November 8, 2017
House of Assembly Management Commission
No. 62
The
Management Commission met at 5:45 p.m. in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you,
everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Management Commission. My name is
Perry Trimper; I'm the MHA for Lake Melville and I chair the Commission as the
Speaker of the House of Assembly. I guess I will now turn, if I could, to the
other Members of the Management Commission to introduce themselves.
I'll
start with my left.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA,
District of Ferryland.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail
– Paradise.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA for
St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo
– La Poile.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, MHA, St.
John's West.
MR. WARR:
Brian Warr, MHA, Baie Verte
– Green Bay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Do we
need to introduce our staff?
Oh, we
have one more gentleman. You need to introduce yourself, Sir.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, Placentia West
– Bellevue.
MR. SPEAKER:
Our staff, do we introduce?
Yes, there you go.
CLERK (Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MS. RUSSELL:
Bobbi Russell, Policy,
Planning and Research Analyst, Clerk's Office.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, thank you very much.
As is
appropriate, we need to reveal that we have had in camera meetings, and I would
like to report on those decisions. We had an in camera meeting that was held on
May 30 and September 7, and we've just had another. I have those decisions and
I'm going to, for the record, read those into the record.
If I
may: The Commission recommended the appointment of Ms. Sandra Russell, CPA, CA,
in an acting capacity as Auditor General, until such time as the position is
filled on a permanent basis. Remuneration is set at EP-10, Step 18.
The
next decision: The Commission approved a pre-commitment of funds up to $20,000
for the Canadian Conference of Election Officials.
The
third decision: The Commission approved a pre-commitment of funds up to $20,000
for the Canadian Conflict of Interest Network conference.
The
fourth decision: The Commission approved a pre-commitment of funds for the
2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 budget appropriations for consulting services for
the audit of the Office of the Auditor General. The next decision: In order to
give immediate effect to this decision, the Commission waved the usual two-day
waiting period for the Management Commission decisions.
The
next decision: The Commission approved a pre-commitment of funds for the
2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 budget appropriations for consulting services for
the management certification process. The final decision: In order to give
immediate effect to this decision, the Commission waived the usual two-day
waiting period for the Management Commission decisions.
As
required by the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I will now report
decisions made at in camera meetings held on May 30, 2017 and September 7, 2017,
specifically. The ones I just read were ones that we just decided in camera
today.
Back
for the May and September meetings, the first decision report, the Commission,
at an in camera meeting held on May 30, 2017, approved the compensation level
for the position of the Seniors' Advocate at EP-29 of the Executive Pay Plan.
The
Commission, at an in camera meeting held on September 7, 2017, approved the
appointment of Ms. Kim Hawley George as Law Clerk in a temporary capacity
effective October 2, 2017 for a period not to exceed 12 consecutive months or
until the position is permanently filled.
I've
just recorded the other decisions, so now I would ask that we turn to Tab 2.
This is regarding approval of the minutes of the last Management Commission
meeting. All the Members of the Commission have had these materials with them
for some time. Do I have any discussion on the minutes? No.
Seeing
no discussion, do I have a mover to accept these minutes?
Andrew
Parsons.
Do I
have a seconder?
Lorraine Michael.
All
those in favour of the minutes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
The next item is a Speaker's
report on rulings on allowance use. This report is for information purposes only
and there is no decision required. I just present that there.
Is
there any discussion on this item? No. Okay.
I will
move on to Tab 3. Tab 3 before you, these are budget transfers reports. They
represent the period from April 1, 2016 through to March 31, 2017. They're all
budget transfers that have been processed during that fiscal year. There are
further details here and there's certainly lots of information. There is no
decision required; these are here for your information.
The
next item under Tab 3 is financial reports. They are for the fiscal year April
1, 2016 through to March 31, 2017. They're a review of financial performance of
the Legislature and approved allocations and actual expenditures of the Members
of the House of Assembly. There's a full year there. They are provided for your
information. There is also no decision required.
We next
have financial reports for April 1, 2017 through to June 30, 2017. So it's all
of last year and the first quarter of this current year. This information is
also provided to you. These are, by the way, the financial performance of the
Legislature and the approved allocations and actual expenditures of the Members
of the House of Assembly. They are also here for your information purposes.
Seeing
no discussion, I'm going to move us on to Tab 4. Tab 4 deals with the various
operational funding grants that are extended to the various caucuses that
function here. There is no decision required in these; the information is
presented to you for your use. You can see the status of these various accounts.
Seeing
no discussion, I'm going to move us on to Tab 5. Tab 5 relates to an appointment
of the auditor for the House of Assembly and the Statutory Offices. In your
binders you'll see a letter from Mark Browne, who's the Chair of the Audit
Committee, from June 16, 2017. The Audit Committee had met the previous day on
June 15 and recommends that the Auditor General be appointed as the auditor for
the House of Assembly and related offices for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2018. There's a letter there in your tab.
