|
Post by Balfour on Apr 29, 2008 16:28:46 GMT -8
Keep in Mind that you can control how anonymous you are on an internet forum and that you are free to speak your mind. It is your right to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 101 on Apr 30, 2008 9:35:39 GMT -8
You should be free to ask any question you want, within reason, provided that you keep it on subject of the theme of the forum and thread.
It is one of the benefits and joys of the internet. If you target a person or company – then they would have the right to reply – hopefully on the same forum, without taking any legal action.
Given that BC Ferries – has shareholder(s) and that share is owned by the government on behalf of the general population – which therefore makes them public property. There should be a level of transparency and accountability within BC Ferries and there governing Board. Here is where we sometimes find problems. We are seeing what can be described as possible conflicts of interest from certain board members and there own “private” business – which appear on the surface to be getting nice “Contracts of Supply” to BCF. This is where there should be more transparency. The Chairperson should come clean and explain more to the Public about the awarding of these contracts, which are not small amounts.
The word accountability has been raised not by me, but from reading local newspapers & Letters to the editors is questioning BC Ferries on a number of subjects – and in these letters – (complaints) – they are asking about the accountability within BC Ferries.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Apr 30, 2008 10:23:59 GMT -8
. There should be a level of transparency and accountability within BC Ferries and there governing Board. Here is where we sometimes find problems. We are seeing what can be described as possible conflicts of interest from certain board members and there own “private” business – which appear on the surface to be getting nice “Contracts of Supply” to BCF. This is where there should be more transparency. The Chairperson should come clean and explain more to the Public about the awarding of these contracts, which are not small amounts. Wrong. There is no obligation for anyone to respond to vague innuendo. The responsibility is yours, to explain exactly who you're refering to, where the impropriety is, who is in conflict of interest, and where the lack of transparency is. What, exactly, was wrong with the process of awarding any contract? Yes, the internet is a wonderful place. People can hide behind their anonymity and say what they wish.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Apr 30, 2008 12:55:03 GMT -8
One major problem with BCFS is that Campbell has removed it from all scrutiny. The CFA superseeds all provincial legislation including WCB and Health and safety, freedom of information and the ombudsman. Campbells appointed overseer, Crilly, need never explain his actions and can never be sued. Obfuscation is the least of it.
|
|
|
Post by cobblehillian on Apr 30, 2008 19:15:29 GMT -8
I think some here see the world in black and white. Its more complicated than that. We are dealing with a defacto public utility that is more protected by legislated secrecy than public investor owed enterprises. Frankly, I'm glad to see informed speculation and supposition and the odd anomyous tid it. Hopefully, all of this is based on the best information available and is put forward by honourable people with good intentions.
In the long run the elected Government of BC is going to reap what it has sown. Public institutions can't be run in private and protected by some sort of self appointed guardians on web sites. It's one of those things that sounds possible in theory but falls apart in the real world. BCF has millions of customers on its property every year. Each day the public is exposed to its property and practices. They are users and owners and should ask probing questions some of which may make some people uncomfortable.
