labradore

"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Undisclosure

So the plot thickens.

Elections Newfoundland and Labrador is chronically incapable of posting public campaign finance disclosures within a calendar year of the statutory deadline for parties and candidates to submit their paperwork. That phenomenon has been documented in this corner ad nauseam.

More disturberesting, however, is the fact that at some point in the first half of 2017, Elections NL took upon itself to relieve us of all this disclosure by removing parties' annual financial disclosures from before 2009, and party election-campaign disclosures from before 2007, from its website.

On February 27, 2017, the Elections NL website still held an archive of "annual" and "election" campaign finance reports going back to 1996, when such reports were first required under amendments to the provincial Elections Act.

Sometime on or before June 18th, those archival reports were quietly bit-bucketed.

There's probably an explanation.

Not a very good or reasonable one, but an explanation nevertheless.


Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Disclosure delayed (V)

February 2019 is now nearly half over.

At Elections NL, there is still no sign of any political finance disclosure for calendar year 2017, nor for any by-election campaign held so far during the life of the current legislature.

Labels:

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Disclosure delayed (IV)

Per s. 299 of the Elections Act, the detailed reports of each registered political party's incoming financial contributions must be filed with Elections NL on or before April 1 of each year. For calendar year 2017, that period expired on April 1, 2018.

Per. s. 304 of the same act, the report of each candidate's incoming campaign contributions must be filed with Elections NL within four months of polling day. For the by-election held in Mount Pearl North on November 21, 2017, that deadline came and went on March 21, 2018.

In both cases — the annual contribution reports for parties for calendar years 2017, and the election contribution reports for the four candidates who ran in the November 2017 by-election — the documentation, which was due into Elections NL at least eight months ago, is still nowhere to be found on that office's website.

We are now ten days into calendar year 2019.


Labels:

Tuesday, December 04, 2018

Disclosure delayed (III)

In 27 days it will be 2019.

Over at Elections NL, there is still no sign of the 2017 political financial disclosures which have been in the hands of the elections office for months. Public release of the documents was promised "in the near future"... back in August.

Is it the near future yet?

That was the same time, incidentally, that the same elections administrator said that financial reports from the November 21, 2017 Mount Pearl North by-election would be finalized "in the coming weeks."

The candidates in that by-election, per s. 304 of the Elections Act, had until March 21, 2018 to submit that documentation.

Labels:

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Disclosure delayed (II)

With 41 days to go before it's 2019, the most recent Elections NL political finance disclosures are from calendar year 2016.

And on the eve of the anniversary of the electoral event, there is likewise no sign of the campaign finance disclosures for the November 21, 2017 by-election in Mount Pearl North.


Labels:

Wednesday, November 07, 2018

Disclosure delayed

With seven weeks to go before it's 2019, the most recent Elections NL political finance disclosures are from calendar year 2016.

With two weeks to go before the anniversary of the electoral event, there is likewise no sign of the campaign finance disclosures for the November 2017 by-election in Mount Pearl North.


Labels:

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Juneday

It is June 1, 2017.


As of today, Elections NL has still not posted a disclosure of campaign contributions to the candidates who ran in the November 2015 provincial general election.


In one nod to very-delayed accountability, the disclosure of contributions to central party coffers was posted on May 18th. Contrary to the provisions of the Elections Act, Elections NL did not distinguish contributions made during the campaign period from other contributions during that calendar year.

Labels: ,

Monday, May 01, 2017

Mayday

It is May 1st, 2017.

Elections Newfoundland and Labrador has still not posted annual and campaign-period political financing disclosure reports for calendar year and election period 2015.



Labels: ,

Monday, April 03, 2017

Access denied

Section 299 of the provincial Elections Act provides as follows:


299. (1) Where an authorized person, on behalf of a registered party accepts, in a year, a contribution, the chief financial officer of the party shall record the contribution as to amount and the name and address of the contributor.
...
(3)   A registered party shall file with the Chief Electoral Officer, within the period during which an annual financial statement shall be filed, a return with respect to contributions that either individually or in sum exceed $100 setting out all the information required to be recorded under subsections (1) and (2).
Read in conjunction with s. 303, the deadline for filing that return of "annual" political finance contributions is April 1st.