Is
there any discussion, or I can go to the motion? Seeing none, the motion is:
pursuant to subsection 43(2) of the House
of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act the Commission
appoints the Auditor General as auditor of the House of Assembly and Statutory
Offices for the year ending March 31, 2017.
Do I
have a mover?
MR. BROWNE:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Mark Browne.
MS. MICHAEL:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by Lorraine
Michael.
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
This
motion is carried.
The
next item under Tab 5 is the 10th report of the Audit Committee. I was asking
earlier why 10, understanding now that we're going back to 2007 when this was
first struck, so we've had 10 years thence. This is the 10th report. It is
provided in your binders for information purposes.
Is
there any discussion? If not, we can move on to Tab 6.
Under
Tab 6 we have two issues for consideration. The first is the audited financial
information for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017. It's the House of
Assembly and Statutory Offices. It does not include the Office of the Auditor
General.
Pursuant to section 43(6) of the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, an annual audit
is required of the House of Assembly and those Statutory Offices. You will see
there a letter from the Audit Committee which is chaired by Mark Browne.
There
is a decision required here approving these statements. So if you've had a
chance to review them, I would seek a motion to approve these statements.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Discussion, yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
As a Member of the Audit
Committee, I know at the time when we went through and approved the statement,
there was reference to a couple of items that I don't think was in the purview
of what was reviewed. There was a letter that was to be written, maybe the
Department of Finance and another department, to have those items referred for
discussion or direction.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, I understand that Mark
Browne can speak to this.
MR. BROWNE:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we
met with Grant Thornton, as part of their audit there were two issues
identified: one pertaining to the self-service leave approval system and one to
the –
CLERK:
Do you want me to speak to
it?
MR. BROWNE:
No, it was to the HR system.
CLERK:
The payroll.
MR. BROWNE:
The payroll system and the
ability – there were some gaps that they identified that could cause potential
for unauthorized access. They were not within the purview of the House of
Assembly or the Audit Committee, so the Committee resolved a motion to write a
letter to the Department of Finance.
That
letter was written, signed and sent. The Clerk might have an update on that, but
the Committee did its work on that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, to the Clerk – oh,
sorry. Go ahead.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Is the letter a part of what
we're seeing here today or …?
MR. SPEAKER:
Off to the Clerk, please,
the microphone.
CLERK:
No, because those are the
statements from the Auditor General. The letter that you were speaking about was
generated by Grant Thornton who conducted the certification review. It's the
review of the control systems at play in the House, so that's why it's not
covered by the Auditor General. It's a separate process; it's a separate review.
Now,
the Auditor General does take the certification as part of his audit, but this
was an issue that, as Mr. Browne pointed out, Grant Thornton identified that was
beyond the control system of the House but could impact it. So the letter was
written and sent. We haven't received a response as yet, but we can follow up on
that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, if I could have a
final comment just for a sense of openness and transparency, anybody that's
listening to this. We're referencing a letter. At some point is it presented –
is the letter here or is it presented here in the Commission at some point?
CLERK:
Well, it was sent from the
Audit Committee. I would anticipate that the response would come back to the
Audit Committee and then it would be included in the next report of the Audit
Committee. So, yes, it will end up in the –
MR. SPEAKER:
In the record.
CLERK:
– at this level.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Can we make a note, somehow,
in the minutes that we would anticipate seeing same in the next Management
Commission or –
CLERK:
When the Audit Committee
reports in.
MR. SPEAKER:
– when appropriate when it comes in?
Any
further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, I'm looking for approval of
these statements.
I need
a mover.
MS. MICHAEL:
Moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Lorraine Michael.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by Keith Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
This
motion is carried.
Now to
sign these with the Commission to –
CLERK:
You can sign right here as
Chair.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay and I'll require
someone else to witness.
CLERK:
Ms. Michael, you moved it so
…
MR. SPEAKER:
Just the one signature?
CLERK:
It's only one.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, okay. No, that's it.
CLERK:
Okay, that's great.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
next item under Tab 6 is –
CLERK:
(Inaudible) we feel that the
request for the audited financial information (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah. So you'll see this is,
again, an item for your information. It is the report, the audited financial
information for the Office of the Auditor General. Work is completed by Grant
Thornton and it's provided here for your information. There is no decision
required on that.
Seeing
no discussion, I'm going to move us to Tab 7. We have two items in here; both
are appeals. The first is regarding an appeal from the Member for Bonavista.
It's regarding payment of an invoice from the previous fiscal year.
It
relates to expenses that occurred last year that were submitted after the
30-day, end-of-the-year window that is required under the Members' rules. The
expenses are, however, in compliance with all of the provisions of the Rules. If
approved, these expenses would be paid out of the appropriate allocation for
that Member for this current fiscal year.
There's
further information there. I look for any discussion around the matter.
