Where did all the money go to Attawapiskat?

[Michael Hardner]

It wasn't a real question. It was rhetoric, and a red herring at that. We all know the answer to the question, which is no,

Ok - there you go. So a suggestion to `fire` the Band leadership is probably even more difficult, I would assume.

'm not sure if you're referring to the accusations that your questions are bunk, but a bunch of them are, such as the one above.

Not at all. They illustrate a point - all of them. I don't ask questions for no reason.

It's not the audit's job to make those conclusions. ... There is zero chance that the Attawapiskat band was unaware that their level of record keeping was unacceptable because they were told and warned numerous times that it wasn't. That, my friend, is operating in bad faith.

I don't think that amounts to bad faith, I think it amounts to incompetence - which we've already covered.

Perspective about what constitutes good management? That's a pile of tripe, sorry, as is your fluffy implication that the gross incompetence and bad faith dealings of the Attawapiskat band don't really have any bearing on the current situation. As far as anyone knows, the situation in Attawapiskat is way worse than it needs to be because of Theresa Spence and her band.

You're misrepresenting me now - where did I say incompetence has no bearing on the situation ? I didn't.

Good management is the goal, yes, but that's a qualitative evaluation. Have you ever had to manage a contract that says that you needed to deliver something that was "good" ? If so, then I will bet that it eventually led to fights.

The standards need to be set based on where we are, and where we want to go. There are different standards at play between government, business etc.

Make your point explicitly then. The fact that we're having to interpret your vague suggestions, implications and questions is probably why we're getting frustrated with you. It's hard to tell what you're saying, if anything. It's like we're arguing against fog.

Well, I did an entirely separate post on that point, and made it pretty clear that I was making a side comment on another issue.

---

I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point - do you get what I'm saying yet ?

[scribblet]

Pretty snazzy looking Hummer she has there. Leather interior, LCDs etc. Wonder who's paying for the hotel rooms (his and hers). Petty you say,, but when you worship at the feet of 'mother earth' and the the goddess of the environment - oh my.

[Smallc]

The Province of Ontario could in fact dissolve the City of Toronto if it wanted.

[WIP]

I have been generally disgusted by what qualifies as debate on native issues here, coming mostly from dullards who just regurgitate Sun News and National Post propaganda here, without knowing anything further on these issues!

Not that I'm an expert on this subject; that's why I was reluctant to wade in on the other native-bashing thread, but I believe that those who attack minority and marginalized groups have the burden of proof before they can go stomping all over native land, water rights, and treaty guarantees that were made to many reserves as compensations for ceding territories and rights of use in the first place. I said on the other thread that it seems to me that past Liberal and especially this Harper Conservative Government, are plotting a course to completely abrogating all of the agreements signed in the past, and the changes they are trying to force through in their latest omnibus budget bill would feed those suspicions.

As for this leaked Fraser report about Attawapiskat, the first thing that jumps out at me is that nobody is commenting about the Federal Government's responsibilities to oversee public spending. As for Chief Spence, of the 409 transactions in Attawapiskat that Deloitte and Touche said lacked proper documentation, only about 30 were conducted on Spence's watch. The system for providing First Nations services is fundamentally flawed, according to the Auditor General's report:

"Contribution agreements involve a significant reporting burden, especially for small First Nations with limited administrative capacity. Communities often have to use scarce administrative resources to respond to numerous reporting requirements stipulated in their agreements. We followed up on Aboriginal Affairs efforts to reduce the reporting requirements of First Nations and found progress to date to be unsatisfactory..."

"The use of contribution agreements to fund services for First Nations communities has also led to uncertainty about funding levels. Statutory programs such as land claim agreements must be fully funded, but this is not the case for services provided through contribution agreements. Accordingly, it is not certain whether funding levels provided to First Nations in one year will be available the following year. This situation creates a level of uncertainty for First Nations and makes long-term planning difficult..."

Also noted by the Auditor General is the fact that there are more than 600 First Nations across Canada; some with as few as 500 residents, which would indicate that there might be a problem of lack of expertise in trying to deliver services to schools, health and other services, yet there is little indication that Federal Governments have taken much of any interest in how the money is spent. It appears to the casual observer to be more of a case of 'here's your money, now go away.' Which raises suspicions that the Government doesn't want reserves to function properly in the first place! If there is corruption, the beneficiaries of that corrupt misuse of funds will be beholden to the Government, and have an interest in maintaining the status quo....that would explain the general attitude of most of the Grand Chiefs who are members of the Assembly of First Nations - the only body that the Government wishes to talk to. It seems more likely that chaos and dysfunction are desired effects of this and previous federal governments. The last thing they want is properly functioning band councils that might present greater obstacles to waste dumping, mining and pipeline construction, and commercial use of their waterways.

