Felix Collins - on his own terms?

Last evening came news that Felix Collins refused the Cabinet post of Attorney General. The unelected person who took his place is conveniently a Manning from the Cape Shore. Her "heart" is preventing her from seeking election in the upcoming three by-elections and on that basis we the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to suffer an unelected Minister.

If Felix Collins - elected by the people of Placentia - St. Mary's, is unwilling to serve in the Cabinet at the Premier's pleasure - then he should clearly resign. The people of his district deserve a member who is willing to step to the Cabinet table when asked.

So Felix what are you up to? Do you live in the district anymore? Why are you sitting around in caucus for what's left of this term - when you clearly have no real interest in governing.

Now because the PC's are so cute with words sometimes - this question must be asked for clarification. Did Paul Davis ask you to become Attorney General only if you agreed to run in the next election? Is that why you said no?

So Judy Manning - the Manning insert - seemed to have as little problem justifying the unjustifiable as Fabs did when he sat with Harper as he nailed Newfoundland and Labrador.

Paul Davis appears to be shoring up a chosen candidates in a very unique way. Let's start you off in Cabinet and then tell the people of Placentia - St. Mary's that this is who you need to please me - the Premier.

Paul Davis and company seem to believe the people of the district are less than astute. The Premier thinks it's okay for a member from the area to turn down a Cabinet post and just sit there until he decides to call an election.

Felix - are you willing to be used in such a fashion? I think you owe the people of Placentia - St. Mary's more that that. Resign your seat and release Manning from her "heart" felt dilemma.

I hear there's polling going on in the district. If that's favourable - I guess your boss will tell you when to go. I recommend you leave on your terms - with a bit of integrity and show some respect to the people who provided you such a rare opportunity to serve.

Why Judy Manning?

Why Judy Manning?

That certainly is a reasonable question considering she has never been elected.

Why Judy Manning?

Why not John Ottenheimer who garnered half the support of the delegates at the convention?

Why not John Ottenheimer as he has considerable experience?

Why Judy Manning?

How does the Premier know her?

What does he know about her career and experience - considering the job ahead?

Why Judy Manning?

Apparently this really has nothing to do with the Attorney General having to be a lawyer because the Premier did not stop there. Davis added Status of Women, Fire and Emergency Services and the entire portfolio of Public Safety (which now includes Justice).

Why Judy Manning?

Is she a long time Tory or have significant Tory connections outside Senator Fabian Manning?

If you really felt that despite having a lawyer who IS elected take the position of Attorney General - then why Judy Manning?

What puts her above other choices in the legal community?

Was anybody else asked?

Did Felix decline? If so is he planning to resign?

Did Ottenheimer say no? Was he even asked?

Why Judy Manning?

It is particularly interesting since she claims she won't run in any upcoming by-elections but in the general election only.

This certainly demonstrates bad judgement. She could have accepted under the condition she will seek opportunity to be elected at the earliest opportunity. That would have shown respect for the people - but no - she accepts a mandate Paul Davis and Paul Davis alone bestowed upon her.

Why Judy Manning?

Yes - why indeed.

10 years of Felix and Oil $$

We are a have province - they say!

We have a booming economy - they say!

This is Tory management of billions of oil dollars - this is Tory management of non-renewable revenues for future generations!

This is 10 years of Felix Collins and the Tories:

So what do you watch? The potholes or moose? This is what Felix Collins has accomplished with billions of oil dollars?

Time to move on - let's see if we can salvage some sort of infrastructure investment from the remaining oil revenues.

This is the road to Tourism - Mistaken Point - the beautiful whales at St. Vincent's - the ecological treasure of Holyrood Pond and the dozens of communities that are historical treasures.

More than Felix's political life at risk!

Felix Collins needs to take some real responsibility for Route 90. From Riverhead on through St. Vincent's the main road is vicious. That is not an exaggeration and frankly probably not strong enough.

Ambulances, school buses, delivery vehicles, commercial traffic and residents are risking their lives driving this Route.

These are not pot-holes they are death traps and those who have to regularly drive this route are taking a real risk each and every time.

What's worse is the deterioration is now at a daily level so that familiarity of the Route does not matter.

