Why not put out an RFP (Request for Proposals) for our MHA's?
Let's review this - we need rules - we didn't know the rules - we did what the IEC said - I was new and didn't know - in hindsight it was a bad decision - wait for the process to finish.
In 2000 the Auditor General - Elizabeth Marshall informed the IEC (Internal Economy Commission) of some potentially inappropriate spending of constituency allowances regarding art and wine.
The IEC at the time were:
Lloyd Snow - Beaton Tulk - Paul Dicks - Kevin Aylward - Gerald Smith - Loyola Sullivan - and Tom Rideout
The response to that was to bar the Auditor General from the accounts of HOA and to seek legislative amendment. This would mean the AG had to be invited in - in order to do an audit.
On May 11th of 2000 - the Bill was tabled and by leave went to second reading at which point 2 members spoke 4 lines each and passed the legislation. All members supported the Bill.
What has been the result of this one piece of as Loyola Sullivan put it at the time "pretty straightforward and pretty routine" legislation?
Tom Rideout is the only survivor of that group.
In 2004 the IEC received a proposal and approved that proposal - which was the $2875 payment to MHA's. The Auditor General says there was no reason given in the minutes for the payment. Harvey Hodder has said it was done to replenish the constituency allowances - as some of the members newly elected had their constituency allowances disproportionately depleted as at the election of October of 2003.
Since then Kathy Dunderdale and Roland Butler say that these new members were given a 6 month top-up of their allowances in addition to this blanket $2875 payment.
The members of the IEC at the time were:
Harvey Hodder
Roger Fitzgerald
Ed Byrne
Loyola Sullivan
Beth Marshall
Percy Barrett
Kelvin Parsons
These individuals have not yet told the public - with the exception of Hodder anything about this event.
None of them have told us where the money was found - and what other budgets it was taken from.
Beth Marshall - who was in Cabinet at the time - chose not to say anything despite her own protestations as an Auditor General for a decade.
The IEC represent the MHA's and are MHA's they have been deliberately responsible for their own rules. Now they all are waiting for Chief Justice Greene to tell them what the rules will be.
The MHA's proceeded to overspend their budget in 2006.
Considering all the foregoing - let's just put out a request for proposals for a group to propose the provision of 30 people who can sit in the legislature and follow Justice Greene's rules. Of course we the people reserve the right to reject any or all bids - but it is most likely the lowest bidder will be accepted.
11 comments:
See our election day specials!
http://ipfreelynl.blogspot.com/
Are you saying we should just go back to Commission government?
Does that mean we would get the vote again on confederation?
I'll think about that one.
How would you vote, Sue?
I'm not sure - how about you?
David Cockrane, CBC Television Legislative Reporter and former CBC radio
Legislative Reporter, President of the Legislature's press club and CBC
Political Panelist has explained this a couple of times on Here and Now. A
few weeks ago when this broke he explained to Randy Simms that this money
was an extra. That each new member was given an amount of money on a scale
to reflect their budgetary needs to the end of the fiscal year. This money
was in addition to that. On top of that this money was in the form of a
direct cheque to the members. It was not added to the const budget and the
expenditure justified through receipts! So the argument that this was to
make up for depleted accounts related to the former members spending their
budgets in complete nonsense. As well it is not news. The problem is the
members have bought into their own fiction. Butler and Dunderdale doe not
have to look beyond their own caucus to point fingers at who is responsible.
For all the members who suddenly look like they got their hands stuck in the
cookie jar, some advice. Have a look at the bakers of these poison cookies.
They are responsible for hoodwinking you. Condemn them and throw them to
the wolves. Those bakers were your caucus reps on the IEC.
On the issue of the former members. The budgets are global and for the
fiscal year. They are no pro-rated or provided monthly. It is not unusual
or out of the normal for members to be low on funds in the lst quarter.
Also one has to keep in mind that the election date was not fixed. It had to
happen before March 2004, but the timing was in the hands of the Premier.
