MHA's slushed it up before the last Election

The annual members allowances which includes the infamous constituency slush-fund is always a topic du jour. Today Sue's Blog will discuss what we know about the goings on before the last general election in October 2003.

Ideally the situation is that once an election writ is dropped - the use of the allowances also stops - until a new member or incumbent is sworn in.

Ethically - the MHA's would keep the taxpayer in mind when using these funds as they are allocated to cover the fiscal period between April 01 to March 31 for all years.

Roughly 55% of the fiscal year 2003-2004 had elapsed as at election day leaving a reasonable person to assume that roughly 55% had been spent - theoretically meaning that 45% would be left in the allowances to cover expenses for the remainder of the year. Even if we give a 10-15% variance to cover what might be prepaid annual expenses - it would therefore be reasonable to assume any successful candidate - incumbent or new MHA could avail of these prepaid services.

Would you - as a voter - find it worthwhile knowing how much of an annual allowance was spent prior to an election which occurred 55% into a year? I would - so I checked.

First let's understand what information is available to the public and what is not. If an MHA either did not seek re-election or lost - we can determine how much of the allowance was spent prior to the election. If an incumbent won - we cannot determine how much of the annual allowance was spent up as Schedule C of the Report of the Internal Economy Commission does not give us that breakdown.

Here's what we can determine:

Retired or defeated in 2003 general election -

Member..................Amount Allowed.....Claimed as at election....Percentage

Joan Marie Aylward......$15,200............$15,191...................99.9

Kevin Aylward...........$48,500............$38,500...................79.4

Julie Bettney...........$15,200............$9,456.10.................62.2

Mary Hodder.............$39,700............$33,584...................84.6

Sandra Kelly............$34,800............$32,105.18................92.3

Tom Lush................$40,300............$38,309.30................95.1

Lloyd Matthews..........$15,200............$13,500...................88.8

Earnest McLean..........$55,600............$55,600..................100.0

Robert Mercer...........$42,500............$40,889...................96.2

Walter Noel.............$15,200............$15,100...................99.3

Gerald Smith............$46,900............$33,837.10................72.1

Lloyd Snow..............$36,000............$35,360...................98.2

James Walsh.............$30,500............$30,500..................100.0

With the exception of Julie Bettney and Gerald Smith and perhaps Kevin Aylward these numbers clearly reflect an abuse of the system. They reflect a disdain toward the taxpayer and an arrogance of their power.

You see a couple of things are very wrong here. Those who were not seeking re-election Mary Hodder - Sandra Kelly - Lloyd Matthews and Earnest McLean knew they were leaving virtually nothing or absolutely nothing for the MHA that would replace them. They should have assumed their own district would have been left with no funds for 5 months after the election.

How was this allowance used up and did it go to encouraging the new Liberal candidate's campaign by buttering up the voters with donations - extra visits and newsletters? Should this be considered election financing? It certainly can be considered irresponsible and demonstrates how MHA's used up the funds - knowing that the IEC (MHA's) would top up the pot they had recklessly spent.

In the cases of those MHA's who had to travel significant distances for essential riding business - leaving the pot virtually dry - was even more disgusting.

As it has already been said time and time again - the practise of topping up members allowances after an election was normal. Why was that normal? It was normal because the MHA's through their own exchequer (IEC) essentially wrote their own checks.

Recently we all became aware of the "vague" and "late-filed" bonus the IEC(MHA's) issued to themselves and their colleagues of $2875. The people were led to believe that was to cover shortages in the members allowances following the election - especially new MHA's. That was blown out of the water when we learned that new MHA's were topped up by roughly 50% to cover off shortages in the allowance by MHA's who gouged before the election.

Sue's Blog will now present an hypothesis of the real reason for the $2875 "bonus".

Based on the inconsistent reasons and excuses used by MHA's in attempting to justify the $2875 - it is reasonable to question how many of the successful incumbents on all sides of the House - irresponsibly used a disproportionate percentage of their allowances prior to the election in 2003.

In order to know exactly what happened with all MHA allowances not referenced in the Chart above - they would have to be honest and forthright with that information. Does the Chart above actually represent the spending pattern of all or most MHA's before the last election? If so the House must be cleared - for Order to be restored.

Based on all the information we do have - and the continued arrogance of MHA's toward taxpayer dollars Sue's Blog concludes the pattern suggested is the pattern that existed for all or most MHA's. Therein lies the real reason for the $2875.

Now try and do the honourable thing and tell us the whole truth. This is why we need a public inquiry.