Ambulance drivers who serve the many communities Riverhead, St. Mary's, Gaskiers - Point La Haye, Mall Bay, St. Vincent's and Peter's River - are taking on much more risk than should ever be necessary while trying to save lives.

Felix Collins must be locked in the Cabinet as clearly he is ignoring the infrastructure disaster in his district. He must be a Cabinet knob as he certainly does not appear to have the power to get things done.

I invite the all local media to pop out to Route 90 - only an hour out of the capital city and judge for yourselves. This is well worth the drive - but don't let the tremendous scenic beauty take your eyes of the road - I mean the actually metre by metre in front of you.

While the plentiful moose are still active - there is no way to watch for them without being killed by the road.

So Felix - is this what Tory prosperity looks like? Is this what the oil money has brought?

You have 20 kilometres in your Cabinet endowed district that needs a road.

Knock knock - who's there - Felix - Felix who? Felix the cat locked in the Cabinet. The residents don't need a meow - they need a roar - and they need it now.

The story in the Telegram should be a real wake-up call for the Minister - and good on Barb Sweet for reporting on the situation. This blog is just an exclamation point for Minister Collins before somebody dies. Driving the road to review the state of your kingdom will not cut it.Where do you live?

Here's a sample:

This is when it's frozen - imagine when it thaws - every week or so

Premier Marshall - Attorney General - Collins - Drover

Police Chief is retiring

Charges stayed request of Att. General Felix Collins?

Charges reinstated - request of Att. GeneralTom Marshall?

Guilty plea on new and reduced charge - Att. General Felix Collins?

Absolute discharge - comment from lawyer - we all get impatient?

Character witnesses - not named in media story?

Tory fundraiser, Board Member CNLOPB?

Justice Walsh says he does not think Ed Drover will do it again?

Clearly it's time to look at where we live and who controls what.

Clearly it's time to understand how Justice works in our province.

In either case I've got a load of questions - do you?

Is this a place you really want to live in anymore?

What I watched on the news last week - turned my stomach and confirmed the state of our affairs. It's nothing I recognize anymore.

What kind of power/control is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Open your eyes wide and take it all in.

How did the Mount Cashel thing happen here? No problem - from what I see.
Have we learned? In my opinion - not a chance.

Are the journalists going to dig into this?

Can they give us a complete review of what happened regarding the Ed Drover, initial charges, stay of charges, reinstatement of charges, reduced charges, guilty plea, the actual event in an agreed to statement of facts, the character witnesses, Drover's political connections, any past events regarding not being "patient"?

Let the people decide if the justice achieved was satisfactory.

Did this case set a precedent that could cause extreme consequences?

What are the qualifications to sit on a Crown Agency or Corporation Board?

Paul Davis - your department needs a Geography lesson

After the disaster that was the traffic slowdown (2 to 3 hours) just east of Gander - Minister Paul Davis advised that people livyers and tourists alike check his department's website before travel - in order to determine if there will be delays in their trip.

Let's hope that we don't confuse everybody by providing information that is factually incorrect.

Below please find such a notice. You will note that the bridge is on Route 10 not 90 - you travel route 90 Salmonier Line from the TCH or route 10 Southern Shore Highway (it all should be one route) but the bridge is on Route 10 - several communities away from Route 90. Route 90 from the TCH does not extend to 112 km's. The official notice is incorrect.

So at this point one mess leads to another mess.

90	Northeast Trepassey Bridge on Route 90 South from the TCH 112.7km. Bridge deck repairs. (Project #24-13PSR C)	Ongoing	Aug. 09, 2013 07:51 AM
Comments:	Bridge repairs ongoing. One way traffic controlled by signage. Be prepared for frequent stops and slowdowns. Crews and equipment working in roadway and on shoulders. Speed limit reduced. Drive with care and caution, be prepared to stop and expect short delays while work ongoing for the next week.

Our Secret Society - Who is the head Puppeteer?

Bill 29
Untendered Contracts
90 million $$$$ ????
Land deals
Resource giveaways
The Miracle Budget
Finding 1 billion in a month


The political hum in the air is undeniable - it is very stinky.
It stinks to the high heavens.

So the PC caucus need not know about the secret commercially sensitive $90 million dollar talks?

