Do Albertans Have A Right To Know? (I’m taking bets)

Posted on September 23, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

In a classic display of clumsy timing Stephen Lockwood, Chairman of the board of Alberta Health Services (AHS), announced that the independent audit into allegations of expense account abuse at Alberta Health Services would be limited to auditing the expense account claims of ex-CFO Allaudin Merali.  Reportedly Mr Merali blew through $346,208 in expenses in 3½ years while working as a senior executive at the Capital Health Region (Calgary Health has since been rolled into AHS).  That’s $270 a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year for every day for 3½ years.* 

Mr Lockwood’s announcement reversed an earlier decision by Dr Chris Eagle, Alberta Health Services CEO, that the Merali audit would be expanded to include the expenses of about 30 former Capital Health executives including Sheila Weatherill, formerly the CEO of Capital Health and an ex-AHS board member and Neil Wilkinson, formerly Chairman of the board of Capital Health and now Ms Redford’s ethics commissioner.  (Yes the ethics commissioner)

Predictably Mr Lockwood’s decision to shield Ms Weatherill and Mr Wilkinson from further public scrutiny was met with outrage.  Dr David Swann (Lib) characterized Mr Lockwood’s decision as a “bait and switch.”**Kerry Towle (WR) called it “atrocious”.**  They’re absolutely right.

To rub additional salt in the wound, Mr Lockwood’s retreat from Dr Eagle’s promise came just one day after Ms Redford’s Privacy Commissioner, Jill Clayton, announced that Sept 24th to 28th was Right To Know Week.

Right To Know Week is ”…an annual event to promote freedom of information as essential to both democracy and good governance”.***Ms Clayton will be hosting two all day forums, one in Calgary and one in Edmonton, entitled “Openness and Transparency—From Concept to Reality”.  These forums will “showcase some initiatives undertaken in Alberta to make information more accessible to the public”.       

Ms Clayton was quick to acknowledge that “Leadership support is essential in developing a culture of openness and transparency”.   (Hear hear!)

Turning our attention back to the leadership at Alberta Health Services…what did Mr Lockwood, the AHS Chairman of the board, say in support of his decision to reverse Dr Eagle’s decision?  Oops, sorry, Mr Lockwood was not available for comment.  Well, okay, what about Dr Eagle, the CEO of AHS?  Did he make a statement about the chairman’s reversal of his decision?   Ah, no, Dr Eagle was also unavailable for comment.

Well, how about Health Minister Horne, the politician ultimately responsible for AHS?  Nope, Minister Horner was not available…however his press secretary, Mr Johnson, said Mr Horne had directed AHS to arrange an independent audit of Mr Merali’s expenses and to allow the auditor to go beyond Mr Merali if it was necessary to do so.  To quote Mr Johnson “As far as we’re concerned, [AHS has] been given a direction and they’re following that direction.  Why they did and said what they did is for them to explain.”**

Oh I see, go back to Mr Lockwood and Dr Eagle…who have no comment.

How much do you want to bet that at next year’s Right To Know forum, Privacy Commissioner Clayton will not be “showcasing” the backtracking and stonewalling on the Merali audit as “an initiative to make information more accessible to the public”?

It’s a crying shame.

*Calgary Herald, Sept 17, 2012, A11

**Calgary Herald, Sept 21, 2012, A4

***Alberta Government News Release, dated Sept 20, 2012

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

How Peter Lougheed Became a Political “Giant”: In his own words

Posted on September 16, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

The internet was flooded with expressions of sympathy upon the passing of Peter Lougheed.   One of the most eloquent was a Twitter post by Justin Trudeau.  In 25 simple words he captured how we all felt:  “It is with tremendous sadness that we bid adieu to a giant of Canadian politics.  Peter Lougheed was a man of vision, integrity, and heart”.

How does a man (or a woman for that matter) become a “giant” in the political arena?

Steve Paikin, host of The Agenda, discovered the answer in a recent interview with Mr Lougheed.  The former premier had just been named the best premier in 40 years.* The list of top 5 premiers included:  Robert Bourassa (Lib) Quebec, Frank McKenna (Lib) New Brunswick, Allan Blakeney (NDP) Saskatchewan, Bill Davis (PC) Ont and, in the #1 spot, our very own Mr Lougheed.  Mr Paikin asked Mr Lougheed to name the quality that he and the other 4 premiers shared that placed them in the upper echelon of political leadership.

Mr Lougheed’s response may surprise you–not for what he said, but what he didn’t say.

What Mr Lougheed said was this:  he attributed his success to the ability to listen—to listen to the people in his office, the media, his party and the general public.  This indicates an open mind and a quest for information from all quarters, even the media.  Mr Lougheed said that after every interview he would ask himself what the reporter asked that surprised him.  Seeking input from unexpected sources helped Mr Lougheed understand the environment in which political decisions were being made.

