DearClyde
Chief Justice Derek Green has been given terms of reference for his
review of political compensation. While Green is not conducting a
judicial review of the past goings-on he can look at a variety of
information to see what should be done in future. He can also summon
witnesses.
•••
Dear
You are cordially invited to appear before me on Sept. 5 and explain
the original intent of constituency allowances.
Sincerely,
Derek Green
RSVP
•••
A second letter …
Dear Mr. Wells,
I need to meet with you regarding your constituency allowances for the
years 1989-1991. Further, I would appreciate it if you could provide
information respecting spending practices of some cabinet ministers for
the same years.
Sincerely,
John Noseworthy
Auditor general
•••
If the auditor general files a 15.1 (which is what he filed on Ed Byrne
et al) how will that work? Harvey Hodder will get the report and
proceed to jog down to the courthouse to question the Chief Justice?
Will Justice Minister Marshall refer that to the police? How would that
interview go?
As for Paul Dicks and the CBC’s revelation that they had the scoop -
journalists in the city knew this when it happened, they did nothing.
When the former AG, now MHA Elizabeth Marshall was going off her head
over being kept out of the books, the only people who pressed the
matter were ordinary citizens. The Opposition did not care, the media
brushed it off, and government members circled the wine laden wagon.
Let’s carry on, next year’s annual garden party with the Lieutenant
Governor Roberts. Will the Chief Justices, the Auditor General, and
the looking glass. That should be Chuck Furey and commissioner of
Members interests but he was there during the time too.
Will we have bounty hunters tracking politicians out of the province
and enjoying their retirement? Will our Brian be hauled out of his
consultations with
meeting? The transportation commission of
halt.
We have learned nothing from
our armpits and we are about to drown. The incestuous political
community of our province continues to weigh down our progress and
paints a sad but costly artwork of who we are.
Sadly as one Chief Justice chats with another our rural communities
pass without remembrance or even a proper funeral. Not likely we are
going to save them.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Column in the Independent "News to Me"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The easiest and surest way to figure out the background on constituency allowances and the broader issues of remuneration for elected officials, one need look no farther than the Morgan Commission report.
The later Dr. Morgan laid the whole thing whole thing out fairlysuccinctly and in fact the definition used by the AG in his recent reports is taken from Morgan, if I recall correctly.
The issue would seem to be not what was originally intended but what the intention was when the policy regarding these monies was changed in June 1996.
On another matter, you seem to be confused about the Auditor General's reports under s. 15 of the AG act.
The AG Act clearly indicates that a report under s. 15 of the AG Act is made by the AG to the Minister of Finance. What happens after that is up to cabinet.
If the matter is referred to the police then the police have all the power to investigate anyone they have cause to investigate, provided the individual is still alive.
In this instance, the AG has been sent into the House by order of the LG-in-Council. Harvey Hodder doesn't really enter into the discussion any more than he has to date, that is, except as a talking head.
Thanks Ed for your commentary. No I am definately not confused on the 15.1 filings. I am aware it goes to the Minister and a determination will be made whether to forward it on. Actually it appears Harvey is the one in constant confusion and I was spoofing that, it is a column. As for the ref to the police; that is to say if it followed the lead of the others again I was dealing with the state of it all. I'm sure you know that also. Sorry I used Clyde as an example but you know he is a Chief Justice and was the Premier of the period.
I also know the backgound of the allowances,apparently our MHA's do not, thus the problem.
My use of Harvey, you know, was to reference his inappropriate behavior from the get-go.
I guess you somewhat appreciate that at least somebody is asking questions these days.
I am going to go out on a limb here. Ed you and I can debate each others commentaries probably like no others - I have to ask where are we going with that. There are distinct similarities in our concerns. How do we deal with the lack of media on Danny and the fact that few real questions are asked?
I certainly took my smacks for the questions and it sent you to look yourself at the whole charity thing.
I wonder does it ever end because this sort of children's tag is what Danny relies on.
First Ed there is a question left on the table. Do you believe the CP is accurate?
