Closed-door sessions to select mass transit have drawn criticism (US)

Mayor rebuffs council over secrecy

Closed-door sessions to select mass transit have drawn criticism

By Laurie Au

lau@starbulletin.com

Mayor Mufi Hannemann rejected accusations by several City Council members that he is keeping the public in the dark about how the technology for the multibillion-dollar fixed-guideway system is being chosen.

Hannemann also called on councilmembers who have opposed the panel to stop attempting to delay the project.

"I think what's happening is some people refused to let this project go forward and proceed as quickly as I would like to," Hannemann said yesterday after giving an update on the fixed-guideway project to the state House Transportation Committee. "They're trying to delay it, and my feeling is, get on board."

Hannemann responded to recent remarks by some City Council members who criticized his administration for letting a panel of experts meet behind close doors as they make the critical decision of what type of technology will be chosen for the planned mass transit system. He said the process has been transparent.

But Councilman Donovan Dela Cruz has asked the state Office of Information Practices to issue an opinion on whether the panel has to follow sunshine laws. "We're tired of business as usual and back-room deals," he said.

The administration has argued that the panel of five experts will be discussing proprietary information and having open meetings will slow the process. A decision on technology is expected at the end of February. Typically, the City Council is not involved in the procurement process.

"We're trying to find ways in which the Council can participate in the selection," Hannemann said. "It's an unprecedented step, but I really believe, given the interest in it, given my willingness to work with the legislative branch, I decided to go down this path."

Several councilmembers strongly opposed Hannemann's remarks, citing an ordinance passed in 2006 that says the City Council reserves the right to select the technology.

"That is exactly what Mufi Hannemann wanted," said Councilman Charles Djou. "He signed Bill 79, which spelled out that the legislative body should get involved with the procurement process. If Mufi Hannemann thought that was so bad, he should have vetoed the bill."

At a Council meeting last week, Councilman Todd Apo told members that the power ultimately remains with them because they can pass a bill to select the technology and they control the city's budget.

Hannemann said he is confident the members will agree with the panel's pending decision, and cannot imagine that the Council would pull the project's funding.

"Someone is going to have to answer to the people if they botch this process," Hannemann said. "I don't think that will happen at all. They have to be ready to take the heat if they want to delay it further after the panel comes out with a decision."

Hannemann told the Transportation Committee that the plan for the 30-mile system running from Kapolei to Ala Moana is on schedule, with a groundbreaking expected late next year. The cost is estimated at $3.47 billion, but interest and inflation bring the total closer to $5 billion.

 
 

 
 

 
 

© Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://starbulletin.com

 
 

Inserted from <http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/31/news/story04.html>

Behind closed doors - University of Windsor

Gord Henderson

Windsor Star

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Was it really about saving engineering students from the misery of five-minute shuttle rides? Or did fear of offending key University of Windsor supporters play a role in killing a downtown location for its $110-million engineering facility?

I guess we'll never know for sure, given that this publicly funded institution's board of governors made the most critical site decision in decades behind closed doors. Ontario taxpayers, like it or not, are contributing $40 million to this project. But they haven't heard, first-hand, the arguments that went into last week's historic rejection of a proposed $37-million partnership between the city and the university.

Most of us, I suspect, haven't a clue who sits on this absurdly cumbersome 35-member body (you might ask why legislation requires as many warm bodies to govern one modest Ontario university as it takes to govern all of Canada), let alone understand how they reached that fateful show-of-hands decision.

But some folks do want to know more. Readers have been asking, for instance, why there's nobody from city council on that board and yet Tom Burton, deputy mayor of Tecumseh, a town that's in a take-no-prisoners war with Windsor, is a board member.

Burton, by all accounts, is a straight shooter and man of honour. So maybe he did the right thing and sat out that vote and the debates that preceded it. But human nature being what it is, it's hard to imagine a Tecumseh politician not taking satisfaction in seeing Windsor's dream for downtown revitalization crushed. With the scuppering of Tecumseh's Ice Track aspirations in 2006 still a raw nerve, it would take a remarkably forgiving individual not to see divine retribution -- sweet payback if you prefer -- in last week's vote.

FOE OF FRANCIS

Probably the best-known board member is automotive analyst Dennis DesRosiers. An acknowledged global expert on the industry, DesRosiers' views on the location of an engineering school with major automotive components would carry a lot of weight. And justifiably so.

