Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

I'm not writing about Rights and Democracy…

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 11:05am - 132 Comments

…but when there’s this many clowns tumbling out of a Volkswagen marked “accountability and transparency,” nobody should be surprised when it starts to draw a crowd. Bruce Campion-Smith’s Star story is in some ways the funniest one about the doofus-stricken agency in weeks.

Tags: accountability is the enemy of transparency, ban tender!, Bruce Campion-Smith, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, Oceania is at war with Eastasia, Rights and Democracy, transparency is the enemy of accountability

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Assuming this is accurate, I take back my comment from last week that new board members were improving R/D with more rigorous standards. I know R/D staff have agenda, just like board members do, but if they are not lying to Campion-Smith than it sounds like board has broken their own by-laws and are now going to cover their mistake retroactively. Which sounds like bureaucrats run amok, one law for priestly class, one law for the rest of us.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I've (magically!) seen the list of resolutions for the board meeting. It's accurate.

Dot

So, would the Beauregard contracts have fallen under different criteria? They were $10k a piece, so they didn't fall under past policies, and presumably, if the limit was raised, they wouldn't now either.

I would like to reiterate one point I made elsewhere. If there is no formal proposal, no deliverables, no follow up to see if any contract has fulfilled it's terms, it really doesn't matter what the overall rules and spending limits say. A contract is required, whether tendered or signle sourced.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

What contracts are you referring to, Dot?

The $10K that went to the Middle East groups that has been part of this controversy?

A funding grant is not a contract for services.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Yeah, but aside from the issue of the three $10k grants there was a separate issue about certain contractual arrangements. Apparently, this is one of the things that the audit will be looking at.
Dot

A funding grant is not a contract for services.

Well, yes and no. Unconditional grant – no. Specific request /proposal for funding – yes. I assume it is the latter. If it's the former, maybe it should be the latter.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

uhmm. not sure about your distinction Dot. you can have a request for proposals for grant/contribution funding which is still a different funding mechanism than contracts.
Dot

I was thinking along these lines: Say an individual contribution to Red Cross. It could be for general use anywhere in the world; it could be for relief in say response to a tsunami; or, if they have specific needs, say a water supply pump/project for a specific village.

This could be the nature of the dispute – general grants that can't be traced to specific projects (so there is a possibility, however remote, that the funds ended up elsewhere).

No, not a contract in the classic sense, but still with specific deliverables – but I am just guessing, as are others.

Dot

There are, to be sure, NGOs to whom Rights and Democracy money goes. But, none of this is simply the awarding of grants amongst applications. All spending today by Rights and Democracy on NGOs results from elicited requests. The organization devises a program and finds NGO contractors to deliver it. NGOs that receive grants today from Rights and Democracy are doing what Rights and Democracy wants, on contract.

David Matas opinion piece in today's Epoch Times

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/3077…

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

Letters of complaint and advice ("toss them out, all of them") sent to Cannon, Harper, and RAD themselves. Who else is well-placed within government to see this issue as colossally misplayed and effect a change, I wonder…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

http://bit.ly/bI0W9N

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Jeez Paul, give some warning next time. That scared the hell out of me.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

That gum he likes is going to come back in style.

Jan

So it's fire up the cheque book while waiting for the auditors to arrive.
Maybe open an office in – Venice?
http://intensedebate.com/people/NoNameCS NoNameCS

At some point, the two head clowns driving the Volkswagen need to own up to the mess they have created and fix it, don't you think?
Orson Bean

Dot, you're thinking far too precisely and critically here. What you're supposed to do is pick a partisan position, and depending on which position you pick, fire a short, punchy partisan shot at the partisans on the other side. Then the partisans on your side will give you those thumbs-up thingys, and the partisans on the other side will give you those thumbs-down thingys. That's the way this comment board is supposed to work. 'kay?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

So why are they seeking to change the bylaws to loosen the restrictions after they were publicly critical of that very aspect of governance? At some point giving these people the benefit of the doubt just becomes doubtful.

Dot

How do you know they are being loosened?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

They need to be tendered. This change will remove the tender requirement. That's a tightening?

Dot

So, since you have a copy of the motion (unpassed I might add) why not post it? Let's see precisely what it says, and the $$ amounts..

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The bylaws are being loosened in that the change would allow the president to appoint or engage "employees, agents, consultants and advisers" without tender (competitive bids, etc.) The staff say that the president has already been doing this for months.

Since the board only got around to changing the rules now, the staff claim that the interim president violated the existing bylaws when he hired those firms last month. Most likely, the board approved each of the president's recent hiring decisions and permitted him to circumvent the tender requirement.

