Deja Vous ! We have been down this road before....... Repeatedly!!
How amazing it was to sit and watch history repeat itself. Again.
In the present example we had a group of people who used to come to meetings en masse to vote on a single issue. Once they had done what they came to do, they would walk out en masse, leaving the general body of the membership with a feeling of unease and in some instances downright anger.
The last time this happened in my memory was back in 1999 when our Local adopted the.........."Continuous Election Process"! This is where the membership would get to vote and revote continuously until the proper officials son was "elected". Theoretically, this would give people a chance to see how other prominent office holders were voting and would allow these people to change their votes. I am told by sources that at least a couple of people were richly, richly rewarded for changing their vote that day.
Many current reps were there that day when our Local first pioneered the use of the "Continuous Election Process" and are presently outraged that this practice was used against them, so effectively, recently.
In the current example our Locals senior leadership introduced legislation to " Limit the number of Reps who could run against the current President and the First-Vice". "Twas all done in the name of true democracy" of addressing the need to have less elections and thus spend less union dues and it passed with the help of a number of people who left soon after the legislation passed.
Our reps are pissed and rightly so! But it can be rectified........with my help.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Term limits.....for Senators
The government is now floating the idea of term limits for senators, or so one of the news organizations reported last evening. Wonder if we can get that into the new Accountability Act? By the end of this minority government, the Accountability Act should be bulging, that is if the Conservatives have changed their stripes and mean what they say when they speak of accountability.
Term limits. huh? Hmmmmm..........Wonder where else we could use an idea like that? Chin scratch ...chin scratch, headrrub...headrrrub...Somethings being twigged-hafta leave it to the readers to decide where else we could use an idea like this!!
Lets explore the idea first.
Term limits. I can see people arguing that along with senators, heads of Crown Corporations and other bodies such as those should have term limits as well.
Term limits are good for allowing new and fresh ideas to revitalize organizations.
Its good for the purpose of renewal and conversely it is also good for the people who sometimes get stuck with stressful and challenging tasks simply because thats the most expedient way of doing things.
Term limits allow younger people to move in and get trained in various vital services that are sometimes mandated by the law or are promised by contract, because a set date is available as to when training should be completed.
It is also good for egos. Often people who have served in positions for a long time may feel ownership of that particular position or job and will be reluctant to train a replacement. Sadly this sometimes results in vicious infighting and destroys not just friendships, but also the precious resources that have been developed over time for the collective good.
Good progressive organizations usually build on previous gains, a continuum is developed and information collected and gathered through mutual experiences is passed on smoothly. Organizations that use a system of term limits are usually around for a long time.
Isn't that what we all want............long term?
Term limits. huh? Hmmmmm..........Wonder where else we could use an idea like that? Chin scratch ...chin scratch, headrrub...headrrrub...Somethings being twigged-hafta leave it to the readers to decide where else we could use an idea like this!!
Lets explore the idea first.
Term limits. I can see people arguing that along with senators, heads of Crown Corporations and other bodies such as those should have term limits as well.
Term limits are good for allowing new and fresh ideas to revitalize organizations.
Its good for the purpose of renewal and conversely it is also good for the people who sometimes get stuck with stressful and challenging tasks simply because thats the most expedient way of doing things.
Term limits allow younger people to move in and get trained in various vital services that are sometimes mandated by the law or are promised by contract, because a set date is available as to when training should be completed.
It is also good for egos. Often people who have served in positions for a long time may feel ownership of that particular position or job and will be reluctant to train a replacement. Sadly this sometimes results in vicious infighting and destroys not just friendships, but also the precious resources that have been developed over time for the collective good.
Good progressive organizations usually build on previous gains, a continuum is developed and information collected and gathered through mutual experiences is passed on smoothly. Organizations that use a system of term limits are usually around for a long time.
Isn't that what we all want............long term?
Monday, May 29, 2006
An Accountability Act, Conservatively speaking
Meantime, here in Canada, our Conservative government is doing some interesting stuff. One thing that arouses interest is this Accountability Act.
Since this new brand of The Reformed Alliance of Conservatives has talked about being accountable, I have a few questions.
Will they fr'instance...agree to some citizen participation in this accountability schtuff?
Would they entertain the notion of not entering into failed notions of trade, such as the Free Trade agreements that have only served to free many Canadians of essentials such as a well paid job?
Would they introduce legislation to make all political parties register their election platforms with an independent body such as Elections Canada, thereby pledging to enact the very laws they promised during an election. Nothing more (at least nothing like Brian Mulroneys Free Trade Agreement & North American FreeTrade Agreement),Nothing less?
Now that would be accountability!!
Since this new brand of The Reformed Alliance of Conservatives has talked about being accountable, I have a few questions.
Will they fr'instance...agree to some citizen participation in this accountability schtuff?
Would they entertain the notion of not entering into failed notions of trade, such as the Free Trade agreements that have only served to free many Canadians of essentials such as a well paid job?
Would they introduce legislation to make all political parties register their election platforms with an independent body such as Elections Canada, thereby pledging to enact the very laws they promised during an election. Nothing more (at least nothing like Brian Mulroneys Free Trade Agreement & North American FreeTrade Agreement),Nothing less?
Now that would be accountability!!
Monday, May 22, 2006
Conflict of Interest
One of the earliest times I got into trouble in the Local was on the issue of conflict of interest.
Pissed off the powers that be!
One of my committee members wanted to sell issue specific items to our committee.
I felt that was a conflict of interest. Although the potential existed for this member to come up with all kinds of proposals to sell other gee-gaws to our committee, the truth of it simply was that I do not believe that a rep ought to financially benefit from a union position.
A personal opinion, just that!
I felt that the member should make a choice. Either be a committee member or a peddler who sold it gee-gaws. I felt that it would be conflict of interest if the member wanted to do both.
The Locals leadership had never heard of the term before and believed that I had made it up. They felt that I must have a "personality conflict" ( a term that continues to affect service to our members) with the member and that I should just shut and accept past practice.
I was acclaimed "troublemaker" of the year....that year!
Examples of conflict of interest;
1) Having an appointee as a trustee is a conflict of interest. The appointee is put in the position of auditing his/her political superiors actions.
Perception is that such a trustees independence to make decisions on behalf of the membership is compromised.