MR. BROWNE:
I'll move to accept it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, I have a mover to
accept the recommendation to support these expenses, to support this appeal.
Can I
have a seconder for Mark Browne?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'll second it, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I just want to make a brief
comment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, go ahead.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, I'll second it. Just
to point out – because people may be wondering what it is – I understand from
reading material here it's an invoice that was received late as part of office
rentals for a constituency office, is what I understand.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you for that. That's
right.
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
This
motion is carried. That appeal is approved.
The
second relates to an appeal from the Member for Exploits. It's dealing with an
appeal of ruling on payment of advertising expenses. The problem was that the
expense was not approved originally because it did not comply with the accepted
recommendation of the 2016 MCRC that all advertising be restricted to the size
of a business card. There are details that are included in your package here.
I'm
wondering if there's any discussion around this point.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I apologize. Is this one
that the policy changed?
MR. SPEAKER:
That's correct. But I would
remind all Members of the Management Commission that we need to make a decision
based on the rules that were in place at that time.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm just wondering how much
time there was between the change in policy and the expenditure, the –
MR. SPEAKER:
That's right. The policy has
not been changed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. BROWNE:
But it was changed when we
accepted the MCRC recommendation.
MR. SPEAKER:
No.
MS. MICHAEL:
We're voting on it today.
MR. BROWNE:
I believe what the minister
is saying is that something larger than business card size was allowable until
we accepted the MCRC recommendation. So how close to that acceptance of that
recommendation was this expenditure made or this commitment made?
CLERK:
In May. In the Member's
letter to the Speaker, he indicated that the invoice was dated May 1, 2017.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And the change was made
when? In December?
CLERK:
The policy change was made
in December to restrict to the business card size.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So policy change in
December, expenditures in May and appeals in August.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's right.
MS. MICHAEL:
Question.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, please, Lorraine
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
The Member for the District
of Exploits does say that: I have enclosed a copy of the invoice and the ad
which was just slightly bigger than the business card size. There is nothing
here showing us the ad and the size of the business card.
CLERK:
We'll get a copy.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
CLERK:
We typically don't put all
that detail in.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
CLERK:
But we can certainly get a
copy. Bobbi?
MS. MICHAEL:
If I may continue, if my
light is still on, because if it is that he says slightly bigger, I mean I know
this is one of the reasons why we have change coming in later on in this
meeting. It's not always possible to get the exact size when you're dealing with
some of the things that are being printed.
I
suspect the Member had a difficulty, so I do need to see the size of it. If it's
really, you know, almost like a business card, then I'm willing to say an
exception to the rule.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think the exhibit will be
very useful.
MR. BROWNE:
Will we come back to this?
MR. SPEAKER:
Pardon?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I missed your comment.
MR. SPEAKER:
I said I think that the
exhibit that Bobbi Russell has gone to collect is his actual presentation of his
ad in comparison to other ads that were there. It will be helpful.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Will we pause or we can move
on to the agenda and come back to this item?
Let's
do that. She may be a few minutes.
I'm
going to carry us on to Tab 8, if I may. This relates to the severance policy
for Members of the House of Assembly.
Let me
just go back through some of my notes to refresh us. At its meeting on December
7, 2016, the Commission accepted recommendations of the 2016 MCRC with respect
to severance for the Members of the House of Assembly first elected on or after
November 30, 2015.
The
severance provisions in place previous to November 30, 2015, applied to those
Members first elected before that date. So we have two time frames that we're
dealing with here in terms of the severance policy. For ease of reference, we've
put together a policy document that has been developed that consolidates both
sets of the severance provisions for those elected, both before and after that
November 30, 2015 date.
The
Commission is being asked to approve the consolidation. Essentially, all the
items in here have been discussed and approved before, but we needed to seek
approval from the Commission for the consolidation into one policy document. The
provisions themselves all have been addressed individually prior.
I need
to have a mover on that decision to accept the consolidation of them.
CLERK:
I think as the transition
period appears in the policy document –
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, we should deal with
that as well?
CLERK:
– we need to deal with what
the transition period is going to be for the post-November 2015.
MR. SPEAKER:
Right, so this may garner
some discussion, I'm sure. In terms of the transition period, I would ask you to
refer to the bottom – well, within Tab 8, it's your first page at the bottom.
CLERK:
I'm just going to pass these
out while you're doing that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
There
are options presented there. If you see that final bullet, the “Possible
definitions which the Commission may wish to consider include the following,”
and this is a transition period within which a Member of the House of Assembly
has ended that position. It's a transition period over which they would be paid
severance.
The
suggestions are that period would represent the same number of months, three or
six, for all Members regardless of years of service. That's option one.
Option
two: “The transition period will be the number of months equal to the amount of
the dollar value of the severance (e.g. A Member who serves 2 General Assemblies
will be entitled to severance payment of $47,678, which is 50% of the current
annual salary for Members. As this is the equivalent of 6 month's salary, the
transition period in this scenario will be 6 months.”
