Perhaps something is wrong with me, but I feel bad for Dave Wilson, and faintly nauseous at the mob clammoring for his neck. Wilson f**ked up — spectacularly and inexcusably. In doing so, he violated a public trust and brought disgrace upon himself and upon democratic institutions already in public repute so low as to undermine civil society. Consider also what Wilson has lost: a dream  job that was probably his as long as he wanted it; his home; his family (or parts of it, to judge from his brother-in-law's published comments). He has suffered public humiliation that is hard to...

14 September, 2011

Back on February 15, Contrarian had the temerity to opine that the MLAs' expense scandal was pretty small potatoes—more a matter of public begrudgery than actual wrongdoing. This evoked private expressions of appreciation and gratitude from MLAs and political aides of all parties—and howls of indignation from readers (here, here, and here). Events swiftly made my apologia seem naively over-generous. Two MLAs resigned, a third was kicked out of government caucus, and Premier Darrell Dexter, who built his career on his seemingly perfect ear for public sensibilities, turned suddenly, stubbornly, and uncharacteristically tone-deaf when his own personal expenses fell under scrutiny. Much...

12 May, 2010

In the wake of Glace Bay MLA Dave Wilson's surprise resignation while under forensic audit of his expense claims, a young Contrarian friend asks if I'm ready to retract my post all but dismissing the expense brouhaha. Answer: I'm getting there. We don't yet know the story behind Wilson's abrupt departure, and I don't wish to imply otherwise. But even before that news broke Friday, the premier's ham-fisted attempts to resolve criticism surrounding his expensing of Barristers' Society dues had me rethinking the issue. Contrarian's alter-ego is currently submerged in a writing assignment, so I will merely flag the topic for later elaboration....

14 March, 2010
Previous installments here, here, and here. A longish dissent from reader Jay Wilson:
The way you make it sound, we, the public, are the ones who indirectly caused this problem by forcing our poor beleaguered elected representatives underground and into making the kinds of reckless spending judgements they made. I take issue with that. As you said in your blog, "Upon taking office, most MLAs set aside established careers in exchange for a job with far less security than comparable positions in the private or public sector." That once was the case, for a good reason. Once upon a time, MLAs made very little money as elected representatives. To offset their costs of travel, constituency responsibilities, etc, they were given expense money. Fine. Then more people from different walks of life started getting involved in politics who didn't necessarily make as much as the usual assortment of doctors, lawyers and businesspeople who had mostly made up the elected ranks. Not to mention the complaints from the very sorts of individuals you referenced: People from higher-paying occupations who said it wasn't enough to live on and they could make more in the private sector. Over time, a new sensibility developed along the lines of "Let's pay them a better salary so that they can afford to live while serving our best interests." In the interests of fairness, the thought occurred to some that the money spent on expense accounts and the like could be decreased as now these elected officials would actually be making more. That's not what happened. In fact, as salaries continued to increase, so did money for expenses and then it diversified into a whole host of different expense categories. MLAs were getting money for everything and the kitchen sink, and who made these changes? Who increased their salaries and expense money? Who made the rules so deliberately ambiguous and full of holes so wide you could drive a tank through them? They did, behind closed doors and in quick legislative motions, with cursory mentions in the local press for the most part. Please don't try to excuse MLAs for their sorry behaviour. This is about three things: A pronounced sense of entitlement, a disconnect from reality and pure abject greed. Maybe it isn't on the same scale as the scandals in Britain and even Newfoundland, but those three things are present in each situation and they are things we should all be vigilant against.
19 February, 2010
Contrarian reader Kirby McVicar responds to our post on MLAs’ pay and public begrudgery:
The question that springs to my mind is: “Who are you and what have you done with Parker Donham?" [caption id="attachment_4485" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Resigned MLA Richard Hurlburt"]Resigned MLA<BR>Richard Hurlburt[/caption] What I hear you say is, "Well, MLA’s only stole a little bit, and it's the media’s and the public's fault for not providing adequate salary." Are you serious? What does this line of thinking say to all the honest MLA’s who did not steal from the public purse: "You missed out on an opportunity we, the public and the media, set up for you. How stupid of you!" I agree that politicians need an independent body to set remuneration policy that is binding, but this issue should not be confused with theft from the public purse. Where is the CBC Parker, from the "Harry and Parker Show" who would have spent 15 minutes railing against such a rationale? Has the election of an NDP government outed you?
I was out of the country, but wasn't it a Tory MLA who resigned? After the jump, more reader reaction.
17 February, 2010

A friend asked recently why I had not written about the MLA expenses flap, and I confessed that I have trouble summoning much outrage over the issue. While I admire Brian Flinn's dogged pursuit of the facts in AllNovaScotia.com, I fear that the public and the media are almost as much to blame for the problem as our lawmakers. The public nurses an attitude of begrudgery toward politicians, and the media fans these embers at every opportunity. This is not our most attractive quality, and it makes it almost impossible for MLAs — who by definition must set their own salaries...

15 February, 2010