[Moonbox]

Ok - there you go. So a suggestion to `fire` the Band leadership is probably even more difficult, I would assume.

We're arguing about this in light of Theresa Spence's protest. I'm not sure if she can be fired, arrested or whatever given the results of the audit. What we do know, however, is that she has zero credibility and as such any dialogue with her will be taken with that in mind. If the reserve actually want positive action and meaningful dialogue, they should dismiss her and find someone with a brain and some integrity.

Not at all. They illustrate a point - all of them. I don't ask questions for no reason.

You think they all illustrate a point, and I believe that you feel they're relevant, but raising vague and fluffy or tangential questions only work if the responding poster correctly guesses your implied point. In many cases here, your point isn't clear, nor is your position, so we're left scratching our heads.

I don't think that amounts to bad faith, I think it amounts to incompetence - which we've already covered.

That's interesting. Maybe you and I have different understandings of the term bad faith. Could you please explain to me then, what the decision process might have been for Theresa Spence's band for not keeping track of how they were spending taxpayer's money? You can call it incompetence, sure, but it wasn't incompetence in the sense that they didn't know any better. They received numerous complaints and warnings over a significant period of time without improvement. I'm fascinated to hear your opinion on this.

Good management is the goal, yes, but that's a qualitative evaluation. Have you ever had to manage a contract that says that you needed to deliver something that was "good" ? If so, then I will bet that it eventually led to fights.

Another meaningless, fluffy question that yields an obvious answer but misdirects from the topic at hand. Sure, good or bad management is subjective, but that's a term that you brought up and I never suggested that as the standard of measurement. What the Attawapiskat band should be gauged on is what their job responsibilities were and whether or not they performed those job responsibilities. They clearly did not.

The standards need to be set based on where we are, and where we want to go. There are different standards at play between government, business etc.

It's rather difficult to set those standards or to negotiate what needs to be done on a reserve when you have no freaking clue where the money you already sent has gone. As for accounting standards moving forward, I'm certain the Attawapiskat band has been embarrassed and/or forced to fix things, so that shouldn't be a problem moving forward. Is that all we need to consider though? No. There's still Theresa Spence and her protest to resolve, and then where we go from here. Her profound incompetence and/or corruption, however, have royally f'd things up, confused any future negotiations and made the situation way more difficult for both parties, especially considering her most recent behaviour. She's severely damaged the credibility of her band and her reserve, and by extension the First Nations as whole (as many chiefs have pointed out). She's also single-handedly crushed public sympathy for her cause in the average Canadian and outraged many, which matters to the federal government.

[Michael Hardner]

The Province of Ontario could in fact dissolve the City of Toronto if it wanted.

In fact the Megacity case was one where they did that but... anyway at this point I'm just nitpicking. Maybe Harper will try to remove her as Chief but I doubt that.

[Michael Hardner]

We're arguing about this in light of Theresa Spence's protest. I'm not sure if she can be fired, arrested or whatever given the results of the audit. What we do know, however, is that she has zero credibility and as such any dialogue with her will be taken with that in mind. If the reserve actually want positive action and meaningful dialogue, they should dismiss her and find someone with a brain and some integrity.

That makes more sense. But I'm sure you can imagine that this type of action likely plays to her constituents. We shall see.

You think they all illustrate a point, and I believe that you feel they're relevant, but raising vague and fluffy or tangential questions only work if the responding poster correctly guesses your implied point. In many cases here, your point isn't clear, nor is your position, so we're left scratching our heads.

Really. That's surprising to me. I thought people could see where I'm going with my questions but maybe not. If somebody says "They should remove the chief" and I respond "Can you remove the Mayor or Toronto" then I assume it's clear what I'm getting at, but maybe not. Maybe I'll be more direct in future, as I don't want to be hard to read.

That's interesting. Maybe you and I have different understandings of the term bad faith. Could you please explain to me then, what the decision process might have been for Theresa Spence's band for not keeping track of how they were spending taxpayer's money? You can call it incompetence, sure, but it wasn't incompetence in the sense that they didn't know any better. They received numerous complaints and warnings over a significant period of time without improvement. I'm fascinated to hear your opinion on this.

I honestly don't know. I don't understand how they run things and I can't get that kind of information from an accounting audit either. I don't think anybody can unless they have worked with them.

My guess is that it's utter incompetence and likely a disregard for the rules of process established for them.

Another meaningless, fluffy question that yields an obvious answer but misdirects from the topic at hand. Sure, good or bad management is subjective, but that's a term that you brought up and I never suggested that as the standard of measurement. What the Attawapiskat band should be gauged on is what their job responsibilities were and whether or not they performed those job responsibilities. They clearly did not.

How about you stop calling my questions meaningless and fluffy ?