Ironically, the new rule changes now give the president more power, even though the board felt that late president Beauregard had too much power in terms of discretionary spending and contractual arrangements.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

The board cannot have approved those decisions. The board has not met since it appointed Gauthier as interim president a couple of days before the end of January.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

That's interesting. If the board didn't approve, it raises questions about whether Gauthier properly complied with the rules when he made those hiring decisions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

It raises the question? How can there be an answer that isn't he didn't comply with the rules, when the rules are written down and the board hasn't met to give him a pass on the rules as written? I'm sure he spoke to Aurel Braun and probably at least two or three other board members, but if I were a board member who'd just gone on national TV to complain that "the issue is accountability" (yes, I'm looking at you, David Matas) I'd have a hard time approving these by-law changes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's always possible that the board gave Gauthier permission to skip these tender requirements when they appointed him in January. Hiring a legal firm, a security firm, a communications firm, and a CEO could have been on the agenda of that board meeting.

On the other hand, you could be right that Gauthier didn't comply with the rules, and the bylaw changes at the next board meeting are an ex post facto attempt to correct the situation.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Wow, good answer!

I don't suppose the agenda for that meeting would happen to be floating around where someone could get a look at it, huh?
abpouv

The board had to meet to decide to close the Geneva office 2 weeks ago. What else they decided… only they know.

Dot

To be honest, I did sort of gloss over that when I first read it – it didn't strike me as being that significant. Still, I'd like to see the motion in its raw state, not paraphrased by a reporter.

Orson Bean

Reporters typically prefer to paraphrase rather than quote the original source. That gives them more opportunity to spin, distort, sensationalize etc.
kcm

Jeez OB why are yo so put out? It's not like the board has been cooperative or helpful in any way as far as getting the whole stor out. All they've managed is inane, parochial op-ed pieces in the post and personal attacks on anyone who questions their version of events.
Orson Bean

I`m not put out. I agree with everything in your post. I think those op-ed pieces are absolutely inane, my eyeballs roll when I read them. It`s the lawyer in me, I`m used to people going all legalistic and self-righteously publishing rambling screeds like that. I just tune out when that process starts ramping up.

But I fully stand behind my comments about reporters (the bad ones, mind you). That was just a general observation, not necessarily specific to what`s going on here. Although I do look askance at just about any political reporting by the Toronto Star, except for Chantal Hebert — she`s a true gem.

http://windyroom.blogspot.com Karen Krisfalusi

The nice thing about reading good journalism (like the linked specimen) is that the personality of the writer is not the main theme. I hardly knew what to expect (clowns, Eurasia, “he’s just like meeee”). All Wells, All The Time, waste of time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

When Wells writes in the magazine he uses a more formal style. But I also enjoy the Inkless foray's into the blog sphere with all the attendant personality.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NoNameCS NoNameCS

I find it fascinating that the some of the same people who generally complain about the sacro-sanct "taxpayer dollar" being wasted by public servants who behave as if they were not accountable to citizens seem to be A-OK with the fact that the Board of a public institution is behaving exactly that way. And that these same people are condemning employees who, in this case, are acting as the taxpayers' watchdog.

I perceive a little… inconsistency in the point of view.

Dot

the same people who generally complain about the sacro-sanct "taxpayer dollar"

I think you're confusing me with MYL. Or do you have a specific reference to that "facsinating…inconsistency" ?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I'm surprised, Dot, that you can find so much to not get upset about. Obviously, just as the first thing, Deloitte hasn't finished their audit enough to give concrete advice on internal controls. Certainly, Deloitte would not advocate contravening the by-laws of the organization, although they might suggest they be changed if their audit, upon completion, indicates it would be beneficial.

Dot

The Board meeting is scheduled for March 25th. Deloitte, in an R&D press release Feb 19th was expected to report back within three weeks – meaning that in all likelihood the Board members will have received a copy of the report ahead of their meeting, and decisions will be acted upon or will be available to be voted on in the scheduled meeting.

So, the question that should be asked or discussed is whether the actions of the President designate/Board member after the death of Beauregard, and with an internal feud widely reported or fueled by leaks to the press, with the mess R&D were in, was in a situation where it needed to bring in outside expertise on short order to deal with the situation (even if it was of their own making – I'm not there yet). Keep in mind these decisions were made after the Chair discussed the situation with Cannon. Could Cannon, as Minister, have recommended an independent outside audit? If he could, would it have been required to go to bid and allowed the situation to continue on for a number of additional weeks?

