Manitobans Wake Up and Get the Scoop on Gov't Spending!

It is an accepted belief that media operates on the principle of competition and therefore it stands to reason that every reporter's dream is to get the scoop on the big story. It is then surprising to find a saturation of non-news events, such as the release of the new iPhone, or Bieber's love life while media continues to pass up on real news.

Several stories about government waste, criminal activity, abuse of power and authority have been revealed to the media. Yet there has been no interest to follow-up, confirm or clarify. Is it that media fears government and is under its control? 

As a last resort after failed attempts in search of the truth with the provincial government and then the media, the blog A Bullish Government was developed. This is but one small voice straining to be heard over a well orchestrated government cover up. A mission fueled by the hope that the message will somehow be heard and the information acted on by Manitobans or other outside influence. 

Here is one story submitted to mainstream media prior to the provincial election last fall that for unknown reasons was not pursued although by media standards, the story 'has legs'.


CSC Profiling (replaces earlier post, "whistleblowing silenced")

In 2008 MB Civil Service Commission participated in the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) and in 2011 was required to disclose the total cost of this project under the information access act. The project seems to serve no real purpose and its costs significant. With the monumental deficit nearing $1-billion as reported by Winnipeg Free Press "Premier faces a tough year ahead" Premier Selinger acknowledges that "tough choices" need to be made. However, in prioritizing what is superfluous, the Premier ought to first take action to reign in CSC's spending.

Background:

CSC in partnership with Organization Staff and Development (a special operating agency "SOA" of Government of MB) contracted a private company Think Unlimited to facilitate the HBDI workshops. CSC advised that ministerial approval from then Minister of Finance Greg Selinger was not required. Funding came from a Development Fund set aside from retained earnings. CSC provided copies of what it purported to be the total cost:

    $7,486.25= (facilitation fees 3 workshops) $2,750 + $4,736.25 (participant materials) GABS

CSC failed to include the cost of food and beverages incurred at Place Louis Riel and Winnipeg Convention Centre where the workshops were held. Is this an oversight or in fear of backlash from the public viewing catered lunches for top management as wasteful during times of budget cuts?  (Note: Most Government boardrooms including that of CSC, could have easily accommodated this group of 40.) The costs of $9,234.65 were then stated to be the total costs, however copies of the invoices alleged to be $1,748.40 from the two hotels were not provided to corroborate. GABS

Also missing from total costs:

CSC did not include the contractor's (Think Unlimited) fees for consultations, meetings and phone calls for development, planning and design which began on or before January 2008. There is no accounting of the company's reports at the conclusion of the project. There is also no accounting for lost productivity of staff during a time in which CSC and OSD attested that it was experiencing severe labour shortages due to extended vacancies in positions and "all staff were experiencing higher than usual stress levels..." GABS

The fund of retained earnings could have (should have) been used to used to fill these vacancies instead, as one senior consultant stated off record, "there was no interest in filling the vacancies. All they (at a senior management team meeting) wanted to do was talk about this HBDI project; the cost of which would have covered a full time admin's salary for a year which we desperately need." The fact that there were no new hires during this time is confirmed by CSC-OSD as provided in its response documents to the Labour Board and Human Rights Commission.  (See also  RWP Process is a "CLM" Career Limiting Move.)

Accountability Reports are used to identify any end results and measurable gains to justify the costs of a project. CSC denied access to these reports when requested. HBDI is an instrument used to measure an individual’s thinking preferences. Under privacy regulations the information CSC-OSD collected is personal and confidential. Legally, the data collected would be inaccessible to anyone other than the participant. From the onset staff emails expressed concern that participation in the project was mandatory. There were “fears” of being profiled and fears about how the survey results would be used and shared with colleagues.

 “I would have to agree,” stated Frank Cantafio (former CSC EAP Director) in an email to Beauchamp-Schmidt, “...There are at least 5 other employees at the Commission who have done it already through LDI. I don’t feel the need to redo.” The project was thought to be repetitive; something similar to what government already offered and therefore seen as an unnecessary cost. Beauchamp-Schmidt responded by email that there would be composite reports identifying thinking tendencies amongst the group and “…she can’t do that …if she doesn’t have access to the raw data.”

