Legislative subcommittees spare us the details
It’s a secret: They meet in private and announce decisions — but maybe not the rationale behind them — in public
While the B.C. legislature is considered a poor candidate to survive a major earthquake, the public can rest assured that MLAs are taking steps to ensure that at least the flagpole in front of the buildings will remain standing.
The B.C. Legislature Flagpole Remedial Option, a confidential report from a private engineering firm on the deteriorating condition of the pole, was aired last month at a private session of a legislature committee.
Afterwards, the government and Opposition members of the committee resolved to proceed with a $65,000 replacement plan, including an estimated $40,000 to install one or two shorter poles, and a maximum set aside of $25,000 to decommission the current flagpole.
All this was undertaken at a session of the finance and audit subcommittee of the parent legislative assembly management committee, or LAMC.
Neither the engineering report nor the rationale was made public, which would be no big deal except for what it says about the continuing secrecy surrounding management of the $70-million annual budget of the assembly.
The LAMC itself used to meet in private. Then came the 2012 report from the auditor general on dubious accounts-keeping and mismanagement at the assembly.
In the public uproar that followed, the B.C. Liberal government and New Democratic Party Opposition determined the LAMC should henceforth operate publicly, like other legislative committees.
But an old joke in political circles says that when decisions are to be made in public, the real meeting takes place in private.
Sure enough, the action around the assembly budget has gradually shifted to the LAMC’s finance and audit subcommittee, which meets in private, producing no transcripts and releasing only the briefest summaries of its decisions, sometimes well after the fact. (The minutes from the May 15 session were tabled just last week).
Those minutes sometimes make for intriguing reading. For instance, at the same Nov. 3 session that resolved the fate of the flagpole, Speaker of the legislature Linda Reid “described a proposal to develop a low-maintenance, drought-tolerant garden” on the back lawn of the legislature buildings.
No indication of cost or rationale for moving to drought-tolerant gardening, which is standard operating procedure for the subcommittee. Classic Linda Reid too, for she’s anything but low-maintenance.
Since becoming Speaker in 2013, Reid has repeatedly socked taxpayers with the tab for her various whims: a $48,000 computer terminal (dubbed “the Speaker’s PlayStation”) in the legislative chamber, an $80,000 security upgrade at her constituency office, $6,000 worth of new drapes and upholstery at her office in the legislature, and the notorious $733 muffin rack in a new lounge she insisted on developing for MLAs.
She survived those and other controversies because of the forbearance of the New Democrats as much as the Liberals, both sides vowing to keep a tighter rein on the budget if not her flights of fancy.
From the same set of minutes: “The Speaker circulated a letter from the Victoria Foundation, dated Oct. 26, 2015, regarding the proposal to consider partnering with the Victoria Foundation to establish a fund to support the long-term infrastructure needs of the parliament (meaning legislature) buildings.”
Dubious from every point of view, including the tax implications I gather. But that didn’t keep the usually prudent Finance Minister Mike de Jong from taking the notion for a spin in the headlines.
“Apparently, there are people out there who would actually like to contribute to maintain the buildings and the historic nature of the buildings — that’s good news,” he told Rob Shaw of The Vancouver Sun.
Which is not to say there aren’t pressing needs for capital expenditures at the legislature, including the seismically unprepared 118-year-old buildings themselves.
The assembly recently spent in excess of $400,000 to improve accessibility for the public as well as three wheelchair-bound MLAs. A share of the capital budget is being set aside to refurbish the elevators, including one Stone Age relic in the legislative library.
Finance and audit recently wrestled with another confidential report on “the necessary replacement” of the 63-yearold steam heating plant that serves the ledge, the provincial museum, the finance and education ministry buildings and (amid much hissing and clanking) the ancient armoury where my office is located.
I’m guessing that means if I somehow survive the quake, I might, like the engineer in the Wreck of the Old 97, be found (“with his hand on the keyboard”) scalded to death by the steam.
Mindful of whatever alarming details were in the report, the members of the subcommittee resolved in favour of “proceeding with a design, build, finance and own procurement model” to replace the steam plant, “including a possible smaller series of systems tailored to the needs of each building, as may be more appropriate.”
Costs? Rationale? Debate? Again, your guess is as good as mine. Nor did the minutes provide even that much detail about “the proposed ceremonial driveway project,” whatever the heck that would entail.
Also in the works, via the everdiligent, ever-secretive subcommittee, is a proposed “respectful workplace policy for members of the legislature.”
Probably too much to hope that the MLAs will show a modicum of respect for the folks who elect them and pay the bills by straightaway making the policy public.