It is certainly clear that I for one expect a judicial inquiry into the HVP affair and I will be posting something dedicated to that stench ridden file in the near future.
Today - however - I will deal with the immediate display of arrogance coming from our newly minted "unelected" Premier.
I tweeted my suspicions a week or so ago - that I expected Davis might go outside the caucus and appoint an "unelected" Cabinet member. Davis has not let me down - and by that I mean I am not disappointed with the predictable actions of an "unelected" Premier with born again arrogance in the ministry that is politics for this PC lot.
Steve Kent - in fine predictable form - becomes the Deputy Premier - as a direct result of his play in the leadership convention. Pre-printed scarves - an unwelcome sermon from the convention podium - and a feeling of self importance has placed Kent right where he wanted to be. Nothing to do with us - just to do with the "ambitions" of a former and long-tenured Constable who decided to hire his former boss to run his shop.
Then comes the bombshell - of such magnitude - that the Richter scale rumble from the Auditor Generals report - grew a little stronger and more dangerous to our democracy.
We awake today with an Attorney General and Minister of Public Safety who is unelected.
The Premier's release calls Judy Manning a "newcomer". A newcomer to what? This person is unelected and therefore has no place in our Cabinet and is not permitted to sit and be questioned in the House of Assembly. The Department of Justice is no more and is now the Department for Public Safety? What a mess we are in.
The instant word on the street is that the Attorney General must be a lawyer. Let's take that at face value and agree( I do not). Felix Collins is a lawyer and the member for Placentia - St. Mary's. He is apparently staying until the next election. Therefore - if Paul Davis wants a lawyer for Attorney General he has one. Further Manning is apparently going to seek the nomination for Placentia - St. Mary's and if successful run in the next election. Well should Ms. Manning win the nomination and go on to win the seat and if the PC's win the election - then she could be considered for Cabinet. This play with the electorate of Placentia - St. Mary's is complete with arrogance on behalf of the Premier and a blatant disrespect for the people of the district and the province. Additionally Ms. Manning should run in one of the upcoming by-elections - unless she too already feels entitled. And considering Paul Davis believes that 300 or so people can make him a legitimate Premier - perhaps he should have chosen John Ottenheimer as Attorney General - at least somebody voted for him.
Davis is flexing his power and we are being tasered for wanting to keep our democracy in tact. This driving ambition suits Davis like it suits a repeat offender finding God.
Recidivism - apparently - should not be reserved for re-offenders - but rather extended to a former police officer extending his new found power.
This is a slap in the face for the electorate and a demonstration of how Paul Davis plans to govern. The promise to hold early elections in the event a Premier resigns early will be ignored. The promise to listen to people - has already been shattered in a million pieces as Davis goes outside the electorate's choice of MHA's and appoints his own Minister. Paul Davis will keep his commitment to transparency by ignoring the stench of the undocumented information regarding the Humber Valley Paving scandal?
It seems the fellow who headed up Child Youth and Family Services - children died while under care of the Department and then the fellow who headed up Transportation and Works in the middle of the ill-fated HVP contract - is just going to carry on as if he is fully entitled.
This is not the making of a people's leader - this is the making of a zealot who has gained power. Short-lived - I predict.
Paul Davis should have gone to government house this morning and asked that the writ be dropped. He clearly does not have the confidence that people - the electorate will give him the power - that he instead has been handed by a few hundred Tories.
Paul Davis has arrested democracy and cuffed the electorate.
Showing posts with label humber valley paving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humber valley paving. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Thursday, May 08, 2014
Coleman can be Frank about personal benefit
The word of the week is "bonds" performance bonds and labour and material payment bonds.
If however we really want to know if Frank Coleman benefited directly from the government's cancelling of the contract we need to see the indemnification agreements.
Here's as simple as I can put it: In order to bid on contracts the company/contractor needs to supply a performance bond. This bond simply is to protect - in this case government - from default of or problems with completing the agreed to work under contract. In order for the company Humber Valley Paving to get a bond they must go to a surety company. The surety company then requires that indemnification agreements are signed by the principal (bidder) and possibly others - typically majority owners, their spouses, and in some cases assets of other companies owned by a majority owner.
We have not talked much about the indemnity agreement - rather we have focused on the bond. This is exactly what government and Minister McGrath would prefer and here's why. Just because Frank Coleman sold or transferred for a nominal fee his majority shares to other shareholders does not necessarily relinquish his obligations under an indemnification agreement. So in other words - Coleman may claim he can no longer speak for the company as he no longer holds shares but what Coleman is not saying is that he still may have been on the hook for losses should the bond have been called.