Will these MHA's vote for a budget when they are not privy to all the details?

Will these Tory Backbenchers stand up and really be counted or will they act as they are being treated - like garbage littering the seats at the peoples house?

Little Miss Bluffitt these days seems to be aloof to polls and commentary on her government. She has risen above the criticism and is going to do what's best for us - as if we are 4 year olds wanting to cross the street.

"I cannot govern by polls" she says with a flip of the head and the shrug of a shoulder. The same woman who heads a herd of non-scientific poll fixers, riggers, party puppets?

The strings are becoming more and more apparent as days go by. The upper echelon of the PC party must be getting ready to pounce or getting ready to leave as the next election draws near. I suppose that will depend on if they got their fair share of the public pie.

Eliminate the justice system?

It matters not who is in control of project management at Muskrat - it matters not if we are told a thing about the billions she and her posse is spending of our money.

So who's getting another little piece of education pie this time? Are we once again trying to keep the population as uneducated as possible?

And yet still 48 members of the House of Assembly - no cuts - no political staffers worried about getting the blue slip.

Based on those oil projections driving Muskrat Falls - and the oil projections driving our deficit - we had better bring this government down - sooner rather than later. If enough protest and speak out - she will have to go. Democracy must be restored - let your voice be heard.

She is a liar.

Dunderdale uttered the following in the House of Assembly on March 21-2013

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, only the Leader of the Liberal Opposition would have the face to get up here and talk about somebody calling in to a radio poll, when they in their time in government had two full-time people in the Premier's office whose only job – Tom Hann and Sue Kelland-Dyer, let me remind people of the Province – was to call in to Open Line to carry the party line, Mr. Speaker, and to influence people of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth.

The tip of the iceberg - what does the woman say in private settings and meetings? Well everybody will soon find out. Pure desperation!

Come out from under the protection of the House of Assembly - where all things you say about private citizens are not able to be dealt with in the courts - and repeat the messages.

Don't forget those other points and observations you make - when in "appropriate" company.

To the boys in the backroom - Keep those Solid Gold ideas flowing...

Dunderdale NOT a Leader - Just Facilitating a Plan

Last week we seen the end of a record setting filibuster in the House of Assembly.

The debate was cut short by the PC's in the house through closure.

Bill 29 an Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was and is a very controversial piece of House business. The crux of the concern is the reduction of access to information.

The Newfoundland and Labrador electorate is still suffering trust issues from the constituency allowance spending scandal - which ultimately sent 4 former MHA's to jail. One of the convicted was Ed Byrne - a PC MHA who became a Cabinet Minister and Deputy Premier under the Danny Williams administration.

In large part - the entire criminal fiasco was caused by not allowing the Auditor General to review the expenditures of the MHA's. The concept of maximized transparency and access to information was touted by Danny Williams as a hallmark of his government - of which current Premier Kathy Dunderdale served in Cabinet and as the Deputy Premier.

Any changes to law which would diminish - in any way - transparency and access should concern Kathy Dunderdale a great deal. It - however - did not phase her - apparently it did not even interest her.

Instead of being a leader by explaining to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why her government wants to change the access to information law - she ran away. Dunderdale was here:

The Honourable Kathy Dunderdale, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, will be the keynote speaker at the sixth annual Memorial University Calgary Affinity Dinner tomorrow (Wednesday, June 13) at the Fairmont Palliser Hotel in Calgary. The dinner begins at 7:00 p.m. MDT, with the Premier scheduled to speak at approximately 8:30 p.m.

The theme of the keynote address is Bold and Tenacious: Driving Growth and Prosperity in the New Newfoundland and Labrador. 

Oh I can hear the tapping of partisan twitter characters already. They will suggest that this event was planned for some time and it is an important piece of business for our province.

Let's say we accept this rationale completely.

No problem, the Bill did not have to be called until the Premier returned. Or in the alternate - the debate did not have to be shut down until the Premier returned.

When so many people and media in the province were calling foul on this Bill - Kathy had a choice - she chose to run away. Do you really think she will take any responsibility for soaring power rates and massive debt if the Emera deal proceeds?

Dunderdale is not a leader - she is simply facilitating a plan.

Striking a Balance Bill 29? Logic tells us otherwise!

