April 18, 2018
House of Assembly Management Commission
No. 66
The
Management Commission met at 5:15 p.m. in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
First of all, I'd
like to welcome everyone who is viewing at home and from away. My name is Perry
Trimper; I'm the MHA for Lake Melville. I'm also the Speaker of the House of
Assembly and thereby the Chairman of the Management Commission.
I will
now ask the Members of the Management Commission and staff – and we do have one
Member of the Commission online. Perhaps I'll start with the gentleman online.
Go ahead.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, MHA, Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Now
I'll turn to those in the room.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Paul
Davis, MHA for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA,
Ferryland.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo
- La Poile.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, MHA, St. John's West.
MR. WARR:
Brian Warr, MHA, Baie Verte
- Green Bay.
CLERK (Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MS. RUSSELL:
Bobbi Russell, Policy and Communications Officer.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
All
Members of the Commission have received background materials. I'd now like to
walk through the agenda. Do I need to have the agenda approved? Do we do that?
No, we don't. Okay. Forgive me; I'll go right on to the minutes.
Okay,
so the first action then is to approve two sets of minutes. One is for the
meeting we had on February 13, 2018. A copy has been provided. Is there any
discussion about those minutes?
Seeing
no discussion, I will ask for a motion to approve those minutes.
Moved
by MHA Coady; seconded by MHA Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
minutes for February 13 are approved.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Similarly for the minutes
for March 14, 2018, is there any discussion on those minutes?
I'm not
seeing any indication. I'll ask for a mover, please.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by MHA Hutchings;
seconded by MHA Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
minutes for the March 14 meeting are also approved.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moving on to Tab 2, please.
This is
for information purposes only. It is regarding – the Clerk has authorization to
approve expenditures in each of the constituency offices up to a limit of $1,000
per item. What you see before you is tracking expenditures up to April 12, since
the last reporting period. So it is again for your information purposes only.
Not
seeing any questions or comments, I'm going to move on to Tab 3.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker –
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry.
MHA
Davis has a question.
MR. P. DAVIS:
These expenditures of
furniture and other equipment to a maximum of $1,000 –
MR. SPEAKER:
Per item.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, per item.
So this
is –
MR. SPEAKER:
A collection of items.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
I had a similar question
earlier.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Because they are listed as a
single item. It was listed as a single cost, but the single cost is for several
items each.
CLERK:
(Inaudible) ergonomic
assessments, so it was equipment needed but no single item was more than $1,000.
MR. SPEAKER:
I had a similar question.
Yes, just on the format it's somewhat misleading.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh yes, okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further discussion on
that?
I'll
ask Members to move on to Tab 3, please. We have a series of appeals that we're
dealing with today. This first one refers to appeals for the Members for Cape
St. Francis and Conception Bay East - Bell Island. The materials have been
provided. Perhaps what I will do, instead of repeating anything in front me,
I'll open it up for discussion or comments from the Management Commission.
They
are both of the same nature.
MHA
Coady.
MS. COADY:
First of all, I'm going to make a general observation around advertising. We
need to do a better job of explaining to MHAs and their staff the rules around
them. I know the rules have changed and they've changed significantly, been
reverted and come back again.
I would
like to request that we ensure that MHAs and their constituency assistants are
fully apprised of the rules. I think that there has been some confusion, that
we're seeing this on a regular basis. There are a number of instances here
today, so I'm asking if we can make a concerted effort to ensure that there's
clarity and certainty around those rules.
That's
the first thing. The second is, on this specific instance, we did ask for
clarification on some of the information. I note from the note that was the
Briefing Note received, it says there are about 100 instances related to
challenges with the advertising expenses. That's significant and that relates to
the problem that we're having, I think. There is quite a lot of uncertainty and
confusion about what should be included, and I think that's why we're having the
appeals.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, and on the first point
I'd like to respond that I would note the point on the confusion. However, and
indifference to what's gone on before I've become the Speaker and the Chair of
the Commission, sort of the basic premise has always been to approach Corporate
& Members' Services with any kind of interest, or ask or a proposal around
advertising to ensure that you do have approval, that you are doing that and so
on.
MHA
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
But in that case I think if
we're looking at all these across the board, they are all similar. The one by
MHA from St. John's Centre, I think, actually asks for – if I read that right,
didn't Gerry ask for –what can I do? This is not good enough, what can I do, and
can't get that direction. I think John Finn may have been in the same situation.