That is, the deadline for registered parties to file their financial returns for calendar year 2016 expired on Saturday past.


As of now, Elections Newfoundland and Labrador has still not posted such annual returns for calendar year 2015, which were due on April 1, 2016, nor the campaign-period returns relative to the 2015 election, which were due the day before that.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Elections Dannystan rides again

As happened after the 2007 election, and as happened after the 2011 election, Elections Newfoundland and Labrador, for some inexplicable reason, took the full nine months given to it under statute to publish the "book" containing poll-by-poll results of the latest provincial election.

This length of time to publish such detailed results is entirely out of line with the practice in every other province; each of which, with the exception of PEI, has more polling stations, votes, parties, and candidates whose vote tallies need counting and verification.

This corner is not going to link to that "book".

Why not? Because for equally inexplicable reasons, Elections NL has published a PDF "book" that clocks in at an absolutely staggering 218.9 megabytes in size.

Try downloading that in Makkovik.

That bloated file size, incidentally, runs counter to the provincial government's own web-publishing standards, which state:
Compression and optimization techniques should be used to keep file sizes small. This includes all files which are delivered to the web browser, such as html/css/scripting files, images, audio and video files, and document/application files (pdf, word, etc.)


By way of comparison, here are the file sizes for the PDF version of the last six provincial election results. The first two of these (1996 and 1999) are simply black-and-white graphical scans of a printed copy, because apparently computers and internets and digital pre-press and so forth didn't exist in the mid- to late-1990s.



To their credit, Elections NL did, for the first time ever, publish the detailed results on-line in a machine-readable format. (Zipped Excel file link.)

To their debit, each electoral district is a separate page. Sheesh.

And, not for the first time, the "book" of detailed election results was not actually published for more than a month after the date which the "book" itself bears:

 
But wait! There's more! The PDF version was not posted to the internet for computers for more than two weeks after the date on which the incredibly bloated PDF was generated using InDesign:
 
 
 
The poll-by-poll data itself has existed in its final form for months — at least since early June, if not before. For reasons that remain mysterious and unique to Elections NL, it was not made public until now.
 
Again, this bears repeating and underlining: just because the statute gives you a nine-month limit in which to do something for the public's benefit, does not mean you have to take all nine months.
 
The acting Chief Electoral Officer also alludes to the forthcoming report on candidates' expenditures. If past shoddy practice at Elections NL is anything to go on, the financial returns relative to the 2015 general election campaign, and political contributions for calendar year 2015, may be published by December. (Next door in Nova Scotia, the 2015 financial figures, which incorporates many more data points than the comparable NL reports, were published in June.)
 
If the provincial government is looking to engage in a little democratic reform, as promised at para 1.4.2 of their election platform last fall, tightening up the practices of the elections office, which are completely out of wack with comparable practices in every other Canadian jurisdiction, would be a most excellent place to start.

Labels:

Thursday, August 11, 2016

How'd they vote?

As usual, it is taking Elections Newfoundland and Labrador an unusual amount of time, compared to its peers in other Canadian jurisdictions, and given the small number of data points involved, to publish the final poll-by-poll results of last November's provincial election.

So here they are, in cleverly colour-coded map format. Enjoy.


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

You can run it through a scanner, but you can't hide

A four-month old report containing recommendations on beefing up St. John's City Council's conflict of interest rules was finally posted on Wednesday, deep within the bowels of the City's website, and without any obvious link near the top of that site's navigation, after it was leaked.

Volume I — where's Volume II? — of the report by former Premier and Chief Justice Clyde Wells is intitled "Report to St. John's City Council on Recommended Adjustments to The City's Existing Ethical Conduct Legislation".

The report is fairly hefty and, for those interested in such matters, quite fascinating and eye-opening.

The reaction of City Council, of course, is to freak out about the fact that this document, dated September 2015, ever got before the public's eye in the first place.

The cat being out of the bag, the folks in New Gower Street decided they might as well post the report to the internet for computers. Despite being "born digital", the document was, naturally, printed off, then run through a scanner before being posted as a PDF.

