Poster scandal symptom of larger problem

The political signs in the news were and are a demonstration of expression by people who feel the Premier is not serving them well. This is a legitimate form of protest in our democracy. Considering the most recent CRA poll - the signs and their owners reflect the feelings of a significant number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Rather than attempt to deal with those legitimate feelings toward a newbie Premier and Cabinet - the government decided that removing the sight of a protest was far more important than dealing with it.

Many people in the province have been struggling to determine if the Premier and his government are deceptive, grossly incompetent or both.

What we do know is that:
1. Ed Martin was given a very questionable and costly severance package,
2. the Nalcor Board went rogue and government did nothing to protect us,
3. The Muskrat Falls debacle continues,
4. The Government missed significant contract deadlines to begin negotiations with two significant Unions,
5. Delivered a budget completely contrary to the election promises (claiming ignorance of the scale of the financial mess left by the PC's).

Each of these topics deserve their own attention and I will - as one citizen - do my part and post separately on each one.

For now I will focus on the sign issue.

What makes this so relevant is the attempt by government to cover-up involvement by a staffer in the Premier's Office to thwart democratic expression and what is a growing pattern of deception, incompetence or both.

The CBC uncovered the fact that the Communications Director for the Premier, Nancy O'Connor, emailed the Memorial University for 3 reasons:

1. She wanted to know who owned poles on the parkway,
2. If the University owned the poles did they have a policy about posters on them, and
3 If the policy was no posters allowed - would they take them down.

Nancy O'Connor was clearly looking for a way to remove the signs calling for the Premier's resignation.
Nancy O'Connor was not seeking to police MU on its policies on campus.
Nancy O'Connor does not know the most basic information about our electrical supply system.
Nancy O'Connor is either incompetent or dismissive regarding the very basics of democracy.
Nancy O'Connor placed a priority on this minor albeit politically annoying issue when compared with the issues that generated the poster campaign.

The priority to protect her boss from having to see his political mugshot on the way to work is not the action of a competent communications "expert". This in part (albeit a hidden one until yesterday) is what in part caused the sign scandal.

O'Connor's email was clear and it was an attempt to have political expression quashed.
The Minister of Transportation and Works is on the record as saying it was not his decision to remove the signs and if it were it may very well have been a different decision.
So while the Minister is concerned about the actions of a worker conducting unacceptable "operational" tasks - the Premier's Director of Communication was out attempting to achieve the same result.

The Premier in a scrum yesterday on this issue answered the first question by stating the actions of Nancy O'Connor "...it really wasn't about taking the posters down."
The public are left again asking the question incompetence or deception?
O'Connor's email was clear - she was seeking a way to have the posters removed.

Then the Premier said the call (email) of O'Connor "that would be expected of someone working in the Premier's Office or a Director of Communications simply to get some clarification on what the policy was around those posters." Here - once again - the public are left to ask incompetence or lies? In a government where the overriding belief is supposed to be supportive of free political expression as part of democracy - a Communications Director for the Premier would not be asking the University about it's poster policies.

The next question and answer is telling. The Premier was asked why he did not tell the public about this when asked about it three weeks ago. The Premier responded, "The question was about taking down those posters. There was no direction given from the Premier's Office in any way shape or form in taking down those policies (not a typo) ."

This is - at best - obfuscation. Let's review the actual body of the email from Nancy O'Connor to the University "Telling DB to resign ... Are these poles belonging to MUN or Power? And are ppl allowed to put posters on them? If not can someone take them down?"

The request was made by Nancy O'Connor to "take them down". The fact that she was unsuccessful as she was barking up the wrong pole owner and trivializing free expression only demonstrates her ignorance not her intent. The fact that she was unsuccessful does not remove the Premier's Office from the same thinking and actions used by somebody working for the Department of Transportation and Works.  

Lastly the Telegram's James McLeod asked the logical question after the Premier stated earlier that O'Conner's call (email) "...it really wasn't about taking the posters down". He asked "but she did ask to take these posters down?" The Premier responded "if indeed the policy was that they were allowed to be there - the answer came back and said this was not a contradiction or indeed there was no policy around this they were allowed to be there."

It clearly was about taking the posters down if O'Connor could get another party to do it. To say it was not about taking the posters down is a deceptive comment. The fact that O'Connor spent time on a Sunday to find someway to take the posters down and was unsuccessful leads the mind to ask about the coincidence that an unknown person in the Department of Transportation and works was thinking the same political way on that Sunday.

This is what makes this story go far beyond posters or signs. It adds to a pattern of incompetence or deception or both. This is what is driving the polls for the Liberals and the Premier off a cliff.