1B) Which leads to; Trustees should not take part in Executive Board decisions. They should not be made to review their own decisions. If they do so, can they be properly objective?
Fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities knowing full well they participated in the decisions they are being asked to audit?
Trustees should work independently from the Executive Board and meet with them only to report audit results or on Trustee specific issues.
2) The son/daughter/relative of an office holder cannot be "Election Chairperson" or for that matter be a member of an election committee.
This leads to all kinds of negative perceptions and accusations and damages the credibility of the electoral process and many innocent election committee members for generations to come.
3) If an officer or leader is forced to give up an assignment because he/she has so many relatives working in one location, that the leader/officer cannot properly represent them, then that officer/leader cannot again run for the same position or any position that involves that particular unit or workplace in the future. We should be especially mindful of this because we are an industry that uses the preferential hiring system and thus have many relatives as co-workers. Its a potential minefield in many many ways that are yet to manifest themselves.
Matter-of-fact if we had such by-laws they would have had to resign from office immediately, due to conflict of interest.
These are but three examples of what constitutes a conflict of interest. This is a topic that can and should, in a democratic institution, be debated for as long as even the possibility of improper influence exists. Far more damaging than improper influence is the cronyism that sometimes develops among long-serving members, that adversely affects membership services.
Debate leads to action. Conflict of interest by-laws set strict guidelines to help avoid these minefields.
To deflate the use of the old tried, tested and much used cliches such as , "Personality conflict" and "sour grapes" that our current leadership uses when their actions are criticized or even questioned, I want to make this statement. This is not about criticizing individuals-This is about reforming a system.
This is not about criticizing any individual or about trying to get at any individual. It's simply abour fixing a system that continually produces crisis and division.
This is simply about getting the best possible service for dues paying members.
Pissed off the powers that be!
One of my committee members wanted to sell issue specific items to our committee.
I felt that was a conflict of interest. Although the potential existed for this member to come up with all kinds of proposals to sell other gee-gaws to our committee, the truth of it simply was that I do not believe that a rep ought to financially benefit from a union position.
A personal opinion, just that!
I felt that the member should make a choice. Either be a committee member or a peddler who sold it gee-gaws. I felt that it would be conflict of interest if the member wanted to do both.
The Locals leadership had never heard of the term before and believed that I had made it up. They felt that I must have a "personality conflict" ( a term that continues to affect service to our members) with the member and that I should just shut and accept past practice.
I was acclaimed "troublemaker" of the year....that year!
Examples of conflict of interest;
1) Having an appointee as a trustee is a conflict of interest. The appointee is put in the position of auditing his/her political superiors actions.
Perception is that such a trustees independence to make decisions on behalf of the membership is compromised.
1B) Which leads to; Trustees should not take part in Executive Board decisions. They should not be made to review their own decisions. If they do so, can they be properly objective?
Fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities knowing full well they participated in the decisions they are being asked to audit?
Trustees should work independently from the Executive Board and meet with them only to report audit results or on Trustee specific issues.
2) The son/daughter/relative of an office holder cannot be "Election Chairperson" or for that matter be a member of an election committee.
This leads to all kinds of negative perceptions and accusations and damages the credibility of the electoral process and many innocent election committee members for generations to come.
3) If an officer or leader is forced to give up an assignment because he/she has so many relatives working in one location, that the leader/officer cannot properly represent them, then that officer/leader cannot again run for the same position or any position that involves that particular unit or workplace in the future. We should be especially mindful of this because we are an industry that uses the preferential hiring system and thus have many relatives as co-workers. Its a potential minefield in many many ways that are yet to manifest themselves.
Matter-of-fact if we had such by-laws they would have had to resign from office immediately, due to conflict of interest.
These are but three examples of what constitutes a conflict of interest. This is a topic that can and should, in a democratic institution, be debated for as long as even the possibility of improper influence exists. Far more damaging than improper influence is the cronyism that sometimes develops among long-serving members, that adversely affects membership services.
Debate leads to action. Conflict of interest by-laws set strict guidelines to help avoid these minefields.
To deflate the use of the old tried, tested and much used cliches such as , "Personality conflict" and "sour grapes" that our current leadership uses when their actions are criticized or even questioned, I want to make this statement. This is not about criticizing individuals-This is about reforming a system.
This is not about criticizing any individual or about trying to get at any individual. It's simply abour fixing a system that continually produces crisis and division.
This is simply about getting the best possible service for dues paying members.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Standing Committees
The argument has long been made in our Local that Standing Committees should be elected differently. Currently we elect the Chairpersons at General membership meetings and turn them loose to express their vision of any given committee, however they personally or members of the Executive Board see fit. If these generally elected chairpeople choose not to have a committee, hold any meetings or to deliberately keep the committee inactive, thats OK too.
In addition they get to go to conferences and choose the people they like as fellow attendees.
As long as they are elected or appointed at the General Membership meeting, anything goes. They are not really accountable unless something goes drastically wrong and they attract unfavourable attention to their political masters.
Usually whoever gets the nod from the Executive Board of the Local wins the election.
The Executives criteria thus far has been purely political, the main criteria being loyalty and obedience to the leadership.
The argument to have committees elect their own chairpersons was made by successive chairs and members of these committees at least until 1999.
One of the main reasons was that committees such as these have the potential to provide vital services to union members and thus ought to be free of political interference.
It would be avoiding the issue not to touch on the fact that members of these committees also wanted to avoid the atrocity of having leaderships unqualified sons/daughters parachuted in to head up these committees, often disregarding rules that other members have to adhere to and destroying the chances for active committee members to move up in any given committee.
In our local nepotism was and remains a prime reason for the argument to have committees elect their chairpeople.
Another reason was that this way committees would continue to build on past lessons/gains and
continue to function in spite of changes of leadership. In other words leadership changes would not result in service cuts or service to the membership being affected.
Presently the issue has surfaced again with an explosion that was not totally unexpected. Like other recent explosions in our Local they have built up over time.
There has been an increase in interest in Standing Committees as happens from time to time. Once again people are expressing that Chairpersons of these committees are not holding enough or any meetings, are not letting interested Union members know when Conferences and Conventions are taking place, are hand picking their pals to go to these events, are having secret meetings that the general membership don't find out about in order to elect each other for various perks, have unofficial meetings, last minute meetings, out-of-the-way meetings, impromptu meetings, invitation only meetings, sudden meetings.. the list goes on and on.