Context, people.

peterjustice

Dot, where did you get the info about the March 25th board meeting?
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Could Cannon, as Minister, have recommended an independent outside audit? If he could, would it have been required to go to bid and allowed the situation to continue on for a number of additional weeks? "

The press release from Cannon said that he supports the audit, not that he recommended it. Not to say that you are in fact wrong. I just think that the context you speak of is sitting on a whole heap of suppositions on your part.

Dot

Well, join me in the supposition game. If you were Cannon and you were doing your due diligence, what do YOU suppose should have been discussed in the Braun meeting?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

And why would I suppose that Cannon would exercise due diligence?

I think that the PMO had only two things on his agenda for that meeting and Cannon was the note taker:

1. Braun, shut your piehole when the press comes calling.
2. Help us figure out how we can get this mess out of the press.

You seem inclined on creating all kinds of suppositions so as to give the benefit of the doubt to R&D Board and this govt. Don't count me in on that one. If there is one thing that this Chessmaster-in-Chief has taught me, it is to always assume the worse
Dot

Easy to be a critic isn't it? Asked for what YOU would do, you weasle out.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Say Dot, seems to me that you are the one who fancied herself a critic of the above blog, yes?
Dot

The words that pw chooses here and elsewhere are not ones I'd pick or use. Other than that, he's simply linking to a TorStar story – so not "a critic of the above blog", per se.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Hey I'll take your semantics game over the name calling, I guess. The point remains. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Dot

What precisely am I taking? Grief because I admit I don't go around making unfounded allegations like others? Criticism because I don't share tunnel vision? OK, whatever.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

But you have admitted above and below that you have no facts, only suppositions, Dot. In fact, my original post says that you may in fact be right. I only pointed out that you don't have the facts either and it seems a bit hypocritical on your part to be throwing stones at others who, like you, took the little that they know and drew conclusions for it.

Why you would have a hissy fit and start name calling is rather interesting and also very telling.

I'll ask again, why is this so personal for you?
Dot

I'm not the one making allegations here PJ. Other are. I am testing their veracity by pointing out equally if not more reasonable explanations. I have said elsewhere to wait to see what becomes of the audits. I have also suggested to people that they take some time to study up and learn something about corporate governance – yet they continue to make unfounded claims.

You wrote some unflattering comments about Cannon above. Why? Is it because you have no idea what you would have done in a similar situation? I know what I would have done, and it certainly doesn't differe appreciably from my understanding of what he did in fact do (call in a deputy minister to look into the matter, meet with the Chair, and endorse in whatever form an action plan). So, why is he being called "duplicitous"?

To be frank, normally I don't read your comments nor take them too seriously – they seem a bit too argumentative to me. Maybe next time I'll just ignore them as well.
Canuckistanian

Dot, have you recently received an untendered contract from R&D? Cause your bucket-defencing has been quite thorough. If you haven't, you should really submit a bill for your previous deliverables on this file ;-).

Also, I particularly liked this one: "yet they continue to make unfounded claims."

Some people, eh Dot ;-)
Dot

"Bucket defense". A term Wells lifted from George Wills. Let me check what Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson said at the time in response.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"You wrote some unflattering comments about Cannon above. Why? Is it because you have no idea what you would have done in a similar situation?"

No. It is because everything we know about this PMO clearly indicates that they would NEVER let one of their ministers take the lead on something like this and stay uninvolved. I cannot believe that Cannon would be in a meeting with Braun after this kind of media fanfare and that the PMO did not give him marching orders.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"I know what I would have done, and it certainly doesn't differe appreciably from my understanding of what he did in fact do (call in a deputy minister to look into the matter, meet with the Chair, and endorse in whatever form an action plan). So, why is he being called "duplicitous"?"

Ask the person who made the comment. And this isn't about what YOU would do but rather what a politically motivated Harper/Giornio-led PMO would do.

"To be frank, normally I don't read your comments nor take them too seriously – they seem a bit too argumentative to me. Maybe next time I'll just ignore them as well."

lol! Yeah… ok. The exit to the kitchen is that way.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Well, yes, Dot, but due to report in three weeks does not equal already reported. It may be that Aurel Braun put the item on the agenda in the expectation that Deloitte would recommend loosening the tender process in order to provide better accountability (yes, I'm being sarcastic here) but I think it's quite a stretch for you to put these unreported assumptions, wild hunches and possibilities into your reaoning that then allows you to conclude "nothing to see here". Just saying.

Dot

Cart, meet horse.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Dot, by your own admission, you don't even have a cart for YOUR horse to pull.
Dot

The TorStar article and this non-blog blog about R&D is about an unpassed agenda item for a board meeting that is three weeks off.