This is
not people going out and purchasing something that's clearly against the rules.
We have an issue here when it comes to the rules and MHAs being forced to pay
out-of-pocket for ads that may have been approved at one point and there is two
days difference here and there. That's the bigger issue that I have here.
I look
at what Gerry's got with the Householder where she indicates she looked for
direction and couldn't get it. John Finn, when we look at it, it's a small,
little ad in the bottom there where I think he had – I don't know if it says
here that he never went for approval. I think at some point he was told that he
–
MR. SPEAKER:
I would propose we hold that
umbrella thought and try to walk through them because there are different
circumstances with each one of these appeals.
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, certainly.
MHA
Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
While
it's important for MHAs to reach out and get clarity and certainty, I also think
it's incumbent upon us to ensure that we remind MHAs and their constituency
assistants, first of all, that level of service is available to them, to remind
them of that; and secondly, to remind them the rules so that we're not tying up
staff from your department and your divisions in looking at all these ads. They
should come in, in proper format. If we don't go out there and proactively tell
them what formats, what's required, and then, secondly, that you would be happy
to review them to ensure compliance, I think we're going to continue to have
these problems.
MR. SPEAKER:
Point noted.
So
looking at the first appeal that's here for the Members for Cape St. Francis and
Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the points are that the submitted advertising
items that are before us were not submitted for approval before they were
actually published, and they incurred the cost.
I'll
look to staff to help me with these items here, but these were items they
indicated they have done in previous years. They went forward assuming they were
under a similar circumstance. Only after they had actually incurred the cost did
we receive notice they were proceeding and we were able to advise them they were
not meeting the specification.
I'll
look the Clerk.
CLERK:
If I may.
All of
these occurred at a time where there was a lot of confusion, because we did have
proposed changes to – and as a result of MCRC 2016, that the Management
Commission adopted. Then, as the Members will recall, we went back to the old
policies while the ad hoc committee on advertising did its work. So there was a
period of uncertainty.
I will
say, though, directives have been sent and the guide and everything has been
updated. The staff do work with, particularly, the constituency assistants. But
in this case, these ads occurred at a time where they never had to seek prior
approval. I think it was standard ads that the Members ran on an annual basis.
As it happened, the business card size was the piece that was in effect at the
time –
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry. Yeah, right.
CLERK:
– because that got removed
by the ad hoc advertising committee when it reported and the Management
Commission accepted its recommendation. Unfortunately, it all occurred – the
costs were incurred around the same time that the new proposal from the
committee came forward to the Management Commission for approval.
It was
confusing, I'll be the first one to admit that but we were in this state of
flux. We're left with, we have to go with the policy and the rules that are in
place at the time and we no ability to vary from that, which is why we suggest
to Members if we can't approve it they have every right to appeal to the
Management Commission.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess being general here;
when we think about the purpose of what we do, the reason this Commission was
created was in response to monies that were quite inappropriately used, used for
things that they should not have been.
In this
case, we all know there's advertising allowed. I look at the first two here, but
for the timelines here, I think there's a responsibility on us and on the House
of Assembly to ensure that – I don't think there was any malicious intent. We're
dealing with monies that, but for the rules being changed, would have been
approved.
I just
think we really have to look here. In my opinion – this stuff is confusing. It's
certainly confusing to every Member, whether you've been here a year or 10
years, and their constituency assistants. In this case, in the last two years
there have been multiple changes. I think we're spending an inordinate amount of
time here debating this, which is fine, but I almost think we have to find a way
to lay out what the rules are, send it off and we need an acknowledgement back
from each Member saying: yes, I received these rules, I understand the new
rules.
It's
like when you put in a claim, you sign off on that saying: yes, I certify what
is in here. To me, that would be a better protection going forward. Right now,
we're spending a lot of time dealing with this which, in some cases, I look at
it – depending on what standard you use, I don't know how you can rule against
some of these. That's just how I feel. We're not talking about somebody that
went out and spent money on something that was never right in the first place.
Advertising is something that there's clearly an expenditure of money that's
allowed to be used. I hate to see Members penalized, having to pay out of pocket
for something that – but for rule changes that they may or may not have been
aware of, now they're going to be penalized for that.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll look to any comments
from our staff further to it.
