The release,
yesterday, of a statement by fired former Nalcor CEO Ed Martin underscores a
concluding comment contained in Monday’s Uncle Gnarley Post. It is this:
“That he (Premier Ball) would afford
a bunch of Danny Williams’ cronies, including Ed Martin, such power over his
own political future, giving himself no protection via a paper trail and having
failed to disclose the firing on the heels of Martin’s ostensible retirement, constitutes
one of the worst acts of political stupidity since Dunderdale declared DARKNL
‘not a crisis’.
Ed Martin’s written recollection of the two meetings (April 17th and 19th) held
with the Premier might give rise to an expectation that Dwight Ball is able to
refute Martin’s assertions with the release of his own notes or ones taken down
by his own officials.
The Premier could
produce nothing of the kind. He is left standing by an inconsistent verbal record,
unwilling to release even the Department of Justice opinion on the issue, having
promised to so do. He does not afford even a peek into his claims of truthfulness
or give us reason to have confidence in his integrity or his leadership.
While the
Premier can be condemned for engaging in behaviour pundits call “amateur hour”,
it would be unwise to bring the curtains down on Premier Ball just yet, even if
any latitude the Caucus or the public may yet afford him is very slim.
Such a
caution is warranted for essentially two reasons:
First, Ed
Martin has acknowledged he engaged in a charade with the media and the public. The
former CEO wrote: “…reiterating my offer to stay on provided the constructive dismissal
issues were reasonably mitigated, I choose to accept the government’s decision
and depart gracefully by stepping down.”
“Departing
gracefully” hardly seems the same thing as fired, does it? When is a lie a euphemism
for the truth? Yet both men stood at their podiums and declared Martin had
voluntary retired.
Martin
proceeded to say in his two page release: “…I cannot stand by, from a values
perspective, and allow the lack of clarity to impact the integrity of board
members…” Unless you count deceit as a value, the sophistry takes your
breath away!
Second, who
communicated to the Nalcor Board any decision taken during Ed Martin’s final
meeting with Premier Ball?
Did the one
who was fired, the one seeking the gift of severance, give those instructions
to former Board Chairman, Ken Marshall?
Or, did the
Premier, his Minister, or the Chief of Staff advise Ken Marshall of the
Government’s position and, through him, ask the Board to comply?
The Premier
says he did not have a conversation about severance. The Minister of Natural
Resources says she did not “have a conversation with Mr. Martin or the Board
Members on severance….” The Premier should confirm whether his Chief of Staff
or any other person in his Office communicated with the Nalcor Board on the
issue.
Until we
discover if it was only Ed Martin who issued instructions to the Board, or if
the communications occurred via the Premier or someone connected with him, Ed
Martin’s written cry of righteousness is an indictment of himself as much as it
is of Premier Ball.
Still, Martin’s
missive hardens the view someone is either lying or trivialized the $1.4
million severance. The Premier, too clumsy by half, is unable to extricate
himself from suspicion.
Ball is not
helping himself when he should be fighting for his very survival.
He confirms that we have reason to be suspicious of him and to doubt his integrity having asked the Auditor General merely to report on the “appropriateness of the severance benefits received by Mr. Edmund J, Martin…” That is a matter quite distinct from whether the Premier approved the severance arrangement, and whether he lied to the public about it.
He confirms that we have reason to be suspicious of him and to doubt his integrity having asked the Auditor General merely to report on the “appropriateness of the severance benefits received by Mr. Edmund J, Martin…” That is a matter quite distinct from whether the Premier approved the severance arrangement, and whether he lied to the public about it.
The issue
involves legal questions to be sure, but even more than the money central
to the issue on the public’s mind is whether this Premier is a person of integrity.
The A-G is
not equipped to ferret out the issues which cloud that question. It is doubtful
he has broad enough powers of inquiry to get to the bottom of the severance
issue itself.
The A-G can
determine whether, in having granted the severance payment, the proper
financial controls were adhered to under various policies and procedures.
But can he
establish that under law the severance was legal?
Given he is
an accountant and not a lawyer, can he establish the entire sequence of events
which led to the payment to Ed Martin, to the decision which saw the Premier
make a false public statement, and to the Premier’s subsequent denials he approved severance or ever discussed it?
The Government’s
asks the A-G to determine the appropriateness of the severance payment under Section
16 of the Auditor General Act. But it is under Section 18(1) where the A-Gs
right “to examine a person on oath or affirmation…” is found, and only then “on
a matter pertinent to an account submitted to the auditor general for audit…”
It is not certain at all whether the Government’s request is an ‘an account
submitted for audit’.
Anyone who
reads the A-G’s review of the Humber Valley Paving affair will readily see why
he should be excluded from matters outside the accounting field. Not the
calculator, but the right to subpoena evidence and conduct a cross examination
of witnesses are the tools used in the search for truth. Lawyers and judges serve the purpose well. Ball's reference, in the House of Assembly, to "interviews" the A-G might undertake as opposed to "cross-examinations" suggests he misunderstands the process, else he has taken bad advice.
Indeed, the
job given the A-G is best performed by a former Judge whose retirement has not diminished
his legal scholarship, experience, or independence. Ball also has the option of referring the matter to a sitting Judge.
If Ball is
unafraid of the outcome, he will beg the A-G to defer to a Judicial Inquiry. That is really the only process that will get at the whole truth and restore public confidence in the government.
On the other
hand, if Ball digs in his heels, cowering under public outrage, he will receive no relief from this political nightmare.
At the very
least, the Premier must give the A-G a wider terms of reference as well as better suited
and unfettered powers of inquiry, specifically under the Public Inquiries Act.
Overt transparency is Ball’s only hope of political
salvation. The Premier is a man hanging on a thin thread of credibility. It is barely greater than Ed Martin's.
He can hide
behind an ill-equipped A-G for now.
But soon we will hear from the former Nalcor Board Chairman, Ken Marshall; likely no friend of his. And the questions will begin again.
Then, too, the Liberal Caucus has a role to play to play in how long Ball survives. If there is a modicum of wisdom among that group they will dictate the terms under which Ball is permitted to stay. What affects him affects them.
Unless they are willing to practice politics under an atmosphere of distrust, they will insist that he call an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act or move aside.
Ed Martin's allegations are of a kind that not just threaten Ball's but their political survival, too.
But soon we will hear from the former Nalcor Board Chairman, Ken Marshall; likely no friend of his. And the questions will begin again.
Then, too, the Liberal Caucus has a role to play to play in how long Ball survives. If there is a modicum of wisdom among that group they will dictate the terms under which Ball is permitted to stay. What affects him affects them.
Unless they are willing to practice politics under an atmosphere of distrust, they will insist that he call an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act or move aside.
Ed Martin's allegations are of a kind that not just threaten Ball's but their political survival, too.