What Mr Lougheed didn’t say but alluded to was this:  he understood that politicians, notwithstanding their political differences, could still respect each other on a personal level and that this respect would help them resolve their differences when they hit those inevitable bumps in the road.

Mr Lougheed’s willingness to see the person not just the politician served him well in his relationship with Bill Davis (the former Ontario premier who made it to second place on the best premiers list).  Mr Lougheed acknowledged that they had strong political differences but shared a love for football that led them to slip out of first ministers’ meetings like errant schoolboys to catch Monday Night Football.

Indeed, in discussing Mr Trudeau, the one politician you’d expect Mr Lougheed to view as an arch enemy, Mr Lougheed said “Mr Trudeau and I tangled very much” over the Canadian Constitution and federal/provincial financing arrangements, but “got along well” on a personal level.

Mr Lougheed became a giant in the world of politics because he listened to all who came within his orbit and was willing to set aside political posturing in the interests of public service.

No one described this quality better than Joe Clark who said: “Albertans and Canadians have a lot to learn from the way Peter Lougheed saw and served and enriched his country.  If more politicians developed this level of humility, the world would be a better place”.

*The 30 member Policy Options panel of the Institute for Research in Public Policy put Mr Lougheed in the top five and 21 of the 30 placed him at #1.

**Globe&Mail Online, Sept 14, 2012

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Transparency…it’s all in the eyes of the beholder

Posted on September 9, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Transparency—it’s a wonderful concept.  But in order to be meaningful it must be applied across the board.

Sorry, I got ahead of myself.  I’m talking about Premier Redford’s decision to implement the “toughest and most transparent”* expenditure rules in all of Canada.  Her new policy will require politicians, their staff, and about 400 senior civil servants to post their travel and meal expenses on line.  In addition, the new policy will disallow any claims for booze or business class/first class airfares for domestic travel.

This is an excellent start that brings the government into alignment with expenditure policies that have existed in the private sector for at least a decade.  But has Ms Redford gone far enough?  (This is where you can lay bets that I’ll say no…and  you’d be right.)

Here’s my first concern.  The transparency of this policy is undermined by the fact that the policy can be waived by the Treasury Board.

Now the waiver of policies is not a new concept.  In the corporate world the board of directors can waive the application of a policy to its senior executives, however if it does so the company must disclose the waiver—its purpose and for whom—to the public in its annual documents.

As Brian Mason so eloquently puts it “You can go to a cabinet committee behind closed doors and cancel all or a part of this entire policy.  So they’ve left themselves a backdoor that’s huge and any expenditure problem that creates a problem politically…can simply be covered up”**And guess what, cabinet deliberations are shielded from FOIP requests…how convenient.

Here’s my primary concern:  all this talk about the expenditure policy is a drop in the transparency bucket.  Sure we’ll see a reduction in the misuse of public money—something I’d guess would be in the $10 million range***but what about transparency with respect to the looming $3 billion deficit? 

Mr Horner recently presented the 2012 Q1 budget results.   His presentation was pitifully bereft of details.  In essence the 9 page report says Alberta’s economy is strong notwithstanding global uncertainty, but since 30% of Alberta’s revenue comes from non-renewable resources, primarily oil and gas revenues which are highly volatile, it’s difficult to predict revenues.  The rest of the document is larded with high level charts and graphs culled from Stats Canada, Treasury and industry.

Compare this to last year’s Q1 update.  It provided a line-by-line detailed analysis of what was budgeted, what the actual amounts were and, most importantly, the reasons for the change (up or down) from the budgeted number. 

Here are some examples.  In Q1 2011, bitumen royalty revenues were $773 million higher than expected in the first quarter because of higher oil price revenues and lower operator costs, but investment income from the Heritage Fund was $51 million lower than expected due to higher exchange rates.

The same level of detail is provided on the expense side of the ledger.  For example, the department of Health spent $16 million less because the costs of its vaccination program and IT improvements were lower than projected.  However Sustainable Development spent $230 million more (fighting forest fires and the pine beetle infestation) and Municipal Affairs spent an extra $234 million assisting Slave Lake.  This is valuable information that helps us understand where our tax dollars are going.

This year’s Q1 report reads like a PR puff piece complete with a blandly reassuring statement about the ongoing health of Alberta’s economy.  The only explanation for the failure to meet budgeted targets is the volatility of oil and gas revenues.  Yes, we get that—a budget that is 30% based on volatile oil and gas revenues will be volatile, but that’s not all that drives the government off its budget numbers, remember last year’s experience with the $230 million extra required to fight forest fires and pine beetles and the $234 million for Slave Lake?

When Scott Hennig, head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (and a true champion for transparency) asked Mr Horner why the 2012 Q1 report was so skimpy, Mr Horner responded that he wanted to give reporters a more meaningful and understandable report.  What?  If the quarterly budget update has degenerated into a feel good brochure when can we expect the real thing?