Then
there's a comment there: “Due to the difficulty in monitoring actions of former
Members during the transition period, it is the duty of outgoing Members to
notify the Legislature should one of those circumstances occur. Members will be
required to sign an affidavit to this effect.”
Do I
have any discussion on this point? We essentially need to choose the transition
period.
MS. MICHAEL:
Administratively, does it
make any difference?
I'll
repeat that: Administratively, does it make any difference? Is it easier for the
administration one way or the other? No.
CLERK:
It doesn't make any
difference administratively.
MR. SPEAKER:
So we have essentially three
or six months for all Members regardless of years of service, or a period that
would be the number of months equal to the amount of the dollar value of this
severance.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm inclined to go with (b).
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Can I just ask a question,
Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, certainly.
Keith
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just for clarity, based on
the selection of option, the dollar value is the same, right?
CLERK:
The dollar value is the
same; it's just that if it's paid out –
MR. SPEAKER:
Installments.
CLERK:
– the amount paid out would
be different, depending on the duration. The total amount is the same.
MR. SPEAKER:
Remains the same. Yeah,
that's right.
CLERK:
But it's just if you pay it
out over three months, you're going to get more per month than if you pay it out
over six months or 12 months.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Sure, yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's the real issue.
CLERK:
It doesn't change the dollar
value.
MS. RUSSELL:
It doesn't change the
calculations (inaudible).
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I mean the implication, just
to discuss it a little bit – of course, if that former Member is now engaged in
some other employment, there are tax implications and some savings or things to
consider there, right. You've got more income coming out at one time perhaps.
I would
suggest and I'd just look to the Commission for suggestions as to it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I like (a) because it seems
simpler. Pick one, stick to it.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think for the Member – (a)
doesn't apply to me. I usually go for lump sums, personally, but some people
don't like it because of taxes, actually. We're making a decision for the
Members.
MR. SPEAKER:
So they can choose three or
six months.
CLERK:
They can choose –
MS. RUSSELL:
Or longer than that if they
wanted eight, 12. It's up to the Commission that number, but it would be fixed
for everybody, yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll just look to Members of
the Commission to make the motion on one of the two options; then, we'll go from
there.
Yes,
Siobhan Coady.
MS. COADY:
I concur with my colleague.
I really think (a) is the easiest, cleanest and most comprehensive view here.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Paul Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm just thinking is there
an option for us, as a Commission, to make it optional for Members to decide?
MR. SPEAKER:
There is.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's what I was thinking,
too.
MR. P. DAVIS:
But could a Member who is
retiring or leaving make the decision or make a choice of which way they want to
follow?
MS. MICHAEL:
That's what I was wondering.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Based on their own personal
circumstances. The cost is the same. If there are implications, depending on the
Member's personal circumstances and there are two –
MS. MICHAEL:
Sorry, go ahead.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, if there are two
different ways to do it and we're kind of sitting here like six and one, a half
a dozen in the other. But, anyway, I don't know if that's an option where we
could –
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll recognize next Andrew
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
As long as there's no extra
cost to it, I'm totally supportive of that. That seems to be best for each
Member who – as Mr. Davis said, their circumstances, everybody is different.
It's not costing the taxpayer any more; it's just what's best for them. It seems
fair. I would definitely support that as long as there's no administrative
something.
MS. MICHAEL:
She said there isn't.
CLERK:
The only –
MR. SPEAKER:
Then I next go to Lorraine
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
There is, in our practice
with regard to reimbursements, a precedent. We can make a choice. For those of
us who can get a car allowance or not and how you get it, we get to choose if
the car allowance is going to be paid in a lump sum or is it going to be paid
spread out. The precedent for doing that kind of thing is there, so if it's not
causing any problems, I like the idea of the Members being able to choose.
CLERK:
The only restriction would
be it would not be able to be paid out in a single payment because the MCRC had
said that it can't be paid out as a lump sum. So it would have to be over like a
minimum of two months and –
MS. MICHAEL:
No, but that's it. Those two
options, we accept both those options, but allowing that the Member can choose
one of those two options, the individual Members.
CLERK:
Do you mean choose either
(a) or (b)?
MR. SPEAKER:
(a) or (b)?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
CLERK:
(Inaudible) the Member would
elect. These are the options available and they can elect.
MS. RUSSELL:
But in (a), we don't give
them the number of months. You have to define number of months in (a), whether
it be three or six.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
I didn't hear that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So the point is if you
look at the options that are listed on page 2, under (a) we just had suggested
three or six months.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, I see. Yeah.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm just going to toss
something out, Mr. Speaker. I think we're all on the same page. Could we come
back? Could we defer this until the next meeting? I don't know if it's urgent.
Come
back with one option saying the transition period will depend on the Member with
a minimum of three, maximum of, say, six or whatever, and the Member's option.