Problem is, DesRosiers is viewed as their most vociferous foe by Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis and most of the current council. DesRosiers lowered the rhetoric over the past year and made efforts to reach out to city hall when provincial funding for an expanded engineering school was announced. But, unfair as it might seem, he'll always be seen in certain jaundiced quarters as the guy with the horns, someone unlikely to promote a deal that would make the current city hall leadership look good.

Also on the board is Matthew Moroun, vice-president of Centra Inc. and son of Ambassador Bridge owner Matty Moroun.

Matthew Moroun is a respected businessman and the bridge company has a hard-earned reputation as a good corporate citizen and a solid university partner. I'm betting he didn't vote, given the circumstances, but if he did I'm sure it was for all the right reasons.

But what if other board members, mindful of the bridge company's high-stakes standoff with city hall over plans for a second bridge, became nervous about choosing sides in entering a big-dollar partnership with the city?

Could some have worried unduly about alienating their bridge partner, which agreed in 2006, when few others were stepping up, to donate $2 million to the university's stadium complex as part of a $5-million agreement doubling their payment to the university for operating the bridge duty-free shop? Matthew Moroun said at the time that the donation was partly goodwill but also a partnership. "We're partners, the furtherance of the university and making it a better school and the bridge an easier and better place to cross every day, it goes hand in hand. We can't get along without them."

And then there's Tony Toldo. You and I know that Toldo, Windsor's leading philanthropist, is a big-hearted guy without a vindictive bone in his body. But I wonder. Could some of the folks on that board (and he's not a member) have been fretting that Toldo, a huge university supporter and the driving force in bringing a medical school to the Anthony P. Toldo Health Education Centre on the current campus, might be less than pleased to see a massive expansion project located away from that campus?

If they were concerned about that possibility, I'm sure they misread this honourable guy. And that would be truly a shame, because this project deserved to be judged on its merits.

ghenderson@thestar.canwest.com

© The Windsor Star 2008

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c56950b0-b843-4534-9548-c179deca4f39>

Tax records should be off limits, Mulroney lawyer says

Tax records should be off limits, Mulroney lawyer says

Ethics committee adds former Privy Council clerk to witness list

BILL CURRY

January 30, 2008

OTTAWA -- A lawyer for Brian Mulroney sent a blistering letter yesterday to the chair of the House of Commons ethics committee, arguing vehemently that Airbus, personal tax records and the cash expenses of the former prime minister and his wife should be off limits to MPs.

Members of the ethics committee met behind closed doors yesterday for the first time in weeks and approved a list of about a dozen witnesses they want to question in February about Mr. Mulroney's business dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

Committee chair Paul Szabo, a Liberal MP, told reporters committee members discussed whether to use their summons powers to obtain Mr. Mulroney's tax records, but did not make a decision.

The MPs did agree to issue a formal summons to appear to any witness on the list who does not show up voluntarily.

The committee has added Jocelyne Bourgon to the witness list.

She was the clerk of the Privy Council in 1997 when the then-Liberal government settled out of court with Mr. Mulroney for $2.1-million in relation to the RCMP investigation of the government's 1988 purchase of Airbus planes for Air Canada, which was then a Crown corporation.

Mr. Mulroney's lawyer, Guy Pratte, argued in the letter that any review of Airbus is beyond the committee's mandate.

He noted the RCMP wrote in 2003 that after an extensive investigation, no evidence of criminality was found.

But what appears to be of particular concern is the committee's plans to hear testimony related to transfers of cash from the Prime Minister's Office to the Mulroneys at their 24 Sussex Dr. residence.

"There is absolutely nothing in [independent government adviser David Johnston's] report or any mandate that you may have that would remotely justify inviting witnesses to testify about the life of the Mulroney family while at 24 Sussex, almost 25 years ago," Mr. Pratte writes.

The committee has called Mr. Mulroney's former chef, François Martin, to testify about claims he made in the 1994 book On the Take by Stevie Cameron that he was regularly asked to carry envelopes of cash from the PMO to Mr. Mulroney's wife, Mila, at 24 Sussex.

Mr. Mulroney's former chief of staff, Norman Spector, has recently stated that his appearance before the committee will include the presentation of documents that will "identify the source of large quantities of cash reported at 24 Sussex."