Mr Hennig’s response was simple:  “I wouldn’t trust anyone who wouldn’t show me any numbers.”****

And that is the nub of the issue–transparency engenders trust.  It’s admirable that Ms Redford worked so hard to bring transparency to the government’s expense account policy.  But I wish she’d devote as much attention to her colleague Mr Horner to ensure that Albertans have as much visibility into the projected $3 billion deficit as they have into an MLA’s attempt to claim a $4 mini bar item on the public tab.

*Calgary Herald, Sept 6, 2012, p A1

**Calgary Herald, Sept 6, 2012, p A4

***This is a guess based on 26 ministry offices X $40,000/year, plus 400 civil servants X $12,000/year, plus boards and committees at $2million

****Calgary Herald Online, Aug 31, 2012.

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

(While on vacation in Amsterdam Gerkin said…)

Posted on August 31, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

My husband and I are on vacation in Amsterdam and Alberta is a hundred light years away.  So rather than making a feeble attempt to stay current with Premier Redford’s latest shenanigans (Fort Macleod springs to mind) I’m going to tell you what Gerkin said. 

I was in the back of the tour bus, drifting into the stupor zone (eyelids at half mast) when our tour guide Gerkin (really, that is his name) said that Dutch children are the happiest children in Europe.

What?  One minute he’s telling us that the Netherlands is the second richest country in Europe and quoting house prices (the average house costs 250,000 euros, the super expensive houses run about 1.5 million euros);  then bam, a bolt from the blue—Dutch children are happier than children anywhere else on the continent.

Leaving aside the challenge of measuring the happiness scale of a small creature who can go from joy to misery in less than 10 seconds, and assuming that this is true—Gerkin hadn’t led us wrong yet—why are Dutch children the happiest children in Europe?

Gerkin didn’t say. He blithely continued his recitation of interesting facts—Amsterdam has 750,000 people and 650,000 bicycles.  They’re stolen at a rate of 200 a day.

Of course!  It’s the bicycles!  From the time a child is a toddler he’s perched on a bicycle gliding through the streets and alleyways like the mini-god that he is.  He starts as a tiny tot stuffed into a wheelbarrow-like thing slung over the front wheel.  Soon he graduates to the crate on the front handlebars or if he’s lucky, his own little bike seat which is fastened just behind the handlebars or right behind the seat.  When he gets a little older his parents allow him to straddle the back wheel.  And before you know it he has a bike of his own and is free to go anywhere he likes.

From this vantage point the Dutch child observes the world with a faint air of superiority.  And why not, cyclists have the right of way…period.  Pedestrians step into the bicycle lane at their own risk.  If they don’t hear the warning bell they’re flattened and no one gives them an ounce of sympathy because it’s their own fault!

The first few years of a Dutch child’s life are filled with excitement and adventure; but think how liberating the bicycle is for his parents.  No more fighting with the child to get him into the car because we’re going for a bike ride!  Furthermore if the child gives the parent any sass—poof! He’s ejected!

Okay, I got a little carried away there.  Time for some serious contemplation.  I think that Dutch children are happy not just because they’re born to bicycling parents, but because they’re born to bicycling parents who live in the Netherlands.

Gerkin told us that the Dutch tax rate runs from 10% to 50% (the 50% rate is triggered for those who earn more than 90,000 euros).   The Dutch are prepared to pay what some would consider an exorbitant tax rate because they believe in a social safety net which includes universal healthcare.  (The Dutch pay 1200 euros/year for basic coverage).  Their education system is ranked as the 9th best in the world.

So, let’s see, access to good healthcare and an excellent education, plus those magnificent bicycles—no wonder Dutch children are the happiest children in Europe.

Note to parents concerned about the angst of their own children:  Start with the bicycle but quickly work your way up to demanding universal healthcare and quality education.

Posted in Vacation | Tagged | 7 Comments

Alison Redford’s Fall From Grace

Posted on August 24, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Alison Redford’s political career started with such promise.  She differentiated herself from her running mates in the PC leadership race with a clarion call for authentic leadership (openness, accountability and transparency).  However today she hit a (yet another) sour note with her ringing endorsement of chronyism—she strongly supports the appointment of the former agriculture minister, Evan Berger, to the position of senior advisor to the deputy minister of agriculture.

What may not be readily apparent (but will become crystal clear after the 2013 PC leadership review) is that Redford’s public fall from grace has been mirrored by her personal fall from grace within the PC party itself.  The muted signals of dissatisfaction have become more audible over the last few months:

  • Ron Liepert and Don Getty publicly scolded Ms Redford for mishandling the Northern Gateway pipeline dispute with the BC premier, suggesting that a reasonable premier would have found a way to talk through their differences.
  • Rod Love, former EA to Premier Klein, all but called Ms Redford naive for expecting to reach a consensus on her Canadian energy strategy at the last premiers’ meeting.
  • Bill Smith, president of the PC party, announced he will not seek re-election at the PC AGM this November.  While he speaks highly of Ms Redford, he concluded his farewell note with a call for cautious change.  The PC constitution, including the leadership review process, is under review at the November AGM.  If the PCs amend the process to eliminate the possibility that the underdog can win, we should expect to see a serious challenge to Ms Redford’s leadership in 2013.

