Call an Inquiry or "Simon Says" Call an Inquiry

This from a CBC story July 06-07

St. John's blogger Simon Lono, however, believes it is not the job of the police to look at where the constituency spending system broke down.Lono is spearheading an online petition calling for a public inquiry into the operations of the house of assembly.

Gerry Reid today in the Telegram on MHA spending:

"There is enough guilt to go around and everyone feels bad enough as it is," he said.

"I don't think that should become an election issue, because it can work both ways."

Question is will Gerry speak to Simon and ask him not to mention the issue - or will Simon do what he is passionate about and call for a public inquiry during the campaign?

Solid Gold comments - with big hockey stick in tow...

The Premier's eye may be watching me or you or you ....


Thank you to Offal News for bringing to my attention - the discussion by the Premier made about about me and Ed (Bond Papers)today.

The quote was:

"That goes for Roger Grimes, that goes for Sue Kelland-Dyer and that goes for Ed Hollett. That goes for anybody who may attempt to disparage the reputations of people."I'm serving notice on people now that if there's people out there that are going to take away the good reputations of people in public life, then they're accountable to the courts."

This must be a new strategy designed to take the focus off the Premier and the fact - he said nothing about the $2875 2004 constituency (or other name) top-up to all MHA's.

No the Premier did not take the payment - so what? It was offered to him.

On the issue of John Hickey using taxpayer dollars to sue Roger Grimes - sure - another great move by the IEC.

Hickey double-billed - he has admitted to that and paid it back - what are the costs associated with the double-billing?

Costs of the Auditor General
Costs of Cabinet time reviewing
Costs of the Department of Justice reviewing
Costs of RNC investigation...

all because John double-billed....

Who is paying the costs for all the investigative measures?

All the overspending - lost accounting records - forensic accounting - and these guys are on their high horse checking the comments of citizens?

Maybe Danny should start a class action where all MHA's can join in and sue the citizens together. Be much cheaper on us that way.

Honestly the comments are Solid Gold - and I look forward to talking about the chat in the hockey locker-room.

What's next Premier - suing the Auditor General?


Rather than condemn the actions of MHA's who are costing the taxpayers untold millions before the final count is tallied - the Premier chooses to attack private citizens passing legitimate comment and asking legitimate questions regarding the HOA scandal.

What's most interesting about this is the local TV news and VOCM news chose not to report the Premier's unsubstantiated threats to sue both myself and Ed Hollett. The Premier's obvious attempts to silence critics should be reported by the news - and by not doing so - is failing to allow the citizens of the Province to make their own decisions on his behavior. Kudos to The Telegram and the Current and Randy Simms (Open-Line) for reporting what the Premier said - that's the news!

Failure of politicians on all sides of the House to condemn the Premier's attempts to block criticism of his government - is failure to protect our freedom of speech and our democracy. So what's next - conversations at Tim Hortons to be monitored - or maybe each community can have a spy to monitor those political debates around the kitchen table. What's new? It's all about them anyway.

The anti-seal activists can say what they want and run misleading commercials all they want - no law-suit from the Premier. But Newfoundlanders and Labradorians interested in and concerned about our own province will be closely monitored by the Premier? Last question Premier - how is shutting up Sue Kelland-Dyer and Ed Hollett in the best interests of the people or the Province?

They are Still Covering Up

If the Newfoundland and Labrador electorate does not demand an answer to this latest round of "buying our votes with our own money" - we will forever be in a shadow of doubt.

In 2003 - the election year - certain members of the House of Assembly decided to spend all or virtually all of their constituency allowances in the first 6 months of the budget year.

These people - and we need to know who they are - decided to use constituency money for an election campaign (unofficially). They knowingly used a disproportionate amount of the allowance - leaving - if they were unsuccessful - a new member with little or no constituency money.

This tells the voter - that the member put their own re-election ahead of the people.

The Liberal candidates in the upcoming by-elections have called for a public enquiry - why not tell us instead - which Liberal members exhausted their constituency allowances before the general election October 2003...otherwise it is spin - learning quickly.