A non-textual PDF.

Since it only takes a few seconds to convert a non-textual PDF to much more useful textual one, this corner has taken it upon itself to rectify this obviously inadvertent oversight on the part of the very open and transparent municipal government in St. John's. Here you go, OCR errors excepted.

Labels:

Friday, July 17, 2015

Copywrong

In 2003, Dear Leader's platform promised, and we quote, for the umpteenth time:
“A Progressive Conservative government will ... release to the public every government-commissioned report within 30 days of receiving it, indicate the action government will take on a report's recommendations within 60 days, and ensure prompt public access to all government reports in hard copy and on the Internet”
Dear Leader's government and party have had, at best, a spotty adherence to this solemn vow.

But now they have come up with a clever new way of breaking it. Pity the poor sod who made Access to Information request ENV/21/2015, only to receive a redacted version:


But even that is better than what "the public" — as in, "release to the public" — have, or will receive. The report, despite being "government-commissioned", has not been released on the internets, neither proactively, nor in response to the ATI request. The publicly-posted version of the request notes:
Potential copyright materialIf you wish to obtain a copy please contact the ATIPP Office at (709) 729-7072 or atippoffice@gov.nl.ca.
Pro tip to the legal geniuses in DannyGov DunderGov DavisGov: put a standard clause in all your contracts for commissioned reports, that either assign or license the copyright in that commissioned report to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is hardly the only such case. There have been at least 53 such "proactively released" ATI request packages in which some or all of the substantive part of the return have been withheld from public release on the same flimsy ermagerd cerpyrert grounds. Many of them are, naturally, the same type of "government-commissioned report" that Dear Leader promised, a dozen years ago, would be routinely released within 30 days of their receipt.

And why did Dear Leader make that promise?

Because His research staff were having trouble getting access to government-commissioned reports.

Labels:

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Legislative innovation

Ahhh... open government.

The ever-innovative people who brought you classics such as "There Are No Purple Files", "A .csv document Is A Computer Program", "That'll Be $10,000 Please, " and "We Used Electricity To Scan This Excel Spreadsheet So Now It's An Electronic Record", now bring you this, from recently-releases CYFS ATI release package CYFS/006/2015 [pdf link]:



And, starting at page 43 of the release package, this:

Pop quiz: Which legislative provision allows a body which is subject to the Access to Information Act to redact requested records because of swears?

Never let it be said that The Most Open And Accountable Government In The World is incapable of innovation. If it isn't in the Act... they will just make it up.

Labels:

Thursday, May 07, 2015

Can't do that, you're not 'llowed

For mysterious reasons known only to The Most Open And Transparent Government Evar (TMOATGE), you are not allowed to copy and paste text from the PDF of TMOATGE's final budget speech.


Labels:

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Crazy but fun but true fact

If you can take a bunch of GIS shapefiles, mix 'em up in ESRI ArcMap, and then from ArcMap, generate a PDF that you then post to the internets...


...then you can also post the original source shapefiles to the internets:

In a related matter, does anyone have a clue why the staff cartographers within the government of Newfoundland and Labrador are so reluctant, if not downright stubborn, when it comes to releasing raw GIS files of government-produced cartographic data into the wild?

Steve Kent? Anyone? This thing on?


Labels:

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

No more secret deals? No! More secret deals!



3.2.2      The Milestone Date of "Within 18 months following the actual date of Phase 1 Completion" is deleted where it appears in Section (c) in the Table following Section 4.1A.2.

3.2.5      There is added to Article 4 a new Section 4.4B as follows:

                4.4B Definitive Unprocessed Nickel Charge (2014) The Proponent shall pay to Government a definitive unprocessed nickel charge in respect of Nickel-in Concentrate exported from the Province pursuant to the Additional Exemption (2014) ("Definitive Unprocessed Nickel Charge (2014)"). The Definitive Unprocessed Nickel Charge (2014) shall be calculated using the same formula as is currently in Section 4.4A of the Agreement in respect of the Definitive Unprocessed Nickel Charge, but the rate of 8% shall be increased to 11% in respect of the Definitive Unprocessed Nickel Charge (2014). All other provisions of Section 4.4A shall apply to the calculation of the Definitive Unprocessed Nickel Charge (2014), mutatis mutandis.

