So here's an interesting idea, courtesy of someone who knows politics: how about provincial PC party president John Babb for the next child and youth advocate?
After all, appointing past Tory party president Paul Reynolds to be chief electoral officer has been so smooth and devoid of controversy ...
But seriously: take a step back from our own little patch of the planet and ask yourself how this must all look to an outside observer. We've have scores of "honourable members" who dipped into constituency funds and were forced to pay back money they should never have taken.
Stellar conduct
We had a group of MHAs operate a star chamber for years that set their own salaries and allowances, issuing deliberately deceptive minutes and operating with no financial oversight whatsoever.
We've had four members of the House of Assembly - members from every party in the House - convicted of defrauding the government and the people they were supposed to serve.
And we've had a bevy of independent officers of the House removed for questionable behaviour.
Look across the country and ask yourself how rare it is to have one officer of the House removed, and then consider this: we've had three fall into grief.
In the beginning
First, Fraser March was removed from the Office of the Citizens' Representative.
March was tripped up in questions about attendance and the private use of public resources after the province's auditor general flagged questionable spending in the office.
And the tone of March's responses to those concerns is outstandingly revealing.
The auditor general raised concerns about attendance data in March's office.
March's response?
"While the Office of the Citizens' Representative routinely provides attendance data which it is hoped will keep the bean-counters, paper-clip organizers and paper-pushers off our backs, the citizens' representative considers such bureaucratic malingering as an obstacle to professional public service."
Yikes. What part of "get lost" isn't obvious from that little missive?
It gets stranger
This week, after stumbling along for ages, the issue was hopefully put to rest with a report from retired justice John O'Neill, who said the firing was legitimate - although, in the process, suggested there were "a number of additional concerns and inconsistencies that were not addressed by the auditor general," yet another independent officer of the House.
That's not the only officer of the House to be dragged in: March told the O'Neill review that he had provided all of the documentation needed to confirm his travel claims to the Speaker of the House of Assembly - the Speaker of the day had no recollection of having received it, and all of the records, including March's bank records for the period, have apparently disappeared.
O'Neill also threw cold water on another battle between independent officers of the House of Assembly, saying "I do not see the concerns raised by the (auditor general's) reports as an attempt to infringe on the independence of the Citizens' Representative Office."
Next, the province lost its first child and youth advocate, Judge Lloyd Wicks, who resigned after the auditor general found more private use of public funds.
After that, it was Darlene Neville, who was suspended months ago. The province began the formal process of turfing her out of the office for misconduct earlier this week, saying they would make their case abundantly clear later in the week.
Firing both barrels
In her own defence, Neville fired off concerns in all directions, including saying that Barry Fleming, the person who replaced March as citizens' representative, was "embroiled in numerous conflicts of interest" when he followed up on requests by Neville's staff to investigate their treatment in her office.
Neville also pointed to another officer of the House, Speaker Roger Fitzgerald, saying "While I have personally been on the receiving end of Mr. Fitzgerald's less than forthright behaviour, I had not imagined Mr. Fitzgerald's propensity to be less than candid would extend to the premier and his cabinet."
She went on: "Rather than paint a full picture of what transpired, Mr. Fitzgerald elected, through his omission of key events and decisions, to portray the situation in a manner that can only be described as self-serving."
The complaints and counter-complaints are astounding, especially at this level of government.
And these are only the firings and resignations: there have also been concerns about the impartiality of yet another officer of the House, chief electoral officer Reynolds, after he was appointed to the job while he still held a position with the Progressive Conservative Party. In other provinces, chief electoral officers are non-partisan appointments, generally people already actively involved in the electoral process.
Not pretty
All in all, it's not a pretty picture in some of the most senior positions in government.
There are allegations, counter-allegations, and more people leaving or being removed from their positions here than in most of the rest of Canada.
It's not so much a democratic deficit; it looks more like an ethical sinkhole.
Clean it up.
It's beginning to look like a joke.
Russell Wangersky is The Telegram's editorial page editor. He can be reached by e-mail at rwanger@thetelegram.com.
Making a mess of things
-
- Published on December 19th, 2009
- Published on July 1st, 2010
-
Russell Wangersky
So here's an interesting idea, courtesy of someone who knows politics: how about provincial PC party president John Babb for the next child and youth advocate?
After all, appointing past Tory party president Paul Reynolds to be chief electoral officer has been so smooth and devoid of controversy ...
- Number of views : 371
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- Skeptical
- - July 2nd, 2010 at 13:32:53
As an informational follow-up provided for the readers to counter the implication by this columnist that only the NL government is susceptible to malfeasance, I would respectfully suggest that the columnist review his history regarding the Saskatchewan government's fraud scandal of the late 80s/early 90s: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/01/25/fraudmoney000125.html http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011027
-
- James
- - July 2nd, 2010 at 13:20:53
Mr. Wangersky, It appears that ethics has become nothing more than a punch line at cocktail parties?
-
- My3Cents
- - July 2nd, 2010 at 13:19:52
Our very own Mafia. The good part is we're all safe from harm because somebody got to pay for it.
-
- Eugene
- - July 2nd, 2010 at 13:17:11
Okay, so the answer to criticisms of politics in our little corner of the world is to say that that is 'par for the course' in politics and forget about it. I've lived here, almost, all my life and I'm far more qualified to comment on what happens here, in the 21st century than what happened up along in the last century (not to deny the truths of which you speak, Skeptical). What you fail to do, is demonstrate the writer's fallacy in stating that Newfoundland is experiencing more of this, here and now, than most other jurisdictions in the country. And the cleaning up efforts of this government that you applaud include (after the spending scandal came to light) preventing the auditor general from going public with findings of this sort in future. You're right, great job of cleaning up the mess, if under-the-carpet-sweeping is what you mean by 'cleaning up'.