Much of the frustration in getting information on BCF is well founded and justified. I can't find Hahn's salary since the bond prospectuses of 2004 but I can find the executive salaries and more financial accountability information from the private investor owned ferry companies in Scandanavia.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on May 1, 2008 9:20:02 GMT -8
I think some here see the world in black and white. Its more complicated than that. We are dealing with a defacto public utility that is more protected by legislated secrecy than public investor owed enterprises. Frankly, I'm glad to see informed speculation and supposition and the odd anomyous tid it. Hopefully, all of this is based on the best information available and is put forward by honourable people with good intentions. In the long run the elected Government of BC is going to reap what it has sown. Public institutions can't be run in private and protected by some sort of self appointed guardians on web sites. It's one of those things that sounds possible in theory but falls apart in the real world. BCF has millions of customers on its property every year. Each day the public is exposed to its property and practices. They are users and owners and should ask probing questions some of which may make some people uncomfortable. There are no 'self appointed guardians' protecting BC Ferries on this site. 'Informed speculation' is worthwhile and has a place in debate, and 'probing questions' to the politicians who created this public/private farrago, as well as to the people who administer it, are absolutely necessary. Manufactured scandal and vague innuendo, along with rhetorical suspicions based on little more than a carping mindset are an entirely different matter, especially if they come from someone who has a long history of such indulgences. Allegations of things such as contract improprieties, or of management people skimming extra money for consultancy services, should be backed up with some evidence, or they shouldn't be made.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on May 2, 2008 11:25:46 GMT -8
Neil. Bin there done that...to no avail. We took documented evidence of incompetence and malfeasance to the media. The first reporter we met with was very excited and was delighted that we had documents to back everything up. He figured he would blow BCFC out of the water. A week later he called and said he was sorry but his editor had killed the story. The second reporter we took it to was very excited and said he would make a whole series out of it. A week later he called back and said he was sorry but his editor had killed the story. The third reporter we took it to was very excited and said it was dynamite. A week later he called back and said he was sorry but his editor had killed the story. We even took it to Glen Clark. He was concerned enough to announce an investigation into BCFC management and finances. Suddenly his sundeck became big news and the investigation quietly went away. The documents we had were from BCFC itself and from checking BCFC records.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on May 2, 2008 11:55:12 GMT -8
KerrySSI: that having been the case THREE times, I would have thought that you would have shown more tenacity in getting the "truth" out there. You may have just glossed over it in the above account, but what actions were taken after the reporters "called you back a week later and said his editor had killed the story"?? Was there any follow up with either the reporter, or an effort to go over his head? I know that there are not really any competing major papers, but I am sure that a[/u] local paper would have taken the story and run with it, if, as you say, there was a level of conspiracy amongst the major papers...
"Backroom deals", as distasteful as they are, and as much as people want to pretend they are in the past, are still very much a part of everyday business and politics. Less so in some sectors, and in specific instances perhaps even non-existant, but by-and-large, they are still there, whether it be "an old boys network" or just "someone looking out for your best interests". Anyone that claims they aren't is either a fresh-faced newbie or a liar.
However, that being said, it is a lot harder these days to keep things like this from the light of day than it was in, say the 70's.
I find it hard to believe that 3 editors shut down a story, and that after having that happen, you did not pursue it further and make noise about it -- were they the same paper? I doubt it -- should have played one paper off against the other one then before offering up your story with the "did you know that paper-x killed a story that we brought to them because they are in bed with company-y?"[/b] -- create a scandal out of the cover-up by the competitor, then drop the story you want -- it would have been pretty hard for them to kill it knowing that you'd just handed them their competitor on a plate...
There are frequently many paths to achieve the same goal ... sometimes it is just a harder and longer road.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on May 2, 2008 14:46:36 GMT -8
We took documented evidence of incompetence and malfeasance to the media. from Wikipedia: The expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance, and occasionally malfeasance, are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law, custom or statute.Misfeasance is determined in relation to privity of contract. When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, the parties can do one of three things: (1) perform the duty fully; (2) perform the duty inadequately or poorly; or (3) fail to perform the duty at all. When a party fails to perform at all, it is nonfeasance. When a party performs the duty inadequately or poorly, it is misfeasance. Malfeasance is used to denote outright sabotage which causes intentional damagePretty strong word, kerryssi. I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to believe that if you had such devastating information, no media outlet would be interested in bringing it forward. You would have us believe that BC Ferries has more power over the media than Al Capone had over Chicago bootleggers in the twenties. The documents we had were from BCFC itself and from checking BCFC records. Were these documents obtained legally? If not, that might explain why some people were reluctant to deal with the story. If this was all public information, as the phrase 'checking BCFC records' infers, then this should be information that you would have no problem sharing with us. As Hardy remarks, there are a number of media outlets in this town, even more so now with internet sources such as The Tyee, and many others that are not under the yolk of Canwest, BellGlobe, or the other big players. Does BC Ferries have the clout to silence all of them, considering how contentious you say this information is?
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on May 3, 2008 9:18:22 GMT -8
As you no doubt know CanWest owns the major media in B.C. Asper owns CanWest. What they want printed gets printed, what they don't want printed doesn't. Go over whose head? To the editor who killed it? If I thought you might believe it I can show you deliberate sabotage of rte 9 in an attempt to destroy the route. How many witnesses would it take to convince you? The CEO swore to destroy the route. As I have said, I was there and experienced it first hand. It is not just BCFerries, it is also the government. BCFS management has very strong ties to the government. I have not kept the information. I passed it all ( 6 boxes full ) to the union when I retired. They can do what they want with it. I did not anticipate such forums as this. I do not intend to try to get into a long discussion here about BCFS as I sense it would be futile. The information came to me via various committees I served on over the years. For those who are interested, Patrick Brown of the Island Tides has a lot of information and has written several very informative articles about BCFS and the CFA. Unfortunately the paper is on Pender island so does not get much circulation. I belive they do have a web site so you can check that.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 101 on May 3, 2008 9:39:30 GMT -8
The Board that should actually Govern BC Ferries – needs to be totally impartial and independent.
So awarding contracts, from a Senior Board Directors company – makes it neither impartial nor independent. Here I am referring to Harris Cellular – for cell phone service & billing. I am sure there are other companies within BC that could offer the same service, with out the conflict of interest.
The make up of the Board is of concern. There is not a single Board member who has any senior level experience in the Maritime industry. (I would expect to see a retired Canadian Navy or Coast Guard officer on the board) There is no one who has knowledge or experience on handling a capital expenditure program of the value of $ 1 Billion dollars or more. We are lacking in that core experience, which to guide the executive team lead by David Hahn.
We are lacking experience and knowledge in key areas on this board, and with that the overall accountability of the business and the decision they make.
How does the Board know these are correct?
Do they just accept what Hahn and his team say or present to them?
How much of this – expenditure – terminals and new builds has been just rubber stamp – due to lack of knowledge or experience?
Neil we know you are special – but do you know enough on the deal’s done or been done to know that they are good for the company and its customers?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on May 3, 2008 11:08:54 GMT -8
As you no doubt know CanWest owns the major media in B.C. Asper owns CanWest. What they want printed gets printed, what they don't want printed doesn't. Go over whose head? To the editor who killed it? I have some personal familiarity with CanWest. But you missed the point- they are not the only organization in this province that disseminates news. If I thought you might believe it I can show you deliberate sabotage of rte 9 in an attempt to destroy the route. We're listening. Believe me, we are. How many witnesses would it take to convince you? Well... one would be a start. I'm not really that hard to please. I do not intend to try to get into a long discussion here about BCFS as I sense it would be futile. The information came to me via various committees I served on over the years. Fair enough; you didn't intend to get into a long discussion, but you have made some pretty intriguing and contentious, though somewhat vague, allegations about BC Ferries management shenanigans that you must have known would interest those of us who have more than just a 'fan' interest in the ferries. Although I share your contempt for the typical corporate mentality, I'm not prepared to believe that BC Ferries management eats their young for breakfast just because someone tells me it's so. It wouldn't be 'futile' to share some documentation of your charges with us, it would be very much appreciated and would make for a more valuable discussion than one based on rhetoric. For those who are interested, Patrick Brown of the Island Tides has a lot of information and has written several very informative articles about BCFS and the CFA. Unfortunately the paper is on Pender island so does not get much circulation. I believe they do have a web site so you can check that. I've read some of the pieces in Island Tides. Worthwhile stuff, although not quite of the nature that would have any BCFS directors swinging from the yardarms. So awarding contracts, from a Senior Board Directors company – makes it neither impartial nor independent. Here I am referring to Harris Cellular – for cell phone service & billing. I am sure there are other companies within BC that could offer the same service, with out the conflict of interest. Are you? Harris Cellular is a fairly large firm, with a number of large contracts. Are you familiar enough with the bidding process for this contract to know that there are grounds for suspecting that it was awarded improperly? The make up of the Board is of concern. There is not a single Board member who has any senior level experience in the Maritime industry. (I would expect to see a retired Canadian Navy or Coast Guard officer on the board) Alright, well, I've had a fair bit of dental work that hurt less than this admission, but, I agree with you. Although they do have some maritime experience on their executive. There is no one who has knowledge or experience on handling a capital expenditure program of the value of $ 1 Billion dollars or more. We are lacking in that core experience, which to guide the executive team lead by David Hahn. Come, now. Look over the resumes of their Board and try to tell me that this is a group of people that is lacking in long term, proven business expertise. That is pretty much all these people have. How much of this – expenditure – terminals and new builds has been just rubber stamp – due to lack of knowledge or experience? The terminal improvements have been excellent investments in terms of making the properties more self supporting. And since you have been telling us for years that British Columbians are incompetent at building ferries, how could you possibly argue with the fixed-price, guaranteed delivery contracts with an efficient builder such as Flensburger? What has been wrong, in a purely business sense, with the newbuild program? Neil we know you are special – but do you know enough on the deal’s done or been done to know that they are good for the company and its customers? Well, thank you, Cascade. I think you're... special, too. But, really.... the principle here is that when someone is making accusations or allegations about something, the onus is on them to provide some kind or corroborating evidence other than just suspicions and unsupported charges. I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by cobblehillian on May 3, 2008 12:58:06 GMT -8
I sense there is some psychic dissonance and agendas here. One the one hand an apologist for BCF, on the other a person exercising his right to make some comments; both are legitimate. Both positions are to be expected in the circumstances. BCF owns and operates public assets but doesn't adhere to the notions of transparency expected of a public institution. In a functioning democracy I am rather heartened that someone is putting forward some concerns, opinions and ideas to be prodded and poked.
I would suggest that insistence on a standard of truth higher than that attached to matters brought to a court to be tested is an unattainable standard designed to quell the publication of opposing views.
BCF has more secrecy than most investor owned enterprises. The board selection process, and many other decisions are made privately without any sort of public accountability. We don't even know much about how decisions are made by a self selected board. We do, however, see a big emphasis on public relations and corporate image, little substance other than corporate positioning on other matters.
Let's cut the carping and attempts to shut someone down. I always thought one was entitled to opinions even if they don't meet someone else's particular standards.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on May 3, 2008 13:41:59 GMT -8
The problem is not someone having a right to have their opinion and give their opinion. The problem is that people have this believe that the web gives someone the right to slander, spread innuendo, and impinge on someones credibility without impunity. The National Enquirer has a huge legal fund and you have to have a big purse to take them on. They make enough money they can afford to spread nonsense and pay any successful lawsuits and still come out on top.
Where is the protection of the individual? I know of one person who had her credibility undermined anonymously at her workplace by a constant onslaught on the web. Everyone assumed that the person responsible for the slander was someone who had been let go for reasonable grounds and any attempts at legal suits were summarily shut down and the actions of the company upheld. However, after a while the person made such damning comments the innocent person felt things changed for the worse for her and the damage was done. Coworkereventually told her where there is enough smoke there must be fire and she eventually left the company to escape the it.
Free speech doesn't equal taking advantage of people or companies. Some balance is necessary.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on May 3, 2008 13:48:20 GMT -8
I sense there is some psychic dissonance and agendas here. One the one hand an apologist for BCF, on the other a person exercising his right to make some comments; both are legitimate. Both positions are to be expected in the circumstances. BCF owns and operates public assets but doesn't adhere to the notions of transparency expected of a public institution. In a functioning democracy I am rather heartened that someone is putting forward some concerns, opinions and ideas to be prodded and poked.... Let's cut the carping and attempts to shut someone down. I always thought one was entitled to opinions even if they don't meet someone else's particular standards. Of course, dismissing someone as an 'apologist for BC Ferries' would never be seen as an attempt to shut someone down, or indicative of someone with an agenda, would it? Of course not. Coming from someone who has accused others of seeing things in black and white, your division of opinions into the free thinkers and the apologists seems a bit arbitrary. I'll continue to question positions that I see to be long on rhetoric and short on substantiation, as I'm free to, and if you object, no doubt you'll favour us with further missives on the psychic and discoursive meaning of it all.
|
|
|
Post by cobblehillian on May 3, 2008 18:00:30 GMT -8
Being called (not dismissed as) an apologist for BCF is my attempt at an objective characterization of your position. It is not intended to be derogatory, disrespectful, or negative. An apologist is a fancy word for someone who supports a particular point of view. It is just a brief statement of your position - nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing wrong with being an apologist.
I am trying to see where the truth lies here and your response represents more of a reaction to my and another persons remarks than anything else. I must have pushed the wrong button. I'm very sorry.
I respect your position and your right to hold it, although as you would understand I have a different position which I believe I have the right to hold without benefit of sarcasm.
I advanced a thesis on what seems to be a problem with BCF, i.e. an organization that is ostensibly owned by the public but has used legal and other means, such as a highly 'managed' approach to information so as to reduce transparency. This, of course, increases suspicions and tickles the public's scandal button. As well I have advanced a position regarding the public's right to be informed and the role of well intentioned speculation.
Unless the discussion moves re-focuses and moves forward I will be writing nothing further.
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on May 3, 2008 20:27:34 GMT -8
Being called (not dismissed as) an apologist for BCF is my attempt at an objective characterization of your position. It is not intended to be derogatory, disrespectful, or negative. An apologist is a fancy word for someone who supports a particular point of view. It is just a brief statement of your position - nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing wrong with being an apologist. I am trying to see where the truth lies here and your response represents more of a reaction to my and another persons remarks than anything else. I must have pushed the wrong button. I'm very sorry. I respect your position and your right to hold it, although as you would understand I have a different position which I believe I have the right to hold without benefit of sarcasm. I advanced a thesis on what seems to be a problem with BCF, i.e. an organization that is ostensibly owned by the public but has used legal and other means, such as a highly 'managed' approach to information so as to reduce transparency. This, of course, increases suspicions and tickles the public's scandal button. As well I have advanced a position regarding the public's right to be informed and the role of well intentioned speculation. Unless the discussion moves re-focuses and moves forward I will be writing nothing further. IMO there is a big diffence between a supporter and an apologist. I find the latter an insult.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on May 4, 2008 15:03:47 GMT -8
I spent many years battling BCFC management and yes, malfeasance is the word. I am tired of it. I am retired and do not intend to continue the battle, I leave that to others. I have simply pointed out some of my experiences. One does not need "secret" documents when the ones provided by BCFC are damning enough if you know when they are lying, what they are lying about and where to look for the truth.
I really do not care if anyone chooses to believe anything I say or not, but perhaps you should think about it. Neil..if you are interested PM me and I will give you and example of what I am talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 4, 2008 23:09:34 GMT -8
Why bother arguing. Gordon Campbell is getting his wish selling off B.C.
If BCF was run as a private company like it is supposed to be it would have gone broke a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 101 on May 5, 2008 7:44:08 GMT -8
The Board that over sees BC Ferries should be totally impartial.
As for the works carried out on the terminals - yes they are improving them - but are we the shareholders of the company getting value for money - and how actually do we know that we are getting said value. (I refer here to the current on going court case on the MV Kupper and cost over runs)
As for contracts been awarded - there should be a valued and open market tendering procedure. Have you seen anything concerning the tendering for such a contract? As for awarding it to Harris Cellular - given that the major shareholder is Tom Harris and his family - and that Tom Harris has been a long term Director of BC Ferries governing Board - I would think that the chairperson - would have been very careful in awarding this contract to make sure there was no "Conflict of Interest" and it was done all "above board - clean and open". In fact I would go as far to say - that the Chairperson should have made a great deal out of been totally impartial - sure would have helped the fact - not now after the contract has been awarded and the news is out.
As for Directors not having the relevant experience - some do, as they sit as "Professional Directors" on other boards - but again the same problems appear to come through. One returning Director had links to Rolls Royce Marine - and then we find BCFS buying in parts and equipment from Rolls Royce Marine . I trust we are getting a "directors discount"? (Some how I don't think so)
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Jul 9, 2008 20:28:35 GMT -8
Some background to concerns raised above...
B.C. Ferries sends cellphone business to vice-chairman's firm Paul Walton, Daily News Published: Tuesday, July 08, 2008
B.C. Ferries staff needing cellphone accessories are being told to go to a company owned by the vice-chairman of the B.C. Ferry Authority.
In a B.C. Ferry document to be filled out for changes to cellphone service, it is stated that new accessories "are to be ordered directly from Tom Harris," meaning Tom Harris Cellular Ltd.
B.C. Ferries has its service plan through Telus.
Harris is the owner of several Vancouver Island-based companies, including Tom Harris Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd., Island Kia, Harris Mitsubishi, and Tom Harris Cellular Ltd.
B.C. Ferries spokeswoman Deborah Marshall said that B.C. Ferries put out a request for proposals and that Tom Harris Cellular won the bid due to its many locations. Marshall said that Harris may not have even known about the contract.
"Mr. Harris, to my understanding, has limited information about the day-to-day operations and he would have absolutely no involvement in the request for proposals," said Marshall.
But Gary Coons, NDP MLA for the north coast and ferries critic, said there is no way to know that conflict guidelines were followed since B.C. Ferries has for several years been exempt from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy act.
"B.C. Ferries is following the government's example of lack of commitment to conflict-of-interest rules," said Coons.
Harris said that every year he discloses his business interests to B.C. Ferries and that through the course of regular business is aware one his companies may end up in the bidding process. He said there was a lengthy process in which Telus won the contract as service provider and his company the hardware.
"I think we were chosen because we have a very broad based group of stores on Vancouver Island," he said.
Marshall said Harris would have had to remove himself from any discussion around the contract under conflict of interest guidelines.
"We would have guidelines and any board member or director would have to abstain from any involvement," she said.
Harris said there was a fair and open bidding process. "I was not in the loop and didn't know we'd won the contract until B.C. Ferris told me," he said. "I'm totally comfortable that it was fair and above board throughout the bidding process."
Coons is calling for full oversight of B.C. Ferries that will allow the public to know how public money within the company is being spent.
"It's just a continuation of their shell game of keeping people in the dark," said Coons. "Insiders rule it would seem."
PWalton@nanaimodailynews.com
250-729-4230
© The Daily News (Nanaimo) 2008
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Jul 9, 2008 23:53:04 GMT -8
Tom Harris Cellular is probably the biggest Telus agent on the Island. With most of BC Ferries cellphones on the island then why go off island to deal with it. I don't see an issue with this.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 10, 2008 7:15:34 GMT -8
Having exclusive agreements with suppliers can give you substantial cost savings. Signing with a competitor to Harris Cellular that doesn't have the same number of locations and requiring your staff to buy from them would be a big inconvenience. The same is true for car purchases for company vehicles, office supplies, etc. When an area of conflict arises for a board member it is quite common for that member to be asked to leave the room if it is being discussed at a meeting. That person also doesn't vote on that area. Sure they would be privy to some of the discussions, unless that discussion is being held "in camera" which is kind of off the record and behind closed doors. A record fo the discussion would be made but it may not be put in the regular minutes that are widely circulated.
For a board to purchase supplies and/or services from the company of a board member is not a problem but they had better have their ducks all in a row and have done due dilligence.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 101 on Jul 14, 2008 10:35:09 GMT -8
Well it is now out in the open – public – via the press / media release from July 9th 2008. But I knew about it in May 2008 – as you can see from the date of my post. I actually knew about it many months before that. So why has it taken them more than 9 months to come forward on the deal / contract?
There are a lot of these types of contracts been awarded – which never make the press – public, given the size of the contract on offer, you would think that a company who wins it would welcome the extra free advertisement…but of course we don’t see this.
There are some other very interesting contracts out there – like training of crews, the awarding of a Contract for the video game machines onboard the ferries. You may think these are small – but actually they are pretty big in size of revenue generated for the business that wins them…..well over 7 figures plus. Good business if you can get it. Another interesting side note to all of this – it is not the biggest company in the filed that actually wins the deal either….
(I think kerryssi has a view on this also – under his views on BCFS management)
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Jul 14, 2008 16:23:08 GMT -8
Cascade, I would invite you to share with us the names of all the ferry companies which regularly issue general press releases regarding their open bidding processes for supply contracts, and also for the decisions on all those bids. Maybe you could point us to the section of Cal Mac's website that details the process for the awarding of their janitorial supplies contract, and which gives information on the principals in the management of the winning bidder.
BC Ferries has many suppliers for many aspects of their operations. 99.9% of the public could not care less who supplies their hamburger buns, and this cell phone issue might be of interest if there had been some suggestion from unsuccessful bidders that the tendering process was tainted. However, all we have is the NDP's connection of the winning company's name to a BC Ferry Authority vice-chairman. No evidence of favoritism or wrong doing from anyone, although I don't blame the NDP for bringing it up, given the lack of accountability that BC Ferries has.
You like to cast yourself as the watchdog asking the tough 'quesations', but so often your allegations suggest the old Monty Python routine, "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more"... lots of inference, very little substance.
|
|