Over the past week we have heard Government MHA's suggest that "frivolous and vexatious" requests are part of the reason they have to change access to information laws.

It is commonly agreed that more information will be kept secret and some information harder to get because of the amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Bill29).

Ministers stood on their feet and dragged out samples of such requests - and while this is not the norm - they pointed out they were compelled to stop such wastage of taxpayer money.

Here's the other side of the balance: Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered many more fraudulent and bad resource deals than it has suffered "vexatious and frivolous" information requests - and the cost to the taxpayer has been far more severe from the bad and/or fraudulent and/or corrupt deals.

The billions of dollars essentially robbed from our people - be it fish, energy, minerals, forests, or cash far outweighs the few thousand dollars suffered from "frivolous and vexatious" access to information requests.

So what does the government do? Well they tighten information to protect business. Yes that says it all about fairness and balance.

We as a people should conclude that there is something to hide - as not to do so would be illogical and open us up to another 50 years of bad resource deals.

I have a request of our media - please research and present all the losses we have suffered from bad and/or corrupt business deals and compare that dollar value to the amount lost from "frivolous and vexatious" access to information requests.

While we are at it - which caused more harm to the tenuous trust we have in government; the few "frivolous and vexatious" requests presented or the marching of 4 former MHA's to jail?

Yes we should strike a balance regarding access to information - but Bill 29 is not that balance. It is a lopsided - one way - ticket to hiding information. What has been the result of that approach in our past?

The 2015 Election is Underway - Where's Dunderdale

Both Opposition Parties in Newfoundland and Labrador have made their first 2015 election promise.

The race to replace has begun. 

We - the people will hold them to it.

It is positive to see politicians respond immediately to the people by making a promise that all of us really need right now. A commitment to eliminate this cloak of secrecy - called Bill 29.

Last night Charlene Johnson either lied or demonstrated unfathomable ignorance by blaming the constituency spending allowance on the previous Liberal government.

The statements made - not yet available on Hansard - were beyond irresponsible they were grossly negligent.

The three political parties suffered blame as members of each were trotted off to jail. How did that happen? Read the Green Report. Read the Auditor General's special reports.

The Deputy Premier of Danny Williams - a person he put great trust in was front and centre in the political scandal of our time. His second in command - a Cabinet Minister in control of significant information secret and otherwise. This person who admitted to forging documents and stealing over $100,000 from us the people. This person who the Auditor General said received almost $500,000 over his entitlements.

Do we need a system that is open and transparent? Yes.

Do we need a system that seeks to thwart transparency? No

The government had options.

1. They could have let the debate finish naturally, they did not - they invoked closure.

2. They could have had Bill 29 reviewed by Chief Justice Green, Senator Beth Marshall, or by former Auditor General John Noseworthy (the man who brought the cost of secrecy to light).

3. They could have created an all-party committee to travel the province and consult with the people on the proposed changes.

4. The government could have sincerely considered amendments brought forth and at least pretended to have interest in the process.

5. The government could have killed the Bill - and in doing so appropriately recognized the wisdom of their colleagues, the people, and members of the media who were screaming foul.

Dan Crummell was just now on VOCM open-line suggesting that the media took offence to the Bill more than anybody. He said he believes they want to be in the Cabinet Room.

There is no defence to reducing access to information - yet Dan attempted to do it anyway. Way to trot to the trough there Dan. Fill-er-up. Gotta get a Cabinet Post - gotta get - me - me -me Dan.

Newfoundland and Labrador politicians have absolutely no right to reduce access to information - simply because the wound is too deep and fresh from the constituency allowance scandal. How arrogant must they be to support cloak and dagger legislation - when many of them were there when their colleagues were put in cuffs.

The Opposition parties have now taken a necessary step to rebuild confidence and trust in the electorate. They appear to understand that we are not prepared to "trust" them - on their word - just yet.

What Dunderdale, Collins, Marshall, Kennedy, King, Sullivan, Burke, and Johnson seem not to understand is reducing access now - so soon after the scandal - is like giving a parent giving their teenage son or daughter the car a week after they are convicted of drinking and driving.

Yes it is that serious! Yes it is that condemnable!