But it’s not just the PC old guard who’ve lost faith in Ms Redford (assuming that they ever had it in the first place).  The oil and gas industry which fuels Alberta’s economy is, to say the least, disgruntled.

  • In a letter to the Calgary Herald, Doug Black, president of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada (EPIC), a consortium of industry leaders in the oil, natural gas, power and pipeline business, agreed with columnist Deborah Yedlin that the last thing Alberta needs is another energy strategy.* (Mr Black is a long time PC member and a respected member of the Alberta establishment).  Not surprisingly EPIC has created its own energy strategy and is about to roll it out to the federal and provincial governments.
  •  Oilweek editor, Dale Lunan, complained that ”nobody has outlined exactly what a national energy strategy would look like”**and asked his readers whether they believed that Canada needs a nation energy strategy—over 75% of those who responded said “no”.

Over the last 12 months Ms Redford has demonstrated that she’s not one of the guys—a real PC.  She started by banishing party favorite Gary Mar to Asia and then reporting him to the ethics committee for an alleged violation (of which he was subsequently cleared).  She created an incomprehensible Canadian energy policy that has been criticized by everyone from the Prime Minister to the industry it was meant to serve.  Her dust up with Christy Clark threatened to trigger a constitutional crisis and added to the turmoil surrounding the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Put it all together and the last 12 months have not advanced Alberta from an industry perspective, which as we all know, shapes the PC party perspective.

Ms Redford’s belated support for the Berger appointment is simply background noise.  Sure it may be the last straw for the hapless voters who elected Ms Redford to save them from a Wildrose majority, but it’s utterly irrelevant in the minds of the PC old guard.

Ms Redford’s failure to cleave to the “old guard” mentality (government listens to industry, not the other way around) and her refusal early on to “play along to get along” may well result in her being shown the door in 2013.  And at this late stage, no amount of lip service to “authentic leadership” will save her.

*Calgary Herald Aug 13, 2012, A9

**Oilweek August 2012, P7  

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

“Hello Alberta. I’m listening.”

Posted on August 19, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Premier Redford just announced another review—this one to ensure accountability when cabinet ministers and senior government officials report their expenses.  It’s the latest in a string of reviews, consultations and inquiries intended to demonstrate the premier’s commitment to doing business differently.  Her press secretary says “It’s not a public relations exercise.  She really wants to make sure that we have an accountable system”.*

You all remember Ms Redford’s commitment to authentic leadership—leadership that is open, accountable and transparent.

The premier’s announcement brought to mind Dr Frasier Crane, the TV sitcom psychiatrist, who opened his radio phone-in show with the phrase “Hello caller.  I’m listening.”

Do the reviews, consultations and inquiries (let’s call them “reviews”) implemented over the last 10 months demonstrate that Ms Redford is “listening” to Albertans?  Or are they simply window-dressing engineered to give the illusion of “listening” while waiting for the criticism to be overtaken by the latest news crisis?

Well, if Ms Redford were “listening” she’d call a review into expenses before a CBC journalist was about to embarrass the government with a file full of Mr Merali’s extravagant expense claims.

If Ms Redford were “listening” she’d announce the on-line posting of expense claims by cabinet ministers and senior government officials without skirting the fact that the posting of cabinet ministers’ expenses is already 10 months overdue and her promise to post MLAs expenses appears to have dropped by the wayside.**   

If Ms Redford were “listening” she would have announced a public inquiry into ER wait times, cancer deaths and physician bullying under the existing Public Inquiries Act, without having to create brand new laws to enable the Health Quality Council to run a mini-public inquiry into the non-issue of queue jumping–thus delaying the public inquiry for an additional year.

Lastly, if Ms Redford were “listening” her government would have created the Property Rights Task Force to address the concerns of rural Albertans over the loss of their property rights before the Wildrose Party successfully captured the votes of rural Alberta.

All this is not to suggest that Premier Redford has never initiated reviews on her volition.  She gets credit for calling the MLA compensation review led by Justice John Major.  She also deserves credit for rejecting Justice Major’s recommendation that she double her salary.

However, her decision is tarnished by her failure to also reject Justice Major’s recommendation that MLA pensions should continue as is—MLAs have a pension scheme which creates a huge unfunded liability.  Instead she referred the question to the limbo of legislative committee.  I double we’ll hear from the MLAs (who have the most to lose) anytime soon.  

Meanwhile Ms Redford continues the PC tradition of stealth consultation.  The premier and her MLAs are “fanning out to communities across the province this summer to talk face-to-face with Albertans” about her promise to create 140 Family Care Clinics.  But the government’s website offers no information on how to participate in the FCC consultation process.***

To understand the premier’s motivation in calling for these and other reviews one needs to consider what triggered them (FOIP requests and public outrage or a sincere search for a better way of doing things), how they were conducted (an open, transparent process or behind closed doors with a hand-picked group of supporters) and what the government did with the results (new responsive laws and policies or duplicative laws and additional  legislative reviews which delay the matter further).