This is nothing new. Its old hat. However...please.......DO NOT blame the chairpersons of these committees. This is the system they inherited. The people are not to blame-It is the system that has failed. So! If you want change...you have to change the system.
This is generallyhow it would work, but the idea is not totally writ in stone;
In addition they get to go to conferences and choose the people they like as fellow attendees.
As long as they are elected or appointed at the General Membership meeting, anything goes. They are not really accountable unless something goes drastically wrong and they attract unfavourable attention to their political masters.
Usually whoever gets the nod from the Executive Board of the Local wins the election.
The Executives criteria thus far has been purely political, the main criteria being loyalty and obedience to the leadership.
The argument to have committees elect their own chairpersons was made by successive chairs and members of these committees at least until 1999.
One of the main reasons was that committees such as these have the potential to provide vital services to union members and thus ought to be free of political interference.
It would be avoiding the issue not to touch on the fact that members of these committees also wanted to avoid the atrocity of having leaderships unqualified sons/daughters parachuted in to head up these committees, often disregarding rules that other members have to adhere to and destroying the chances for active committee members to move up in any given committee.
In our local nepotism was and remains a prime reason for the argument to have committees elect their chairpeople.
Another reason was that this way committees would continue to build on past lessons/gains and
continue to function in spite of changes of leadership. In other words leadership changes would not result in service cuts or service to the membership being affected.
Presently the issue has surfaced again with an explosion that was not totally unexpected. Like other recent explosions in our Local they have built up over time.
There has been an increase in interest in Standing Committees as happens from time to time. Once again people are expressing that Chairpersons of these committees are not holding enough or any meetings, are not letting interested Union members know when Conferences and Conventions are taking place, are hand picking their pals to go to these events, are having secret meetings that the general membership don't find out about in order to elect each other for various perks, have unofficial meetings, last minute meetings, out-of-the-way meetings, impromptu meetings, invitation only meetings, sudden meetings.. the list goes on and on.
This is nothing new. Its old hat. However...please.......DO NOT blame the chairpersons of these committees. This is the system they inherited. The people are not to blame-It is the system that has failed. So! If you want change...you have to change the system.
This is generallyhow it would work, but the idea is not totally writ in stone;
- At the General Membership meeting where Committee Chairpersons were previously elected, members interested in participating in a committee would sign up for 3 committees in order of preference. Members would have voice and vote in their first committee of choice and voice only at the other two committees.
- Each Standing Committee would have an Executive Board member attached to it in order to serve as a liason with the Executive Board.
- Meetings dates would be assigned each committee, with provisions for special meetings worked out in each committee, thus eliminating those special meetings that previously excluded people.
- Each committee would have a chairperson, a co-chairperson and a recording secretary. This would give 3 people per committee experience in running a committee. This multiplied by 10 would keep 30 + previously unemployed activists from actively eyeing the leaderships' jobs.
- Minimum numbers should be established. This way prospective members cannot be told that a committee of 3 for example is full.
- Attendees for conferences and conventions should be chosen from within committees. People who do the work should get the perks-Not someones pal or relative. Insertion of someones pal and exclusion of active committee members destroys functioning committees.
This way of doing standing committees is immensely useful because it it is so inclusive and so uniquely democratic. Qualified people would be making choices based on the needs of the membership-Not just what is politically good for leadership. Membership services would not be sacrificed for egos.
Most importantly accountability would be established.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Squeezing the Bottom
No! No. Get your mind out of my gutter. Its not going to be that kind of article. It will not have salacious details of bottom squeezing, so don't let the imaginations run rampant in that direction. Fact is, the business community has always preached a line that squeezes the people at the bottom of the economic heap.
In this particular case, when I talk about the bottom I mean those of us who have not yet achieved millionaire status or those of us who are not comfortably well off due to inheritances or investments and never really have to work for the rest of our lives.
I am talking about those of us who don't have stock options worth millions, who don't have golden parachute retirement options, yachts, properties on different continents or have tax-lawyers we pay a small fortune to in order that we may keep track of our wealth.
I am talking about those of us who have seen our working conditions and our numbers decline over the years and who continue to be squeezed in order to make business more competitive.
The latest tactic in squeezing the bottom is comparing our wages to those earned by workers in China.
Did you notice that is our wages that are being compared while the wages of those at the top are never mentioned let alone considered? While they always want to squeeze the bottom, they never mention the top. In an article in the U.K.s Sunday Times on April 16 2006; Sarah Baxter from Washington wrote;
EVER since the soap opera Dallas, the exploits of Texas oilmen have fascinated America. But the disclosure that one of oils most powerful figures earned $144,000 (£82,000) a day, £57 a minute for his time at the helm of the worlds biggest oil company, has prompted a row about whether corporate fat cattery has been taken to new heights.
Lee R Raymond, the recently retired chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil owners of the Esso chain in Britain was paid more than £391m from 1993 to 2005, according to figures released last week. It dwarfs the salaries of other high earners in the oil business. Last year alone he made more than £228m.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136358,00.html
My argument here is that we must stop squeezing the bottom and start pinching the top!!
Here are a few suggestions that should be put into the manifestos of all corporations;
1) Only one (1) mansion per executive, per country/continent.
2) Just one yacht per executive
3) Restore inheritance taxes.
4) A top exec to make only 10 or 20 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.
5) Pay for own golf memberships.
6) Limo "yes"!
7) Lear jet "No"!
8) No bonus for laying off workers.
9) Executive salaries to be compared to Chinese executive salaries.
10) Executive salary adjustments to be made after comparison.
This is a very incomplete list, a short list, one that I am sure our members can add to. Its an argument that is long overdue and one that I hope will take root, because squeezing the bottom has not yet macompetitivecompetetive. We have got to have some sacrifices from the top.
It being Spring, it would make sense to have a horticultural analogy.
Gardeners will tell you that when the top of a plant has been pinched, the rest of the plant fills out vigourously and produces bountifully.
In this particular case, when I talk about the bottom I mean those of us who have not yet achieved millionaire status or those of us who are not comfortably well off due to inheritances or investments and never really have to work for the rest of our lives.