Now let's look at how Coleman may have directly benefited. The government says that the contract was not cancelled until after Frank Coleman relinquished his shares. While that part may be true - if the bond was called after Coleman divested of his interest in HVP - Frank Coleman still may have been an indemnifier for any losses resulting from the bond being called. This could be millions of dollars.
This is why this whole thing smells rotten - because ALL information is not forthcoming and they hide behind things like "I am no longer a shareholder" therefore cannot speak for the company. Okay then here are the questions for Frank Coleman.
1. Did you personally or any of your holdings other than HVP indemnify the surety for the performance bond?
2. Have you sold or divested of your other interests such as Coleman Foods - if not why not?
3. When an extension was sought by HVP - did you provide a letter from the surety regarding that extension. Were the appropriate emails, faxes, documents, provided to the surety?
Bottom line is this - unless we see the indemnification agreement for the bond - we cannot ascertain if Frank Coleman benefited from the government's decision to cancel the contract and not call the bond.
Further any indemnity agreements signed by Frank Coleman personally or by other entities where Frank Coleman has interests are really personal documents not documents of HVP. Our future Premier should have no problem releasing these.
None of this of course negates the fact that relatives of Frank Coleman benefitted.
If however we really want to know if Frank Coleman benefited directly from the government's cancelling of the contract we need to see the indemnification agreements.
Here's as simple as I can put it: In order to bid on contracts the company/contractor needs to supply a performance bond. This bond simply is to protect - in this case government - from default of or problems with completing the agreed to work under contract. In order for the company Humber Valley Paving to get a bond they must go to a surety company. The surety company then requires that indemnification agreements are signed by the principal (bidder) and possibly others - typically majority owners, their spouses, and in some cases assets of other companies owned by a majority owner.
We have not talked much about the indemnity agreement - rather we have focused on the bond. This is exactly what government and Minister McGrath would prefer and here's why. Just because Frank Coleman sold or transferred for a nominal fee his majority shares to other shareholders does not necessarily relinquish his obligations under an indemnification agreement. So in other words - Coleman may claim he can no longer speak for the company as he no longer holds shares but what Coleman is not saying is that he still may have been on the hook for losses should the bond have been called.
Now let's look at how Coleman may have directly benefited. The government says that the contract was not cancelled until after Frank Coleman relinquished his shares. While that part may be true - if the bond was called after Coleman divested of his interest in HVP - Frank Coleman still may have been an indemnifier for any losses resulting from the bond being called. This could be millions of dollars.
This is why this whole thing smells rotten - because ALL information is not forthcoming and they hide behind things like "I am no longer a shareholder" therefore cannot speak for the company. Okay then here are the questions for Frank Coleman.
1. Did you personally or any of your holdings other than HVP indemnify the surety for the performance bond?
2. Have you sold or divested of your other interests such as Coleman Foods - if not why not?
3. When an extension was sought by HVP - did you provide a letter from the surety regarding that extension. Were the appropriate emails, faxes, documents, provided to the surety?
Bottom line is this - unless we see the indemnification agreement for the bond - we cannot ascertain if Frank Coleman benefited from the government's decision to cancel the contract and not call the bond.
Further any indemnity agreements signed by Frank Coleman personally or by other entities where Frank Coleman has interests are really personal documents not documents of HVP. Our future Premier should have no problem releasing these.
None of this of course negates the fact that relatives of Frank Coleman benefitted.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Coleman proves - not ready to be Premier
Let's put all partisanship aside. Let's simply examine Mr. Coleman based on performance to date.
Here are the signs to me - as a voter - that Frank Coleman is not ready to be Premier.
1. He believes that the Tory's have done a good job to date. This means he is offside right from the get-go with the majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
2. Pro-Choice Pro-Life positioning in that he does not acknowledge that by participating in anti-abortion rallies - he does hope to influence legislative powers to make changes.
3. Response to the Humber Valley Paving controversy.
4. His limited and controlled accessibility to the media.
The most pressing concern right now for Mr. Coleman, the government, and the people is the cancelled contract for road development and paving between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Humber Valley Paving. There is no question that timing for both Mr. Coleman's entry into the Tory leadership race and HVP being let out of contractual obligations to the government (the people of NL) is at best unfortunate and coincidental or at worst deliberate and not usual.
Mr. Coleman must recognize the concerns the people have with this and understand their reasons for that concern. Mr. Coleman does know that he is becoming an unelected Premier, both at the Party level and through general election under his leadership. Mr. Coleman had a golden opportunity to demonstrate his leadership prowess and interest by simply acknowledging the concerns of ordinary people and the questions by the media - by publicly calling on the government he wants to lead to call in the Auditor General to clear the air. He did not have to comment about a company he used to own - he simply had to recommend that a third - independent party - review the situation. In this way he would have shown some respect for the people he hopes to lead. In this way he would clear the air of an environment that has been secret and unaccountable.