If I don't even have a cart – its because I don't need one at this stage – People like you are doing cartwheels hither and thither.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"People like you are doing cartwheels hither and thither."

You're joking, right? You've just about written an entire movie script in an attempt to justify the Board's actions. I'm merely pointing out that you have nothing more than suppositions and an apparent need to give them the benefit of the doubt behind your theory. You then get all upset and call me a weasle.

Why is this so personal for you?
Dot

Well, similar to pw when he was on The Agenda, you and others are making statements about such individuals like Cannon that are based upon absolutely no facts (or a biased spin of facts) – just opinions, and in many circumstances, with an ignorance of how boards actually operate.

If by my turning the tables you find it too hot, then temporarily get out of the kitchen.
Canuckistanian

"you and others are making statements…that are based upon absolutely no facts"

Glass house, meet stones ;-)
Dot

Facts of Life was a sitcom, not a Major.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Yawn…..
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Huh? I'm honestly trying to see the possibilities of facts as yet unknown to us. For sure we don't know all the details in this mess. But I'm also trying to use common sense when doing so (it is not feasible to me that Deloitte would advocate lessening the internal controls as a way to increase accountability) . I have attempted to point out that you seem to be taking an, in my view remote, possibility, building on that with another possibility, and coming to a fairly concrete conclusion.

Maybe you should read your first post again to see what I'm talking about. Otherwise, where do the carts and the horses fit in?
Dot

There are two separate issues – audit of grants by Deloitte (or whatever they are doing).

Spending limits/single source contracting by the President. This policy rule is normally determined by efficiency criteria (usually lower $ amount, not worth the paperwork, time or for emergency/unusual circumstances)

You are conflating the two. Since pw supposedly has this info (motion) and won't provide it, let's blame him for the confusion.
Jan

Is Deloitte auditing the grants only? I missed that.
Dot

Who knows? This is all they said in the press release:

"We've turned to professionals to give us an accurate picture of certain transactions and contractual arrangements for the past five years," he said.
Jan

Well, they didn't need an auditor to terminate the funding to the 3 rights groups Braun refers to as 'toxic'. Value for money obviously wasn't the issue.
Dot

According to Matas in The Agenda debate, he moved to "repudiate" ( I think that's the term he used) the grants in a Board meeting, and it passed 11-0, so whether that was just disowning them after the fact, or it had financial consequences is unknown. Due to the relatively small amounts, I'd be surprised if they weren't just one time awards made and paid in full some time in 2009.

Johnny Flag

Dot,
Your role as board apologist here is indeed laudable, and laughable. I especially like the way you seem to equate Braun's conferring with Cannon as tantamount to a stamp of moral authority on his rewriting the bylaws. That's a good one! Cannon and morality! That you still believe this has anything to do with actual accountability is indeed commendable. However, the only transparency here is the board's naked attempt to justify a witch-hunt against an organization at odds with their view of the world.

Dot

I especially like the way you seem to equate Braun's conferring with Cannon as tantamount to a stamp of moral authority on his rewriting the bylaws.

I don't know what you are talking about. The "bylaws" have yet to be rewritten. That, I believe, is what this whole blog is supposedly not about – a motion supposedly to change some of the bylaws at the next board meeting.

The only apology I'd like to offer is for your non reading comprehension..

kcm

Love the tags PW…watch out! You've got one foot in again already. Honestly who could resist…somethings just scream out 'pile on", and in this case justly so.
JamesHalifax

Karen, if it makes you feel better………If Paul was half the writer he thinks he is, he'd be worth reading. Until then, there is always Mark Steyn. Get your stories with humour…..but also with verifiable FACTS. Who says being a writer and being ACCURATE isn't possible?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Wait… you're using Steyn as a poster boy for journalists getting facts straight? Steyn of the "Muslims are taking over France", or the guy who wrote "another six weeks of insurgency sounds about right, after which it will peter out", back in 2003?

Seriously?

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

and that does not position the journo's personality at the centre of the story to boot Thwim!

mark 'the cult of personality' steyn!

Canuckistanian

let's not forget his hilarious sense of humour, like laughing at a woman too poor to afford dentures so she had to use her dead sister's (as linked by Digby). Steynlarious ;-)

C.W.

Mark Steyn?

