williams who provided the sinister cast to the whole episode. He suggested that the request by the Telegram for those purple files under the province's open records laws was based on the belief that the files contained personal profiles of the reporters.
The Telegram just went looking for the files, without specifying the contents.
The official response from the premier's department said that there were "no responsive records" meaning they had no such information or files.
Clearly that wasn't true, as the Premier admitted last week and as the Premier's communications director had already admitted to the Telegram via e-mail months ago.
Telegram editor Russell Wangersky focuses on this issue for his Saturday column, recounting much of what is presented above. He takes the cue from the notion of offensive to raise another point:
As offensive, say, as collecting files on political rivals to trot out in Question Period? "When the member opposite was minister, she bought two cases of wine." That sort of thing?
Indeed.
Nor hardly surprising from a politician who likes to talk about the amount of energy he spends on people who criticize his regime.
Or one who likes to call reporters to bitch about their columns and articles. Like in this case where Williams called a reporter involved in the purple files controversy to complain that the reporter had appealed the case to the province's information commissioner.
Or a guy who calls ordinary citizens about their letters to the editor.
Politically, Danny Williams is in yet another hard spot on the subject of transparency and accountability, let alone free speech.
He likes to pat himself on the back for his supposed commitment to the virtues of open government, but whenever push comes to shove, his first response is to shove back hard and slam the doors shut on disclosure.
In this case, Williams' office has been caught both compiling personal files on reporters as interview preparation material. Then his department has been caught denying the files exist, at least as far as the province's open records laws. And let's be absolutely clear, under those laws, the contents of those files - irrespective of the colour of the folder - is accessible.
Now Williams' himself has compounded the problem by insisting on hiding the files he himself acknowledges exist based not on anything other than his own self-righteous indignation.
He will surely understand that a great many people are highly suspicious of his actions.
This is just the latest in a long string of secrecy issues for the Williams administration:
In this case, as in all the other cases, including the numerous reports the administration sits on in spite of the pledge to release them within 30 days of being received, the Premier and his staff deliberately fight any attempt at disclosure. They kick and scream when - if things are really as innocuous as they claim - the simplest thing to do would be to release the documents.
Russell Wangersky makes an eminently sensible point in that respect.
But when a politician and his staff try to conceal things - as they obviously are - and when other public servants make false statements - there are responsive records in this case - you have to wonder what they are trying to hide.
You don't have to wonder why they try to hide things: the administration has demonstrated repeatedly it does not believe in openness, transparency and accountability.
If it did, people within it - including the Premier himself - wouldn't spend so much time trying to hide things from the public.
-srbp-
Before someone gagged Ivan Morgan, he used to write the odd column - at the Herald and the now dead Independent - on local politics. He offered sometimes pithy observations, sometimes no so worthwhile thoughts.
Then someone laid a hand on his shoulder and told him to stop.
So he started writing about jam jams.
Back in the days when Ivan actually felt free to offer his opinion, he wrote an open letter to Ross Reid.
This was back in the days before October 2003 when all changed and Ivan it should be allowed was prepared to crown Danny the greatest ever long before the guy had a chance to warm the chairs on the 8th floor. Ross was doing good work overseas and Ivan felt the need to appeal to Ross' civic sense and ask the guy to come back and help keep an eye on Danny.
So your job...will be to keep a lid on Danny and his merry band. Take the edge off - so to speak.
There's a bit earlier on than that quote where Ivan talks about Tory insiders muttering darkly about Danny's "management style."
Odd how these things slip your mind until they magically appear in your inbox.
Click on the picture, right, and the thing will pop up large enough for you to read.
-srbp-
While the crowd at Tammany on Gower are fighting over the recent firing of an internal auditor, they are missing a fairly obvious solution to the problem of ensuring that the City's books are well-watched: let John Noseworthy have a look at them.
The City of St. John's has been run for far too long as a closed shop without much in the way of public oversight or scrutiny. The current council - every single one of them - has yet to demonstrate the slightest concern for transparency and accountability particularly when it comes to the way city council spends public money.
Sure there has been plenty of talk, especially from Ron Ellsworth. But Ellsworth's already shown himself to be good at talk, but not much when it comes to the action of disclosure. Heck, when confronted with a simple question about a political poll he'd commissioned, Ellsworth couldn't figure out whether to fib or fess up. So he did both, first fibbing and then confessing he was behind it.
Talk is cheap.
If Ellsworth and his cronies at ToG want to earn public confidence, they'd start by letting John Noseworthy audit the city books.
At the same time, since they've made such a public spectacle of the internal auditor, it is incumbent on city officials to disclose the details of what went on. They will howl at the prospect and try and find every legal means to keep the whole mess under wraps, but the whole episode stinks to high heavens.
A little sunlight will help disinfect the place.
Something says, though, the council and senior officials will be doing everything possible to put up blinds, all the while talking a good game about the benefits of solar energy.
It's what city council does.
-srbp-
Included in the money is $73 million for the 2008-09 provincial roads improvement program. That's a 10 per cent increase over the $66.5 million the program got last year.Tom knows all about it. So does everyone else in cabinet, most likely.
"I hope I don't give Finance Minister (Tom) Marshall a heart attack today because I'm going to be looking for another 10 per cent over and above my $66.5 million," [transportation minister Diane] Whalen joked.
From The Telegram online edition:
Asked by The Telegram whether that means the standard for ministers is that, as long as their activity is not illegal, it’s fine, Williams said:
"We as a government will get involved (when there is) illegal activity. From my own perspective, I’m not going to sit down and pass judgment on every single member — whether they’re NDP or Liberal or PC or anybody else — every single time the press decides that there’s a question here of whether this was proper spending of money or not."
Was that a "yes"?
-srbp-
So Walter Noel wants the Liberal nomination in St. John's east for the upcoming federal election.
And he's indignant at the Auditor General's recent report on inappropriate spending by members of the House of Assembly.
better to suck it up, Walter, and stop whining about reporters showing up at your house.
Settle the whole matter toute de suite and without hiring an expensive solicitor.
If one of the self-described moving forces behind the Vic Young mythology committee wants to re-enter elected politics, he's only got to pass a simple test:
Reveal the names of all the people who received gifts - both in cash through donations and in the various items described by Noel and the AG - which Noel claimed from his public expense accounts both as a minister and as a member of the legislature.
Tell the voters what he bought, where he bought it, who he gave it to and how much it cost.
Noel's original story was that he had handed out gloves and scarves. Now it's supposedly women's golf shirts and jackets. See, if there had only been a couple of gifts, it's hard to imagine how gloves and scarves could be confused with golf shirts. Since Noel served as a cabinet minister for much of his time in the legislature he had access to two expense accounts. Maybe he was getting the two confused when he made his original comment, but since he was able to tell CBC radio on Friday what the invoices said that accompanied his expense claims, that tell us that Noel has a set of copies. So let's see the whole schmeer, Walter.
Send the information to bondpapers at hotmail dot com, Walter, and we'll be happy to tell taxpayers how you spent their money.
Better still, make photocopies of the receipts and claims available and Bond Papers will gladly post scans of them.
Under the circumstances, when you've already spent public money, Walter, and want another shot at spending it, you have an obligation to disclose exactly how you spent the money of a half million other taxpayers the last time you sat in a legislature.
-srbp-