I am talking about those of us who don't have stock options worth millions, who don't have golden parachute retirement options, yachts, properties on different continents or have tax-lawyers we pay a small fortune to in order that we may keep track of our wealth.
I am talking about those of us who have seen our working conditions and our numbers decline over the years and who continue to be squeezed in order to make business more competitive.
The latest tactic in squeezing the bottom is comparing our wages to those earned by workers in China.
Did you notice that is our wages that are being compared while the wages of those at the top are never mentioned let alone considered? While they always want to squeeze the bottom, they never mention the top. In an article in the U.K.s Sunday Times on April 16 2006; Sarah Baxter from Washington wrote;
EVER since the soap opera Dallas, the exploits of Texas oilmen have fascinated America. But the disclosure that one of oils most powerful figures earned $144,000 (£82,000) a day, £57 a minute for his time at the helm of the worlds biggest oil company, has prompted a row about whether corporate fat cattery has been taken to new heights.
Lee R Raymond, the recently retired chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil owners of the Esso chain in Britain was paid more than £391m from 1993 to 2005, according to figures released last week. It dwarfs the salaries of other high earners in the oil business. Last year alone he made more than £228m.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136358,00.html
My argument here is that we must stop squeezing the bottom and start pinching the top!!
Here are a few suggestions that should be put into the manifestos of all corporations;
1) Only one (1) mansion per executive, per country/continent.
2) Just one yacht per executive
3) Restore inheritance taxes.
4) A top exec to make only 10 or 20 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.
5) Pay for own golf memberships.
6) Limo "yes"!
7) Lear jet "No"!
8) No bonus for laying off workers.
9) Executive salaries to be compared to Chinese executive salaries.
10) Executive salary adjustments to be made after comparison.
This is a very incomplete list, a short list, one that I am sure our members can add to. Its an argument that is long overdue and one that I hope will take root, because squeezing the bottom has not yet macompetitivecompetetive. We have got to have some sacrifices from the top.
It being Spring, it would make sense to have a horticultural analogy.
Gardeners will tell you that when the top of a plant has been pinched, the rest of the plant fills out vigourously and produces bountifully.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Too many positions&Service suffers
When someone holds too many positions, service suffers. Plain and simple-Service suffers.
It also leads to fewer people participating in decisions and causes a lessening of internal democracy. Concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands leads to the development of secrecy, which leads to the creation of suspicions, which may cause paranoia and could...in some extreme and rare cases lead some to believe they are being blackmailed or smirked at, which in turn leads to all kinds of trouble. All kinds of embarassingly expensive trouble.
This brings to the fore another grave problem we have experienced going on 10+ years, the problem of training and co-operating with alternates.
In our system, knowledge gained is collective knowledge and rightfully belongs to the organization, therefore alternates should be trained in order to pass along this valuable knowledge.
The main problem some folk have with alternates is political. They feel they may be training people who could become their replacements. Choose the right people and this won't be a problem.
What amplifies and broadcasts this scenario is 'that in one notable case the full time guy just plain refused to co-operate with three....count 'em 3 alternates and leadership let him get away with for these last 8 or 9 years. Flat out refused to co-operate with any alternate. Has absolutely had his way with the position to the present. Will not share knowledge that should be treated as collective knowledge. If this guy got hit by a bus-the whole program would simply end.
A hugely expensive program would simply disappear*poof* Just like that.... like money out of the Liberal Sponsorship scandal.
This "Wag The Dog"scenario continues to this day, to this very day..Some leadership.
The problem with this situation is that it "has been personalized. The ol'"personality differences"excuse gets trotted out by leadership as a way of avoiding.....indeed in this particular case.....flatout abrogating responsibility. BTW. The very same excuse that has kept this situation in limbo these last 10+ years....and with many of the same players in the leadership ranks as well.
Sad part of all this is that old excuses are tainting the new blood.
The view these people should be taking is,"Service to the dues-payers".
Time for not just, Accountability, Ethics, a policy on nepotism, but also for term limits and yes.... The inclusion and full training of alternates should be incorporated in our bylaws.
It also leads to fewer people participating in decisions and causes a lessening of internal democracy. Concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands leads to the development of secrecy, which leads to the creation of suspicions, which may cause paranoia and could...in some extreme and rare cases lead some to believe they are being blackmailed or smirked at, which in turn leads to all kinds of trouble. All kinds of embarassingly expensive trouble.
This brings to the fore another grave problem we have experienced going on 10+ years, the problem of training and co-operating with alternates.
In our system, knowledge gained is collective knowledge and rightfully belongs to the organization, therefore alternates should be trained in order to pass along this valuable knowledge.
The main problem some folk have with alternates is political. They feel they may be training people who could become their replacements. Choose the right people and this won't be a problem.
What amplifies and broadcasts this scenario is 'that in one notable case the full time guy just plain refused to co-operate with three....count 'em 3 alternates and leadership let him get away with for these last 8 or 9 years. Flat out refused to co-operate with any alternate. Has absolutely had his way with the position to the present. Will not share knowledge that should be treated as collective knowledge. If this guy got hit by a bus-the whole program would simply end.
A hugely expensive program would simply disappear*poof* Just like that.... like money out of the Liberal Sponsorship scandal.
This "Wag The Dog"scenario continues to this day, to this very day..Some leadership.
The problem with this situation is that it "has been personalized. The ol'"personality differences"excuse gets trotted out by leadership as a way of avoiding.....indeed in this particular case.....flatout abrogating responsibility. BTW. The very same excuse that has kept this situation in limbo these last 10+ years....and with many of the same players in the leadership ranks as well.
Sad part of all this is that old excuses are tainting the new blood.
The view these people should be taking is,"Service to the dues-payers".
Time for not just, Accountability, Ethics, a policy on nepotism, but also for term limits and yes.... The inclusion and full training of alternates should be incorporated in our bylaws.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Scandal corruption and radical alternatives
Scandal and corruption can sometimes lead to electorates choosing radical alternatives.
It has been argued that one of the many reasons for the recent election of Hamas in Palestine was because of allegations of favouritism, nepotism and corruption by the ruling Fatah faction in the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian people are well versed politically so they must have known the reaction of their enemies to the election of Hamas. Yet they voted this way mainly as a rejection of corruption.