Do you mean the Mark Steyn who seems to have turned this: “In the past five years, Hindy said he has officiated or "blessed" more than 30 polygamous marriages; the most recent was two months ago”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/429490

into this: “…Aly Hindy, a Scarborough imam, told the Toronto Star that he’d performed 30 polygamous marriages just in the last few weeks.” (“We’re in the fast lane to polygamy”, Mark Steyn, April 9, 2009)

or the Mark Steyn who wrote this in October: "The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving national ‘energy efﬁciency’ standards, starting with a 50 per cent reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer”.

Factcheck.org: “There’s no such requirement in the bill…We found no requirement for energy audits or energy-efficiency inspections in the bill… Major trade groups representing home builders and real-estate brokers also say these claims are false.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/energy-bill-and-…

http://mediaculpapost.blogspot.com/2010/01/were-u…
http://mediaculpapost.blogspot.com/2010/01/were-used-to-warnings-about-european.html C.W.

Mark Steyn?

Do you mean the Mark Steyn who seems to have turned this: “In the past five years, Hindy said he has officiated or "blessed" more than 30 polygamous marriages; the most recent was two months ago”(Noor Javed, Toronto Star, May 24, 2008)

into this: “…Aly Hindy, a Scarborough imam, told the Toronto Star that he’d performed 30 polygamous marriages just in the last few weeks.” (“We’re in the fast lane to polygamy”, Mark Steyn, April 9, 2009)

or the Mark Steyn who wrote this in October: "The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving national ‘energy efﬁciency’ standards, starting with a 50 per cent reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer”.

Factcheck.org: “There’s no such requirement in the bill…We found no requirement for energy audits or energy-efficiency inspections in the bill… Major trade groups representing home builders and real-estate brokers also say these claims are false.

kcm

'there is always Mark Steyn. Get your stories with humour…..but also with verifiable FACTS. Who says being a writer and being ACCURATE isn't possible?"

Now that Mr Coyne is how you write satire…bravo James!!
Dot

In the story pw linked to in the Star:

Two days after that memo went to the auditors, board chair Aurel Braun, a professor, sent out notice of a March 25 board meeting in Montreal to discuss revising the bylaws.
http://intensedebate.com/people/ElectricTorch ElectricTorch

The Board’s move to change the bylaws will necessarily attract public attention, but it is in their best interest to protect themselves from a legal perspective. The recent exposure left them no other choice.

As for the spending so far, it's likely they will argue these were a result of exceptional circumstance and get away with it.

I’d be very surprised if they allowed the remaining managers ample opportunity to strike at them again in public.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"If by my turning the tables you find it too hot, then temporarily get out of the kitchen."

Oh so you admit that you have "absolutely no facts (or a biased spin of facts) – just opinions, and in many circumstances, with an ignorance of how boards actually operate.?"
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

While we've all been distracted by parsing Dot's precision …

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/thre…

Surprise !

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

What is your opinion of their legal position?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Labour law in Canada, federally and provincially, is a sieve.

Legally, they are now unemployed.

Jan

Is the law on this any different in Quebec?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Quebec does have stronger labour laws. But these employees are management level
and not likely covered under a collective agreement.

Free speech is not part of the employer/employee relationship.

Call Levant and Steyn. Maybe they care.

Dot

No surprise. Gauthier telegraphed this some time ago in the comments of another Wells blog.

kcm

I'd like to know where the union is on this?

Dunbar A. Fortiori

The employees that have been terminated, to date, are management and are thus non-union employees.

Excerpt from:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/773990…

“They know that the whole staff is against them, so they will try to remove as many as they can, beginning with non-unionized management staff,” the source said.

Orson Bean

The thing is, anyone who knows anything about basic employment law knows that insubordination is a legitimate legal reason to fire somebody. It`s cause for dismisal without notice. The interesting issue here, at least potentially, is where the line is drawn between, say, whistle-blowing on the one hand and insubordination on the other.
Dunbar A. Fortiori

Those terminated on 1 March are named as Directors:

Marie-France Cloutier, Director, Administration and Resources
Razmik Panossian, Director of Policy, Programmes and Planning
Charles Vallerand, Director, Communications

http://www.dd-rd.ca/site/who_we_are/index.php?sub…

What's the subtext in that perfect memo that gets circulated? "The floggings will continue until morale improves."
Dot

So the infamous Geneva office consisted of one employee? Hmmm
Dunbar A. Fortiori

I was going to mention in passing [But, what are the odds?] that it would be the height of irony if the unnamed Afghanistan employees were asked to appear at the reconstituted Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan to answer questions.

Ouroboros, incarnate.
Jan

'Infamous' – only Tim Mak seems to think so. Has there been any explanation as to why the office was closed?
Dot

I believe PW linked "buddy" (aka Tim Mak) to this overall nefarious scheme at R&D in the TVO debate.