What is OSD's mandate? 

OSD is in the business of providing consultation and facilitation services. It has a number of full time trainers, consultants and facilitators to deliver HR-related workshops similar to that of  HBDI. By contracting out, scenarios much like that stated in Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell, get played out repeatedly, double-dipping into taxpayers' pockets. OSD markets its services to the Provincial Government. In addition it provides services on a user-fee basis to other Crown Corporations, The Federal Government of Canada, Regional Health Authorities, Foundations, and other privately owned companies.

A review of OSD's Operating Charter of 1994 states that it is not the intent of OSD to take away jobs from private companies that provide similar HR services. However, its 2009-10 Annual Report reflects that it is in direct competition with private Manitoba HR businesses. The OSD Charter is more than likely defunct as there have been many changes overall since its inception and yet its charter has never been reviewed or updated. GABS

A Special Operating Agency's (generally) are a cost recovery department in that it is an agency that charges a user-fee for its services and in theory the costs of operating an SOA are then recoverable. A Development Fund is revenue from retained earnings and it was used to cover the costs of the HBDI project. Could this surplus money (likely revenue from OSD workshops) have been set aside to cover any anticipated  expenditures? 

In the last provincial budget, Minister of Finance (then Rosann Wowchuk) approved costs of $276,000 to upgrade the OSD's registrar with a new Learning Management System. The cost of which is scheduled to be paid in annual minimum payments of $92,000 over three years starting 2011.   Is this upgrade as a result of OSD expanding its business publicly, outside of its legislated mandate? If this is the case, the competition (along with all taxpaying Manitobans) are funding OSD's business operations as well as gifting it upwards of $300K.If and/or when OSD ever becomes a profitable business, will it pay back the total costs for the new LMS? Given OSD's annual report as of March 31, 2010 shows a loss of  $250,000 perhaps the Premier's 'tough choices' as to what is unessential and not cost effective should begin here.

In order to eliminate the deficit there needs to be some real answers to some tough questions. The difficulty comes in knowing what to ask. The quality and integrity of reporting significantly impacts our ability to be an informed public. Is there any wonder why there was so little voter turnout last fall when readers are on a steady diet of pre-packaged Happy McNews on government with an also less than satisfying side order of non-news such as....

 

as "lies, damned lies and ..." in Winnipeg Free Press Driving them crazy about EGAD! "...parking spots" A conspiracy going on at the Winnipeg International Airport on the basis that it took someone 10 minutes before actually finding a parking spot.

When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal

Once symptoms of a known disability became exacerbated due to a toxic work environment, a government employee (terminated June 2008 after five years of exemplary reviews) followed due process to address her complaints of unfair labour practices. ‘Marielle’ bears witness to the difficulties, bias, incompetence, perjury and flawed logic of government that was allowed to go unchecked to the point of a criminal act. Government employees conduct all preliminary investigations so when Labour Board admin staff stonewalled the process 260 days (average is 48 days) it is clear that the practice of government investigating government is terribly flawed, unlawful and even unconstitutional.

Other Related Posts: 

• Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board violated Privacy Laws.
• MHRC complaint takes 2 years to start the investigation then ends up being dismissed by the Yukon over the August long weekend in Electronic signatures, rubber stamping - "Good Grief"  
• Abuse of government resources Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell
• Did  not accommodate a person based on religious beliefs and mental disability; both of which are categories protected under the Code in MB Gov't OK with flipping ‘the Bird’ -- flips off Jesus

Even throughout the excessive delays, I was never given a contact name as to who would be conducting the Manitoba Labour Board investigation; given no reason for the excessive delays; there was no phone call or meeting to clarify or confirm information; and written requests for a response went unanswered for months, or never answered at all. The Board defended itself by stating that it did not talk to a single person in Government or union either. One would then question what was the Board doing all that time?