Obviously, the Management Commission has the ability – that's why we're here. If
it's deemed to have been unjustly determined or as of a consequence of, as you
say, the confusion around the rules, then, obviously, this Commission has the
ability to grant the appeal.
From
the perspective of the staff, they're following to the letter of the law, as it
were, the guidance they have provided. It's been debated by previous folks.
MHA
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm looking at the briefing
note prepared by the staff. A telling point for me, and I think it relates to
what Mr. Parsons has been saying, is the very last bullet which says: “Should
the commission wish to approve the appeal, it must consider whether, in
accordance with subsection 24(9) of the Act,” – that's the act that covers us –
“not approving it would 'in the opinion of the commission, be unjust.'”
I think
that's the point that Mr. Parsons is making, what's just, what's unjust.
When I
read that, both the Member for Cape St. Francis and Conception Bay East - Bell
Island, apparently they used this before under the previous rule prior to the
business card change, I guess.
CLERK:
(Inaudible) yeah, this was basically – and that happens a lot with Members. They
have typical recurring advertising.
MS. RUSSELL:
In the previous year, the business card size would not have been in effect. It
didn't come into effect until December when the decision was made by the
Commission to accept that recommendation.
CLERK:
No, no. A decision was made by the Commission to accept the business card after
the MCRC report in December 2016. Then, just after that in March, the ad hoc
advertising committee – because there was so much confusion and, I guess,
unhappiness, generally, with the new advertising approach, this happened last
October, November time frame. It just coincidentally happened around the same
time that the ad hoc advertising committee reported back to the Commission and
there was a decision subsequent to revert and allow for ads larger than the
business card size again.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I thought that while that
committee was doing its work we were under the old regime, which would not have
been the business card size, would it?
CLERK:
That was for newsletters and other publications.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, that's all it was for.
CLERK:
Yes. And coincidentally, they included that business card ad when they brought
forward the recommendations.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Warr.
MR. WARR:
My only concern was
(inaudible) just thinking that over previous meetings that we not approve or
disapprove advertising for the same reason.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think the briefing note
refers to one appeal that was not approved, which was similar.
CLERK:
Mr. Dean, the Member for Exploits.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
know if the Clerk knows offhand. Can you remind me of who's on the committee? Do
you remember who was on that ad hoc –
MR. SPEAKER:
Ad hoc advertising
committee.
CLERK:
Mr. King, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Rogers –
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible.)
CLERK:
Yeah, but I think they were ex officio type thing, right.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Do you remember if Mr.
Brazil or Mr. Kevin Parsons were on that committee? I don't remember.
CLERK:
Mr. Brazil was.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I raise it because – I
understand everyone's concerns and there's been a ton – as the minister said,
there's been a ton of confusion over what the policies were and what's
happening.
I know
the practice I have now with my constituency assistant, I tell her before we
finalize something check it with the House. That's the only way we can find out
if it meets their requirements or not, check it with the House or staff of
House. Get something from somebody who says, yes, this meets the approval.
What
we're talking about here as well, we're talking about an ad for Mr. Brazil,
Conception Bay East - Bell Island, and an ad for Kevin Parsons, the District of
Cape St. Francis. These are November 11 ads recognizing Remembrance Day. In
Brazil's ad he says the soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice and so on.
That's what we're talking about, but the issue here is the ads are too big. It's
the size of the ads. There's no issue with what the content is or anything like
that, it's the size of the ads.
I know
from talking to Mr. Parsons on this today, he said one of the challenges for
them – this is a monthly publication that comes out and they knew the changes
were happening as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
But the November 11 ad wasn't monthly.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No. The publication that
it's in is a monthly publication.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's not like it's a weekly
or bi-weekly and so on. It's a monthly publication and it's the same ad, as I
understand it, that's ran year over year.
I also
get the fact that we've rejected others in the past if it didn't conform to the
size. So with all the confusion that's happened here, it's a difficult one. They
relatively expected some change was coming. The dates are within a couple of
days of when the change happened and when they were actually ordered and
published. One of them was part of the process that was making recommendations
on the change to the rules.
Anyway,
I don't know if that makes a difference or not. I mention it because I think
it's part of what transpired here. We have to deal with each one of them on
their own merits, on their own circumstances. If there was one other that was
turned down, if we made a different decision on this one, there was one other
turned down. We've changed the rule after that this ad now would be acceptable.