Why don't you ask him?
Jan

It was Mak who brought us the office is closed, residential lease is too high via his(cough) Geneva source. Why he thought this was vital info is beyond me. I trust the auditors will get to the bottom of it. I'm sensing a little testiness, Dot.
Dot

No one would have even heard of Tim Mak had PW not linked to him here. Some young maybe naive kid starting out. Looks to me PW is redefining the term "bully pulpit" that is usually used in a positive light in politics. To claim that some R&D Directors were somehow siccing him on the issue is bizarre. Then provide the video link to the nation. And if PW is making this association without proof, contemptible as far as I am concerned.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Really, I have no problem with these three being fired. It is insubordination, but more to the point they can't work there anymore, at least not without making themselves physically and/or mentally ill. And also, one must have some moral fortitude, even if it means your job, when employers cross the line so egregiously.

But that's just the battle. They will, I am quite sure, find very willing employers at other NGOs, or any pricipled industry they'd like to work in. And they can take heart that the war isn't over.
kcm

"The thing is, anyone who knows anything about basic employment law knows that insubordination is a legitimate legal reason to fire somebody'

Well yes, and anyone who knows anything about justice knows it is possible to be guilty in law and yet innocent. This isn't a private enterprise. The public has a right to know what is being done in its name…i hope parliament asserts itself here too.
kcm

Interesting…thanks.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Given the circumstances, I think that getting fired is the best possible outcome for these managers. Gauthier has basically given them official martyrdom status. They won't have a problem finding employment with any of the other Rights groups

Dot

when employers cross the line so egregiously.

What specifically is this statement based upon?

kcm

nothing at all Dot…it's perfectly obvious there's no possibility of a political agenda here…it's all about accountability and transparency…cuz the board told us so.

Dot

Not asking you kcm. Jenn made an unequivocal and damning statement. I'd like to know what it is based upon. I'd like her to still answer for her statements.

As an aside, i presume you watched The Agenda debate that PW posted. There was PW, Chris Selley who stated he implicitly was accepting PW's reporting for his NP editorial, current board member David Matas, and a former board member who had resigned.

Now, PW characterised Beauregard's last meeting (he passed away that evening) as particularly acrimonious, or words to that effect. And I've seen similar reports elsewhere. Now, we know that Wells wasn't there, but the two board members were. Matas refuted Wells's claim, suggesting it was nothing like that, and the other board member didn't chime in to support Wells's claim. Also, the former board member said he read in the media (so no first hand knowledge) that the evaluation of Beauregard contained references to a question about number of Jewish people employed by R&D. Wells admitted he had not seen the performance review – but Matas said he had, and it contained no such reference.

Now, if one accepts reporter's accounts of the board meeting and Beauregard's evaluation, after hearing both sides, then you have to in effect be calling Matas (who) has first hand knowledge) a liar. Are you prepared to make that claim here?

kcm

I noted that matas also claimed that the board unanimously refuted the problematic grants, clearly implying beauregard had no qualms [ this was braun's assertion too] Wells has already made a case for this not being accurate at all. Matas also stated that Beauregard has amble opportunity to review and discuss his performance review. Wells also made a convincing case for this being another white lie. so, if you're hanging your hat on Matas's penchent for telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you better look for another way to keep your head warm. Besides, didn't that alleged remark of gauthiers occur somewhere other than the review?

Dot

Making a case for something within a narrative, or advocating a particular position, is not reporting. In the profession in which I once practised, this approach would not pass muster. Perhaps that's why I (and others) am having so much difficulty in the implications and inferences drawn here and elsewhere.

Frankly, I have found Matas more credible than his accusers on this file.

peterjustice

Well, seems to me that if two board members resign (Samar, Akhavan) in protest and other board members vote not to re-nominate another (Rivera)…a reasonable person would qualify such a meeting as acrimonious.

Matas published in the Globe and Mail last Friday that according to what he read the Beauregard evaluation didn't contain a reference to the inquiry by Gauthier re. Jewish employees but rather that the reference was made in a "confidential memo" submitted to Beauregard's evaluation committee by Gauthier. Whether Gauthier's comment is in the evaluation report or in another document submitted to the evaluation committee mandated to evaluate Beauregard doesn't make much of a difference and I think that it makes sense that Beauregard would respond.

Lastly, I find Matas' claim that this whole issue is not about the MIddle East (TVO) contradictory given his previous statements and writings on the issue.

