|
NLIS 1 March 2, 2005 (Office of the Citizens� Representative) Please see attached correspondence to the Honourable Harvey Hodder, Speaker of the House of Assembly from Fraser March, Citizens� Representative for Newfoundland and Labrador. Said letter is self explanatory. Also attached is a letter between the same parties dated February 14, 2005. The following are copies of the letters sent to the Speaker of the House of Assembly: March 1, 2005 Honorable Harvey Hodder Dear Mr. Hodder: Since a recent report of the Auditor General, the Citizens� Representative has reviewed in detail the 76 travel claims he submitted between February 1, 2002 and June 30, 2004. This review has proceeded without identifying any citizen complainant or any citizen involved in an investigation under provisions of the Citizens� Representative Act. In his review the Citizens� Representative has utilized bank statements, credit card statements, cell phone records, car rental receipts, airline records, Marine Atlantic information and the personal observations of others. These documents clearly demonstrate that the Citizens� Representative traveled to the locations and at the times he described in these travel claims. The Citizens� Representative will produce this documental evidence at the pleasure of the House of Assembly. However, the described documentation shows a grievous and significant error related to travel in one travel claim. On September 23, 2003 the Citizens� Representative had meetings scheduled in the Port aux Basques area. Further he scheduled meetings at Nicholsville and Main Point for September 24, 2003 to be completed on the return trip from Port aux Basques to St. John�s. At this time the family of the Citizens� Representative had a car in Halifax that was parked in that location because of a medical emergency. Thus the Citizens� Representative used this situation with the help of a local travel agent to take an early morning flight from St. John�s to Halifax, to have the family car meet him at the Halifax airport and to motor in the family car to the Newfoundland ferry at North Sydney, to cross to Port aux Basques on said ferry and to arrive in Port aux Basques in time to carry out the meetings scheduled. On September 24, 2003 the Citizens� Representative completed duties related to the Port aux Basques issues, then proceeded to Nicholsville where a meeting took place with a citizen and then proceeded to Main Point and met a citizen complainant. From there the Citizens� Representative proceeded to St. John�s. When the Citizens� Representative submitted a travel claim for this trip he did not claim any expenses for the Halifax detour. He personally paid for the total cost of the Halifax leg of the trip including airfare, Marine Atlantic fares and the cost of driving through Nova Scotia. However, when he filled out his expense claim he claimed return highway travel from St. John�s to Port aux Basques to St. John�s which the above noted documents show was not the case. The Citizens� Representative believes this to be an error of such magnitude as to warrant the attention of the House of Assembly. The Citizens� Representative will complete immediate and pressing work by Tuesday, March 8, 2005 and will proceed on leave until he receives further instructions from the House of Assembly. Sincerely, Fraser March cc Commission of Internal Economy _____________________________________ February 14, 2005 Honorable Harvey Hodder Dear Mr. Hodder: After three years of energized effort and co-operation between the House of Assembly and the Citizens� Representative, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador now have an ombuds service that has been given international and national recognition and is providing a quality service to those it was designed to serve. Unfortunately, because of issues raised in a recent report to the House of Assembly by the Auditor General and the aftermath of said report, the atmosphere of co-operation between the House of Assembly and the Citizens� Representative has been eroded, the ombuds service available to the Citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador has been negatively impacted, and the future development of our ombuds service has been delayed. To deal with this unacceptable development the Citizens� Representative proposes, in good faith, the following four part, solution seeking process that would protect the interests of all involved parties and should bring closure to issues arising from the aforementioned report to the House of Assembly. This process will be a negotiation/adjudication process. The parties to this process will be the House of Assembly and the Citizens� Representative. The parties will have the right to bring to the process any witnesses, evidence or other information, and/or representation either wishes. Part one. The parties will attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable, public position dealing with the accusation that the Citizens� Representative violated Section 4(2) of the Citizens� Representative Act. If such a mutually acceptable position cannot be negotiated then the question will be submitted to a third party for a final determination. This third party will have a knowledge of law and legal adjudication and his/her appointment will be acceptable to both the House of Assembly and the Citizens� Representative. If the appointment of a decision-making third party is necessary but no person acceptable to both parties is found then the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador will be requested to make an appointment. Part two. The parties will deal with the accusation that the Citizens� Representative has had excessive travel during his term of office. Should the parties not be able to negotiate an acceptable public position on this matter then a independent third party with necessary expertise related to ombuds services and knowledge of Newfoundland and Labrador and acceptable to both parties will be appointed to reach a determination. Should there be no agreement between the parties as to such a third party then the Speaker of the House of Assembly shall appoint a third party with the required qualifications and knowledge. Part three. The parties shall review each expense claim submitted by the Citizens� Representative and approved by the House of Assembly. Where the parties agree that an expense claim is true and complete in every aspect no further action shall be taken. Where the parties cannot agree that an expense claim is true and complete in every aspect then the parties shall attempt to settle differences. Where such settlement is not reached then such claim shall be submitted to a third party for adjudication and determination. Such determination shall be final. Third party appointment, if required, shall be identical in process and qualifications as that found in Part two of this proposal. Part four. Either party may bring to this process any other issue(s) for discussion and resolution. This process is for issue settlement and does not prevent either party form taking any action that is its right in accordance with law. You are respectfully requested to consider this proposal as expeditiously as possible. Sincerely, Fraser March cc Committee of Internal Economy 2005 03 02 9:55 a.m.
|
||
|