Until Ms Redford gets real about authentic leadership and demonstrates the openness, transparency and accountability she promised, the phrase “Hello Alberta.  I’m listening” will have as little impact as if it had been said by a fictitious psychiatrist on a TV sitcom.

*Calgary Herald, Aug 13, 2012, A1 quoting Kim Misik 

**Calgary Herald, Aug 9, 2012, A4 quoting Scott Hennig, Alberta director of Canadian Taxpayers Federation

***Government of Alberta Official Website

 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 15 Comments

Can Mr Merali Play Moneyball?

Posted on August 12, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

When asked why senior executives at Alberta Health Services are so generously compensated, the government’s response is either: I have no idea, those over-the-top supplemental pensions and extravagant expense accounts were before my time (Minister Horne) or the AHS has to pay well in order to attract competent managerial or clinical talent (acting CEO Chris Mazurkewich).

The first response is an abdication of responsibility (see last week’s post).  The second response is based on the flawed premise that paying top dollar will buy top talent.  This isn’t true in the private sector—just review the headlines over the last 10 years starting with Enron and ending with JP Morgan’s $6 billion “mistake”—and it’s not true in the public sector; just peruse the headlines starting with Dr Duckett and ending with Allaudin Merali and Sheila Weatherill.

I suggest we scrap the “top dollar equals top talent” mindset.  It’s time to play moneyball.

In his book Moneyball, Michael Lewis, a financial journalist and former Salomon Brothers bond trader, describes how general manager Billy Beane transformed the Oakland A’s baseball team from a pathetic crew of losers into a top notch baseball team.

Lewis sets out 5 simple rules for making a good hire.  While the fit to the government recruiting process isn’t perfect, let’s see whether Mr Merali would have made the team.

Rule #1—clearly identify your objective.  The A’s objective was to win the pennant (or whatever it is you win in baseball).  The government’s objective is to deliver on its 5 Year Health Action Plan.

Rule #2—identify gaps on the team.  The A’s needed pitchers, first basemen, you name it, they needed it.  They were in terrible shape.  The AHS is a $12 billion operation funded by tax dollars.  It desperately needs a competent CFO.

Rule #3—be prepared to abandon traditional recruiting methods if they produce flawed and unpredictable results.  Prior to Billy Beane’s grand experiment the A’s relied on scouts and agents to identify young players.  Unfortunately many of them failed to develop and were cut.  It’s unclear how Mr Merali made it to the top of the short list but we do know that from 2005 to 2008 Mr Merali worked as CFO for Sheila Weatherill, CEO of Capital Health.  We also know that Ms Weatherill was a member of the AHS board when Mr Merali was hired.  One wonders whether the age-old adage “it’s not what you know but who you know” came into play.

Rule #4—replace ineffective recruiting tools with ones that are evidence-based.  Billy Beane exchanged the “wisdom” of scouts and agents for an analytic tool called Sabermetrics.  This tool focused on on-base and slugging stats which proved to be a better predictor of success than batting averages.  The AHS had facts at its disposal.  The quality of Mr Merali’s work had been called into question by the Auditor General for three consecutive years.  Mr Merali made headlines when he was implicated in the Ontario eHealth expense scandal.  It would appear that an evidence-based review of Mr Merali’s work experience, if one was conducted at all, was not particularly thorough.

Rule #5—understand and believe that an inexpensive team of undervalued players, if properly developed, can beat an expensive team of superstars.  The Oakland A’s, a small team with a payroll of $41 million, successfully challenged superstar teams like the New York Yankees whose payroll exceeded $125 million.

The government has hired HR experts to evaluate its hiring practices and employment contract procedures for senior executives.  So this one is under development.

Time will tell whether the government can free itself from the fallacy of “top dollars equal top talent” and other “traditional” methods of recruiting and commit itself to revitalizing the public service with bright employees who are valued in a non-traditional ways.  It’s the only way to bring a fresh perspective to a bureaucracy that is collapsing under the weight of the old boys’ club.

To paraphrase all those umpires on all those baseball fields all across Canada…let’s play Moneyball!

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Alluadin Merali: Your guide to the Twilight Zone

Posted on August 5, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

The day that Alluadin Merali left his post as CFO of Alberta Health Services (AHS) was the day Albertans entered the Twilight Zone.  Like the ordinary folk in Rod Sterling’s TV show who find themselves thrust into a surreal alternate universe we watch in amazement as the PC government spins and gyrates in the public relations nightmare soon to be known as the Merali Affair.

Mr Merali parted company with AHS just hours before the intrepid CBC was going to expose the expenses he claimed during his tenure as CFO of Capital Health Region (now part of AHS).  Between 2005 and 2008 Mr Merali, then Executive VP and CFO, claimed $346,208 for “expenses” ranging from a new car phone for his Mercedes to two butlers at $30/hour.  These expense claims were approved by his CEO, Sheila Weatherill.