Dot

Do you know when the two board members resigned? Was it at the beginning, middle, end or after the full board meeting? Akhavan stated that the reason he resigned was because his side (the previous majority if you will) was being steamrolled – ie there was block voting. To my knowledge, he didn't resign for other reasons.

Re Beauregard's evaluation. Yes it does make a difference. As I understand what Matas had stated, the Evaluation Committee of the BofD reports to PCO or wherever in gov't. They are the body that hires/fires Beauregard. And as far as I understand, it was the fact that Beauregard could not see what was contained in the final evaluation that mattered. Now, once it is submitted to the PCO (or wherever) I understood from what Matas said that they now, in effect, control the document – it was prepared on their behalf. Hence, arguably, as I understand, control was ceded to them (it couldn't be released to other board members or Beauregard without the PCO's (or whatever's) consent.)

Re Middle East. I saw a piece some where else, can't remember in what paper, that R&D used to have a Middle East program in the 90's , but dropped it because of the controversies etc. I think Akhavan also suggested something similar in the Agenda debate – R&D doesn't have a Middle east program now. So, $30k out of an $11 million budget? I remain unconvinced. It may be a part of the puzzle (size to be determined), I'll grant you that.
peterjustice

According to PW they walked out of the meeting: http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/sima-samar/

It seems to me from the R & D website that there is a Middle East Programme Officer so one would assume there is a programme.

The Jerusalem Post article, Matas' peice on Reframing, Braun's statements in the media, the new majority's first op-ed, etc. very clearly show that this conflict originates in a difference on how to deal with the Israel and Palestinian human rights record. How can Matas deny that?
Dot

Yes, walked out. But when? (btw a lot of Wells's evidence regarding events with Beauregard is hearsay from, I presume, now ex-employees. I also presume you have a legal background from your name. There are valid reasons hearsay evidence has less weight, or in most cases inadmissible aren't there – case in point?)

Payam Akhavan , former board member, R&D from TVO clip – (30:40)

"As Mr. Matas said, we have no Middle East program in Rights and Democracy…"

Perhaps the full title of Regional Officer, Middle East and North Africa was a carryover from the 1990's, and this individual was focusing on the North Africa part of their job title.

Now, if there was in fact no Middle East policy as apparently Matas and Akhavan stated, could funding of groups out of the President's discretionary funds be viewed by some as "freelancing", outside of the knowledge of both the board and the government?
peterjustice

In the article that I mentioned PW says that he has both Akhavan and Samar on record so that would not be hearsay. But why are you fixated on when they walked out? Their statements in the press clearly indicate that they were not happy with the direction of the meeting and the criticized the President of the Board for it. The PW article was released before the end of the day that day, I remember cause I was shocked when I received it and sitting at my desk…so presumably they walked out before 5 pm. I have no idea when the meeting ended but perhaps you do? You seem to have some very precise info about this crisis…

Freelancing? Well the President is a member of the Board and appointed by the government. What about the reports that the government was consulted and cleared the groups?? In any case, do all the projects have to go to the Board?? What do the by-laws say about that? Why is the Board fixated on these 3 grants? And why have they not raised issues about other grants…from everything that has surfaced this is more about the Middle East than anything else and it appears disingenuous to say otherwise. That's my beef with the Matas spin on TVO and the latest Board op-ed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Geez, Dot. Could you not get that I was speaking from the employees point of view? I understand you are questioning my assertion as all this duck-quacking noise hasn't been proven to come from a duck, but if you are the recently fired employees, the conclusion came long ago.

Dot

Give us specifics please, or be more careful in your defamatory statements in the future.

Canuckistanian

What is your hourly rate on this file Dot? You'll definitely make partner by billing this many hours ;-)
kcm

Defamatory…who made your the blog cop? this is afree country, Jenns's entittled to speak her mind. no threa nannies needed.

Dot

I think she probably appreciates a reality check once in a while. When did you appoint yourself her godfather?

Jan

So, Dot could you tell us where we are in this story? In your view. Is there a problem or not?

Dot

Awaiting an audit to be completed and its results obtained/dissemenated. A Wells colleague is awaiting a resubmitted FOI request response for Beauregard's evaluation (it should be noted that this reporter had chosen not to run with this story in the past).

Possible parliamentary committee work to investigate events wiith requested documentation,minutes of meetings, testimony of principals.

Probably more staff firings and possible shut down of the whole endeavour for whatever reason – either wrong board members, scorched earth approach by some individuals, or a reassessment of the relevance of this approach (GONGO) and funding.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

. . . Possible disgrace of anyone found lying through their teeth on national television. Possible discrediting of Maclean's commenters who take everything at face value until given evidence, months after the fact, that they were wrong, because they hate rushing to judgment and don't mind being left waaaaay behind by events as long as they're scrupulously to what conceivably could be the best possible explanation for any given culprit.