Second I am not a proponent of a billion a year. In fact many years vary greatly. There is no onus on me to provide all the research you are looking for. If you wish to hire me, as you would Wade Locke or yourself I will provide it. Suffice to say that the analysis is readily available through Hydro Quebec documents.
The reference to the CP saying a billion in total is simply putting the more realistic amount of a billion annually of late. This year it will be much more.
I repeat, you should banter with Danny and the things you would like to see fixed, some of which we agree. Your inability to see this is the Premier's best shot.
You wrote, among other things: "My use of Harvey, you know, was to reference his inappropriate behavior from the get-go."
I know no such thing and I would appreciate it if you would not attribute things to me in this way.
Your post here, like several of your posts lately seem to be disjointed collections of comments that do not make a clear point. If they do, then I am certainly seeing where you are going with them.
In this particular post, I offered some information which I thought would address some of the points you raised at the beginning of your column.
The rest of it I largely ignored since they are merely your opinions. Generally, you seem to be of the view that no one is asking questions and that the media and politicians are all part of one big incestuous mess.
I disagree.
There are some very serious issues but I believe that there are a great many people of good will who are working to address them.
Part of the political process is a discussion of the issues and we certainly have been seeing that with respect to the House of Assembly scandal.
A proper discussion must be based on an understanding of the relevent facts. When there is inaccurate information, it is very difficult to identify the issues.
As an example of the inaccurate information, in this post, you refer to CJ Wells as having been Premier in the period and make reference to 1989 to 1991. He was Premier for part of the period currently under review, specifically from 1989 to January 1996, having been first elected to the House for the second time in 1987.
Moreover, the Premier and cabinet did not then and should not now be setting rules for the House of Assembly. This is a matter for the members themselves collectively and in 1989, the legal mechanisms were used by the House to set up a fairly tight administrative system.
That system was altered in June 1996, about five months after Wells left office. CBC Radio recently covered this in a background report using minutes from the Internal Economy Commission meetings. The reporter involved was able to narrow down the date of the change quite specifically.
A public inquiry - and apparently only a public inquiry - will arrive at an understanding of what occured from at least 1996 onward. That same public inquiry would also avoid one of the dangerous trends underpinning the recent actions, namely the emasculation of the House itself and ever great power being concentrated in the Premier's Office and cabinet.
All that said, though, in this post I simply offered some accurate information that I figured would clear some of the points you raised. if you find that inconvenient or distracting then so be it.
Actually if you lightened up and took the column, not news piece in the manner it was intended you would see there are no relevant inaccuracies. I can produce a column which would rhyme chapter and verse of the procedures because you and I can both read. It would not be printed and space would not be provided.
You have on several occasions corrected Harvey and his behavior and questioned it. That's in your blog.
I do not find it inconvenient but the question begs why would you not open yours to the same?
I took it as it was presented and there are the inaccuracies I noted.
You wrote: "I can produce a column which would rhyme chapter and verse of the procedures because you..."
If this is so, then why do you consistently make errrors of basic fact, such as buggering up the dates when someone was Premier or ask questions, as in the original post, that are answerable with a bit of easy research?
Either you know the correct answers and for some inexplicable reason chose to make the mistakes...
or you do not actually know the difference when you make mistakes.
The reason these things are important is because the more errors of fact you make, the more erroneous conclusions you draw from a tiny piece of information,the less credible your overall argument is.
If you deliberately make mistakes of fact then one must wonder what purpose is served by saying things you know are incorrect.
If you just blurt things out without checking, then we have to question your claim that you do extensive research before you speak or write.
Is there a third alternative explanation I missed?
Clearly in this instance you made a great many relevent errors of fact.
Why is that?
There is no error there are ifs....
Why is it we cannot comment on your blog?
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
and why is it exactly that you refuse to answer simple and straightforward questions that go to the heart of your postings?
Since you allow comments on your blog, it seems strange you won't actually engage in a discussion.
Sorta makes having comments a useless exercise if all you do is duck, dodge and ignore.
Post a Comment