I
understand the retroactivity of it, but there was also an anticipation change
was coming. I just throw that out for information purpose, Mr. Speaker. I don't
know if it makes a difference to anybody. Whatever the Commission decides we'll
–
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may, just in my role as
Chair.
I sense
in the Commission there certainly is a level of sympathy for those who've met
some unfortunate decisions in this whole context. Regardless, though, we do have
this issue of precedent and we do have the fact that there was direction made,
and until the new policy was implemented we were still under the former one
which said business card size was the limit. So that's sort of the black and
white objective part of it and it's the unfortunate part of what all went
through from that first year.
I seek
for a motion in one way or the other.
MHA
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Referencing what my
colleagues said in regard to not approving it would be, in the opinion of the
Commission, unjust. They have to make consideration to that in regard to section
24(9). There was reference made to similar advertising which the content was
within the guidelines but simply the size was the issue.
Do we
have an understanding of how many appeals like that, that we've visited through
here in the Management Commission?
CLERK:
We don't keep records. If somebody comes forward to Corporate Members' Services
and has an inquiry or brings in a sample and they're told it doesn't meet
guidelines, we don't have a record. All we have is the anecdotal advice.
There
was a lot of consternation and confusion during that summer and Corporate
Members' Services figure that there was probably in the order of about 100
inquiries from various Members about whether or not proposed advertising would
meet the guidelines. Some of that could have been for they had already paid it
and planned to send it in on an expense claim. We would have said, no, it's not
eligible. Because we don't keep those records, we can only go by what the staff
– we did go back to the staff and they said to the best of their knowledge they
felt it was in the order of about 100.
That
doesn't mean 100 denials. That could have been 100 that there were costs
incurred. That was cases where there was just an inquiry and said, no, this is
not eligible.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. So that's the normal,
that you made reference to today with your consistency assistant and say give
someone at the House a call, check it out to see if this is applicable or not.
If it's not, well you don't put it in and it's not paid for.
CLERK:
Yes. There could have been some that were turned down but, like I said, we don't
keep records of those.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, but how many appeals
came in exactly like this particular issue that were denied by the Management
Commission?
CLERK:
There was one, one previous.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
It's just one point, and I'm
listening to what everybody is saying and I agree with things that we're saying,
but the one thing that confuses me is the business size card was in place. That
rule was in place for a while then because we followed it and we measured.
It's
been in place for about a year. So unless this was a recurring ad from one year
to the next year, I would have to question, if all of their ads were that size
every month, they were using the wrong size for a whole year. Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER:
It was an annual thing.
MS. MICHAEL:
So this was just for this
one thing and nobody thought about checking it.
CLERK:
That's our understanding.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's the understanding and
that's what's being presented to us.
CLERK:
They place it there every year.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, because otherwise we
were a whole year under that rule and abiding by it really strictly, the
business card size.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
I have
empathy and that's why I said upfront, we really have to make sure people
understand the rules and understand they can go and receive guidance and advice.
I'll again say that.
As you
pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we do have precedence where we denied an appeal, and
that bothers me. I can't recall the exact circumstances. Perhaps we can get some
advice on that, but we did deny, previously, someone who submitted – again, in
good intent. Clearly not trying to circumvent any rules, but in good intent put
forward a similar, I believe, kind of confusion and concern and we denied it.
I'm concerned that we are now saying it's okay when previously we said it
wasn't.
Can I
ask for guidance?
MR. SPEAKER:
I look to the Clerk, please.
CLERK:
The appeal went to the Management Commission actually on November 8, 2017. The
Commission met at 2017; 064 refers to the decision on that.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Okay, thank you.
Perhaps
it was, again, for just a civic award ceremony. It was even a slightly larger
ad, wishing them well in their – congratulating the civic awards banquet. It
was, again, a community-minded event. It was slightly larger than the
business-size ad, and we declined it because it was not meeting with the rules
that were in place at the time.
So I am
concerned about – even though I have great empathy for all of them because
they're civic-minded ads, they're not trying to circumvent any rules, it's just
that they are falling in this. If we approve these now, I think we would almost
need to come back and change our decision back then as well.
Do you
want to circulate this?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd suggest the sentiment
we're all feeling is perhaps the reason why the ad hoc advertising committee
came together out of that frustration to say no, we got that pendulum swung too
far, we need to pull it back and find a reasonable approach.