Dot

Well Jack, we already know how you feel on this type of reporting…(best investigative in Canada)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Extrapolating from your comments above, I don't see why you'd ever accept any investigative reporting. The target of investigation would only have to deny everything and you'd say, "Well, they have denied everything, and until it's proven in court . . ."

Perhaps, next time you start citing E. May's various hypocrisies, I can just quote her own PR back at you and defy you to prove it wrong. That will take a lot of work on your part, I warn you. A lot of linking. Even though you're almost certainly right (you usually are on factual stuff). And meanwhile the conversation will have moved on, because the pace of PR is far quicker than the pace of the bumbling media trying to point out discrepancies. As we learned on the Iraq War and some of us will never forget. I will never again accept "just trust us" as an adequate explanation for apparent contradictions: only a good-faith explanation will suffice. I will not be played past.
Dot

You can't on one hand claim that certain board members have denied individuals due process, then on the other hand deny them the same courtesy. I have given Wells the proper credit for establishing a baseline of facts in the past (his first Macleans article he subsequently indicated it was for the benefit of his colleagues or something to that effect.) But, it appears to me that this has since become personal, so he is right to pull back a bit. And so should others.

Parliament gets back today. The audit presumably will be completed in a week or two. Is this issue, at this stage, of such import that one cannot have a time out?

Re: Elizabeth may. yes, I have been critical of her. Yes, I have made jokes at her expense. Can you give me one example where I have made unsubstantiated claims about her that are not based upon facts publicly available? I don't think I have.

Dot

For your benefit, I consider it charity work.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"The thing is, anyone who knows anything about basic employment law knows that insubordination is a legitimate legal reason to fire somebody'

Does anyone here actually believe that these three managers wanted to keep those jobs?

Dot

So, are you suggesting they had an agenda? Hostile witnesses, so to speak, in the court of public opinion? If so, caution should be exercised in accepting everything so disclosed at full face value.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"normally I don't read your comments nor take them too seriously – they seem a bit too argumentative to me. Maybe next time I'll just ignore them as well. "

Remember this? Why don't you just keep to that. I really don't feel like dealing with your hysterical nonsense again.

Dot

Remember this: "Say Dot, seems to me that you are the one who fancied herself a critic of the above blog, yes? "

Now this: "your hysterical nonsense again."

Bit sexist, don't you think? And very presumptuous. As elsewhere. Remember, the first three letters of assume are…
Bartolomeo

Paul Wells – it's time to take out your Roto-Rooter again.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Bartolomeo Bartolomeo

Why would anyone "thumbs down" that? sheesh.

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com Dr.Dawg

I like the fact that a forensic audit is underway, and that four employees who assisted the auditors with information about irregular tenders by the Magnificent Seven have been handed one-day suspensions.

"Clowns" barely covers it, Paul. Words fail me at this point.
Jan

Cannon has now confirmed Latulippe's appointment, over the objections of all the opposition parties.
Jan

In the Braun & Co piece in the National Post – January 20 – they refer to
'poor judgement and lack of accountability demonstrated in approving certain grants'. They then cite the three grants in question as examples of this.

Dot

Ok, thanks. You didn't provide the link, so I've added it here:

http://tinyurl.com/yfjzzh6

So, what else did they write in that piece? Some key points:

.Even as far back as 1998, the board acted to terminate Rights & Democracy’s program in the Middle East because it was generating precisely the kinds of problems we are experiencing today.
…
As a result, the board voted to repudiate these grants and temporarily freeze the discretionary funds under the president’s control which were used to provide them. What has not been reported is that the president, the late Rémy Beauregard, who was a voting member of the board, actually voted with the majority of the board, in agreement with this decision. The freeze decision is meant to allow the staff time to complete a redesign of decision-making processes to help the organization avoid such situations in the future.

So, it could very well have been these three grants that specifically brought the issue to the board's attention. And they moved to put controls in place to prevent unauthorized grants of this type from happening in the future without board oversight.

So, maybe both sides are right to some degree. (The Deloitte audit reference in the press release suggests more than just grants that are being reviewed).

The link that is still missing, however, is the claim that this is/was being directed by the gov't (or with tacit approval) as some overall new hidden agenda. If there was in fact a Middle East program, or the creation of one with some new $$, the case would be stronger. The fact remains – three grants at $10k are still small potatoes, no matter how either side wishes to spin it.