Mr. Coleman must know that this whole situation looks unusual and also appears to be politically privileged. This was not the time to avoid, hide, or limit communications - this was a time to demonstrate societal leadership not a time to protect private business interests.
Frank Coleman failed to do this and as such demonstrated his leadership style. I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through continued polling results have said - we are not interested in this type of leadership or government.
Here are the signs to me - as a voter - that Frank Coleman is not ready to be Premier.
1. He believes that the Tory's have done a good job to date. This means he is offside right from the get-go with the majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
2. Pro-Choice Pro-Life positioning in that he does not acknowledge that by participating in anti-abortion rallies - he does hope to influence legislative powers to make changes.
3. Response to the Humber Valley Paving controversy.
4. His limited and controlled accessibility to the media.
The most pressing concern right now for Mr. Coleman, the government, and the people is the cancelled contract for road development and paving between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Humber Valley Paving. There is no question that timing for both Mr. Coleman's entry into the Tory leadership race and HVP being let out of contractual obligations to the government (the people of NL) is at best unfortunate and coincidental or at worst deliberate and not usual.
Mr. Coleman must recognize the concerns the people have with this and understand their reasons for that concern. Mr. Coleman does know that he is becoming an unelected Premier, both at the Party level and through general election under his leadership. Mr. Coleman had a golden opportunity to demonstrate his leadership prowess and interest by simply acknowledging the concerns of ordinary people and the questions by the media - by publicly calling on the government he wants to lead to call in the Auditor General to clear the air. He did not have to comment about a company he used to own - he simply had to recommend that a third - independent party - review the situation. In this way he would have shown some respect for the people he hopes to lead. In this way he would clear the air of an environment that has been secret and unaccountable.
Mr. Coleman must know that this whole situation looks unusual and also appears to be politically privileged. This was not the time to avoid, hide, or limit communications - this was a time to demonstrate societal leadership not a time to protect private business interests.
Frank Coleman failed to do this and as such demonstrated his leadership style. I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through continued polling results have said - we are not interested in this type of leadership or government.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Commissioner of Lobbyists reviewing HVP activities?
Based on what Minister McGrath has been saying relative to discussions with Gene Coleman and other officials of Humber Valley Paving one would expect the Lobbyists Registration Act to be in play here.
Do the "negotiations" "discussions" talked about by Minister McGrath pertaining to Humber Valley Paving and the release of bonds constitute lobbying?
Subparagraph 2(1)(c)(xvi) of the Lobbyist Registration Act:
Based on what the Minister has said - I would consider the activities lobbying.
(c) "lobby " means to communicate with a public-office holder for remuneration or other gain, reward or benefit, in an attempt to influence
(xvi) public-office holders relating to the terms of a contract, the choice of a contractor, or the administration, implementation or enforcement of a contract...
Based on the importance to the company over the three month period wherein discussions - negotiations were taking place - one might need to review whether or not Gene Coleman was an in-house lobbyist for that period.
I see no such registration under the registry - so has the Commissioner of Lobbyists been asked to review this situation?
Do the "negotiations" "discussions" talked about by Minister McGrath pertaining to Humber Valley Paving and the release of bonds constitute lobbying?
Subparagraph 2(1)(c)(xvi) of the Lobbyist Registration Act:
Based on what the Minister has said - I would consider the activities lobbying.
(c) "lobby " means to communicate with a public-office holder for remuneration or other gain, reward or benefit, in an attempt to influence
(xvi) public-office holders relating to the terms of a contract, the choice of a contractor, or the administration, implementation or enforcement of a contract...
Based on the importance to the company over the three month period wherein discussions - negotiations were taking place - one might need to review whether or not Gene Coleman was an in-house lobbyist for that period.
In-house lobbyist
6.
(1)
In this section,
(a)
"employee
" includes an officer who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties;
(b)
"in-house
lobbyist" means a person who is employed by an organization
(i)
20% of whose duties as an employee, as assessed in a 3 month period, are to lobby on behalf of that organization, or
(ii)
a part of whose duties as an employee is to lobby on behalf of that
organization if the employee's duties to lobby together with the duties
of other employees to lobby would constitute 20 % of time at work of one
full time employee, assessed in a 3 month period, were those duties to
lobby to be performed by only one employee; and
(c)
"senior
officer" means the most senior officer of the organization who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties.