That way there's no rush here to come up with wording that satisfies.
I think
we're all in agreement. That way we get the proper wording. The next time we
have a meeting we –
MR. SPEAKER:
Is that acceptable?
CLERK:
Yeah, not a problem at all.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, Paul Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, I mean, I'd concur
with that. Maybe staff could, knowing what our desire is, then they can go off
and come back with some type of suggested wording for us.
MR. SPEAKER:
Perfect. Do we need to – so,
therefore, we would not approve the consolidation of the policy document yet
because we'll work with that a little later.
Okay,
fine, we'll defer that to the next meeting.
Thank
you. Good discussion.
The
next: Tab 9. We have two issues in this tab; they deal with advertising and
publications policy. At the meetings on November 30 and December 7, 2016, the
Commission accepted recommendations of the 2016 MCRC respecting MHA advertising
and Member-created householders/publications.
As a
result of accepting these recommendations, the necessary amendments were made to
the Advertising Policy for Members of the House of Assembly and brought forward
at the March 15, 2017 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission directed that an
Ad Hoc Committee be formed with representation from each of the three caucuses
to review the draft policy and provide recommendations to the Commission.
Further
details, including the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee, are included in
your materials. Should the Commission accept the recommendation of the Ad Hoc
Committee to remove the restriction of business card size for print media, the
Commission minute which adopted recommendation 12 of that 2016 MCRC will need to
be rescinded. I note for your information that all Members of the Ad Hoc
Committee were unanimous in moving in that direction.
We need
a decision here. First of all, the first decision to consider is with respect to
the restriction on business card size ads, whether to rescind the recommendation
12 of the MCRC.
Now, I
apologize, but I'm feeling that maybe we should go back and deal with the item
that we had before we come back to this. Is that the sense of everybody? I think
I've jumped us ahead too quickly.
I'm
going to take us back, if I could just pause that discussion. I apologize to
those at home. I'm going to go back to the appeal for the Member for Exploits.
You've been provided with a copy of the MHA's ad that was in question, was
denied because he had not elected to use a business card size, and you can see
his ad in relation to the other smaller business card sizes there.
I put
it to the Commission for further discussion.
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think this question was
asked by Mr. Parsons before, but I want to be clear. When this card was done, it
was prior to the ruling that no messages or anything could be included. When
this was done in May, I take it the ruling that our ads could not have messages
in them was not in place yet, was it? Because if it was, there is also a message
here.
CLERK:
This ad followed the
acceptance of the MCRC decision.
MS. MICHAEL:
That said clearly that we
couldn't put any messages on the card.
MR. SPEAKER:
Correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Only contact information.
CLERK:
Yes.
You're
allowed messages, but there's a restriction on the type of message that you can
provide.
MS. MICHAEL:
Congratulations on your
current achievements.
CLERK:
You're allowed to do that. No, you're not –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CLERK:
Yes, you're right.
MS. MICHAEL:
The only point I'm trying to
make, it's not just the size of it; it's also that it went against that ruling.
That's why it's bigger than it should be because it went against the ruling,
basically.
I'm
sorry; I don't think I can approve it personally, nothing against the Member.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, is this the
only example of an appeal of this kind that we've –?
CLERK:
We have had to reject other claims. The act does provide the ability for any
Member to appeal a decision from Corporate and Members' Services. So others have
chosen, I guess, not to appeal, but there have definitely been other –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Rejections?
CLERK:
Rejections, yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
So there's the issue of a
precedent here to consider.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
MR. SPEAKER:
I look for a motion and
based on the discussion, it appears, if I may paraphrase this recent discussion,
that the appeal would not be approved.
I look
for a mover and a seconder.
MS. MICHAEL:
I move not to accept the
original decision.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
And a
seconder? Keith Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
The
motion is approved. The appeal is denied.
Now
I'll take us back, if I may – thank you for your indulgence – to Tab 9, which is
now dealing with a new way to look at advertising.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah. Essentially, the
cumbersome aspect that we had there before, now we are essentially leaving it to
the Member to – with their own realization of their budget – make their own
decisions as to how they would choose to advertise.
The
first decision that I need to secure from the Commission is with respect to the
restriction of business card sized ads and whether to rescind Recommendation 12
of the MCRC.
MS. MICHAEL:
With all due respect to the
MCRC, I would move to rescind our original adoption.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
Pardon?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah. The first decision is
whether or not to rescind the previous decision of the MCRC which described the
business card –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
Rescind the adoption of it
is what we're rescinding, because we adopted it.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's right.
MS. MICHAEL:
So now we have to rescind
the adoption.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's right. We need to
take it out.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes. That's why I said with
all due respect to the MCRC, I'd be moving rescinding the adoption of the
recommendation.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have a mover to that. I
need a seconder to rescind the limitation around business card size.
Thank
you, Andrew Parsons.
All
those in favour of rescinding?
MS. MICHAEL:
Could we just have a moment
to speak to it?
MR. SPEAKER:
A discussion? Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Because the public watching
may think that we're just being careless here. I understand what the MCRC was
doing and I really respect that. But the restriction of a business card size,
it's very, very hard to stick to that. If, for example, that hadn't been in
place, we wouldn't have just made the decision that we did with regard to the
Member for –
MR. SPEAKER:
Exploits.
MS. MICHAEL:
I want to say Botwood –
Exploits, right.
Watching since that came in, it has been almost ludicrous a little bit. For that
reason, I made the motion and I will vote for it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, Paul Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Sometimes you look at a policy – and we accepted this policy and we understood
the basis for it. We had discussions with the drafter of the recommendations, so
we understood what the intention of it was. But as Ms. Michael just alluded to,
sometimes you take those principles and when you put them into reality, into
effect, you sometimes will start to find challenges that weren't previously
anticipated.
As you
mentioned, we just had one here now, which was a little bit larger than a
business card size but didn't meet with the requirements. Therefore, there are
other circumstances where an advertisement of a business card size – I remember
earlier we talked about one as an example where someone may want to put a sign
in a public bulletin board where there may be lots of other notifications that
are 8½ by 11 or 8½ by 14 or 11 by 17, which are three very standardized sizes
for posters.
If
we're only limited to putting a business card ad – it could be to hold a public
meeting to have a discussion in your district or to meet with your constituents
– then it's really not conducive to the intention of advertising, which is about
communicating with your constituents.
So I
just point it out because that's why we're here changing this already because
once it's put into practice it's learned or experienced that it's really not
feasible.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
discussion?
We do
have a mover and a seconder to rescind that motion.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against.
That
motion is carried.
The
second motion that I need to have put forward regards the approval of the
proposed advertising and publications policy with the changes as directed by the
Commission including that Ad Hoc Committee. As Ms. Michael has been very
conscientious of, I believe we should read into the record, for those watching
now or later, a couple of the key points. It is recommending that the Commission
also reconsiders a decision to allow Members for their recovery expenses
relating to greeting cards.
CLERK:
That's the second
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry. I apologize, I've
jumped ahead.
We're
just talking about the advertising and publications policy as directed by the
Commission. It's this table here, sorry.
CLERK:
That's a summary of all the
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, so this is a rather
handy table, actually. It's from the Ad Hoc Committee and then the
implementation considerations for our Management Commission here. You can see
what the Ad Hoc Committee came up with and how we propose to implement it.
Any
discussion on this?
Go
ahead, Siobhan Coady.
MS. COADY:
I just wanted to understand,
are you dealing with these as a whole table or one by one? How do you wish to
proceed, Mr. Speaker?
We can
deal with them one by one –
CLERK:
We dealt with it as a
package, but there's nothing stopping the Management Commission from going one
by one.
MS. COADY:
No, as a package is fine.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. COADY:
I just wanted to make sure I
understood we are dealing with this in conglomerate or as one by one.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Would you like me to walk us
through or do you want to …?
CLERK:
If I might, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sure.
CLERK:
Normally, we would come
forward with the recommendations and then, at a later date, come forward with a
draft policy. We combined both steps just simply because it's been some time and
Members are anxious to get some direction on what the advertising rules will be.
MR. SPEAKER:
Would you like me to just
walk us through the points or …?
Okay,
go ahead, Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
This would be a
recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee to allow advertising on signs/banners;
for example, arenas, sports field, advertising in community billboards, et
cetera.
I do
have a bit of a problem with it and it's from the perspective, yes, as MHAs, we
have a certain amount of money that we're allotted, we can use; but if I'm
reading this correctly, the size of these things – I just question our using the
money for really large billboard-sized things, if that's what this is
recommending. I have a problem with it.
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may, and it's
interesting, I've been in the Speaker's office now for three months, but some of
the costs associated with advertising in an arena are dramatically less than a
single publication.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh really?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, so it's quite
surprising, the bang for your buck that one can attain by – I look to the staff
to concur.
CLERK:
Yes, actually we pulled a
lot of the advertising expenses when the Members indicated the issues they had.
The Speaker is quite right: billboard advertising in arenas is probably some of
the cheapest advertising that we get. They're probably paying in the order of
$400 to $600 for six months. So you have contact information displayed 24/7.
MR. SPEAKER:
A few puck marks against
your face, but other than that you're up there for quite a while.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's my only issue; it's
not something that we would really be using in the city as much as rurally,
actually.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sure, yeah.
Any
further discussion on this compilation of changes here?
I think
as Paul Davis had indicated, some of these comments about – for example, define
what is meant by brief message in radio advertising. We're really leaving it up
to the Member. It seemed like the pendulum needs to swing sometimes and, in
previous decisions, we are really about correcting past situations and
practicality is that we could really leave it up to the Member to watch their
budget and work within these rules.
Andrew
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Just looking at the back of
that chart showing the different changes, I just want to clarify to make sure I
understand and I'm reading this correctly.
So the
Ad Hoc Committee did recommend that we make, prior approval, mandatory of
advertising in memberships created, householders, publications. So any of us to
go and try to get an ad done, we need the approval first, which is great and, to
me, a safety mechanism to ensure Members are not doing – I think that's
important to note. Because I just agree with that totally.
Also,
as with this or anything else, I like their recommendation here about outlining
the appeal process. We know that it's already in the legislation but to also add
it to the draft policy I think is a positive move. Members need to know what the
rules are and then how do they appeal a decision made. Because, in some cases,
it is not black and white; there is some discretion there. So they need to know
what they can do.
I
appreciate those, especially the safety one. I've always said that for all
Members, even when we look at things like claims, it's nice knowing that it goes
through that rigour because, in a lot of cases, it's very complicated. It's nice
to know that there's somebody outside looking through that. So it's the same
thing here; I think all of us can appreciate that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just to add to what Mr.
Parsons is saying there, coming back to the first page, removing the definition.
It says provide a broader definition of a significant group/segment, and that's
the kind of thing that causes problems with interpretation. A Member might think
that it was a significant group or segment of the population and somebody in the
administration office says, no, we don't agree with that definition. So I think
removing those two or three places – the other one was brief message – that kind
of loose language, I think, is really important so that we have clarity and it's
not open to interpretation.
The
reason the Committee was set up was because that's what happened. We were
getting into different understandings of language between a Member and the
administration. So I'm glad to see those recommendations taken care of.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Paul
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There's
a full attached draft, advertising, publication policy, just on section 6.1
under Print Media – I want to give everyone just a chance to go to it – “Print
media includes newspapers, magazines, event program/calendars, signs/banners and
other third-party publications.”
So we
just discussed banners and as the officials of the House of Assembly have
learned that sometimes banners, such arenas, soccer fields or other public
places can be more cost effective than having the regular publication. But then
it says: “The following criteria must be followed when advertising in print
media: Be in business card format as per the attached template.”
So does
that indicate that if banner advertising is being a choice of a Member that it
has to be in a business card format when it could be a large banner in a public
space?
CLERK:
Yes. For example, the banners that are put up in arenas or community bulletin
boards would include the Coat of Arms, a picture of the Member, the Member's
name and contact information in the business card format. That's been done
consistently since the advertising policy was first adopted. We've had a number
of Members have these banners at ball fields, arenas, community bulletin boards
and those sorts of things –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
CLERK:
– but it's consistently been
in that format.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. I raise it because I
had one myself –
CLERK:
It was in the right format.
MR. P. DAVIS:
– on a soccer field in
Topsail, which has thousands of cars that drove by it, and generally had the
basic format, but the size and shape of it, the dimensions –
MS. RUSSELL:
You're not restricted to
size.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You're not restricted to
size?
MS. RUSSELL:
You are just restricted to
the format in terms of content, the photo, the contact information.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So format is content, not
size.
MS. RUSSELL:
Yeah, and the attached
template gives an example of that content. There's certain content that has to
be in an ad, so you have to have your contact information.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right, absolutely.
MS. RUSSELL:
There's other stuff that you
can choose, whether you want to put your social media handles, your photo or the
Coat of Arms.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MS. RUSSELL:
In the template that's
attached to the policy, it clearly outlines what's required and what the choices
are.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm glad you said because
when I read “be in business card format,” formatting usually means the actual
structure of –
MS. RUSSELL:
No, the size is not the
format.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Good discussion. Further
points?
I'm
looking for a motion to approve the proposed advertising and publications policy
with the changes as directed by the Commission.
Moved
by Mark Browne; seconded by Lorraine Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
Tab 10
– no, I am sorry; one more. Now we're talking about cards. I need a decision
here. At the previous meetings, the one in November 30, 2016, the Commission
accepted the recommendation of the 2016 MCRC that the recovery expenses related
to seasonal and special occasion cards be prohibited; however, during their
deliberations, the Ad Hoc Committee on advertising – and this is where my
reference was that they all agreed. They also discussed the restriction with
respect to seasonal and special occasion cards. They recommended that the
Commission reconsider that earlier decision and do allow Members to recover
expenses related to greeting cards for the following occasions only:
anniversary, birthday and sympathy. So these are sort of individual cards that
will be given on special occasions to constituents for that MHA.
This is
put forward for your consideration. Any discussion? This is essentially to
overturn the previous decision.
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I like the recommendation of
the Ad Hoc Committee when it comes to the recovery of expenses related to
seasonal greetings.
I've
certainly had lots of comments from constituents over the years seeing it as a
real waste of money. I have to say, I haven't. I have always not done it. I've
always done a householder instead, sort of around that time.
It was
already prohibited. The Ad Hoc Committee did study it and I agree with them. I
just think it is a waste of money for us to be spending on seasonal cards like
that. That's a lot of money that goes out, plus the fact they also get mailed.
So when you put all of it together, it's a big expense.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do you have a comment on the
suggestion, though, to allow recovery of expenses for those three situations –
MS. MICHAEL:
For the others I agree,
because you're getting notifications of 50th wedding anniversaries and 100th
birthdays and that kind of thing. So it's not like you're doing hundreds or
thousands; you're not doing thousands of cards, whereas with the others you're
doing thousands of cards.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
Literally mailing out
thousands of cards. So from that perspective –
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm seeing plenty of
agreement.
Any
further discussion around this point?
So I
need a motion then to accept the recommendations that –
MS. MICHAEL:
I move the second option.
MR. SPEAKER:
There are a couple of
elements here. We need to repeal section 24 of the
Members' Resources and Allowances Rules,
that that be repealed and then substituted by the text that is there. So it's on
the bottom of page 2 and 3. It describes how that text should be presented in
consideration of this recommendation, which is to focus solely on sympathy,
anniversary and birthday.
I could
read that through, but it will be entered into the minutes, I'm assured, but
just in the interest of being succinct.
Do I
have a mover to accept this new section 24?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I move.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, Lorraine Michael.
Do I
have a seconder?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll second.
MR. SPEAKER:
Andrew Parsons.
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
This
motion is carried.
Our
final item on our agenda is in Tab 10, and it deals with the standard office
allocation package. It's designed for MHAs and it details the office furniture,
equipment and services which are provided for constituency offices.
So
there are two issues here that I need to bring to the attention of the
Commission. The first relates to the fact that the Clerk of the House of
Assembly can preapprove the purchase of furniture and equipment up to a maximum
of $500, and all such approvals must be reported at a future meeting of the
Commission. The maximum has not been increased since it was established in 2007.
So we are essentially asking to increase the approval by the Clerk, in advance
of any purchase, to $1,000. That's one item.
The
second item relates to an invoice for the constituency office for the District
of Placentia – St. Mary's regarding a table that was purchased, and it was in
the amount of $792.26.
Two
decision points here. First of all, I'm looking for discussion around the
approval to approve the invoice for the constituency office table for the
District of Placentia – St. Mary's, because the Clerk is unable to approve that.
MS. MICHAEL:
I move that acceptance.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, moved by Lorraine
Michael, seconded by Mark Browne.
Okay,
Siobhan Coady.
MS. COADY:
It's a different – okay,
it's not your district. Sorry, it is Sherry's. Okay.
MR. BROWNE:
No, I'm not the Member for
Placentia.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
That
motion is carried.
Finally, it's to amend the standard office allocation package, which would
increase the – this decision, I guess, the limit was based on 2007; $500, prices
are going up somewhat. It's suggested here today before the Commission to
increase the previous authorization for the Clerk for these expenditures up to
$1,000.
Do I
have any discussion on that point? No.
Okay,
go ahead. The Clerk would like to make a comment.
CLERK:
I would like to note that
this is not used a whole lot. Every now and again, a Member has a need for an
extra filing cabinet, or a table may break and need to be replaced or something
like that. Those are the situations it is used. I remember one time we had
something as small as a clock, it was about $10, but we did approve it and we
did report it.
It's
not a big expenditure item; however, if a table breaks and needs to be replaced,
the Member actually does need it for his or her office and the only other way
would be to come to the Commission to get it approved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Do I have a mover to
increase the authorization?
So
moved by Siobhan Coady.
I need
a seconder.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Keith Hutchings.
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
That
motion is carried.
That
concludes the business before us of the Management Commission for today. I thank
everyone for their attention and discussion.
I have
a request from Andrew Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Just while we're here, Mr.
Speaker. I don't know if we need – like when the next meeting is scheduled for,
maybe while we're all here.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have one here. I have a
proposal.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, perfect. That's what I
was just wondering.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is proposed that our next
meeting occur on December 6 – that's a Wednesday – 2017. This office has some
events planned for that day. I would propose that we would meet at 1800 hours –
that's 6 p.m. – on that Wednesday.
We'll
be concluding business here at 5 p.m. There is to be a reception in the lobby,
and then at 6 p.m. we would convene back into the Management Commission.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Did you say we're going to
do the reception then the meeting?
MR. SPEAKER:
It may be quicker than this
one did. (Inaudible) Wednesday, December 6.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Would your staff be able to
send out a calendar invite to us or –?
MR. SPEAKER:
We will certainly do that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
All right.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seeing no further business,
I seek a motion to adjourn.
Moved
by Paul Davis; seconded by Mark Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
This
meeting is adjourned, and theoretically we will see you on December 6.
Thank
you all very much.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.