MHA
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, I think specifically
it came out of more the Householders rather than the ads, although they did deal
with more once they started their work I understand. I wasn't on it.
This is
a hard thing to put out here, but it was raised by Mr. Davis. He asked a
question about who was on the committee. Somebody being on a committee and their
knowledge of what was happening shouldn't influence another action. I cannot say
that somebody acted that way. It's just that we have to deal with the facts as
they are, I think, not what was happening in that committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Uh-huh.
MS. MICHAEL:
Because what was happening
in that committee was the work of a committee and had not been brought here to
the Commission up to that time.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further comments?
I'd
seek a motion from a Member of the Commission one way or the other regarding
this appeal.
MHA
Coady.
MS. COADY:
With regret, I think I have to motion to be consistent and consistent with the
rules, but again, I have great empathy that the appeal is denied. That would be
my motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do I have a seconder?
MHA
Michael.
All
those in favour of that motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Showing
no against, the motion is carried.
The
appeal is denied and that would be for both MHAs.
CLERK:
They are both covered in the same (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, both covering the
same.
I move
on now to the next item. This is the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
Different circumstances, this is a situation – and I'll refer to my earlier
comment when I suggested and I apologized, the issue, as I say, on the first one
was regarding the size of the ad. In this situation, it was the fact that the ad
which appeared had not been submitted for approval. It would have been caught
immediately, but there were issues around that.
Any
discussion?
MHA
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I find this one to be
different from the one we just discussed because it's not just that they didn't
consult. If they had consulted, maybe the point about the contact information
would have been picked up. But I find it really problematic that a public
meeting that was informing the public of pre-budget consultations, hosted by the
Member – not hosted by government, but hosted by the Member. It's the ad of a
pre-budget consultation hosted by the Member. I guess the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port and the Member for St. George's - Humber, but the ad
itself has in it information for the Department of Finance, not constituency. To
me, that's the key thing.
An MHA,
no matter what the stripe, we are MHAs, we're not part of government. When we
hold public events in our district, we can't in any way be referencing our party
or anything. It's MHA and it may have been accidental, but it's problematic that
the ad publicly – this is what the ad said, the Department of Finance, and I
think that's really problematic.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Parsons – no, you didn't
have a comment or question?
Any
further comments?
I guess
my key opening remark was, again, had the Member sought approval before
submitting this, that it would have been caught.
No
further discussion, I look to one of the Members for a motion either way
regarding the acceptance of this appeal or denial.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Move to deny.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion to deny by MHA
Hutchings.
I need
a seconder.
MS. MICHAEL:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by MHA Michael.
All in
favour of that motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
The
motion is carried.
The
appeal is denied.
Moving
on to the next item, this is relating to newsletter, flyer from the Member for
St. John's Centre. It's also an appeal, and I look for the Commission now to
open some discussion on this point.
MHA
Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
This
one I think is problematic because the Member actually did seek Corporate
Members' Services advice and was advised that it is not eligible for
reimbursement. That was in February of 2017, and then subsequently when a
purchase order was being considered in March of 2017 was again told it wasn't
eligible, and it wasn't eligible for a multitude of reasons, some along partisan
lines, as was referred to previously by the Member for St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi.
This
one worries me because they sought the advice and the advice was please do not
move forward with this and now they're coming to us to appeal that. I can't see
how we can do so when it clearly doesn't meet the specifications and
requirements under our guidelines.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
This is discussion and I
just want to respond to one thing. I think what is written in the second main
paragraph of the letter says: “I am also appealing on the basis that Corporate
Members Services (CMS) said my 'Householder' could not be approved as written,
and that although my office inquired a number of times, asking for clarification
as to what was exactly problematic” – that's my understanding, I was just told
it was problematic – “so it could be corrected, no answer was provided to
identify the problematic content.”
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll refer to staff. We
actually do have a copy of the correspondence. Perhaps you can just read it, ask
the Clerk.
CLERK:
On February 17, 2017 there
was an email to Corporate Members' Services from the CA asking if the PO for the
newsletter had been issued. There was a response back about half an hour later
saying no, as we have not received a copy of the newsletter to ensure that it is
eligible to be covered. As well, we are waiting on the graphic designer to
confirm the work has not been completed and provide a quote rather than an
invoice.