Now they want to pay it back and let bygones be bygones - without telling us who used the money inappropriately. They want to let the process go through its course - hogwash - they know if they did it or not. They say they want to be open and accountable now - well prove it. Tell us who you are.

Did any Liberal do it in an attempt to save their seat - in a Tory Tidal Wave? Are any of them sitting now?

Did any incumbent long-sitting Tories do it to sure up their vote - for a shot at Cabinet?

Did the NDP do it to save their two seats?

Make them answer this question!

When you get the answer - then make up your own mind. If they don't want to tell you the answer should be obvious.

The Liberal candidates that have called for a public enquiry on the whole constutency spending mess - they should be willing to tell us what sitting Liberals and those defeated in 2003 disproportionatley spent their constituency funds in the first 6 months of that year.

Sample Question:
How much was left in your constituency allowance after the October 2003 election?

Is this what happened?

Sometimes it is difficult to look at events from yesterday - when talking about an event today.

I believe we need to look carefully at the situation May of 2004 - to determine if something else was going on which caused Elizabeth Marshall and Danny Williams to be the only ones that did not take the constituency bonus.

During the years Danny spent in Opposition - he beat the Liberals silly with the Auditor General reports - some of which were completed when Elizabeth Marshall was the AG.

Marshall was handpicked by Williams as this CBC story at the time states.

The story also uses the headline "Accountability target in Topsail"

Here's the most interesting section of that CBC feature on Elizabeth Marshall - the candidate:

Marshall spent 10 years criticizing the Liberal government for its spending habits and book keeping as auditor general. She's the Conservative poster candidate for transparency and accountability — two areas in which she hammered the Liberals in her annual reports.

"I think I'm going in with a great benefit in that I know government very, very well," she says. "I've already thought a lot of things through in my mind, so I think it's a great benefit that I've had that experience in the past."


Cut wasteful spending

Marshall's message when campaigning in the district is one of fiscal responsibility. She says the government has to prioritize, given the province's fiscal position.

So there is Elizabeth - May 2004 - Minister of Health and member of the Internal Economy Commission (IEC) - and no doubt very close to the Premier - politically speaking.

The IEC meets - Beth knows the bonus payment is on the heels of a bitter strike, belt tightening - and increased taxes (service fees). We do not know what she said in that meeting but we do know she would not take the money. Beth also knows this is likely to be picked up on by the Auditor General (a man who was deputy auditor when she was AG) sometime in the future. At the same time - Elizabeth and the Premier would have been collaborating on the development of the Accountability legislation and preparing for what they knew would be messy. (allowing the AG at the books of the HOA)

No doubt Beth Marshall reported on her own colleagues and the Liberals sitting on the IEC to Danny - and I suspect she informed the Premier about that "poor decision" in May of 2004. Being Cabinet buddies and confidantes would have allowed the two to predict the eventual outcome of taking this cash and the two obviously knew it was wrong. Despite the Premier saying he knew nothing of it at the time (his underlings were taking care of it - he described in an interview) I believe Beth Marshall told him about the IEC decision and advised him she would not be taking the payment.

I don't think the Premier gave a damn if a few of his old buddies got the hammer - (Sullivan and Byrne) were expendable - as they were only tolerated and used as they were the old gang that held the works together while Dan was building Cable Atlantic.

After the deed was done and the accountability legislation was well in hand - the formidable Beth Marshall - despite her star qualities and expertise - was now expendable for Williams - she resigned in September of 2004.

So much for her campaign promise of transparency and accountability - she said nothing about the decision to increase the allowances and nothing about the vague way in which was noted.

Well now she is no longer in Cabinet and no longer on the IEC - her expertise and credentials no longer needed to lead government's financial affairs - but Elizabeth - remember - this particular expenditure - was under your watch. And Premier it's about time you said something about the elimination of your star candidate from Cabinet and your determination that she has nothing to offer the people of the province in such a role.

What does the Premier say about it all? Pay it back - okay that could have been avoided had you spoken up 2 years ago. What does Elizabeth Marshall say? Nothing - that speaks volumes.

