Sue's Blog will post extensively on the Report of the Auditor General "On a Review of Constituency Allowance Claims" 1989-90 - 2005-06. This is the first of such posts.
As the Report accentuated the abuse of taxpayer dollars by Paul Dicks - I have sent the following to the Governor of the Bank of Canada - where Mr. Dicks sits on the Board of Directors.
Dear Mr. Dodge,
I am writing as a citizen of Canada who wishes to express my concern respecting the previous activities of a member of the Bank's Board of Directors.
Mr. Paul Dicks - a board member and former MHA and Minister of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been named by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador as having made numerous and significant inappropriate expenditures of public money.
Please refer to the Report of the Auditor General 2007 issued as at today's date. Please use the link below to access.
AG Report
I feel the behavior of Mr. Dicks with respect to his fiduciary duties to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was abysmal.
A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the people): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.
I trust the information delivered by the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador would cause concern to any citizen of this province - this country - and the leadership of the Bank of Canada.
Please take the time to review the tabled report and I trust the Bank will take appropriate action.
Best Regards,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
6 comments:
Sue, good one.
I laughed so hard when I read your letter I almost dropped my beer (paid for out of my own pocket by the way).
Don't get me wrong. I love the fact that you've brought this to the attention of the BOC but in reality (sadly) you know the worst that could happen as well as I do.
Either they'll ignore your letter, in which case Mr. Dicks will continue to enjoy his career, or they will remove him from his position.
The latter will probably cost the taxpayers far more than he could possibly pocket himself.
We all know how folks in that position are "entitled to their entitlements" so firing him will probably mean hundreds of thousands or even millions for his golden parachute.
Once again Sue, great job in sending the letter but reality is reality sadly enough.
Any person who takes advantage of a situation such as what was exposed today by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be brought to task.
Is there no wonder that we have not been able to move forward over the past 500 years when we have people who take such advantage of the public purse.
Are they oblivious to the sufferings by the ordinary people of this province, that they would do such a thing?
The actions outlined in today's report is nothing short of thievery. Where do these people get the face to carry on? Their emotions must be comprised of cast iron that is all I can say!
I am really sick to my stomach thinking of the stolen monies, all the while I am thinking of people who have had to use up their lives saving to take care of ailments such as ALS and other terminal diseases. I hear one such person giving an accounting every day on VOCM Radio Talk shows. At present the person is even contemplating divorce from his wife because not only did he have to use up his savings but his wife has to do the same so that he can get a little bit longer out of his life.
People who spend the public's money are very low life without any emotions or compunction. They should be forced to pay back every cent they took and go to jail as well. Only by paying back the people's money to the Newfoundland and Labrador Treasuary and going to jail will they realize the severity of their crime. If a person gets off free, well then there is no lesson learned and they will repeat the same crime again when the next opportunity arises.
No - I believe removing a Board Member from the Bank of Canada would not cost us anything - it will certainly save us futher emabarassment.
Stick it too them Mrs Kelland-Dyer.!!!
You are missing the point entirely..especially went you spout off about fiduciary duty.
The issue of Mr. Dickks and others, is about ethics and morals.
Let's not forget that there was no clear line of acceptabilty when it came to constituency expenditures.The Green report confirmed this. Was it wrong; absolutely. Was it unethical; absolutely.
By definition... fiduciary duty is a legal relationship between two or more parties. In the instance of Paul Dicks and others there was no "issue" as it relates to "legal relationships" reagrding his constituents and the IEC
I appreciate your points but a little more thought would help the discussion.
Tony
I am not missing the point. If you look at the definition I use - you will find it suitable. Further the House of Assembly is the highest form of legal jurisdiction - they make the law.
It is suitable and as such Paul Dicks hardly exemplifies the image necessary to be maintained by the bank of Canada. Dicks was also a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Post a Comment