The same can be argued about a study in Britain that suggests that fully 25% would vote for the extremist BNP. This isn't to suggest widespread racism, though that may play somewhat of a role, but seems yet another example of the population rejecting what they percieve as corruption or at least lack of proper representation by the established political parties.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1755286,00.html
It has been argued that one of the many reasons for the recent election of Hamas in Palestine was because of allegations of favouritism, nepotism and corruption by the ruling Fatah faction in the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian people are well versed politically so they must have known the reaction of their enemies to the election of Hamas. Yet they voted this way mainly as a rejection of corruption.
The same can be argued about a study in Britain that suggests that fully 25% would vote for the extremist BNP. This isn't to suggest widespread racism, though that may play somewhat of a role, but seems yet another example of the population rejecting what they percieve as corruption or at least lack of proper representation by the established political parties.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1755286,00.html
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
New Conservative Government
Meanwhile, here in Canada the electorate has sent a minority Conservative government to Ottawa. This government has promised an accountability act. Great idea. A limited idea, but a great start.
During one of my classes a participant remarked that we should have some sort of a government body that holds a winning party accountable for what it promised during the election campaign. Even better idea.
I tried to broaden the scope of the argument but we ran out of time and had to return to curriculum, but the idea remained with me because this current of a system of accountability ran through most of the classes. The political climate at the time was dominated by the Gomery Inquiry and this led to discussions about accountability.
As far as I am concerned we should indeed have an institution within government, with which all parties' election platforms are registered. This body would then hold the winning party to its election promises and would prevent government from instituting whatever it opposed during the election campaign.
I know that at this point it all sounds a bit murky, but hopefully we can develop the idea as we go along. I believe that this is an idea whose time has come, an idea that hopefully will restore citizens interest and faith in electoral politics.
During one of my classes a participant remarked that we should have some sort of a government body that holds a winning party accountable for what it promised during the election campaign. Even better idea.
I tried to broaden the scope of the argument but we ran out of time and had to return to curriculum, but the idea remained with me because this current of a system of accountability ran through most of the classes. The political climate at the time was dominated by the Gomery Inquiry and this led to discussions about accountability.
As far as I am concerned we should indeed have an institution within government, with which all parties' election platforms are registered. This body would then hold the winning party to its election promises and would prevent government from instituting whatever it opposed during the election campaign.
I know that at this point it all sounds a bit murky, but hopefully we can develop the idea as we go along. I believe that this is an idea whose time has come, an idea that hopefully will restore citizens interest and faith in electoral politics.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Yesmen and the damage they do
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has long been Bush's yesman. What kind of damage can a yesman do and how does it impact the very constituency he/she is appointed to serve? What kind of legacy do yesmen leave? Can democracies survive the proliferation of yesmen in the highest echelons of power?
WASHINGTON—Alberto Gonzales has always been there for George W. Bush.
The U.S. attorney general has been the president's "go-to guy" dating to their days in Austin, Tex., there to protect Bush from publicity over a drunk-driving conviction, making his death penalty decisions easier, giving his administration the wiggle room it sought in dealing harshly with prisoners in the war on terror, advocating greater presidential power.
Gonzales earned his stripes again at hearings in perhaps his most arduous day as the boss's surrogate, defending Bush's right to eavesdrop on conversations involving Americans without seeking court approval.
Here's a look at a number of times Gonzales has ridden to Bush's rescue since 1994, when he became general counsel to then-governor Bush in Texas:
WASHINGTON—Alberto Gonzales has always been there for George W. Bush.
The U.S. attorney general has been the president's "go-to guy" dating to their days in Austin, Tex., there to protect Bush from publicity over a drunk-driving conviction, making his death penalty decisions easier, giving his administration the wiggle room it sought in dealing harshly with prisoners in the war on terror, advocating greater presidential power.
Gonzales earned his stripes again at hearings in perhaps his most arduous day as the boss's surrogate, defending Bush's right to eavesdrop on conversations involving Americans without seeking court approval.
Here's a look at a number of times Gonzales has ridden to Bush's rescue since 1994, when he became general counsel to then-governor Bush in Texas:
- 1994-1997: More than 50 times, Gonzales provided confidential clemency reports to Bush, who had the power to commute sentences of Texas death row inmates.
None was ever granted clemency, and an investigation by The Atlantic Monthly in 2003 concluded Gonzales routinely ignored mitigating factors such as inept legal counsel, conflicts of evidence and evidence of innocence. According to Democratic Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, one Gonzales memo failed to mention that the lawyer of one condemned man fell asleep during his trial. - 1996: When governor Bush was summoned for jury duty, Gonzales was said to have sprung into action to argue he should be excused because of a conflict — the governor had the power to ultimately pardon the accused.
But it appears a bigger issue was at play. Bush was being asked to sit on a jury trying an Austin stripper on drunk-driving charges and would have had to reveal his own 1976 drunk-driving conviction.
That remained secret until the eve of the 2000 election. Gonzales denied the story under oath during his 2005 Washington confirmation hearings, but Newsweek magazine reported he made the conflict argument in secret in judge's chambers. Gonzales said he recalled no such meeting. - 2001: As Bush's legal counsel, Gonzales played a leading role in Bush's claim of unfettered wartime powers, allowing him to round up and seize "enemy combatants," ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unjustified "blank cheque" for the president. That same year, he wrote the order establishing "military commissions" to try terrorist suspects, tribunals since widely derided as "kangaroo courts."
- 2002: Gonzales signed the infamous memo to Bush calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" that did not apply to enemy combatants scooped off the battlefields of Afghanistan. He was also central in the August 2002, justice department memo — since repudiated by the government — asserting torture could be very narrowly defined and opening the door, many believe, to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
- 2004: Gonzales led the vetting process for Bush's chosen Homeland Security chief, Bernard Kerik. The former New York police chief withdrew his nomination within a week after it was learned, among other things, he had entertained women in a hotel room across from the World Trade Center set aside for exhausted police officers.
- 2005: At his attorney general confirmation hearing, Gonzales covered for Bush on the very question that brought him back to the committee yesterday.
When asked specifically whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping, Gonzales dismissed the question as hypothetical, even though the program had been in effect for about three years.