That
same day, about a couple of hours later, there was an email exchange again
informing that the office had followed the same format for past eight newsletter
and attached a copy of the most recent one to the requisition that was sent. The
graphic designer has not even received the photos, the text or any material. So
they were just confirming that no work had been done.
Anyway,
back then, half an hour after that, there was an exchange saying the graphic
designer provided an invoice rather than a quote. Therefore, we require
confirmation no work has been done to ensure we are not in contravention of
government policy, and then asked to review the content of the newsletter. Then
the CA did send a draft of the newsletter and indicated that they needed it
approved as quickly as possible in order to get it to the print shop. That's
common, there's nothing wrong with that. That was on February 28, about 10 in
the morning.
Corporate Members' Services did go back and said: As we just had discussed, the
newsletter cannot state political positions and must be constituency related.
The length that all newsletters are viewed with is that a section of Ms.
Rogers's newsletter must be able to be used in a newsletter for any other MHA.
That's
kind of a rule of thumb. Basically, you can't make any political or partisan
statements and one of the easy ways is put anybody's name on top and if it fits
you can send it out. It's usually a good rule of thumb, which seems is not the
case with the majority of the newsletter content.
The
current advertising policy states it's not allowable, which also applies to
newsletters, statements of a partisan nature, advertising which advocates a
particular position or attempts to influence public opinion on a matter before
the House of Assembly and content that disparages any political position or
Member.
That's
what was communicated back to the office. Usually when that happens the office
will come, and, if need be, the staff – and I've done it myself – we've sat with
the Members and gone down through the newsletters to identify exactly what we
see as problematic. As a matter of fact, we had one Member that spent about
three weeks coming back and forth meeting with the former law clerk and myself
trying to get the language proper. That was okay because we can't write it for
them.
That
was the situation in this case. We never had anything from the office until
around the 17th of March when they asked for the PO to be issued. At which point
we had gone back again and said: Well, is there a new draft, we haven't seen it.
The draft was sent in, it hadn't changed. So we went back and said, we can't
approve this in its current form.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Unless there's more
discussion, I'll make the motion to deny.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do we have a seconder?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
Moved
by Mr. Parsons, seconded by Mr. Davis.
All
those in favour of the motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
The
motion is carried.
The
appeal is denied.
Finally, we have an appeal from the MHA for Mount Pearl - Southlands. This
relates to a charge that was incurred but due to invoicing issues the item
arrived after the time frame that's indicated for submission, the 60-day
submission.
I'll
open it up to the Commission for any comment. The expenditure is eligible. The
problem is the expense claim was submitted –
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible) actually been
recognized.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I move acceptance because
this is normal. So many of them are like this. It's not the fault of the MHA
that the invoice is coming late.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion has been seconded
by MHA Davis.
All in
favour of accepting the appeal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
CLERK:
Accepted the two-day waiver.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Also, a
second point; that motion is carried, but I also would ask the Commission to
approve the two-day waiver given this has to be filed within the previous fiscal
year.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So moved.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
I see a motion from MHA
Parsons, seconded by MHA Hutchings.
All in
favour of wavering the two-day waiver?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
The
motion is carried. The two-day waiting period is waived.
This
concludes our business.
I thank
the Commission.
I'm
sorry; MHA Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
I'll
just come back to the first four things that we debated here today. We're
dealing with it every day. I think it's incumbent on all of us here that maybe
we can find some way to very clearly get across to every Member and their
assistant what the rules are and an acknowledgement from every office coming
back that, yes, we understand the rules – because I think that will help us
going forward.
It's
one thing to send out an email. That could be deleted. Somebody might have – God
forbid, an MHA delete it or a CA delete it and they're blaming each other. I
think we should have an acknowledgement back that here's what the rules are,
here's where you find them. Because it will help us avoid dealing with this.
We
don't want any Member to spend their personal money on stuff that should be
allowed, and I think that will be a good practice for us maybe.
MR. SPEAKER:
As the Speaker, I take the
request very seriously. We'll confer with staff and we'll come back to the
Commission with a proposal.
Thank
you very much.
The
Management Commission meeting, I look for a motion to adjourn.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So moved.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by MHA Parsons,
seconded by MHA Hutchings.
Thank
you very much.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.