I would need to hear the response from the University to determine if Nancy O'Connor found out from them that not only did they not own the poles but that the real owner allows posters. If the response did not state this as a fact - how did O'Connor ever determine that posters were allowed on the poles. Did O'Conner ever ask the city? Newfoundland Power? Nalcor? Ministers?

Let's imagine for a moment that MU owned the poles and had a policy of no posters - is it really the job of the Premier's Office to police MU to ensure it's following its poster rules? Is that the priority? Of course not - instead it looks like the work of a rookie zealous party partisan. 

If a manager in the Department of Works and Services got word that the Premier's Office were trying to find a way to remove posters from utility poles - perhaps they decided they were assisting the Premier's Office in achieving its objective.

I repeat from yesterday, if Nancy O'Connor - who has stated experience in communications regarding Nalcor and Muskrat Falls - does not know who owns utility poles and has no resources to find out other than a University colleague - she should be fired. In a Telegram story this morning one of the people involved in the poster campaign said “We didn’t go out and do this willy nilly. We actually read the municipal guidelines and made sure what we were doing was not illegal,” (emphasis added)  Instead we watch a Premier protecting a senior staffer in the same way he protected Ed Martin and the former Board until the contract and severance package became public.

One more line of questions: why did this reportedly seasoned communications professional concentrate on these posters on a Sunday? Did the Chief of Staff give her a call? Did anybody encourage her to take on this useless waste of time? Perhaps I am being harsh and somebody else should be fired. Perhaps this pattern of behavior is not coming from the Director of Communications - maybe it's higher up.








 

Nalcor CEO - Conflict of Interest?

It seems the information on Stan Marshall's contract remains behind closed doors as I write this today.

The past month has been consumed with outrage and calls of "we did not know" as it related to the Ed Martin platinum handshake.

The lesson for the people, media, and MHA's should be don't be blindsided again - make sure we will not end up with more problems resulting from a contract with Nalcor's new CEO.

The now infamous Martin Executive Employment Agreement (renewal) ended up being a lottery win for a fellow who does not show up much on Executive searches for jobs held prior to becoming the CEO of Nalcor. It did however contain important clauses that deserve the same level of scrutiny.

Clauses 3(c) and 4 deal with a common issue for corporate executives and the companies they work for. The issue is conflict or potential conflict of interest.

These clauses are absolutely necessary to ensure that the interests of the company they work for are placed ahead of all other professional involvements.

As such Ed Martin's contract contained the following clauses:

3(c) the Executive shall: not acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, neither the Executive nor any member of his family (this term having the same meaning as defined in Newfoundland and Labrador's Conflict of Interest Act, 1995) shall directly hold any shares in the Fortis Inc. group of companies including Newfoundland Power excepting however interests acquired in a publicly traded corporation through retirement mutual fund(s) investment vehicles.

4. The Executive may, with the approval of the Board, serve as a director or member of service clubs, charitable, recreational and community organizations and may also serve as a director of publicly traded entities which would not in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor having first obtained the approval of the Board.

Stan Marshall's background is well known particularly his tenure with Newfoundland Power and Fortis.

We need to know if these clauses were maintained in Marshall's contract and if not why not.

Further we need to know who drafted the Marshall contract - was it in house (Government) or outside private lawyers.

Tomorrow I will expand on the potential conflicts of interest that are existing.

I repeat: what I think of the appointment of Stan Marshall is not relevant to this discussion - as this discussion deals with prudent precaution regardless of the qualifications of the Executive.

If you're Happy - Clap your Muskrat Paws

The biggest tell-tale of a problem is when the happy believers find it necessary to thwart those who want more information and answers.

It is one of the largest red flags of white-collar crime and corporate corruption. Silence the naysayers.

If you are one of the happy ones - content that Muskrat is the best deal - content that NL Hydro is run to perfection - that Kathy Dunderdale is one of our times best minds and that Ed Martin is an energy guru - then good for you. Sit quietly in your content houses and dream of butterflies and lollipops.

There is no reason whatsoever for those who are "onside" to try and dissuade others from being more skeptical, inquiring, or involved in public discourse. There is no reason whatsoever for government members to use words like naysayers, or pessimists, or partisans and/or conspiracy theorists - when speaking about the people they work for. People who want to ask questions and dig deeper into 8-10 billion dollar projects that they and the future generations will pay for.

When government members do that to citizens - it is not for altruistic purposes. It is only for political reasons - in that they do not want to subject themselves to criticism. 

The world is damn well square and don't you question our experts. We will build things to fit a square world and don't be damn partisan and stop progress. Square is the least cost option and we will hear nothing more. We will hire "independent" analysts and tell them to investigate "square" and check to see if the information we provide that resulted in "square" is accurate.

If we remove skepticism and inquiring minds from our world - it would be square.