So it is not fair to say x member spend money knowing the election would be
called in September. I think if you were to examine this issue you might
find that all members from all parties probably were more active in the year
of an anticipated election. The bottom line is if the ran out of money
there was not supposed to be anymore. They are supposed to live within the
amounts prescribed and approved not on at IEC but in the budget process
which is determined by a committee of the whole, which is all the member of
the house in full session.
Any member who overspend and voted to accept the numbers as revised in the
budgets knew they were misleading the public. Those folks should have to
answer for committing some sort of public fraud.
Just to put Roland Butler's comments in perspective. The Commission of
Internal Economy is a seven member committee. It is comprised of the speaker
(who is the minister for the House Of Assembly and is supposed to be
neutral) three government members and two members of the Official opposition.
(the ndp have no representation). They meet to discuss and approve rules
and procedures for House Of Assembly Expenditures. ie. They dealt with the
Fraser Marche Affair. The minutes are secret and they vote on a consensus.
No show of hands or recorded votes. Thus the majority wins all the time.
The fact that the former Auditor General and the Minister of Finance were
on that committee when these decisions were made make this extra cash a tory
scandal. However the liberal are complicit because they accepted it. Keep
in mind none of the liberals were new to the house of assembly. However it
was the conservatives that decried the sky wass falling and a correction was
needed to maintain the delivery of government services. Sullivan, Byrne,
Hodder and Marshall were all players in that skit, and none of them had bit
parts. Sullivan was the Minsiter who said no raises which brought on a
strike. Hodder locked strikers out of the House Of Assembly! Despite all of
this this bi-partisan gang (no NDP Input) felt it was okay to swallow up the
surpluss of another division of the Hosue of Assembly and direct it to the
the members.
All the members of the House Of Assembly raised money for their election
campaigns. Expenses are public and are up for scrutiny. There is a
provision in the elections act for candidate's personal expenses. Thus
there is no justification at all for an extra allotment of money to defray
extra costs in an election year. What happened is this. The House Of
Assembly ran a surplus because the AG's Office. The piggies at the trough
found a way to put that money into their pockets rather than let it slip
back to general revenues at the end of the fiscal year. It was purely and
simply a cash grab.
The ironic part of this is the tragic role of Ms. Marshall. I have to say I
have come to respect her a great deal. Visions of her steaming sitting on
her arse in the speakers office as the AG when the Liberal dominated IEC
refused to let her look at the books. Her desire to do the right thing, to
fight for transparency in the expenditure of the tax payers dollar. The
triumph she must have felt in getting elected, getting appointed to Cabinet
and than appointed to the IEC Committee herself. The former AG ensured the
current AG could access the budgets and look what he has turned up. Kudo to
Liz. The sad part of this is that she was forced early on to compromise on
her principles by turning a blind eye (she refused to accept the
money....she would not have done that had she had not thought it was wrong)
on the very backroom graft that she so vilagently opposes and exposed. I
try and put myself in her place. If she had kicked up a fuss at that time
would it just have isolated her and probably made her less effective in
reaching her goal of getting the AG into the snakes nest? I guess the public
will have to judge her role in this conspiracy of silence, in the scanty
minutes and here unwillingness to stop this flow of cash.
It must be particularly vexing to the half dozen people who were laid off or
had their hours significantly cut less than a year later when the opposition
office budgets were cut by the same committee.
Everyone who took the extra cash might not have known what it was for or
where it came from but the members of the IEC dam well knew that they were
at and we wonder why things are out of control up their. Those on the
committee at the time who diverted money from the Auditor Generals budget to
the salary and benefit's of the members of the House Of Assembly should
resign. Let the public decide if they are fit to be in office.
I thought you'd already declared for independence Sue or was that before Ryan let someone trash you in print?
Its really funny when someone asks you a question and you just didge it.
Well, my people in 1948, voted twice for Canada (the first time they had a real vote for anything, I believe), and one vote was for just under 80% and the other was very near 85%. Exact figures are round here somewhere but I'd say you get the picture. I honestly don't think their decendants would vote any differently, except, very likely, higher. That's what I think.
This would be the people of Labrador?
Yes, the people of Labrador overwhelmingly supported Confederation. Sorry, meant to insert that.
no prob...
Sue
Post a Comment