Debate question fiasco bad for needed Sask. Party accountability

Rather than put the matter to bed, the ruling on the Saskatchewan Party great debate controversy very likely leaves all sides unhappy.

A Solomon-like choice? Only if the baby was split in half.

For leadership hope Alanna Koch — indirectly accused of being tipped off to at least one question on nurse practitioners at the Weyburn debate — the party’s leadership election organizing committee (LEOC) leaves lingering doubts.

“We find the signatories to the complaint to be justified in being concerned with the circumstances surrounding the Weyburn debate,” the LEOC determined. “We find their complaint to be bona fide and raised without any malice or ill-will.”

The LEOC language flies in the face of Koch’s defence posted on Facebook that “this is an absolutely ridiculous accusation” and that this was “clearly an attempt to discredit my campaign.”

Moreover, her Facebook suggestion she did well in the Weyburn debate solely because this has been her job for the past 10 years somewhat ignored the now-proven-and-seemingly coincidental fact that she and/ or someone on her political team specifically asked executive council to research nurse practitioner numbers 24 hours before a question about this remote issue was asked in the debate.

The LEOC — executive director Patrick Bundrock, president James Thorsteinson, Merin Coutts, Doreen Eagles and Bevra Fee and Premier Brad Wall’s senior executive council staffers Reg Downs and Ken Krawetz (who both recused themselves during this investigation) — doesn’t exactly come across well, either.

That it couldn’t find anything beyond circumstantial evidence will leave many pondering how hard it looked.

It was the Leader-Post that disclosed executive council made the inquiry to the Health Ministry at Koch’s behest. The notion that this was seen to be a matter best quickly swept under the rug is only bolstered by the reality that neither the LEOC nor anyone else will now disclose the response (public information, really) executive council provided to Koch.

“Only circumstantial evidence” works in the criminal court process. But this not an illegality. It’s an issue of judgment. And it now raises more questions than it answers.

Executive council and the party as a whole — long accused of favouring Koch — didn’t fare well, either. Adding to the favouritism suspicion is the fact none of the other leadership camps claim to know anything about executive council saying government staff can provide research in this partisan political contest. (That this is somehow deemed a proper role for executive council or anyone in government would be another troubling matter.)

However, the nature of the judgment will raise questions about the characters of Tina Beaudry-Mellor, Gord Wyant and Scott Moe, who jointly made the initial Dec. 8 complaint many will see as rather petty.

The LEOC’s finding that there was only “circumstantial evidence” on whether or not Koch was tipped off to an issue about which all candidates should be somewhat knowledgeable about anyway will leave some thinking the other leadership hopefuls are behaving as Koch described in her Facebook post. That might haunt all three of them.

Alas, this tempest in a teapot bodes well for no one in the Saskatchewan Party.

Even in a small teapot, an ill wind can brew. And the perception here is this small issue represents a much bigger problem.

The reality for a caucus, political party and the rest of us, for that matter, is our modern-day parliamentary system sees virtually all the power concentrated in the office of the head of government.

Who gets in cabinet, what bills and budgets are put forward and passed — it’s all determined by the premier’s office.

And unlike in Britain where the leader is elected by the caucus, this leadership race is the last time our next premier will be accountable.

So how even such smaller matters are handled does speak to character, and tells us something about the kind of administration we now have and could have in the future.

This supposedly silly and insignificant issue just doesn’t bode well for anyone.