IntenseDebate - ElectricTorch

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - I'm not writing about ... · 0 replies · +1 points

The Board’s move to change the bylaws will necessarily attract public attention, but it is in their best interest to protect themselves from a legal perspective. The recent exposure left them no other choice.

As for the spending so far, it's likely they will argue these were a result of exceptional circumstance and get away with it.

I’d be very surprised if they allowed the remaining managers ample opportunity to strike at them again in public.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Rights and Democracy: ... · 0 replies · +3 points

It’s the oldest trick in the book: Get someone else to do the risky business, and diversify, diversify! This way, whenever things go wrong, you can wash your hands of the whole affair because the link back to you is a maze of facts and fiction. It takes someone like Paul Wells to do the hard work of highlighting the links and showing the pattern that emerges, but sadly, it’s so nebulous that the majority simply won’t understand until it’s too late.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Rights and Democracy: ... · 2 replies · +6 points

Paul, without you, this story wouldn’t have reached the heights it has in the English media. That in itself is a victory.

This obviously isn’t just about R&D - it’s a bigger issue that will keep repeating in other instances until the damage becomes very difficult to repair. So, thank you for speaking truth to power on behalf of countless Canadians. Thanks also to Macleans for being a leading source of information on this issue thus far.

I hope you will take a much deserved break and return with renewed vigor to pursue this file!

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Rights and Democracy: ... · 0 replies · +2 points

You are under the impression that there was one report. In fact, there were two reports: the usual 5-year review and another special report/audit which Graeme Hamilton refers to in the National Post article. The latter was focused on specific allegations, which were supposedly dealt with since Beauregard's mandate, but which the current Board is trying to revive.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Rights and Democracy: ... · 2 replies · +1 points

I agree. They should have either used the whole quote, or not used it at all.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Rights and Democracy: ... · 4 replies · +2 points

That's a quote from the article I just posted. It reads "...some persistent management, organizational, planning,
accountability and reporting problems"

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Rights and Democracy: ... · 5 replies · +1 points

You'll find references to it in this article from the National Post (through Levant's website):
http://ezralevant.com/Waste%20at%20R&D.pdf

That report does not appear to be a public document, so I doubt you'll find it posted on a government site.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - UPDATED: Rights and De... · 0 replies · +1 points

I only mentioned this given the sensitive nature of the debate and the ramifications for those involved. It would have been more accurate, perhaps, to use the word ‘managers’ not ‘staff’. Those who signed the letter may or may not represent the opinions of others.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - UPDATED: Rights and De... · 1 reply · 0 points

Mr. Wells writes "For the audit to begin, then, the staff are requiring that the suspension of Cloutier and her two colleagues be lifted."

Is the word "staff" from the letter itself or an interpretation?

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - UPDATED: Rights and De... · 2 replies · +7 points

They know they're going to get cut either way...

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with ElectricTorch

People I'm following

ElectricTorch