Our transition into the Twilight Zone began when the PC government and its agencies mistook public service for entitlement.  How else can we explain Health Minister Horne’s statement that Mr Merali’s expense claims were legitimate under the expense policies then in place at the Capital Health Region?

But Mr Horne’s validation of Mr Merali’s imprudent claims creates another conundrum.  If Mr Merali didn’t do anything wrong as CFO of the Capital Health Region why was he pushed out of his position as CFO at the AHS?

The AHS says Mr Merali is gone because the release of his expense records “put AHS and Mr Merali in a difficult position” and the AHS was concerned that “it would detract from his ability to act as CFO, and [had] taken these difficult but necessary steps to ensure public confidence”. *

In the Twilight Zone, people don’t get fired for terrible judgment which results in Albertans reimbursing them for personal expenditures like $500 of glasswork for the Mercedes.  They get fired because they embarrass the government.     

Minister Horne’s view that Mr Merali’s expense claims were legitimate is supported by Sheila Weatherill.  Ms Weatherill was CEO of the Capital Health Region.  She approved Mr Merali’s expense claims.  Ms Weatherill says “Capital Health had appropriate expenditure policies that were consistent with other public sector organizations”.**She made this statement when she resigned as director on the AHS board. 

Apparently in the Twilight Zone, a CEO overseeing a $2.5 billion organization is not expected to exercise common sense when presented with over the top expense claims.  If the claim fits within the policy (lord knows how) the taxpayer must pay.   However if the CEO’s lack of judgment comes to light four years later, the (now) ex-CEO is must resign her directorship of the board of the (now) successor to the (now) defunct Capital Region because … why?  Is it because her continued presence on the AHS board would be an embarrassment to the government?

It’s awfully dark out here in the Twilight Zone…are you still with me?  Good, let’s press on.  

Finance Minister Horner says the $346,208 Mr Merali claimed for reimbursement would never have been allowed under the government’s expense policies in existence at the time***Oh I get it.  In the Twilight Zone, it’s okay for a health region to spend $2.5 billion in taxpayers’ dollars implementing the government’s healthcare strategy in a way that violates the government’s own expense policies.

Cue the eerie music…the Merali Affair is about to get a whole lot weirder.  Mr Merali was hotly sought after by not one, but two, government agencies.  AHS successfully landed Mr Merali by beating a competing offer from Doug Horner, Finance Minister and President of the Treasure Board.  Mr Horner’s offer was for the post of Chief Controller.  Had Mr Merali accepted this offer he would have been responsible for all of the controllers for all of the government departments managing a $40 billion budget  (boggles the mind, doesn’t it).

Mr Horner says Mr Merali was his top choice because Mr Merali was experienced in international development and public organizations.  What Mr Horner fails to mention is that one of those public organizations was Capital Health and that during Mr Merali’s time as CFO, he and CEO Ms Weatherill were sharply criticized by the Auditor General for misleading auditing practices.  They had been warned for 3 consecutive years that their accounting practices were off side before the Auditor General resorted to censure.  Ms Weatherill brushed the incident aside with the comment that it was all a “misunderstanding”.

Furthermore, the Finance Minister and the AHS knew about the controversy surrounding Mr Merali’s involvement in the Ontario eHealth expense account scandal when they offered Mr Merali the top financial job in their respective organizations.  (Mr Merali was a consultant on the Ontario eHealth project and expensed incidentals such as $14.95 drink tabs over and above his $2,750 daily rate and his $75 per diem expense rate).  Mr Horner said he was not concerned because exorbitant expenses weren’t allowed under the government’s policy.****The AHS discussed its current policies, practices and expectations with Mr Merali and didn’t think he would do it again.***** 

In the Twilight Zone, clear evidence of a serious lack of judgment and an overblown sense of entitlement is not sufficient reason to disqualify a candidate from the highest position in a government department or agency overseeing the expenditure of billions of dollars because the candidate has been talked to and he won’t do it again.

Not to worry;  the government and AHS are taking action.  Premier Redford is “shocked and disappointed”****Mr Horne is “outraged” and is going to have “very very serious” discussions with the AHS board about its expense claims policy and how Mr Merali landed the CFO job in the first place***The AHS will post all future approved expenses (but not the whack of expenses that have been paid out since 2009) of the CEO and his direct reports on its webpage.  And the Auditor General will review AHS policies and practices and suggest improvements.  Apparently the idea of a forensic audit never crossed anyone’s mind!

Will this flurry of activity have any effect?  Judge for yourself.  Mr Horner says the Merali Affair “is a fairly isolated incident in terms of the Capital Health situation.”*** 

Poor Mr Horner has been in the Twilight Zone so long he can’t even begin to understand what’s wrong with that statement.  Without a forensic audit Mr Horner has no way of knowing whether the Merali Affair is an “isolated incident”.  Without a forensic audit the Auditory General can’t possibly understand the depth and scope of the potential misuse of expense account guidelines; and without a forensic audit, the government, the AHS and the public will never be able to identify any other “Mr Meralis” and eject them in order to protect taxpayers’ dollars that should be spent on healthcare services instead of replacing the glass in a senior executive’s Mercedes.