Given the complexities and ever-changing misinformation by Government, as opposed to my evidence that has never changed, standard procedure would then be to proceed to hearing by an independent panel, to not only ensure that there is a fair and impartial hearing, but it also needs to be perceived as such. Instead, in a show of power, the Board dismissed the complaint in a closed door decision and further elevated the situation to a ‘quasi-justice turned criminal act’ as follows:

Subsequent to the Board refusing to provide written reasons for dismissal, I filed for an Appeal (Request for Review and Reconsideration) citing numerous grounds why the matter ought to have, and should still proceed to hearing. In a response refuting the Appeal prepared by government's (paid-for-hire) counsel, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, lawyer Rob Olson mistakenly left a notation for the deponent, the Chief Operating Officer Beauchamp Schmidt. in the document.  Besides the obvious implications of a deliberate attempt to introduce fabricated evidence contrary to that previously deposed to, the fact that the notation was left in the document is proof that the COO did not read the document, or alternatively did not read it in its entirety before swearing to it. The notation (and highlighted note to COO) is as follows:

 

(x) ... CSC employees have the option to request that they be referred to an external EAP provider, which option was always in place during the Applicant's employment with the CSC/OSD.

[ON: Anna Schmidt-Beauchamp to confirm this fact]
 

 

For the COO to sign a sworn declaration to be true without reading it is not only in violation of Manitoba Evidence Act but shows misplaced trust in counsel who likely had been given so much creative freedom in fabricating the defence that the COO likely viewed proofing said document for accuracy superfluous especially given the complexity and confusion in keeping the different versions of the mounds of disinformation straight.  
 

Through information accessed in 2011, an email dated June 19, 2009 from the Director of the (CSC) Employee Assistance Program states that the external EAP, falsely claimed to be in existence in 2008, did not become available until the following year--contrary to that claimed by the COO. This further speaks to the COO’s lack of credibility, and therefore, any and all uncorroborated evidence previously accepted as evidence is then highly suspect. Furthermore, as the COO was a named Respondent in this and other complaints including The Human Rights Code, under MEA the COO should have been regarded as ‘hostile’ and this witness should have been made available at a hearing for cross-examination.

The Board refused to respond to several ongoing letters I sent requesting it take appropriate action regarding the MEA violation. Instead the Board dismissed me, revoked my Charter Rights and abruptly rejected my right to Appeal. The Board’s decision (in a 'if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance -- baffle 'em with BS move) shifted the focus from a criminal act to that of a “typo” (234 characters would never constitute a 'typo' to a reasonable person) and falsely stated the typo was in an attachment despite the fact that the nine-page Reply contained NO attachments.  

Although obstruction to justice and perjury is a criminal violation, the issue of the Government as Respondent, and as investigative tribunal collaborating together in this criminal act has yet to be addressed.

After the Manitoba Ombudsman failed to act, repeated requests in writing and by phone were then made to Manitoba Justice Minister Andrew Swan's office (through the DM Jeffrey Schnoor) who did not respond but deferred the matter out to Human Resource Services. A manager of HR then attempted to do a side-step of the allegation on misconduct and abuse of power and authority by both the senior government officers at CSC as well at the Labour Board stating the matter "was under the purview of the Manitoba Labour Board" and therefore I should take it up with them. 

 

I had to clarify the law with HR that it was not a Labour Board complaint under the Labour Relations Act but a complaint under MEA and therefore a criminal matter (summary conviction at the very least) and of public interest and ought to be treated like any crime.  Government is not (supposed to be) above the law.

The HR Manager then responded,

"The Manitoba Evidence Act provides the statutory foundation for the way information and documentation is to be handled.  It does not provide the Deputy Minister or employees of Manitoba Justice with the authority to investigate. …Investigation of an allegation of a crime would be in the purview of the relevant policing authority.  You may also consider consulting a lawyer.” 

 

How can this be interpreted as justice when a victim of a crime is not advised as to who is proper policing authority, information only a lawyer (capped at--if by the book--at $250 an hour) could give? How is this justice?

What is most frightening is that the provincial government would view brute force as an effective, and even desired means of achieving its goals of effectively dealing with issues involving mental illness, rather than mediating and showing compassion and empathy.

 

Government is well aware those most vulnerable afflicted with mental illness could never afford a lawyer or gain access to the courts. Without transparency and accountability from Government, without consequence to those that have crossed the line, one can only expect that this sort of thing will lead to an increased reliance on brute force as an instrument that works;  ‘#WINNING’  at all costs when there is no intervention or fear of retaliation, in order to preserve and promote the shameless glorification of government prowess.