In Ms. Cameron's book, the man responsible for Progressive Conservative party funds, David Angus - who currently sits as a Mulroney-appointed Senator - says the cash payments were legal advances for party-related expenses incurred by the Mulroneys.

"On its face, Mr. Spector's 'evidence' has clearly nothing to do with your inquiry and it would not only be grossly unfair to allow it to be given under the protective cloak of parliamentary immunity, but would attest to the deliberate abuse of the Committee's process to maliciously cause as much damage as possible to Mr. Mulroney and his family's reputation, for partisan purposes," Mr. Pratte wrote.

Mr. Szabo insisted yesterday that the committee was treating Mr. Mulroney fairly and noted that Mr. Spector was invited before the committee knew he would discuss cash exchanges inside the Mulroney PMO.

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080130.MULRONEY30/TPStory/National>

Time for the government to dispel the information fog

Time for the government to dispel the information fog

ROBERT MARLEAU

Special to Globe and Mail Update

January 29, 2008 at 6:56 PM EST

It is often said that "No news is good news." It is beginning to seem as if the government has added to that adage, "Good news is no news."

A recent editorial in The Globe and Mail spoke of "the fog that has settled over the [Afghan] detainees": It was referring to the revelation that Canada had stopped turning over prisoners to the Afghan government in November, but had not disclosed this to Parliament or the public.

Since becoming Information Commissioner a year ago, it is my experience that it is not only the situation with detainees in Afghanistan that has become obscured. Indeed, a fog over information, even when the news is positive, has crept, little by little, over the government's activities.

As Information Commissioner, my job is to receive and investigate complaints by people who have requested access to information that is under the control of government institutions and are not satisfied with the response they have received. My staff of investigators is kept more than busy responding to these: Our caseload of complaints has doubled in the past year. But providing information in this way, under the Access to Information Act, is not the only, or necessarily the best, way for the government to communicate with its citizens.

Before the Access to Information Act came into force in 1983, people made informal requests for information and the government, under its own initiative, released information in a variety of ways, such as reading rooms, press releases and press conferences. The Act recognizes the value of these alternative methods of obtaining information when it states in subsection 2(2): "This Act is intended to complement and not replace existing procedures for access to government information and is not intended to limit in any way access to the type of government information that is normally available to the general public." Today, in this 25th anniversary year of the Act, it is beginning to seem as if the Act is the only way to gain access to government-controlled information. This is not how it should be.

And this is not just my opinion. In the report this month of the Independent Panel On Canada's Future Role In Afghanistan, also known as the Manley report, one of the recommendations is that "the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada's role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts, as well as those of the military." That is a unanimous recommendation from a distinguished panel that includes former high-ranking government officials.

If the current government were to adopt the same views, and heads of institutions were to order more proactive disclosure, they just might inspire greater trust and confidence in Canadians and encourage them to hold a more positive opinion of their institutions. It is only a matter of leadership and political will.

While it may be explicable, if not laudable, for any government to want to withhold bad news, it is difficult to understand why even good news is not being released. Surely the fact that Canada decided not to turn over any more detainees to the local authorities in Afghanistan, thereby removing the risk of them being tortured, was good news. If even good news is not disseminated, you cannot blame Canadians for wondering how much bad news might be lurking in government records, waiting to be uncovered. It is true that the government should not reveal any information that could bring harm to those who serve in Afghanistan. But if the government's position is that everything to do with detainees, and much of what pertains to Afghanistan, is a security matter and is secret by definition, then the Access to Information Act recognizes the importance of protecting certain information and contains exemptions that can be used. The role of my office is to ensure that those exemptions are being applied appropriately.

Given that the security of our country is well protected by these exemptions, it is my view that government institutions, such as the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to name the most prominent of those that hold the most sensitive and secret information, must be exemplary in the free and voluntary release of other information. They must proactively make available all the information they can that is not sensitive or secret within the terms of the Act's exemptions. Releasing information only when someone sees fit to make a formal access to information request should not be the norm, but the exception.

In the normal course of events at the Department of National Defence, a summary of the types of information that have been released in response to access requests is made available in reading rooms and on its website. The whole of that information, as well as other information that might be of interest to the public, should also be released in this manner as a matter of course. The previous government ordered this to be done for certain types of records, such as travel and hospitality expenses, contracts awarded, reclassification of positions, and grant and contribution awards. This is a good start, but much more remains of interest to Canadians that is hidden from easy view, when disclosure should be the norm.