Feingold said yesterday Gonzales had purposely misled the committee. Gonzales said he answered truthfully when he said the president would not authorize something in contravention of criminal statutes.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
It appears as though the fallout from the invasion and occupation of Iraq is continuing. The North American media, indeed Western media is on trial and is likely to suffer from its blantanly false "reporting" regards just about everything to do with this war.
In fact there is a lot of accountability going on in society in general. I have gotten quite a few queries on the article on nepotism from those who know me, asking if I were referring to this or that particular organization. This tells me that the quest for accountability is snowballing. Just about every institution/organization is about to get closely scrutinized.
But first read about how media is beiung held to account. I guess the free market will rule on this one.
Arabic-language media have an unprecedented chance to take over as the world's premier news source because trust in their US counterparts plummeted following their "shameful coverage" of the war in Iraq, a conference heard today.
The US media reached an "all-time low" in failing to reflect public opinion and Americans' desire for trusted information, instead acting as a "cheerleader" for war, said Amy Goodman, the executive producer and host of US TV and radio news show Democracy Now!, at a news forum organised by al-Jazeera.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700692,00.html
In fact there is a lot of accountability going on in society in general. I have gotten quite a few queries on the article on nepotism from those who know me, asking if I were referring to this or that particular organization. This tells me that the quest for accountability is snowballing. Just about every institution/organization is about to get closely scrutinized.
But first read about how media is beiung held to account. I guess the free market will rule on this one.
Arabic-language media have an unprecedented chance to take over as the world's premier news source because trust in their US counterparts plummeted following their "shameful coverage" of the war in Iraq, a conference heard today.
The US media reached an "all-time low" in failing to reflect public opinion and Americans' desire for trusted information, instead acting as a "cheerleader" for war, said Amy Goodman, the executive producer and host of US TV and radio news show Democracy Now!, at a news forum organised by al-Jazeera.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700692,00.html
Friday, December 30, 2005
Political accountability
One outcome, I believe, of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is how it re-arranged the notion of democracy here in the West. People started talking about the powers Prime Ministers and Presidents had to wage war, legal or not, despite unprecedented protests by the citizenry of many of the countries involved with the invasion.
Democracy as we currently practice it is not a writ in stone, concrete thing, unchanging and stagnant. As human society evolves, so too will democracy. Iraq has helped speed up the process and a good thing too. As apalled as we all are at the carnage that has been unleashed on that unfortunate country, we can take some comfort in the fact that the invading countries have themselves undergone some fundamental changes. An important debate is taking place in the U.K. about giving Parliament a say in taking the country to war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1673996,00.html
Democracy as we currently practice it is not a writ in stone, concrete thing, unchanging and stagnant. As human society evolves, so too will democracy. Iraq has helped speed up the process and a good thing too. As apalled as we all are at the carnage that has been unleashed on that unfortunate country, we can take some comfort in the fact that the invading countries have themselves undergone some fundamental changes. An important debate is taking place in the U.K. about giving Parliament a say in taking the country to war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1673996,00.html
The Yes-men
Usually it is the yes men and invariably they are men, who get attacked for being what they are naturally.........which is.........yes-men/women. They can't help it. Thats what they are like. They follow. They position themselves where they can be of the greatest service to someone, anyone who'll just tell them what to do!! Shouldn't they have a right to cushy jobs?
Should we attack the yes-men or should we attack the system that creates and perpetuates this practice of using yesmen?
Should we attack the yes-men or should we attack the system that creates and perpetuates this practice of using yesmen?
Monday, October 10, 2005
Whats wrong with a lil' bit of nepotism?
Whats wrong with a lil' bit of nepotism? Probably nothing in the greater scheme of things.
Very likely goes on all the time.
A lot of family businesses may even owe their successes to a bit of "keep it in the family" kinda nepotism.
May even work in many cases, where it does not impede or injure others.
So! When exactly can we say that nepotism or any of its henchmen such as cronyism and favouritism becomes a problem?
First of all, it usually works in small Mom and Pop organizations, where problems are more readily apparent, than in larger organizations where there are many more variables.
It becomes a problem when the organization itself starts becoming dysfunctional and when others are trampled, over-looked or impeded in their own careers. It becomes a problem when it becomes the nepotism of the arrogant. Thats when nepotism becomes truly lethal, as in the case of New Orleans where real live, tax paying citizens have been, killed, injured, or worse, left living at the mercy of an Administration that, compounding the arrogance of appointing a one-time horse trainer to head up a national disaster relief/preparedness agency, continues to give disaster-relief tax dollars to its most favourite corporations to administer. This ensures that profit comes first and that relief is fitted in there somewhere, but thats another story for "accountabilitynow" for another time.
Nepotism thus takes on different meanings. Nepotism for survival in a small/family organization may be workable even desirable.
The nepotism of arrogance, the just because one can attitude, becomes a whole different kind of monster. A deadly monster in larger organizations, because arrogance invariably and demonstrably appoints mediocrity.
Bears repeating. Arrogance appoints mediocrity. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity.
Mediocrity always leads to corruption. Mediocrity inevitably leads to the demise of excellence, because mediocrity is the enemy of excellence. So! You end up with mediocre members who, in order to keep their own positions as cushy as can possibly be, recommend other mediocrities with the same goal and thus banishes the hard/visionary/inspired/creative work that excellence brings to the table. The kind of work that helps an organization stay competitive with the other sharks out there.
An organization that is filled with the spawn of nepotism is an unstable organization. It is riven with internal factions, each striving for dominance. Depending on the rank of ones relatives, levels of factions begin to form. Factions within factions. It is the perfect breeding ground for a possible dictator within the organization, as those appointed out of arrogance aren't usually the sharpest knives in the drawer. Their own survival will always, always, take precedence over the survival or the future health of the organization.
Mediocrity costs an organization more in real dollars as well, because as anyone knows it just simply takes a lot more mediocre people to do the job of a few talented ones. Mistakes and mediocrity also go hand in hand. A lot of resources that also cost real dollars get wasted like this.
Mediocrity fills an organizations rivals with talent. How? Remember that mediocrity always banishes excellence. That excellence sometimes ends up with a competitor, usually at much higher compensation. Thats because loyalty never needs to be highly compensated.
All this leads to sub-standard service, product, profits and eventually the demise of the organization itself.
They'll probably blame it all on the departure of the talent from their organization, because in the end.......Mediocrity always blames the excellent for the predictable result of mediocrity.
Very likely goes on all the time.
A lot of family businesses may even owe their successes to a bit of "keep it in the family" kinda nepotism.
May even work in many cases, where it does not impede or injure others.
So! When exactly can we say that nepotism or any of its henchmen such as cronyism and favouritism becomes a problem?
First of all, it usually works in small Mom and Pop organizations, where problems are more readily apparent, than in larger organizations where there are many more variables.
It becomes a problem when the organization itself starts becoming dysfunctional and when others are trampled, over-looked or impeded in their own careers. It becomes a problem when it becomes the nepotism of the arrogant. Thats when nepotism becomes truly lethal, as in the case of New Orleans where real live, tax paying citizens have been, killed, injured, or worse, left living at the mercy of an Administration that, compounding the arrogance of appointing a one-time horse trainer to head up a national disaster relief/preparedness agency, continues to give disaster-relief tax dollars to its most favourite corporations to administer. This ensures that profit comes first and that relief is fitted in there somewhere, but thats another story for "accountabilitynow" for another time.
Nepotism thus takes on different meanings. Nepotism for survival in a small/family organization may be workable even desirable.
The nepotism of arrogance, the just because one can attitude, becomes a whole different kind of monster. A deadly monster in larger organizations, because arrogance invariably and demonstrably appoints mediocrity.
Bears repeating. Arrogance appoints mediocrity. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity.
Mediocrity always leads to corruption. Mediocrity inevitably leads to the demise of excellence, because mediocrity is the enemy of excellence. So! You end up with mediocre members who, in order to keep their own positions as cushy as can possibly be, recommend other mediocrities with the same goal and thus banishes the hard/visionary/inspired/creative work that excellence brings to the table. The kind of work that helps an organization stay competitive with the other sharks out there.
An organization that is filled with the spawn of nepotism is an unstable organization. It is riven with internal factions, each striving for dominance. Depending on the rank of ones relatives, levels of factions begin to form. Factions within factions. It is the perfect breeding ground for a possible dictator within the organization, as those appointed out of arrogance aren't usually the sharpest knives in the drawer. Their own survival will always, always, take precedence over the survival or the future health of the organization.
Mediocrity costs an organization more in real dollars as well, because as anyone knows it just simply takes a lot more mediocre people to do the job of a few talented ones. Mistakes and mediocrity also go hand in hand. A lot of resources that also cost real dollars get wasted like this.
Mediocrity fills an organizations rivals with talent. How? Remember that mediocrity always banishes excellence. That excellence sometimes ends up with a competitor, usually at much higher compensation. Thats because loyalty never needs to be highly compensated.
All this leads to sub-standard service, product, profits and eventually the demise of the organization itself.
They'll probably blame it all on the departure of the talent from their organization, because in the end.......Mediocrity always blames the excellent for the predictable result of mediocrity.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Yes men, political hacks and cronies
US response to the victims of hurricane Katrina was plagued by the incompetence of the yes-man Bush had put in charge of the agency responsible for disaster relief.
Now, any halfwit will tell you that the presence of cronies, pals, yesmen and family members at the highest levels, or at the bureaucrat level, only leads to disaster.
Heres the million dollar question!!
Who is to blame?
Who will be accountable?
Is it enough for the yesman to merely resign after so many lives were needlessly lost, or for the guy who put this incompetent fool in charge, to theatrically proclaim that he takes responsibility?
I say not!! Both the yes man and his master must bear responsibility.
Lets put this system of bankrupting solid organizations via the cancers of cronyism, nepotism and favouritism, out of business once and for all.
Everybody has the duty and the right to challenge the directions and the hiring decisions of their own organizations. If any are found to fit the pattern, where cronies or yesmen are prevalent, then these must be purged from positions they obtained via their ass-kissing ways or their relations to those in power.
Now, any halfwit will tell you that the presence of cronies, pals, yesmen and family members at the highest levels, or at the bureaucrat level, only leads to disaster.
Heres the million dollar question!!
Who is to blame?
Who will be accountable?
Is it enough for the yesman to merely resign after so many lives were needlessly lost, or for the guy who put this incompetent fool in charge, to theatrically proclaim that he takes responsibility?
I say not!! Both the yes man and his master must bear responsibility.
Lets put this system of bankrupting solid organizations via the cancers of cronyism, nepotism and favouritism, out of business once and for all.
Everybody has the duty and the right to challenge the directions and the hiring decisions of their own organizations. If any are found to fit the pattern, where cronies or yesmen are prevalent, then these must be purged from positions they obtained via their ass-kissing ways or their relations to those in power.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Political accountability
The British are currently undergoing a soul searching and are demanding accountability from the Blairistas.
Unlike his predecessor, the late and much missed Robin Cook, who resigned from cabinet in protest against the illegal and brutal invasion of Iraq, the current Foreign Secretary Jack Straw still vociferously defends the actions of the blairistas and claims the London bombings have nothing to do with the atrocities being committed daily against the Iraqi people.
Have the citizens of Blairistan been served properly by having a yes-man like Straw blindly follow his master into Iraq, despite his alleged reported misgivings as stated by the now famous Downing Street memos?
Is simple removal from office sufficient punishment enough for the death and destruction wreaked on an innocent public in Iraq?
Unlike his predecessor, the late and much missed Robin Cook, who resigned from cabinet in protest against the illegal and brutal invasion of Iraq, the current Foreign Secretary Jack Straw still vociferously defends the actions of the blairistas and claims the London bombings have nothing to do with the atrocities being committed daily against the Iraqi people.
Have the citizens of Blairistan been served properly by having a yes-man like Straw blindly follow his master into Iraq, despite his alleged reported misgivings as stated by the now famous Downing Street memos?
Is simple removal from office sufficient punishment enough for the death and destruction wreaked on an innocent public in Iraq?
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Another CEO bites the dust
Bernard Ebbers, the CEO of WorldCom has just been sentenced to 25 years in prison for his role in the collapse of his company. It is said to be the largest accounting fraud in US corporate history.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar
/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1121291413255&call
_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar
/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1121291413255&call
_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
Friday, January 14, 2005
Highway 407 rip-off
Last week there was another court ruling that upheld the original bad contract the Conservatives signed when they privatized Highway 407 and once again proved that they are very bad when it comes to managing economic portfolios. Good for businesses-Bad for consumers.
The following is an editorial in the Toronto Star on the subject;
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_
Type1&c=Article&cid=1105614487708&call_pageid=
968256290204&col=968350116795
The editorial asks the question whether the case should be pursued, whether it is in the taxpayers interest.
I say yes and more. There are some other strategies that can be employed in this horrendous give-away of taxpayers' hard earned money.
The Conservative Party should be sued along with key cabinet ministers. This makes accountability a key factor in the process and makes political parties be accountable for the policies they push onto the taxpayers. It will also make cabinet ministers take the publics interests into account when making decisions.
It has the added advantage of securing more press coverage of an issue that should be of greater concern to the voting public.
The Government can also look at eliminating tax credits for those who claim travel as a tax deductible expense, thus forcing people who use the highway to pay for it's use out of their own pockets. This should put a serious dent in the number of users, affect the profitability of the highway and force the owners to re-open the contract and sign a better deal with the taxpayers of the province.
This giveaway of a key taxpayer owned asset should not be allowed to fade from memory.
The following is an editorial in the Toronto Star on the subject;
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_
Type1&c=Article&cid=1105614487708&call_pageid=
968256290204&col=968350116795
The editorial asks the question whether the case should be pursued, whether it is in the taxpayers interest.
I say yes and more. There are some other strategies that can be employed in this horrendous give-away of taxpayers' hard earned money.
The Conservative Party should be sued along with key cabinet ministers. This makes accountability a key factor in the process and makes political parties be accountable for the policies they push onto the taxpayers. It will also make cabinet ministers take the publics interests into account when making decisions.
It has the added advantage of securing more press coverage of an issue that should be of greater concern to the voting public.
The Government can also look at eliminating tax credits for those who claim travel as a tax deductible expense, thus forcing people who use the highway to pay for it's use out of their own pockets. This should put a serious dent in the number of users, affect the profitability of the highway and force the owners to re-open the contract and sign a better deal with the taxpayers of the province.
This giveaway of a key taxpayer owned asset should not be allowed to fade from memory.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Highway robbery-407 style
Once again the boondoggle known as privitization in Ontario has reared its ugly head in the form of the oft mentioned Highway 407.
Yet again the operators of this once taxpayer owned highway is plagued with troubles. Not satisfied with repeatedly raising rates, it has recently been revealed that it is double billing its customers. When said customers rightly refuse to pay twice, their cases are sent off to collection agencies and they are getting several calls a day to pay up. The foreign owners of this highway now want the province to suspend the licenses of those people who refuse to pay twice. How'd you like that?
A Toronto M.P. Mike Colle, held a public meeting to hear complaints from customers of this notorious highway.
This whole mess is a rotten deal. We were sold out by the government of the day, which was a Conservative one.
Our taxes built that highway and it was supposed to be paid off and then used to relieve the traffic jams on Highway 401. Instead the Tories sold the highway and inked a bad deal to boot.
Whoever said that Conservatives are good at managing the economy, should take a close look at this particular deal. It is a dead giveaway, with all the advantages being held by the owners of the highway.
If people who use this highway have problems in the future, they should consider suing the Ontario Conservative Party as well as former and current members of the cabinet and government that voted for what amounts to highway robbery.
In the meantime the Conservative Party ought to consider a name change.
The Highwaymen would be a good one.
Yet again the operators of this once taxpayer owned highway is plagued with troubles. Not satisfied with repeatedly raising rates, it has recently been revealed that it is double billing its customers. When said customers rightly refuse to pay twice, their cases are sent off to collection agencies and they are getting several calls a day to pay up. The foreign owners of this highway now want the province to suspend the licenses of those people who refuse to pay twice. How'd you like that?
A Toronto M.P. Mike Colle, held a public meeting to hear complaints from customers of this notorious highway.
This whole mess is a rotten deal. We were sold out by the government of the day, which was a Conservative one.
Our taxes built that highway and it was supposed to be paid off and then used to relieve the traffic jams on Highway 401. Instead the Tories sold the highway and inked a bad deal to boot.
Whoever said that Conservatives are good at managing the economy, should take a close look at this particular deal. It is a dead giveaway, with all the advantages being held by the owners of the highway.
If people who use this highway have problems in the future, they should consider suing the Ontario Conservative Party as well as former and current members of the cabinet and government that voted for what amounts to highway robbery.
In the meantime the Conservative Party ought to consider a name change.
The Highwaymen would be a good one.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Accountability for investors
SEC accuses Black of fraud
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a lawsuit against Conrad Black and his top deputy David Radler, accusing them of using the newspaper company they ran as their "personal piggy bank" over a period of four years.
In a suit filed in federal court in Chicago, where Hollinger International is based, the SEC accused Black and Radler of siphoning money from the company to themselves and then misleading the board about those transactions.
Stephen Cutler, the SEC's head of enforcement, said the two men ``abused their control of a public company and treated it as their personal piggy bank."
Hollinger publishes the Chicago Sun-Times and The Jerusalem Post. Until recently it also owned The Daily Telegraph of London.
The suit adds to Black's legal troubles. The Canadian-born businessman is already being sued by Hollinger International for the recovery of money it says he improperly diverted to himself and his associates.
The company's lawsuit makes broader accusations against Black and claims that he and his associates and companies under his control caused more than $500 million (U.S.) in damages to Hollinger International.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a lawsuit against Conrad Black and his top deputy David Radler, accusing them of using the newspaper company they ran as their "personal piggy bank" over a period of four years.
In a suit filed in federal court in Chicago, where Hollinger International is based, the SEC accused Black and Radler of siphoning money from the company to themselves and then misleading the board about those transactions.
Stephen Cutler, the SEC's head of enforcement, said the two men ``abused their control of a public company and treated it as their personal piggy bank."
Hollinger publishes the Chicago Sun-Times and The Jerusalem Post. Until recently it also owned The Daily Telegraph of London.
The suit adds to Black's legal troubles. The Canadian-born businessman is already being sued by Hollinger International for the recovery of money it says he improperly diverted to himself and his associates.
The company's lawsuit makes broader accusations against Black and claims that he and his associates and companies under his control caused more than $500 million (U.S.) in damages to Hollinger International.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)