The mess we are in today should cause more questioning and more skepticism - and right on time like trained seals - the spinners - or happy people appear. If you are happy good for you - let others who want to prevent another Enron or Canary Wharf do their thing.
 

The Price of HydroPower and Greed - Stop the Emera Deal!

The concept is that Nova Scotia is paying for it`s (free) power from Muskrat Falls by building a portion of a transmission line to their province.

This is a new idea - in that the end user (Emera) only pays for the cost of transmission but does not pay for the development to PRODUCE the power.

As electrical consumers our bill is based on the cost of production, transmission, distribution, and administration. We pay all the way for our power. In this deal a private energy company gets free power for the price of a transmission line. This proposed deal is the worst deal for the development of any part of the Lower Churchill since the Upper Churchill contract.

We are going to have a private Nova Scotian company own part of a power line that will supply power to Newfoundlanders from Labrador. We have the same company owning transmission lines within our province. The same company will receive power cheaper that we will get power ourselves. This is a lose lose lose lose proposition that will leave future generations hating and seething Nova Scotia in the same way we have done to Quebec.

The truth is we are losing our autonomy over power and transmission to a publicly traded Nova Scotian company. The price of taking off Holyrood would be to no longer pay ourselves but rather pay a publicly traded Nova Scotian company. Instead of paying Nalcor and Newfoundland Power - in addition we will now be paying a portion to a publicly traded Nova Scotian company for the power you and I consume in our homes, our businesses, and institutions? Every time a light switches on at the Confederation Building - Emera will be getting what? Did you know that you will be paying Emera for 50 years? Did you know your grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying Emera for power? Masters of our Destiny? Sure if our destiny is failure. Masters in our Own House? Sure if we own the house to begin with.

I repeat without hesitation - that this is the worst giveaway in our history and moreover the worst funneling of cash to select millionaires.

Will the media in Newfoundland and Labrador please compare all the previous proposed projects for the development of the Lower Churchill to this project? Will the media please put up a side by side chart of costs, ownership, and potential revenues? This is getting too close to reality. It is time to fight.

Will the opposition please awake from their summer slumber and do something - anything - to stop this atrocious deal?

MHA's of Newfoundland and Labrador please do something to stop this! This is really a time to stand for something. This is the time to really make your voice count. This is no longer a game of partisan "go fish" it is a time to really represent the people. 

Nova Scotians want to Nationalize Emera (NS Power)?

Remember our Power of the People?

Well now there is a Nova Scotian group called Power to the People.

They are calling on Nova Scotia Power (Emera) to be nationalized.

They have a facebook page: PRESS HERE

They have a song on youtube:

They have a website: PRESS HERE

8 Billion in debt for our children - for Power that is not needed - and a deal that will ultimately ruin our Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Nova Scotia privatized at the same time we stopped the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They are paying a huge price. Stop the ruination of our great company. Demand - as shareholders - that management and executive be replaced by professionals committed to us (the shareholders) not private millionaires looking for a new buck.

We stopped the privatization of NL Hydro to prevent this:

“Nova Scotia Power made $121 million in profits in 2010, while paying their executives millions. With democratic public ownership, that money would stay here in Nova Scotia and be used for public priorities, like hospitals, schools and roads”

Do not let Dunderdale/Williams doomed plan ruin the future for our children. 

Already we are seeing cuts to vital services to subsidize this fiasco.

Stop the deal - shut the GATES!

Ed Martin supports Crown Owned Newfoundland Power?

This is the graph that Ed Martin uses to promote the replacement from thermal Holyrood generating to clean renewable Hydro.

He points to Quebec, Manitoba, and BC.

Guess what Ed? Manitoba Hydro and BC Hydro like Newfoundland and Labrador have thermal generation and also like Newfoundland and Labrador use a majority of hydro power.

Hydro-Quebec is virtually all hydro electric with some wind and new power technologies always being developed.

Please Ed Martin - do not embarrass yourself by pretending to have the vision of a Hydro-Quebec - the last time we had those thoughts we did the Upper Churchill.

Yes and HQ is also leading the way with electric cars and charge stations.

So let's look at the first obvious reason that power rates are lower in Quebec, Manitoba, and BC.

What do they all have in common that we do not? It's not hydro power - we all have that.

What is it Ed?

Well the answer is they Generate, Transmit, and DISTRIBUTE power under the crown. We use a private monopoly to DISTRIBUTE power.

So Ed - in the name of stabilizing power rates over the long-term - guess what your argument backs-up?

We need to nationalize Newfoundland Power - a private MONOPOLY.

After we get past this little problem - next we go to the chart and see where the highest rates are - they are where Emera is and where it is all PRIVATE.

So your thought is that by partnering with the most expensive model - the people will benefit?

What a joke! Thanks for making my points.