Now it is up to the NDP and Liberal MHA's to remind the people and the PC caucus that they will reverse the Bill and will reveal all hidden documents - as soon as practicable after the PC's are defeated.

By the way where is Danny on this? Where is Danny on this? Will this be the issue that excuses Danny away from "his" party and toward Dean? It remains incredible that all these PC backbenchers have not yet figured out that the fix is in.

They play you like a fiddle and in turn you fiddle while your political reputations burn.

Premier Dunderdale - where are you dear?  The 2015 Election Campaign began early this morning. The race to boot the Tories out has begun and you were nowhere to be found.

Bill 29 - Review by Chief Justice Green?

So the PC MHA's are going to shut down debate on Bill 29 - An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

First of all it's cowardly and very undemocratic. It demonstrates weakness and a complete disrespect for the people of the province.

The above is not exaggerated - it is appropriate considering the law we wish to change.

When such actions are taken by sitting government MHA's one can reasonably conclude that transparency is not atop their agenda and secondly that they are willing to risk a repeat of the criminal fiasco we had the last time a blockage of information occurred.

The history is too recent and the wound is too fresh - the parade of MHA's trotting off to jail.

It appears that Dunderdale and caucus are of the belief - that regardless of the position they take on any subject - they are above debate, above critique, above scrutiny, and essentially above the law.

I say this because the PC's in the House of Assembly will use the legislature to change any law they wish to accommodate their own protection. Further - they are willing to invoke closure when they are ready to silence the opposition members. All MHA's were elected and this is the people's House - not Jerome Kennedy's or Kevin O'Brien's or Tom Marshall's.

The Dunderdale Regime appears certain that if a democracy elects a dictatorship - tough! You elected us to do what we wish when we wish.

You see a mature democracy and intelligent and competent elected Members do not need to ram something down our throats or change the law to hide information on the decision making process. Mature politicians are able to promote their policies and ideas to the people without hiding information they used to make a decision.

You cannot claim democracy - when you only practice it 12 hours every 4 years (election).

Why not advise the multinational companies, multi-millionaires, and the stock market that if you wish to make a fortune on our resources - deals will be subject to public scrutiny. Corporations do not vote - they are not the electorate. We - the people - own the resources  and we deserve as all shareholders do - complete disclosure.

By the way - where is Danny on Bill 29? He will yammer on about the virtues of Muskrat and the "need" for power here and there - yet the purported superhero of accountability and transparency has not commented on this?

How about we let Chief Justice Green review the proposed amendments and publicly report on his findings. He is a man above reproach and somebody that Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Felix Collins can trust.

The media, citizens, national and provincial bodies have trouble with Bill 29 - and once again the critique is coming from across the political spectrum.

What is happening in our House of Assembly now is very significant and very scary. What next? It appears that Kent - while sitting as Chair - is intolerant of the opposition and Kennedy is intolerant of the Chair. It appears the current Dunderdale posse is frustrated with the whole idea of the House of Assembly. First she did not really want to open it - and second - only did so it appears to achieve a budget and shut down information.

What other Bills are in our future? A change to funding for the Opposition? A change to Question Period rules? A change to our system? Sure why not - Dunderdale seems prepared to rule by decree and the men and women around her have decided they serve her and not the people.

This Bill should not see the light of day - let alone become law.

Considering the checkered past of MHA behavior and longstanding record of bad deals, corruption, and fleeing business gurus to Panama - please ask that Chief Justice Green officially review Bill 29 and report his findings and recommendations in full to the people.

"Secrecy Serves to Entrench Incumbents"

Below is Excerpt 2 from a lecture given by renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz
On Liberty, the Right to Know, and Public Discourse:
The Role of Transparency in Public Life


I have already called attention to several of these adverse effects: Secrecy provides the fertile ground on which special interests work; secrecy serves to entrench incumbents, discourage public participation in democratic processes, and undermines the ability of the press to provide an effective check against the abuses of government. But the adverse effects are more pervasive.

To maintain secrecy, often the circle of those involved in decision making is greatly circumscribed; those who are able to provide valuable insights are cut out of the discussion. The quality of decision making is thereby weakened. There is, again, a vicious circle. With more mistakes, public officials become more defensive; to protect themselves, they seek even more secrecy, narrowing in the circle still further, eroding still further the quality of decision-making.