(2)
The senior officer of an organization which employs an in-house lobbyist shall file a return with the registrar
(a)
within
10 days after the day on which that person becomes an in-house lobbyist; and
(b)
within
30 days after the expiration of each 6 month period after the date of filing the previous return.
I see no such registration under the registry - so has the Commissioner of Lobbyists been asked to review this situation?
Arms Length hmm
I was just reading part of a Canada Revenue Agency Document - that's interesting. Wonder what definition a court would use?
Example 1
A has two adult children, C and D. C has two children, X and Y, and D has one child, Z. A owns all of the issued and outstanding shares of Aco, consequently, A controls Aco. Each of Y and Z owns 50% of the common shares of Opco. Since Y and Z are cousins, they will, for purposes of the Act,
be an unrelated group that controls Opco. As A is related to each of Y and Z (i.e. A is their grandparent), Aco and Opco will be related pursuant to subparagraph 251(2)(c)(iv)
Corporations and Other Persons
11.Paragraphs 251(2)(b) and (c) set out the statutory rules for determining when a corporation and another person will be considered to be “related persons” (or persons related to each other) for purposes of the Act. Under paragraph 251(2)(b), a corporation will be related to another person
(including another corporation) where:
(a) that person controls the corporation;
(b) that person is a member of a related group that controls
the corporation; or
(c) that person is a person who is related to a person
described in (a) or (b) above.
In addition, paragraph 251(2)(c) provides that two
corporations will be related if:
(i) the two corporations are controlled by the same
person or group of persons;
(ii) each of the corporations is controlled by one
person and the person who controls one
corporation is related to the person who controls
the other corporation;
(iii) one of the corporations is controlled by one
person and that person is related to any member
of a related group that controls the other
corporation;
(iv) one of the corporations is controlled by one
person and that person is related to each member
Monday, May 05, 2014
Tories avoid paper trail on Coleman/Humber Valley Paving affair?
The House of Assembly revealed something very scary today.
As we all might have anticipated the HOA question period was filled with inquiry over the Coleman affair.
I await the Hansard - in order to demonstrate how many times Minister McGrath used the word verbal when explaining the process of determining the release from Contract of Humber Valley Paving.
There was apparently verbal communication between the Minister and Premier on this subject. There were all kinds of verbal communications between the Minister and representatives of the company. The only thing I heard that might have been in writing is the document that released Humber Valley Paving from the contract and any consequence of bond.
This was a multi-million dollar contract between government and Humber Valley Paving and it was with a company where Frank Coleman (the incoming Premier) was CEO and majority shareholder. The discussions - as they were mostly verbal - will not give us real time frames and will not confirm or deny that these discussions were being held at a time Frank Coleman may have been looking at a run for the leadership of the Tories.
These very important details seem to have no written back-up. I remember a time not so long ago - where Ministers were not taking briefing notes - they were being briefed verbally. Here we go again.
Of course this stinks - because the company was apparently sold and could have been in a real unsaleable state had the bond been tested. This going on at a time just prior to Frank Coleman announcing his candidacy for the Tories and via our system the keys to the Premier's Office.
Oh yes this needs to be investigated. The sooner the better. What options do we have now to prevent such negotiations going on verbally - leaving us - the people, the taxpayer, their boss - without any paper trail?
As we all might have anticipated the HOA question period was filled with inquiry over the Coleman affair.
I await the Hansard - in order to demonstrate how many times Minister McGrath used the word verbal when explaining the process of determining the release from Contract of Humber Valley Paving.
There was apparently verbal communication between the Minister and Premier on this subject. There were all kinds of verbal communications between the Minister and representatives of the company. The only thing I heard that might have been in writing is the document that released Humber Valley Paving from the contract and any consequence of bond.
This was a multi-million dollar contract between government and Humber Valley Paving and it was with a company where Frank Coleman (the incoming Premier) was CEO and majority shareholder. The discussions - as they were mostly verbal - will not give us real time frames and will not confirm or deny that these discussions were being held at a time Frank Coleman may have been looking at a run for the leadership of the Tories.
These very important details seem to have no written back-up. I remember a time not so long ago - where Ministers were not taking briefing notes - they were being briefed verbally. Here we go again.
Of course this stinks - because the company was apparently sold and could have been in a real unsaleable state had the bond been tested. This going on at a time just prior to Frank Coleman announcing his candidacy for the Tories and via our system the keys to the Premier's Office.
Oh yes this needs to be investigated. The sooner the better. What options do we have now to prevent such negotiations going on verbally - leaving us - the people, the taxpayer, their boss - without any paper trail?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)