Unfortunately, that’s not how things are done in the Twilight Zone.  Cue the eerie music…

*Calgary Herald, Aug 2, 2012, p A1   

**National Post, Aug 3, 2012, p A5 

***Calgary Herald, Aug 3, 2012, p A4 and A1

****Calgary Herald, Aug 4, 2012, p A5 and A6 

*****Huffington Post Online, Aug 5, 2012 

 

 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 32 Comments

The Redford & Clark dispute: Who really benefits?

Posted on July 29, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Question:  How did the regulatory process for the Enbridge pipeline go so badly off the rails?  I’m talking about the “no benefit/no pipe” rhetoric coming from the Alison Redford and Christy Clark camps which threatens to upend Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline project, taking Ms Redford’s National Energy Strategy along with it.

Answer:  Politics (isn’t it always).  Using the time honoured principle of “who started it”   the blame falls squarely on Alison Redford’s shoulders.  Here’s why.

When Ms Clark requested a fair share of the benefits of the Enbridge pipeline proposal, Ms Redford responded by upping the ante.  She reframed Ms Clark’s request as an attack on Alberta’s royalties and an attempt to rip up the Canadian Constitution.  (Wow!)  Ms Redford assured Albertans she would not “blink”; she’d protect our royalties at all costs.

But that’s not what Ms Clark and her ministers said when they announced the 5 conditions upon which BC was prepared to support the pipeline.  Four of the conditions were legitimate requests for higher environmental and safety standards; the fifth condition was a request for a “fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of the Enbridge project”.  A request for a share of “benefits” is not the same as a demand for Alberta’s “royalties”.

The CBC, bless its little vacuum tube heart, appears the only member of the media that actually thought to check this critical point with Ms Clark.  When the CBC asked the BC premier if she wanted a share of Alberta’s royalties Ms Clark said she didn’t know.

Ms Clark was a radio talk show host and a newspaper columnist before she became a politician.  She’s not a lawyer.  She appears to be scrambling to keep up with the inflammatory rhetoric and sabre-rattling coming at her from the Redford camp and one has to give her credit for her honesty in admitting she didn’t know the answer to that question.

Ms Redford on the other hand is a lawyer with extensive experience in international law.  If anyone should know what the government of BC can or cannot demand from the government of Alberta, it’s Ms Redford.  Instead of frothing with hyperbole, Ms Redford could have met with Ms Clark and transformed the discussion into a “…very positive, gung-ho, let’s make a lot of money...” conversation.*

However Ms Redford continues to demonize Ms Clark by characterizing the dispute as a constitutional battle.  In doing do she places herself closer and closer to the edge of the ledge.  Soon her only option will be to crush Clark (who’ll be replaced by the NDP leader, Adrian Dix—talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire) or lose all credibility.  She certainly can’t say “Oops I was wrong, it’s not a constitutional problem after all”.

So why doesn’t Ms Redford have a quiet word with Ms Clark and suggest that Ms Clark look at the “benefits” question from a slightly different angle?  Instead of pressing Alberta for additional revenue, Ms Clark could focus on the oil companies planning to ship their bitumen on the Enbridge pipeline.

It’s the oil companies who pay royalties to the people of Alberta for the right to extract the bitumen.  It’s the oil companies who’ll pay Enbridge for the right to transport their bitumen to Kitimat.  It’s the oil companies who’ll pay the shipping companies for the right to load their bitumen onto tankers and transport it to markets on the other side of the Pacific.  And it’s the oil companies who will generate profits for their shareholders if all of the links in this daisy chain come together without a hitch.

Given that it’s the oil companies who get the greatest benefit from this project, it should be the oil companies, not Albertans, who foot the bill for any additional revenues demanded by BC.  This is not a constitutional law argument, it’s a practical one.

Warren Mabee, policy director for the Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy (Queens University) suggests that BC create a “targeted tax”—an export tax or port tax—that can be levied against the oil companies on each barrel of bitumen that moves through Kitimat.   Mr Mabee says “That’s the type of tax that could be applied without any big issue.”**    

So why the overheated rhetoric from Ms Redford?  There’s nothing to stop her from pointing Ms Clark in the direction of the oil companies…unless her ultimate goal is to protect the oil sands producers from additional costs.

If this is the case, Ms Redford’s National Energy Strategy—the framework to allow the provinces to leverage their energy resources for everyone’s benefit—is a sham and the people of Alberta are being pitted against the people of BC in aid of Ms Redford’s political agenda.

This is a dangerous game.  All of the participants, including the oil industry, will lose.  The oil companies will move on (they always do) but Alberta will have lost a critical ally at a time when it needs all the support it can get to reach its goal of being an energy leader on the national and international stage.