3.2.6      Section 4.7A.2 is amended by deleting the date "30 September 2014" and replacing it by the date "30 April 2015"

3.5.1      The Table following Section 15.5 is amended by deleting therefrom the last line "4.1A.2(c) – Processing Plant. "Phase 2" Completion (18 months following the date of "Phase 1" Completion) – 90 days".

4.6          Confidentiality. The Government and Proponent agree that the provisions and information described below each contains commercially sensitive information and shall be maintained in strictest confidence and not disclosed to the public, all in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Agreement:

(a) the Milestone Date provided in Section 3.2.2 of this Sixth Amendment Agreement;
(b) the amount of the Definitive Unprocessed Nickel Charge (2014);
(c) the date upon which the Benefits Plan shall be agreed upon as provided in Section 3.2.6 of this Sixth Amendment Agreement;
(d) the removal of a “Phase 2” Completion date under Section 3.5.1 of this Sixth Amendment Agreement; and
(e) this Section 4.6.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions and information described in Section 4.6 may be disclosed to the public when such information is no longer commercially sensitive as determined by the Parties acting reasonably, and the provisions of Section 9.3 of the Agreement shall not apply to any such disclosure, provided that the particulars of the dollar amounts of the Liquidated Damages and the Contingent Unprocessed Nickel Charge may only be disclosed with the prior Approval of the Proponent.

The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Section 4.6 shall not apply to preclude the public disclosure in general terms by the Government of the nature and effect of this Sixth Amendment Agreement, nor prevent the disclosure by the Government of any information concerning the subject matter of this Sixth Amendment Agreement which has been publically disclosed by the Government prior to the date hereof.

Labels:

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Lede buried

From the tail end of the recent CBC report concerning the political finance history of Justice Robert Stack:
Stack told CBC News the donations were made by his law firm on his behalf, adding that "they don't show any blind allegiance to a party," and he wasn't even aware of the amounts actually donated
Um, wut?

Labels: ,

Monday, January 19, 2015

Electoral deadlines

As of this evening January 18, 2015, Elections Newfoundland and Labrador has still not published party financial disclosures for 2013.

This is a perennial problem. The financial disclosures for the seven calendar years from 2012 through 2006, inclusive, were not published until, respectively, 374, 359, 431, 348, 331, 483, and 436 days after the close of that year. On an average, it takes Elections NL until the end of January to disclose party and candidate financials from the calendar year two years before.

Oh — and the annual report for 2011, which did sneak in under the wire before 2012 came to a close, failed to distinguish regular contributions to political parties from those made during the campaign period, as required by s. 299 of the Elections Act. Elections NL has still not explained this lack of disclosure.

Elections NL has not published any candidate's campaign finance documentation for any of the by-elections held so far during the life of the current legislature, including two — Cartwright–L'anse au Clair and Carbonear–Harbour Grace — which were held two calendar years ago, in 2013. Nor is there any sign of that for the Virginia Waters by-election, held nine months ago in April 2014.

It is probably too much to expect that the financial reports from more recent by-elections — St. George's–Stephenville East in August, and Conception Bay South, Humber East, and Trinity–Bay de Verde — would yet be available. But it is not too much to expect the release by now of the detailed, official poll-by-poll voting results of those by-elections, given the relatively light work that such a job would entail. But no: there is no sign of them, either.

The most recent by-election report is that for Virginia Waters, which is dated September 23, 2014 — 167 days after polling day. On average, since 2003, it has taken Elections NL nearly four months to publish official by-election results. Entire, large provinces report the poll-by-polls of their entire general elections in less time. It takes Elections NL, on average, the entire nine months they are given by statute, to publish poll-by-poll results of a general election. This, in the second-least-populous province, and in an era when other provincial electoral offices are able to do so in mere weeks, or even days. This is a perennial problem, but not one which causes Elections NL any embarrassment.

They would appear to be incapable of it.