Public programs may be designed not on the basis of the impact that they have, but on (government officials’ beliefs about) the perceptions of those impacts. Those perceptions will be affected by the information that is publicly available; program design may be as sensitive to those perceptions (and the extent to which they can be controlled) as to their real impact.

There is still one more, related effect: as the space of informed discourse about a host of important issues gets circumscribed, attention gets focused more and more on value issues. It takes an enormous amount of information to make judgments concerning complex economic issues. It takes far less (or a far different kind of) information to come to a view concerning abortion or family values. Thus, secrecy has distorted the arena of politics. The adverse effects of secrecy are multiple: not only are important areas of public policy not dealt with effectively, but also debate focuses disproportionately on issues which are often far more divisive.

__________________________________________________________

Without a doubt the Dunderdale government will seek naturally divisive issues such as hating Ottawa or Quebec in order to avoid real debate on issues such as Muskrat Falls.

This government and it's Secrecy Act are very dangerous to the well-being of our society.

Secrecy and the Consequences - Dunderdale vs. Stiglitz

I will over the next couple of days take excerpts from a lecture given by Joseph E. Stiglitz- Economist.

Below you will find some information about this professional followed by Exerpt 1 of the lecture. 

As a public - the current "secrecy" bill before our House of Assembly - should be frightening. You and I need to be very afraid of what the Dunderdale government is doing and why.

Appointments:

University Professor. Teaching at the Columbia Business School, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Department of Economics) and the School of International and Public Affairs

Co-founder and Co-President of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD)

Co-Chair of Columbia University's Committee on Global Thought

Chair of the Management Board, Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester

Member, CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues

President of the International Economic Association, 2011-2014

A Modest Proposal for International Monetary Reform, paper presented at the June 

2008 meeting of the International Economic Association, Istanbul.

Sharing the Burden of Saving the Planet: Global Social Justice for Sustainable Development, Keynote speech at the June 2008 meeting of the International Economic Association, Istanbul (see the powerpoint here).

Co-Chair of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

GDP Fetishism, Project Syndicate, September 2009.

GSP Seen as Inadequate Measure of Economic Health, by David Jolly, New York Times, September 14, 2009.

Towards A Better Measure of Well-Being, Financial Times, September 13, 2009.

Chair of the Commission of Experts of the President of the United Nations General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System

One Small Step Forward, The Guardian (UK), June 28, 2009.

Recommendations for Immediate Action, a statement from the first meeting of the Comission of Experts, January 4-6, 2009, New York.

West urged to increase aid to poor nations, article about the Commission by Heather 

Stewart, The Guardian (UK), January 11, 2009.

UN Panel Calls for Council to Replace G20, by Harvey Morris, Financial Times, March 22, 2009.

Dollar Reserve Reform Urged, by Harvey Morris, Financial Times, March 27, 2009.

Final Report of the UN Commission of Experts, released September 21, 2009

Excerpt 1

To me, the most compelling argument for openness is the positive Madisonian one: meaningful participation in democratic processes requires informed participants. Secrecy reduces the information available to the citizenry, hobbling their ability to participate meaningfully. Any of us who has participated in a board of directors knows that the power of a board to exercise direction and discipline is limited by the information at its disposal. 

Management knows this, and often attempts to control the flow of information. We often speak of government being accountable, accountable to the people. But if effective democratic oversight is to be achieved, then the voters have to be informed: they have to know what alternative actions were available, and what the results might have been. Those in government typically have far more information relevant to the decisions being made than do those outside government, just as management of a firm typically has far more information about the firm’s markets, prospects, and technology than do shareholders, let alone other outsiders. Indeed, managers are paid to gather this information.

The question is, given that the public has paid for the gathering of government information, who owns the information? Is it the private province of the government official, or does it belong to the public at large? I would argue that information gathered by public officials at public expense is owned by the public— just as the chairs and buildings and other physical assets used by government belong to the public. We have come to emphasize the importance of intellectual property. The information produced, gathered, and processed by public officials is intellectual property, no less than a patentable innovation would be. To use that intellectual property for private is just as serious an offense against the public as any other appropriation of public property for private purposes.