-
- Skeptical
- - July 2nd, 2010 at 13:16:47
Eugene from Town, it may be a failure of comprehension on my part, but I regret to say that I find your comments rather ambiguous and open to more than one interpretation; especially your last sentence, the thrust of which, one could argue, is exactly what the columnist is doing. Without explicitly stating such, the implications made by the columnist are clear and open to only one interpretation. I stand by the comments I made (the points of which you failed to address, I might add).
-
- Skeptical
- - July 2nd, 2010 at 13:16:47
And your assumption then is that there's absolutely nothing of this sort going on within the ranks of other provincial governments simply because nothing untoward has made itself apparent? Pursuing that assumption to its logical conclusion then implies that if this whole sordid mess had never become public due to the current governments attempt to clean it up, the columnist could rest easy in the knowledge that all must be right within the ranks of government, because he has not heard otherwise. With regards to the columnist's assumption that everything must be just peachy within the internal affairs of other provincial governments, I would point out that absence of proof is not proof of absence. At best this columnist is being unscientific; at worst he's being naive.
-
- Eugene
- - July 2nd, 2010 at 13:15:41
The grass is always greener to the editor according to 'Skeptical (sic) Cynic. But one should carefully read the piece (if one finds their reactions interfering with their objective senses) and see that cases of officers of the legislature being turfed out, accused of conflicts, and prosecuted for misconduct is of a higher incidence in this province: which is true. I don't think that Wangersky even made mention of hidden machinations, nor denied that they exist elsewhere; his words: 'There are allegations, counter-allegations, and more people leaving or being removed from their positions here than in most of the rest of Canada.' This is where we live and if the only answer to questions surrounding the integrity of our elected and appointed public figures is to look at other jurisdictions for proof that it is endemic to our public institutions, then we may as well close our mouths, cover our eyes, stop up our ears and just be good, suportive (enabling?) monkeys.
-
- Skeptical
- - July 1st, 2010 at 20:21:54
As an informational follow-up provided for the readers to counter the implication by this columnist that only the NL government is susceptible to malfeasance, I would respectfully suggest that the columnist review his history regarding the Saskatchewan government's fraud scandal of the late 80s/early 90s: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/01/25/fraudmoney000125.html http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011027
-
- James
- - July 1st, 2010 at 20:03:58
Mr. Wangersky, It appears that ethics has become nothing more than a punch line at cocktail parties?
-
- My3Cents
- - July 1st, 2010 at 20:02:12
Our very own Mafia. The good part is we're all safe from harm because somebody got to pay for it.
-
- Eugene
- - July 1st, 2010 at 19:57:35
Okay, so the answer to criticisms of politics in our little corner of the world is to say that that is 'par for the course' in politics and forget about it. I've lived here, almost, all my life and I'm far more qualified to comment on what happens here, in the 21st century than what happened up along in the last century (not to deny the truths of which you speak, Skeptical). What you fail to do, is demonstrate the writer's fallacy in stating that Newfoundland is experiencing more of this, here and now, than most other jurisdictions in the country. And the cleaning up efforts of this government that you applaud include (after the spending scandal came to light) preventing the auditor general from going public with findings of this sort in future. You're right, great job of cleaning up the mess, if under-the-carpet-sweeping is what you mean by 'cleaning up'.
-
- Skeptical
- - July 1st, 2010 at 19:56:58
And your assumption then is that there's absolutely nothing of this sort going on within the ranks of other provincial governments simply because nothing untoward has made itself apparent? Pursuing that assumption to its logical conclusion then implies that if this whole sordid mess had never become public due to the current governments attempt to clean it up, the columnist could rest easy in the knowledge that all must be right within the ranks of government, because he has not heard otherwise. With regards to the columnist's assumption that everything must be just peachy within the internal affairs of other provincial governments, I would point out that absence of proof is not proof of absence. At best this columnist is being unscientific; at worst he's being naive.
-
- Skeptical
- - July 1st, 2010 at 19:56:57
Eugene from Town, it may be a failure of comprehension on my part, but I regret to say that I find your comments rather ambiguous and open to more than one interpretation; especially your last sentence, the thrust of which, one could argue, is exactly what the columnist is doing. Without explicitly stating such, the implications made by the columnist are clear and open to only one interpretation. I stand by the comments I made (the points of which you failed to address, I might add).
-
- Eugene
- - July 1st, 2010 at 19:55:20
The grass is always greener to the editor according to 'Skeptical (sic) Cynic. But one should carefully read the piece (if one finds their reactions interfering with their objective senses) and see that cases of officers of the legislature being turfed out, accused of conflicts, and prosecuted for misconduct is of a higher incidence in this province: which is true. I don't think that Wangersky even made mention of hidden machinations, nor denied that they exist elsewhere; his words: 'There are allegations, counter-allegations, and more people leaving or being removed from their positions here than in most of the rest of Canada.' This is where we live and if the only answer to questions surrounding the integrity of our elected and appointed public figures is to look at other jurisdictions for proof that it is endemic to our public institutions, then we may as well close our mouths, cover our eyes, stop up our ears and just be good, suportive (enabling?) monkeys.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