There's more. Of course there's more. Even after Elections NL finally gets around to "publishing" its report — it defines "publishing" as sending a copy to the legislative library — it can take additional weeks for the House of Assembly to accept the report, either by tabling it or deeming it tabled. There are entire swathes of by-electoral history which have never been tabled in the House of Assembly, for reasons unknown.

In the last two sets of by-elections, Elections NL has even managed to publish the wrong preliminary count on election night in Humber East and Conception Bay South, even as the scrutineers for one of the political parties, working from the exact same set of election-night Deputy Returning Officer tallies, came up with the correct figure before their victory parties were even shut down.

(And don't even think of asking for the same type of digital district and polling-division boundary files that other electoral officers routinely make available for download.)

All of which is why it would be funny, if it weren't so serious, that Elections Newfoundland and Labrador has given everyone a heads-up that they are setting a pretty firm deadline for the redrawing of the provincial electoral boundaries:

Labels: , ,

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Not quite getting this "openness" thing (Part II)

On December 5th, the Office of Public Engagement released a wonderful collection of reports documenting some of the things they have learned through their internal and external consultations over the past number of months.

Records on the internal consultations, sounding out government's own employees on issues of openness and disclosure, are fascinating reading. It is quite clear that when it comes to transparency and access to information, there are many inside government who "get it".









And then there are the others. The ones who are still cowering like sand crabs in a shell of paranoia, second-guessing who wants what information and why. The ones who keep coming up with supposed technological and other obstacles to sharing information that exist only in their imaginations, and not in the real world. The ones who obsess over "misuse" of information — whatever that is.

A sampling:


Making Government more open
  • Careful not to put too much data info out that is too much and becomes not useful or used.
  • Will it be interesting to people, or will it be of minimal interest?
  • The people who were interested might only be mildly interested
  • We don’t have the people power and money to upload all of this in presentable forms
  • The problem with making everything free, there is a potential misuse of information
  • Why put up the information public if it has only 4 views?
Improving Public Engagement
  • Do away with Fridays
  • We have already proactively disclosed of a lot of information, like expenses and salaries and it doesn’t really make much of a difference
Improving Collaboration
  • Putting policies up online can be open to interpretation, so that can also cause a problem when uploading them
  • Hard to talk about collaboration when approval to travel to this session was questioned.
Information Sharing
  • Try to limit the amount of information that has to go through a democratic process
  • Tricky to decide what information needs to be released and what doesn’t
  • Putting information up on the website has increased the sensitivity internally about what is shared.
  • The release of some of the ATIPP requests online actually deter some from requesting information
  • Then there is a problem of people paying for information currently, then everyone gets it anyway
  • But without putting money on it, then people will make frivolous requests and ask for multiple things and all the information
  • I think there is a culture of ownership of government works and that it can’t be shared
  • Need to get over the fear of releasing the information.
  • Sometimes the information that public is seeking is not going to help me do my job. I wouldn't take the time to collect.
  • Government needs to “get over” the fear of providing information
Data Sharing
  • How do you decide what is meaningful to share; need to have dialogue with people to understand that (Combination of pillars!)
  • Does the public really want such information and is it worth it compared to the costs to do this?
  • Are people doing anything with it? Are we just liberating data for no reason, is there a net outcome?
  • Unless there is a demand, should it be released?
  • More is not always best
  • Formats would have to be the same across government
  • The volumes of data make it impractical to share everything
  • Need to figure out what people need to know
Additional Comments
  • Is it really the public that wants this or is it politics?
  • Maybe some people just want government to do their jobs
  • Ensure that released data is indeed appropriate to be released (quality, privacy, etc.)
What We Heard: Data Session
  • Personal privacy is an issue—must be protected; what is the intent of people wanting such information
  • Formats that aren’t accessible to broad public i.e GIS mapping
  • Types of information can be left open for interpretation
  • Ever changing data – when do you draw the line
  • The public don’t want a table full of data
  • You don’t want just the ticked off people
  • We have to keep in mind political sensitivities

This corner, for one, would truly be fascinated to learn more about this idea of abolishing Fridays.

Labels: