Released on May 01, 2014, 12:30 AM EDT
Tag #: 668

Matichuk’s Global Office spending under scrutiny

Speech writing expense controversy…Tax payers dodged thousands of dollars


Matichuk: “Yours to discover” 
(Part 3 of 4)

According to leaked invoices, upon the conclusion of her election campaign, Greater Sudbury`s mayor Matichuk did not forget to treat her closest allies at the expense of taxpayers. WikiLeaks Sudbury also uncovered that Matichuk`s campaign manager Paul Demers was paid $29,380.00 for his services. Additionally Matichuk was being advised by journalist Rejean Grenier, both before and after the last election, who also received an undisclosed amount from her global office budget. 

New allegations surface on speech writing expenses

Conway Fraser is the managing director of Fraser Strategies Inc and he worked with Matichuk on her election campaign. Matichuk was generous to pay $3,390.00 to Fraser Strategies Inc. for her 2010 inaugural speech writing. Additionally, Fraser Strategies Inc. includes speech delivery preparation, and media training in their service charges. The invoice was submitted on December 06, 2010 and was paid in full (see Leaked Invoice 01). WikiLeaks Sudbury also uncovered that Fraser Strategies Inc, identifies as a vendor 22084 and is paid under account #: 61103.01.0205.

Again, Matichuk hired a consultant to write her “State of the City” speech in 2011 at the cost of taxpayers. This time she hired Grenier & Associes Inc. but the amount that was paid to the consultant was not uncovered. It is now a mystery for taxpayers as to how much tax dollars Matichuk spent   to write her 2011 “State of the City” speech.  Grenier & Associes Inc. were identified as vendor 23758 (see leaked invoice 02) and the total amount was paid in full using tax dollars on October 11, 2011.

Matichuk’s 2011 “State of the City” address cost taxpayers more than just speech writing. In order to prepare her PowerPoint presentation, she hired Keystone Consulting. Keystone Consulting categorized their charges as follows: Services for Design and Layout $ 508.50 (see leaked invoice 03), Photographic Service $1,412.50 (see leaked invoice 04) and Photography service for side walk $316.40 (see leaked invoice 05). The Keystone Consulting bill therefore cost taxpayers a total of $2,237.40. Keystone Consulting identifies as vendor # 15376 and all expenses were paid in full under account # 61103-01-0205.

Summary of Speech Writing Expenses for 2010 and 2011

Matichuk on Training Wheels

Matichuk again hired Keystone Consulting but for computer training at the cost of taxpayers. Keystone Consulting charged $ 45.00 per hour for 2 hours to train her on how to use the computer (see leaked invoice 06). The invoice was submitted on May 05, 2011 and was paid in full on May 06, 2011. These computer training sessions cost taxpayers $101.70.

Widespread distrust of politicians and bureaucrats in the City hall
Speech writing expense scandal could be the tip of the iceberg

At the centre of the allegations against Matichuk is an alleged pattern of behaviour that saw taxpayers paying expenses for services that are unnecessary for the taxpayers to cover. For example, Matichuk hired other entities to assist her with her speech writing instead of utilizing her own staff. This therefore suggests that Matichuk has doubts concerning the competence of these individuals, and yet, continues to pay them high salaries using, again, tax dollars. The staff that should have been utilized for such matters consist of: Christine Hogarth, Chief of staff (former senior adviser to Progressive Conservative Premier, Mike Harris) and Mike Whitehouse, communications and policy adviser (former Sudbury Star City Hall reporter). To further illustrate the example, according to the 2012 public salary disclosure, Christine Hogarth alone was paid $116,484.20 and $4,200 in benefits. The events of the Matichuk era created a sense among taxpayers that overspending and using public money for personal benefits may be widespread. Greater Sudbury taxpayers voiced that the overspending issue appeared to be a problem “that may be uncovered in every department” within city hall.

WikiLeaks Sudbury investigators continue to explore multiple leads to ascertain all the facts. We will update Sudbury taxpayers accordingly.

RCMP laid criminal charges for inappropriate expense claim


Senator Patrick Brazeau and Senator Mac Harb

Breach of trust in the Public Office is a criminal offense. Once the senators’ expense scandal surfaced, Senator Patrick Brazeau and retired Senator Mac Harb were charged by the RCMP with one count each of fraud and breach of trust related to inappropriate Senate expense claims under sections 122 and 380 of the Criminal Code.

Institutional Reform and Fraud and Corruption Commission

The speech writing scandal has shined an unflattering light on the City hall and exposed its lack of accountability and culture of entitlement. Sudbury`s taxpayers inflated a giant city hall balloon on the Tom Davies Square. Sudbury taxpayers are fed up with politicians and bureaucrats and are wondering how deep the flagrant spending abuse runs. These allegations regarding misspending were perceived as a sign that more accountability was needed for all use of public money. Widespread spending abuse must be halted. The Fraud and Corruption Commission must be called in and politicians and bureaucrats involved with defrauding public funds should be criminally charged. The City of Greater Sudbury should take “more visible action.”

A consensus has developed over the importance of reforming, the city of Greater Sudbury to strengthen integrity, transparency and accountability and to prevent and combat corruption. Institutional reform will topple the political and bureaucratic empire at City hall and also protect the taxpayers.

Tomorrow you have an opportunity to stand strong and use your power to restrain the unaccountable expenses and power of the politicians and bureaucrats in the City hall.

Matichuk: “Yours to discover”

Leaked Documents:

Related Articles

-----------------------------------------End

Editorial
Released on May 01, 2014 at 12:30 AM EDT

This paper initially presented at the ISPAC conference on Responding to the Challenge of Corruption, Milan. Excerpts from the paper as follows.

Prevention: An Effective Tool to Reduce Corruption

Conscientious mayors and municipal managers are generally concerned about the quality of municipal services and how to improve municipal efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, accountability, and value for money. They want to know residents’ opinions of the services provided, find out where corruption may be siphoning resources, install a Local Integrity System to improve service delivery, and enhance the image of the municipality. Municipal and other sub-national workshops are part of a four-phase program to introduce a Municipal (or sub national) Integrity System. At first level, is intended to help build a coalition in support of reform by focusing on discussions with local stakeholders and deciding on the modalities for a program. This is done through a Municipal Integrity Workshop. The specific objectives of this first workshop are to: (a) determine the views of the workshop participants regarding the provision of municipal services by conducting an informal opinion poll; (b) seek agreement on the importance of an improved service delivery system to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery; and (c) introduce the idea of a Local Integrity System to enhance accountability and transparency

This paper introduces an anti-corruption strategy that includes a governance program. The strategy aims at empowering individuals, communities, and governments by disseminating knowledge in turn, results in greater government accountability and transparency—central elements in building institutional capacity and improving service delivery. It governments work more efficiently and helps the entire society participate in building an enabling environment for equitable and sustainable growth resulting in timely and cost effective services delivered to its public.

The anti-corruption strategy advocated in this paper rests on four pillars: (a) economic development; (b) democratic reform; (c) a strong civil society with access to information and a mandate to oversee the state; and (d) the presence of rule of law. The governance program facilitates, at the request of client Governments, a series of anti-corruption anti/integrity workshops, seminars, and surveys involving broad segments of society, and national and local government. Such instruments have served to empower civil society and improve service delivery through greater transparency and accountability. Working in partnership with governments and civil society, the program continues to help develop National Integrity Systems.

First, the basic institution of good governance needs to be strengthened. At the head of this list is the judiciary, which is itself the guardian of laws and integrity. But if the judiciary is itself corrupt, the problem is compounded and the public at large without rule of law.

Second, the capacity and integrity of enforcement need to be enhanced. The best law has no value if it is not enforced. The best judges and magistrates are wasted if cases are never brought to them. Good investigations are wasted effort if the judge or magistrate is corrupt.

Third, a government needs to put in place a solid set of preventive tools. Codes of Conduct and strong independent oversight bodies can help ensure that the acceptable standards of behaviour are respected in both the private and public sector. Political leaders in all branches of government, legislative and judiciary can be required to have transparency in their own financial dealings through asset disclosure for themselves and their family members.

Fourth, the public needs to be educated on the advantages of good governance and participate in promoting it. The public itself bears a large share of responsibility for insisting on honesty and integrity in government and business. The public needs to learn: (a) not to let anybody buy their vote; (b) not to pay bribes themselves; (c) to report incidents of corruption to the authorities; and (d) to teach their children the right values; e.g. that integrity is good and corruption is bad.

The wider implications of broad participation are even more promising as a means of prevention—giving teeth to citizenship, generating broader consensus and even producing a workable social contract upon which to base reform and development priorities and programs. This type of empowerment combined with other practical tools constitutes best practice in preventing corruption.

The use of common sense indicators generated by user groups among the citizens of the South and the taxpayers of the North can be utilised to clear the smoke. Through the specification of clear criteria for success publicised by stakeholders on interactive web pages, much can be accomplished to improve transparency. Once the citizens of the North, whose taxes assist those of the South, and the users in the developing world can evaluate the effectiveness of programs and approaches much will change. The debate will be animated but rather than institutional rhetoric, actions whose impact can be independently monitored will do the talking.

If there are many unanswered questions, there are also as many challenges. First, the question of the sequencing of reforms. This will differ from municipality to municipality, but actually working out precisely where to start in the process is an important one as it will dictate much of the path ahead. It is in this context that the “national integrity system workshop” can be most effective, providing as it does an opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in a process that otherwise tends to be dominated, for no good or compelling reason, by lawyers.

A particular challenge for the outsider is to identify the appropriate (and clean) partners in a given country. There may be many who offer themselves, but the outsider must be able to determine what hidden agendas there may be and what individual motivations are as well as gain a reading on where the people concerned stand in their community. This dictates a special role for civil society in a country from the very outset so as to ensure that the reform process is fostered with the right “champions”. The road blocks, too, need to be identified from the outset, and the base line of acceptable (or perhaps better described as tolerable) conduct which the people are prepared to live with, defined.

The credibility of enforcement and watchdog agencies is crucial to the building of public trust and confidence. Credible agencies will attract public co-operation, both as complainants and as witnesses. An institution lacking in trust will not. And at the heart of credible institutions lies their manifest and popularly-accepted integrity. Their leaders must role model conduct of the highest kind.

Essential to curbing corruption is undertaking and maintaining the public’s confidence in the State as an institution. It is dependent upon the people’s loyalty to its philosophy and policies regarding the development of the society’s social, economic, and political welfare.

Editor
WikiLeaks Sudbury
May 01, 2014