* Don Getty, quoted in Calgary Herald, July 28, 2012

**Daily Oil Bulletin, July 24, 2012

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 16 Comments

There’s secrecy and then there’s secrecy: Bilderberg vs the Redford/Clark meeting

Posted on July 22, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

What’s up with Canadian premiers and their infatuation with secret meetings?   There are two types of secret meetings:  those that give the premiers an opportunity to test drive a contentious position to gauge political support (a “trial balloon”) and those that are a bizarre waste of time because they undermine transparency and public confidence.

First prize for a bizarre waste of time goes to Ms Redford who blew off a meeting with Mr Mulcair, the most vocal (and one might argue most cogent) opponent to the development of the Alberta oil sands, so she could attend the secretive Bilderberg conference.  Ms Redford justified the trip as an opportunity to meet with politicians, financial leaders and academics to discuss monetary policy, ecological challenges and responsible development of natural resources.  To silence those of us who were concerned about the “cone of silence” aspect, she promised to report back on her discussions in due course.

Ms Redford does not disappoint.  The Final Report on her Bilderberg junket is now available.  It was posted on the Alberta government website—late Friday and with no accompanying press release—and sank like a stone.  The reason for the lack of fanfare is obvious—the dearth of information is breathtaking.  Strip out the sections labelled overview, mission objectives and the delegation (if you can call Ms Redford and her executive assistant a “delegation”), and the report is exactly two sentences (52 words) long.  Here it is:

The Premier’s participation advanced the Alberta government’s more aggressive effort to engage world decision makers in Alberta’s strategic interests, and to talk about Alberta’s place in the world.  The mission sets the stage for further relationship-building with existing partners and potential partners with common interests in investment, innovation and public policy.

What???

One could be forgiven for thinking that the PC’s $14 million PR department simply took the May press release that said Ms Redford was going to Bilderberg and changed the verb tense to say Ms Redford went to Bilderberg.  Why it took almost 2 months to accomplish this feat of PR wizardry is a mystery, but there it is.

All kidding aside, I suspect the reason why Ms Redford’s report is nothing more than bafflegab stems from the fact that the Bilderberg conference really is a secret meeting and its attendees are sworn to secrecy (known in biz-speak as the requirement of confidentiality so that the participants can speak freely)…so that’s that.

An example of the “trial balloon” secret meeting is the BC premier’s meeting with Alison Redford earlier this week.  All the premiers are heading to Halifax next week to attend the Council of the Federation meeting.  Ms Redford’s Canadian Energy Strategy and Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline will be on the agenda.  Rather than wait to meet in Halifax the BC premier, Ms Clark, “…secretly flew into Edmonton on Thursday to meet with…Alison Redford.  She also stopped in Saskatoon earlier that day for a meeting with Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who supports the pipeline”.*

Ms Redford needs BC’s support for the Northern Gateway pipeline but it would be political suicide for Ms Clark to provide it unless she gets something meaningful back in return.  So far BC voters are not convinced that more jobs outweigh the environmental risks.

Ms Clark may have launched the following trial balloon:  BC should receive a share of Alberta’s royalty revenues (perhaps in the form of a surcharge on royalties) generated by the oil companies developing the oil sands.**

Oh to be a fly on the wall!  Ms Clark:  Alison, there’s no way I can sell Northern Gateway to the BC people unless they get some long term economic benefits, say a share of the royalty revenue stream…?  Ms Redford:  You’ve got to be kidding!  I’m not getting enough now to cover the cost of new hospitals, new schools, the highway to Fort McMurray…and don’t get me started on those cranky old people who want decent food.  Ms Clark:  I’ve sat on the fence too long and that wretch Adrian Dix is crucifying me so unless I come home from the premiers meeting with something for all BC-ites, I’m cooked my dear, and so are you.  Ms Redford:  This conversation is …incredibly frustrating!

Actually Ms Redford really did say that last bit.  The National Post reports that “Ms Redford came out of the meeting disappointed that Clark has refused to state a position on the pipeline.  “It’s incredibly frustrating”.  I suspect Ms Redford is being a little coy.  She probably knows the position Ms Clark will take in Halifax—and she doesn’t like it.  If Ms Clark’s “share the royalties” solution gains the support of Ontario and Quebec (and why shouldn’t it), the first concrete example of Redford’s Canadian Energy Strategy will be unpalatable to the oilsands producers and hence to the PC government.  Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

That’s why our premiers like secret meetings.  In the hands of a skillful politician they can deliver a powerful political result.   Unfortunately the opposite is also true, in the hands of less savvy politicians they can lead to unacceptable political fallout.  Politicians will continue to create public policy under the cloak of secrecy.  It’s up to us to keep a watchful eye on who they’re meeting with and for what purpose.

*National Post July 21, 2012 A10.

**This is sheer speculation on my part, but it’s something I would do if I were Ms Clark.      

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 17 Comments