Here's the deal - Ryan asked me if I would do a column in the paper on June 07-06. I said I would - and mt first one appeared June 18-06. They ran weekly after that until Ryan sent me the following request on August 07-06:
Morning Sue,
Hope your weekend was a good one.
We have a meeting scheduled for 1 p.m. Tuesday.
Before we meet, however, I need to bring a few things up.
One point that's been raised with me is the fact you work as a
consultant/lobbyiest —or at least you have in the recent past.
I've been asked who you're working for besides The Independent.
I cannot answer the question because I do not know myself.
Considering you have worked as a consultant — I need a list of all
companies/individuals/parties —essentially anybody you've worked for
over the past three years.
ryan
This request was made for employment purposes. My answer to the question should have remained confidential - as it was not asked by a journalist for a story. In fact Ryan could have telephoned me and should have telephoned me to ask the same question for a story almost a year later. He did not.
Having said that - I told Ryan I was not working for anyone or any company that I was writing about. Ryan could have supplied a list of industries and organizations that may have placed me in conflict - he did not. Further he only asked the question three months in. The truth is Ryan found the whole thing amusing - and that's not surprising. In my opinion Ryan knew what my answer would be before he asked the question.
I was working on a fairly expansive piece on charities in Canada and problems within the Canada Revenue Agency. This story was hard hitting and included interviews with MP's of the NDP and Liberal Parties (Critics for the portfolio). It also included information supplied by employees which demonstrated the problems within the department. The research for both the national and local stories was commissioned by Ryan and his paper. I had completed over 3 weeks of research and the story was about to be published. Then there was a hitch! The story focused on the following:
Charities that had lost their charitable status because they had failed to file their tax returns for 2 years and a problem with bogus charities being set up and operating for over 5 years before they were caught.
As I mentioned there was a local and national component of this research. Many charities in Newfoundland and Labrador had lost their status for failure to file returns. Part of the problem with the smaller ones - like a local museum in a small community was they did not have the people resources. The other problem however was the negligence of some Boards to stay on top of the charity they were serving on. These people were university professors - some within the business faculty. In one case like this receipts were being issued - after the charitable status had been revoked.
In one of these cases - a particular individual kept calling me at home asking that I not publish their information - despite the fact that they had only learned of the revocation because I told them. They went on to correct the problems - that they had not discovered themselves. This individual called me two or three times a day for over a week. Then the calls stopped - and Ryan sent me the email found above.
It's all about who you know - not what is true.
Sue's Blog will publish the information and results of the research over the coming weeks. Then you the reader can decide why Ryan requested the information from me.
While Ryan approved all the interviews and the research - the paper did not pay for the story they did not publish.
Here's the irony - The Privacy Laws both federal and provincial do not protect an employer from releasing employee information (without permission). Even though common sense and ethics prevent most employers from making employment information public - this person decided he would. Further had I released information on my clients - I would have been in violation of the federal law.
On that note - I have contacted the Minister for Employment and a couple of government MHA's regarding this loophole in the legislation regarding privacy for employee information. Alberta - Quebec - and BC have already passed legislation correcting this problem and other provinces were asked to have the same done by 2004 - else the federal law would apply. I trust our government will correct this problem in the near future. If not employers without common sense or integrity can release employee information as Ryan Cleary did.
One further point - Ryan's in depth questions for bloggers - should be applied to let's say Dean MacDonald - who received or is receiving 15 million dollars of the taxpayer dollars for Persona. Ask Dean the tough questions:
Who have you had dealings with over the past three years.
Tell me every social or business contact you have had with the Premier for three years.
This person who has garnered significant government dollars for the company he represents - somehow got through the Lobbyist Act - the deal is currently under review of the Auditor General - who sits on the Premier's committees and is the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - does not get the same question from Ryan - the "journalist"?
And while we are at it - did Ryan ask for a three year list of clients from other columnists? John Crosbie? Randy Simms? Ray Guy? Noreen Golfman? Why me Ryan and why when you did? You need to answer those questions if anybody should consider taking you or your paper seriously.
Ryan Cleary: Do not publish this response in the Independent. You do not have my permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment