Alta Liberals call for new conflict rules over old contract

[RedHot25]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...ct-tories.html

Bob Maskell was awarded a $38,000 contract to help organize aboriginal events surrounding the provincial centennial celebrations less than a month after he was defeated by a Liberal in the provincial election in the fall of 2004

The contract was not tendered and backdated to begin just two days after the vote.

"For a Tory MLA to have a position at the public expense two days … after losing his seat in an election is a pattern that's got to be brought to an end," said Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft.

....

Premier Ed Stelmach is noticeably uncomfortable talking about the contract. He insists new conflict-of-interest legislation he has promised to bring forward will bar this kind of situation.

......

Maskell said there was nothing wrong with him being awarded the contract and he has an ally in making that claim. The ethics commissioner was consulted beforehand and ruled there was no conflict of interest.

[Staypuft]

The funniest thing about this story, is that Maskell was paid for FIFTY hours of work in....get this...one single day.

Oops.

He also had payments of 30 hours in another day, and 28 in another day.

I don't care what kind of math you use, that does not add up.

[RedHot25]

Where do you see that, Staypuft?

[calculoso]

I see.. so if anyone is defeated in an election, they're not allowed to work for the government even if valid work is to be done?

Maskell said Tuesday it was widely known that he was doing government work shortly after losing the election and he is questioning the Liberals' motivation in bringing this forward now.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I see.. so if anyone is defeated in an election, they're not allowed to work for the government even if valid work is to be done?

Yah, I saw that too calculoso. I don't doubt that part of this is because of what Maskell says re: liberal motivations.

However, you can't really ignore this part either:

The contract was not tendered and backdated to begin just two days after the vote.

Right or not, its not a stretch to refer to what Taft mentions below:

"For a Tory MLA to have a position at the public expense two days … after losing his seat in an election is a pattern that's got to be brought to an end," said Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft.


Add to that this....

Premier Ed Stelmach is noticeably uncomfortable talking about the contract.


It looks like the liberals are being opportunistic, but at the same time it does like something is also a bit odd from the tories....

* Yet another edit. Bobble below me states things in a much more succint way.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I see.. so if anyone is defeated in an election, they're not allowed to work for the government even if valid work is to be done?

No problem, as long as the contract goes through the standard tendering process. And backdating it to 2 days after the election for work already done? Does that really sound like valid business practices?

[Staypuft]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Where do you see that, Staypuft?

Was reading the story at work this morning on the BN wire.

"The Alberta government remains under fire over a contract awarded to a former Tory days after he was defeated in the 2004 election.

The Liberals tabled documents in the legislature showing Bob Maskell billed the government for 50 hours of work in one day.

Maskell, a former Edmonton M-L-A, also was paid for 30 hours of work for one other day and 28 hours on another, according to the documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Liberal Leader Kevin Taft called on Premier Ed Stelmach to end any contracts the government has with Maskell. "

[Lurch]

Don Braid's column in today's Herald also notes that the gov't has delayed their conflict of interest legislation, presumably b/c it addresses issues exactly on these lines. As he noted, if you bring in legislation to stop situations like this, it makes it hard to defend them out the other side of your mouth. Notably, this bill is numbered #2, and the gov't has already introduced Bill 1, and Bills 3 through 30.

[Ford Prefect]

Move along. There's nothing to see here folks. The sun rises in the east, computers crash and politicians are corrupt. Nothing new here. Now move along. Ooops, my cynicism is showing again.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Staypuft

The Liberals tabled documents in the legislature showing Bob Maskell billed the government for 50 hours of work in one day.

Maskell, a former Edmonton M-L-A, also was paid for 30 hours of work for one other day and 28 hours on another, according to the documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Thanks for that. Adds a little more credence I guess to the claims against by the looks of it. Unless someone can show how you put more than 24 hours in a day now?

(edit to add: if anyone else has some more stories, please add. Right now its looking to me a bit bad for the Tories, with a splash of liberal opportunism thrown in).

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

No problem, as long as the contract goes through the standard tendering process. And backdating it to 2 days after the election for work already done? Does that really sound like valid business practices?

I also have problems with not going through the standard tendering process, but I also know that standard tendering processes can sometimes take a long time - and when there is a rush to get something done, corners are cut.

Backdating it to me, means that the official contract was signed on day X, but he was essentially told to start on day Y (before day X) and the contract was backdated to reflect day Y instead.

Where does it say anything about "for work already done"? I see:

Bob Maskell was awarded a $38,000 contract to help organize aboriginal events surrounding the provincial centennial celebrations less than a month after he was defeated by a Liberal in the provincial election in the fall of 2004

Which to me means that the celebrations took place less than a month after the election. Why would he plan anything, or be lined up to plan anything, while trying to fight an election? Doesn't make sense to me...

The 50 hrs in one day sounds odd to me... I hope there's a valid explanation, like multiple people working on it, etc.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Move along. There's nothing to see here folks. The sun rises in the east, computers crash and politicians are corrupt. Nothing new here. Now move along. Ooops, my cynicism is showing again.

Yeah. I've felt that way for quite a while too. I still don't like it.

(Hell, I've never voted for a Liberal and I can't believe how many threads I end up "defending" them, just because I don't thing either side is any better)

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

(Hell, I've never voted for a Liberal and I can't believe how many threads I end up "defending" them, just because I don't thing either side is any better)

Ha...that's kind of how I feel.

[calculoso]

Calgary Sun story:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...91579-sun.html

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Yeah. I've felt that way for quite a while too. I still don't like it.

(Hell, I've never voted for a Liberal and I can't believe how many threads I end up "defending" them, just because I don't thing either side is any better)

I'm in that boat too, at least provincially. I've told my wife to shoot me though if the day ever comes when I defend the federal liberals.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Right or not, its not a stretch to refer to what Taft mentions below:

"For a Tory MLA to have a position at the public expense two days … after losing his seat in an election is a pattern that's got to be brought to an end," said Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft.

While I agree with the contract not being tendered being a major concern, I am curious if Taft can actually show a "pattern".

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Thanks for that. Adds a little more credence I guess to the claims against by the looks of it. Unless someone can show how you put more than 24 hours in a day now?

(edit to add: if anyone else has some more stories, please add. Right now its looking to me a bit bad for the Tories, with a splash of liberal opportunism thrown in).

Maybe he was billing for himself and two or more assistants? Five people put in a 10-hour day and you wind up with 50 billable hours. I would hope he'd be meticulous enough to itemize things clearly on his bill though to avoid any misunderstanding about who or how many people worked those 50 hours.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Calgary Sun story:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...91579-sun.html

Well, this can't be good:

was also paid $3,000 for five full days of consulting on the Edmonton Aboriginal Gathering Place in which, according to his itinerary, he met with the same three people all day, each day. Maskell, who at the time got a transitional allowance for serving in government, didn't return calls yesterday.


I've never been a "consultant" so I don't know, maybe 3 grand is fine for 5 days of work. However, at the same time,....


The documents, obtained by the Alberta Liberals under the Freedom of Information act, also show Maskell was paid for 30 hours of work in one other day and 28 hours on another. Both were September 2005 events; in one, Maskell represented then-Indian Affairs minister Pearl Calahasen -- who personally asked in memos that Maskell be contracted without tender -- and cut a ribbon. In the other, he "participated in a flag-raising ceremony" and "presented blankets to elders and other activities."

Now that doesn't look good at all.

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

While I agree with the contract not being tendered being a major concern, I am curious if Taft can actually show a "pattern".

Yes, there is no doubt that there is liberal opportunism in here, like I stated in my post. But in all honesty, that is be expected. But they do have a point about the part that I bolded. And yes, I will wait for more info to come out, but you can't tell me a 30 hour day (0r 28, whichever one you prefer) for cutting a ribbon or raising a flag.... even if other duties were involved.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Maybe he was billing for himself and two or more assistants? Five people put in a 10-hour day and you wind up with 50 billable hours. I would hope he'd be meticulous enough to itemize things clearly on his bill though to avoid any misunderstanding about who or how many people worked those 50 hours.

Could be, but would he really need an assistant or 2 to do what is reported he did?

(I need to get better at grammar!)

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Could be, but would he really need an assistant or 2 to do what is reported he did?

(I need to get better at grammar!)

True. Having assistants getting paid might be more technically legit, but it would still be a shameless grab of public funds.