From what we've seen from the AG so far - the Liberals were not keen on ensuring good records were kept or indeed did not bother to take the lead to correct the mess. Naturally they all took the cash - and from what I heard from Gerry Reid on CBC - entitled to their entitlements - until caught at which point you say "in hindsight it was a bad decision". Ha Ha Ha.....

Minister of Business needs Rules and Direction

I mean you know - with regards to - be honest witchu Minister of Business - Kevin O'Brien - could not tell Randy Simms on Open Line this morning what his constituency allowance was.

This is the Minister of Business!

Kevin O'Brien then added that his spouse and Executive Assistant manage his allowance for him.

This is the Minister of Business!

Kevin O'Brien now says the decision to grant themselves $2875 was not a good one. Hindsight!

This is the Minister of Business!

Kevin O'Brien says he needs a clear set of rules and directions in order to spend his $30,000 allowance properly.

This is the Minister of Business!

and now this MHA sits on the IEC.

Tell me what advice and leadership can he provide business?

Write the Real Story

Tell us the complete story!

Here is the part we know - there was an election 2003 - new people took their seats and some were defeated.

This was in November 2003 ...

Apparently there were MHA's that had no money left in their allowances after the last election.

Some MHA's had to spend all of their money for 2003-2004 by the 2003 election in October.

What did they do?

Did they run out and spend it all to get re-elected? If that is the case we need the answers.

Harvey Hodder stated yesterday that he told (whoever) that this was the last time extra money was going to be approved.

1. How did the request to the IEC come about?

2. Who had little or no money left in their allowances following the election?

3. Was the constituency fund of any member gouged for election purposes?

4. How much was in each MHA's fund 1 month before the election and how much was left after the election?

5. Why did all MHA's get the extra cash - if they did not need it?

6. Why did re-elected MHA's get extra cash? Did they blow their established budgets?

If you want to be transparent and accountable the IEC should release this information.

They can keep the money - but should lose their jobs...

The IEC members at May 2004 - when the checks for $2875 were cut were:

Harvey Hodder (Chair)
Roger Fitzgerald
Ed Byrne
Loyola Sullivan
Elizabeth Marshall
Kelvin Parsons
Percy Barrett

They gave themselves a bonus which did not require receipts.

Just a few months later these members were in the House of Assembly debating the whole issue of the Auditor General being permitted to review their books.

The debate was interesting - especially as it relates to the desire of some members to audit on a go-forward basis. Yes I imagine there was an interest is auditing on a go-forward basis - then we would not have been "exposed" to all that mess from 2000 forward right?

Anyway on the issue of the day - the bonus pay - well Loyola Sullivan managed to duck under the radar again - escaping to Federal cash instead. You see Loyola was on the IEC throughout the period in question and apparently nothing caught his attention - and then Mr. belt tightener and scrooge to the public sector employees did not protest at all at the bonus in 2004. He was the Finance Minister? He was a great Finance Minister?

Then there's Beth Marshall - who along with Danny did not take the payment. Maybe not however Beth was sitting at the IEC table when the decision was taken. I did not see a note in the AG report that says Marshall voted against the bonus. I did not here her tell the public - as a matter of accountability - that this was a payment that should not have been made.

For the two of them - there was no attempt by our sitting Minister of Finance or our previous AG and Chartered Accountant - that the way the account was presented was so vague the public would not be able to figure out what it was for. Where was the protest?

Loyola Sullivan has skated through this - and apparently without a blemish - yet if he was that competent or concerned about taxpayer dollars (he said we were almost bankrupt)then why did he not demand the books be audited by the AG from 2000-2004 - why Loyola?

Harvey Hodder is presenting himself as the facilitator of change - wanting to get right at the accountability of the HOA - yet he was the Chair when the bonus was handed out. He was the Chair when the HOA overspent it's budget.

Ed Byrne - yeah okay - same old same old...

Then there is Kelvin Parsons and Percy Barrett - two members who would like to achieve government again - great way to demonstrate it - no problem taking the bonus there - in fact the culture of "I'm entitled to my entitlements" lead by the Tobin era of accountability carries right on in their political genetics.

Let them keep their money - all of them - but don't let them keep their jobs. I hear there's an employee review coming in October - I guess we can give them a performance review at that time...

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT