March 14, 2018
House of Assembly Management Commission
No. 65
The
Management Commission met at 5:15 p.m. in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
I would like to
welcome our viewing audience and the Members of the Management Commission to
this meeting of the Management Commission.
First
of all, my name is Perry Trimper. I'm the Speaker of the House and the Chair of
the Commission. I would like to turn to fellow Members to introduce themselves,
please, starting at my far left.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Paul
Davis,
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, Ferryland.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, Burgeo - La Poile.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, St. John's West.
MR. WARR:
Brian Warr, Baie Verte - Green Bay.
CLERK (Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MS. RUSSELL:
Bobbi Russell, Policy and Communications Officer.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Thank you all very much.
First of all, I'd like to read into the record the results of an in camera
meeting. As required by the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I would now
report decisions made at an in camera meeting held on February 13, 2018, and
subsequent to this meeting today.
The
Commission, at an in camera meeting, approved the 2018-2019 Estimates for the
Legislature to be forwarded to the Minister of Finance for inclusion in the 2018
Estimates and voted on in the Legislature.
Okay,
so that decision has been read into the record.
I will
now turn to our agenda. I'd ask the Members to please go to Tab 2, that's the
approval of the minutes from our previous meeting on February 1.
Do I
have any comments or discussion on the minutes? They seem to be in order. I'd
ask for a mover to accept them.
MR. BROWNE:
So moved.
MS. MICHAEL:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mark Browne, and seconded by
Lorraine Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
The minutes are approved.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Right now I ask you to turn
to Tab 3, and this is regarding a Speaker's report. In my capacity as Speaker,
I'm able to rule on matters such as this one before us, which is rulings on an
allowance use. MHA Osborne had submitted a claim. While it was over 60 days, it
certainly was within the scope of what's eligible and allowable. I'm just
reporting that decision, that I authorized the forwarding of some-$30 to MHA
Osborne.
Tab 4,
these are the financial reports from April 1, 2017 to December 30, 2017. There's
a great deal of detail here. They are summarized. I did ask earlier of staff if
there was anything of particular note in terms of someone has exceeded and so
on. While there are a couple of Members who are approaching their budget, they
have not exceeded it yet. So I have those here. I don't believe we require a
decision on those. It's just for information purposes.
Seeing
no discussion, I'm going to – that's quite a substantial bit of documentation
there. I will now move on to Tab 5, and we have three items here. These are
requests for appeals, and it is regarding expense claim appeals.
Given
the first one relates to myself, I will recuse myself and ask the Deputy Chair
of this Commission to please stand in for me.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
The
Member for Lake Melville is appealing the denial of payment by Corporate
Members' Services Division of expenses incurred by the Member. The expenses were
rejected because they were incurred more than 60 days prior to the claim for
reimbursement as required under subsection 7(6) of the rules. The expenses
submitted total $490, and $1,333.40 are permitted under the rules, but could not
be approved for payment as per the provisions of subsection 7(6).
The
expenditures include meals and accommodation expenses for house and session
travel at $490 and constituency related conference expenses at $1,333.40. The
Member for
Lake Melville is appealing the decision and has made a request to the Management
Commission in accordance with section 24 of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act.
CLERK:
Mr. Warr, we have a question.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes Andrew Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I understand these are expenses that would have been allowed had they have been
filed in the same time. I'll certainly move that they be accepted, but if we
could put a message to the Member for Lake Melville, I noticed in the last set
of minutes he was also late then. So perhaps the Member can get it together so
we don't have to be dealing with these matters all the time.
I'll certainly move that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconder Paul Davis.
Any further questions?
MS. MICHAEL:
No, not a question, just a comment.
I thank the Member for giving good explanations for us because even though it's
not required, I remember a long time ago my saying the explanations are helpful
for us and they were good explanations.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
All those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion passed.
I will turn it back over to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you very much, and my wife probably thanks you as well.
The next two regarding our appeals are actually around the same type of
incident. It's the same situation. We have an appeal for the Member for Cape St.
Francis. We can think of them as one at a time or in tandem, but the fact of the
matter is it was around the same event.
It regarded an advertisement that was deemed by staff here – and they're just
following the rules of the day. At the time the actual expense occurred within
the time frame for which ads were to be of a business card size only. The
situation here was that for both of these Members for Cape St. Francis and for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island, they both exceeded that size. They had been
rejected earlier and both of these Members have appealed.
I look for discussion.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I just want to comment.
The provision changed, that was November 11. The provision changed in a couple
days. It became effective just a couple of days –
MR. SPEAKER:
One day later, actually.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, just after that.
If you want to do them separately, I would move approval of paying the
advertising expenses totalled $258.75 for the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any discussion?
MR. A. PARSONS:
The only question I would
ask is we had a similar scenario, I think, with the Member for Exploits recently
where we discussed it. I think we actually denied it.
What I
want to make sure is was the reason for denial of that one the same as this one?
Personally, I would like to approve all of them but I want to make sure that
we're not changing. I can't remember when it was. Do you remember? It was a
similar –
MR. SPEAKER:
You have a good memory.
That's exactly the case.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's where I am on this. I
can remember because we had a lot of deliberation and talk about that. That
Member fell into the same trap of certainly not intentionally trying to do
anything, the same as these two Members here. They weren't trying to do
anything. It's following the same rules; I don't fault them personally at all.
If we
applied the standard then and voted against, where I am now is that we have to
have, as the Member said, some consistency, unless there's something different.
That's what I was looking for. Is there something different between why we
turned that one down and why these two –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, do we have an
example of that one that was referenced?
MR. SPEAKER:
I can relate and I'll look
to the Clerk.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
Again,
I would have no problem with deferring these so that we can look back at our
previous decision to make sure that we're –
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may try to offer some
discussion point, from the staff's perspective who will review these matters,
they're looking at the rules at the time for advertising. Clearly, on all those
situations we're discussing, it was beyond the rules that were in place at the
time.
The
situation for the gentleman for Exploits was, of course, that was his first time
submitting an advertisement to the paper. He, for whatever reason, proceeded
with an ad that was larger than was allowed.
In the
situation with the two Members that we're talking about here, it was a recurring
ad, as they indicate, that was going on each year. So while there are some
different circumstances at the end of the day – and from a staff's perspective
they're saying they could not approve it – the Management Commission can still
decide what they would like to do.
Yes,
Siobhan Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I
concur with my hon. colleague. My concern would be around fairness and making
sure – and I look to your staff and to the Clerk to ensure we are treating one
Member of this House.
As my
hon. colleague just said, this is not about anyone trying to deliberately do
anything against the rules, but you want to treat all Members equally and
fairly. If we've made a decision in the past that mirrors the same circumstance,
then we should at least apply the same lens.
I'll
leave that until we get the information.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have a motion on the floor
to approve the payment of these two items and a seconder. If there's no further
discussion, I guess I would ask for a vote on that motion.
MS. MICHAEL:
I just need to look at the
second –
MR. SPEAKER:
Or do you want to defer? I
would entertain a second motion.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be
averse to deferring this to a future meeting so that we could compare the
circumstances and also timelines.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't think this is the
first time or the last time it's going to come up. I think it's our job – these
rules are different. I don't think any of the three instances were intentional.
Maybe we could find a way to look at this decision but, more importantly, make
sure we recommunicate to all MHAs and staff the new rules so that none of us
falls into this. Nobody wants to be at this stuff or doing it.
If we
could rescind the Member's motion, defer it to the next meeting and then get the
information and come back at it.
MR. SPEAKER:
There are two other
elements, if I may introduce, just in my time sitting in the office and
understanding how the process works. I would also suggest the precedent nature
of this is also what is of concern.
I
believe there are two aspects of that; one is that, oftentimes, Member's
expenses are rejected and they don't appeal. Then, there are those that are
appealing, as you just referenced one of them. I'm not sure if it's possible but
I think it would be useful to understand how many were rejected and how many
were rejected after they had appealed.
Is that
a lot of work? Are we digging too big a hole?
CLERK:
If they bring it forward and
it's rejected, we don't necessarily keep a log. It would be anecdotal but it
probably be – whenever they're rejected, we do advise Members that we're limited
by the rules as well, but the appeal process is there. That's indicated to
Members whenever there's –
MR. A. PARSONS:
If we put it out to Members
and somebody falls into that, I would suggest the duty is on them to come back
and say I fell into this group. If they don't, I mean, without putting all the
work on and going back through all this –
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I don't think we should.
CLERK:
At the Management Commission
meeting in November is when that appeal came forward. So if you look at your –
it's online. The expense actually occurred in May of 2017. The same thing, it
was in a civic awards booklet. It was bigger than the business card size that
was allowed by the advertising policy at that time.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move the matter be
deferred until the next meeting.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Fine, all in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
We'll come back with
additional information from which we can make a decision.
Thank
you.
I'll
ask us now to turn to Tab 6, and this is what is called the categorization under
the Transparency and Accountability Act.
Essentially, what is needed as this is a new Office of the Seniors' Advocate
that we're referring to it was incumbent on Dr. Suzanne Brake to do an
evaluation as per the criteria that are used to come up with what type of
prediction or plan they need to develop.
Based
on the scoring system that she's completed here and so on, she's deemed that the
office is considered to be a Category 3. This type of matter needs to come
before the Management Commission. That's why it's on the agenda here today. So
I'm looking for –
Siobhan
Coady.
MS. COADY:
May I ask one question? Is this subject to change? Because the circumstances
could change with this office as it's developed.
If I
look at results expected, for example, she's indicated typically mandated to
complete activities versus produce outputs. This is a new office. As the mandate
grows, continues, I'm just wondering how long does this categorization stand and
when will we see it again?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll turn to the Clerk.
CLERK:
It has to be revisited.
MS. COADY:
Yes.
CLERK:
Yes. Actually, we had some
change since they were initially established because we were dealing with very
new legislation at the time and then there was a re-assessment done …
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) 2012. So we have
had changes, as offices have changed their mandates.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further discussion?
A
recommended motion is that the Commission approves the Office of the Seniors'
Advocate as a Category 3 entity for the purposes of applying the Transparency
and Accountability Act as recommended in the categorization assessment form
dated on March 1, 2018.
I'll
need a mover and a seconder.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So moved.
MS. MICHAEL:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Keith Hutchings,
seconded by Lorraine Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
That
motion is also carried. That decision is carried.
Turning
to Tab 7, please. Further to my own particular interest in this matter, and I
would suggest the interest of all in the room, that of enhanced security, and in
particular constituency offices. Following up on a survey that we've completed
of concerns and aspects around security amongst all of the constituency offices,
it is recommended, or it has been developed before you to consider the
installation of this additional security measure. It's been assessed with
some-23 offices that this would apply to with a current estimated cost at
approximately $3,000 each. We have an item here before us to consider for
approval.
Mr.
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
In the cost estimate, was
there any consideration or evaluation done that by purchasing 23, would there be
a lower cost or does this represent – if I were to go buy one, would it be
$3,000?
CLERK:
We'd have to do them all
individually because most of them are independent leases. So it has to be done
as a leasehold improvement (inaudible) deal with a landlord.
MR. BROWNE:
(Inaudible) change the
purchases?
CLERK:
No, no, we're not able to do
that. We did go out and solicit quotes just to get an idea of what kind of costs
we were looking at, but we have had a couple of – we're dealing with people
working alone for the most part, and we have had incidents where the assistant
has been bullied or threatened because of various circumstances.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm very happy to see it
actually. Our constituency offices are here in this building and our
constituency assistants are safe because of that.
I
remember when I first came into the House back in 2006, we did not have the
security that we have now and we did have incidents prior to my being the MHA.
Maryann was the assistant for Jack Harris. Very angry constituents making it up
to the office and there was always somebody else around but, still, it used to
happen. Sometimes it could be someone who had mental health problems. It was
various things. We now have that security here. I think every constituency
assistant should be in a safe place and we should make sure they are safe.
MR. SPEAKER:
I completely agree. I did
bring along – Sandra prepared this, Sandra Barnes. This describes the sort of
situation of each of the offices. We have 23 that we'd like to move on enhancing
the security.
If
there's no further discussion, I'll look for a – yes, Sir.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted
to echo the comments by Ms. Michael as well.
It is
absolutely necessary to ensure safety and security of staff, especially if
they're working alone, which is most often the case and quite often the case
with constituency offices. By the very nature, sometimes of circumstances that
citizens find themselves in would sometimes lead to reactions and upset that can
be a little bit unsettling for staff. We just have to make sure they are safe.
I agree
with this addition. The only question I have is – I know that technology
continues to evolve and improve and so on, and I'm just wondering from a process
perspective, did we go out and ask for quotes specifically for this or did we
give any consideration to what other technologies that may be available to
include in such an installation, such as, for example, a panic button or call
button, a distress button or a way that a constituency assistant who is in a
circumstance could call for help or assistance very easily if it was needed?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm going to start with a
response to that and I'll turn to the Clerk for a follow-up.
There
are actually a variety of mitigation measures that have been suggested and
proposed through discussions that I've been a part of and some of the other
feedback we've had. Regardless though, this is to address who that CA would
allow to come into the space. Things like a panic button and so on, these are
additional features which still could be needed at some point and given the
circumstances, but this is that basic, do I open the door or not requirement and
to have this kind of security we thought was at least the first level of
protection.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I respect that. Just my
thought is when we asked for quotes, did we consider – because sometimes the
equipment can do multiple things that, for little or no additional cost with a
small modification, could have a multifunction.
I know
like in technology today, for example, I can set up a smartphone in a location
and if it detects motion, feed it to another smartphone anywhere in the world
instantly. Technology has evolved and it's free; free services that do those
kinds of things.
You
know the technology is there. I am just wondering when we do the quotes, maybe
just if we included when we're securing contractors for this installation, that
we give consideration to what else may be available that might be able to
enhance security and safety.
CLERK:
As the Speaker indicated, we
did go out with a risk assessment to the constituency assistants and they've
responded. That's being evaluated right now. We did have some immediate
circumstances that we wanted to respond to right away.
As we
develop our leases, we change them to meet current circumstances. An example of
that would be, the original leases for constituency offices provided for an
office for the MHA and a reception-waiting room area, the constituency assistant
would be there and receive visitors, but, of course, with the privacy
requirements now, that wasn't workable anymore. So we had to amend the template
for the lease to have two offices and a reception area to ensure that
constituents were afforded the privacy they should have.
As we
move forward, when we evaluate the results of the responses, we'll also look at
the leases and everything and see what needs to be built into that.
As I
said, we did have some kind of urgent circumstances that we wanted to address
right away. We have to work through existing leases. It's add-ons after the
fact.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
So a possible motion – I see
no further questions or discussion – would be that the Commission approves the
expenditure to install video security intercoms with door releases for the
constituency offices located in leased premises.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is moved by Paul
Davis; seconded by Mark Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is approved.
Finally, Tab 8, this is regarding correspondence from MHA Lane who's asking for
some consideration to the Management Commission for Members to have alternates
identified. If in the event that a Management Commission Member is not able to
attend, an alternate could attend in their place.
The
staff have done, I would say, quite a bit of work by the way, just in responding
and preparing to this. I hope you had a chance to read it and I look for any
discussion.
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I did read it carefully
and I thank the staff for the briefing note because they gave us both the sort
of legal information that we needed and the other information.
First
of all, I have been loathed to do anything that changes a recommendation from
the MCRC, and I'm still loathed to do that. I think the MCRC put a lot thought
into this. The issue around the quorum was not a recommendation on its own,
connected to that was the recommendation, as has been point out in the briefing
note as well. The recommendation with regard to having a calendar in place so
that we can all make sure we're giving priority to the Commission meeting. We
have that responsibility. I believe, as individuals, we know what our
responsibility is. Then also, the policy provisions of the Commission that are
also pointed out in the briefing note.
Both of
those points I thought of and then I come to the briefing note and they're both
there, that is the having the calendar so we know our meetings well in advance.
The fact that we can use telephone, and we've had that happen a number of times
now and the ability of the Member to submit written commentary.
All of
this we've done, and I think, excepting the fact that we have responsibility, I
don't see having alternates, and for the reason that's laid out here in the
briefing note, I had that same thought, you need continuity and continuity gets
lost, and then the time that would have to go into, like in my caucus there's
only two of us. So if I couldn't go and they said I could have an alternate,
then I would have to make sure that the Member for St. John's Centre is up on
everything. So I think there's a continuity issue.
The
other thing for me is that we don't do it for other Committees. For example, the
Public Accounts Committee, we don't have alternates for the Public Accounts
Committee. It's not a practice, and in that case too, it's because, I think, of
the need for the continuity.
So I
would not be approving what's been proposed.
MR. SPEAKER:
Siobhan Coady, you had your
hand up.
MS. COADY:
Certainly, I can speak to
this as well.
I
support what Ms. Michael has laid before us. It also opens up a question of if
your focus, as an alternate, would be then acting as a proxy or would they be
then acting as themselves.
I think
it has some challenges with opening this up to alternates, including legislative
change requirement. So I'm supportive of the direction that Ms. Michael has laid
before us to not approve.
MR. SPEAKER:
I believe I'm seeing a
similar agreement in the room.
A
suggested motion would be the Commission does not approve the request from the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands to allow replacement Members for meetings of
the Management Commission. The current provisions of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act prohibiting alternate Members will
continue.
I'm
looking for a motion.
MS. MICHAEL:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Lorraine Michael; seconded
by Andrew Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
This
concludes our agenda. I would like to thank all the Members for their
participation.
I need
a motion to adjourn.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Andrew Parsons and seconded
by Paul Davis.
Thank
you all very much, and thank you for tuning in.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.