Transparency has become the buzzword of the moment in government. It is time to make it a priority and a reality. The Manley report is such an opportunity. It would be a shame to relegate it to the fog of obscurity.

Robert Marleau is the Information Commissioner of Canada.

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080129.wcomment30/BNStory/GlobeSportsHockey/>

AG uncovers problems at Information office

AG uncovers problems at Information office

DEAN BEEBY

Canadian Press

January 27, 2008 at 5:08 PM EST

OTTAWA — A new investigation has slammed the Office of the Information Commissioner for financial irregularities, raising echoes of the privacy commissioner scandal of 2003 involving George Radwanski.

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser found evidence of favouritism, rule-breaking, overly generous payments to staff and dubious use of taxpayer dollars, most of it occurring before the current information commissioner arrived a year ago.

In a report dated Oct. 2 and obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, Ms. Fraser says the office disregarded government rules for hiring, promotion, travel, bonuses and gifts to staff.

The report found no abuses on the part of former commissioner John Reid, and there were no suggestions of fraud or criminal wrongdoing.

Ms. Fraser recommended, however, that the office revamp its policies to align them with Treasury Board rules.

The information commissioner is a federal ombudsman appointed for a seven-year term by cabinet to investigate complaints by Canadians who've been denied information requested under the Access to Information Act, sometimes taking their cases to court.

Ms. Fraser's report cites one case in which a senior executive who already met the bilingualism requirements for her position was nevertheless sent to France for a month of French-language training in July 2006.

Ruth McEwan, director-general of corporate services, paid for her own living expenses and flight to the course in Bordeaux, but taxpayers picked up the tuition ($757.61) and the flight back ($2,358.63). There was no indication she used any vacation time for the trip.

Ms. McEwan's position has since been eliminated, though she is still on the payroll awaiting an opening elsewhere in the civil service, said a spokeswoman for the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC).

The audit also found that the top four executives at the agency were awarded the highest possible annual bonuses, typically worth 3 per cent of salary, without proper justification.

And seven of the 10 people recruited in 2006-2007 were hired without advertising the positions and therefore without allowing competition for the jobs.

In another case, an outside contractor was appointed to a job in a section of the agency where he had previously been on an internal board that chose job candidates.

"We believe that he had an undue advantage that may have helped him obtain the position," says the audit report. "We also found that there was no evidence on file that he had the required education or security clearance required for the position."

An OIC spokeswoman said the person no longer works for the agency.

Other employees were reclassified into higher-paying positions with no evidence the salary increases were justified.

There were also contracting irregularities. "One contract was terminated but was then amended to pay for work that was no longer expected to be done," says the report.

And in June 2006, all 43 employees in the office were handed $100 gift certificates for merchandise at a local mall, the Rideau Centre, to mark public service week. "We are . . . concerned that Parliamentarians and Canadians may see this generous gift to all staff as an inappropriate uses of public funds," Ms. Fraser said.

Assistant commissioner Suzanne Legault said Robert Marleau, who arrived as the new commissioner on Feb. 1 last year, specifically asked Ms. Fraser to investigate human-resource issues because he was concerned about potential problems.

Mr. Reid, the previous commissioner, left office in September 2006 after his seven-year term and extensions lapsed. At least two of his senior executives departed soon after as Mr. Marleau reorganized the top layer of the agency.

Ms. Legault said the new executive team began working to clean up the hiring, promotion and bonus situation even before Ms. Fraser's report.

"It wasn't us guys, it was the previous guys," she said. "We've been extremely busy in fixing these things."

Ms. Legault added there is not enough documentation in the files to determine why many dubious decisions were made.

The 2003 scandal that centred on former privacy commissioner Radwanski also uncovered evidence that hiring, promotion and bonus rules had been broken.

But there was evidence of expense abuses as well, leading to a lengthy RCMP probe and the laying of fraud and breach-of-trust charges against Mr. Radwanski.

After he was fired in 2003, Mr. Marleau was brought in on an interim basis to help clean up the mess in the privacy office.

The OIC had itself been exempt from the Access to Information Act until last year, when the Federal Accountability Act extended freedom-of-information to more parliamentary bodies and Crown corporations.

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080127.winfo0127/BNStory/GlobeSportsHockey/>