I'm trying to answer YOUR question from a few posts back - you challenged me on the use of the term 'good management' and I am trying to explain why I used it - that the term 'good management' is useless on its own, so we need to establish what it means specifically. So if you want something to be 'good' - you have to answer what 'good' equates to in a measurable metric.

All of this came out of a separate post I made about Government 2.0 pointing out that the government itself isn't as open as the audit has forced this Band to be.

Now you're adding that you want someone to evaluate them on their "job responsibilities". What do you want me to say to that ? I've already indicated mismanagement - do you not believe it yourself ?

It's rather difficult to set those standards or to negotiate what needs to be done on a reserve when you have no freaking clue where the money you already sent has gone.

No, it's not. It's not at all. They are at perhaps 50% of financial statements with documents for the past fiscal year - work with the co-manager to set that goal to 100%, or 80%... but not to "good" or some inexact feel-good adjective.

As for accounting standards moving forward, I'm certain the Attawapiskat band has been embarrassed and/or forced to fix things, so that shouldn't be a problem moving forward.

Now you're contradicting yourself - you said they were operating in bad faith so why would they change ?

[Sleipnir]

Edited January 10, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Moonbox]

I honestly don't know. I don't understand how they run things and I can't get that kind of information from an accounting audit either. I don't think anybody can unless they have worked with them.

My guess is that it's utter incompetence and likely a disregard for the rules of process established for them.

Michael, come on. It's not a matter of things being run differently on a reserve, or on Attawapiskat specifically. There is zero possibility that the band didn't know they were doing something wrong, and not just because record keeping for spending public money is common sense on the most fundamental, virtually cave-man level . We know they knew better because the issue was brought up numerous times on different occasions over a period of years, and they ignored the warnings. You're at least touching on the issue in the part I've highlighted, but you need to go a bit further. They understood the rules, they disregarded them and they did so knowing that nobody would have a clue how the money was spent. Would you not agree that this is really, really unbelievably basic common-sense stuff??

How about you stop calling my questions meaningless and fluffy ?

I'm trying to answer YOUR question from a few posts back - you challenged me on the use of the term 'good management' and I am trying to explain why I used it - that the term 'good management' is useless on its own, so we need to establish what it means specifically. So if you want something to be 'good' - you have to answer what 'good' equates to in a measurable metric.

I'm sorry, but questions like that are fluffy. What I mean by that is they're directing us into unnecessarily vague territory in which we can't really have a meaningful discussion. I'm not going to prepare a specific metric for Theresa Spence's job performance, nor is Stephen Harper. It realistically can't be done. What we can do, however, is judge her based on very obvious criteria for things like due-diligence and care for the responsibilities and vast sums of money entrusted to her and her band. In that she's failed miserably. Without this basic first-step, how is anyone supposed to judge her performance on anything else? How do we know if she squandered money on stupid projects that went nowhere, or if she spent money wisely?

All of this came out of a separate post I made about Government 2.0 pointing out that the government itself isn't as open as the audit has forced this Band to be.

A red-herring. We're not talking about government transparency. That's another topic altogether. If you know of vast sums of money disappearing without record in the government, please let me know. I'll be equally outraged, and at least there I have the option to do something about it.

No, it's not. It's not at all. They are at perhaps 50% of financial statements with documents for the past fiscal year - work with the co-manager to set that goal to 100%, or 80%... but not to "good" or some inexact feel-good adjective.

Well first of all, going forward, the goal is for 100% of spending to be documented, immediately, because that's an easily achievable goal. If they can go backwards and put together earlier ones, that's great too. That's not what I was talking about though. What I meant by goal setting is how can the federal government have a realistic idea of the needs of the Attawapiskat reserve when we have such terrible accounting for the money already spent? How do we know if more should be sent, or less? As far as we know, as much as 50% of that could have been completely wasted/hidden/stolen. That's the situation Theresa Spence and her band put Attawapiskat in, and that's what the federal government is left dealing with.

Now you're contradicting yourself - you said they were operating in bad faith so why would they change ?

The change was forced on the band. It wasn't voluntary. It took co-management and third-party management to force them to wise up. That's how little they were willing to cooperate.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Moonbox

[Argus]

Look at what you`ve written here. You`re setting a higher bar than for any other government in Canada.

Here's the difference between this 'government' and the others. This government exists entirely on charity from outsiders, from people they claim to not even be in the same nation with. They don't even consider themselves to be Canadians. So every penny they get is charity. And are they grateful for ANY of it? Not in the least. Instead they're angry and demanding more. And they can't even account for what they've already spent. In fact, they're resentful of anyone who has the temerity to ask.

[jbg]

When you dig yourself into a hole you quit digging. This problem has been known for years. And we may thank spence for this years down the road, by bringing it to light. But it was not the way she planned it and it is blowing up in her face.

How so?

She is one of the public figures I most admire.

[g_bambino]

So every penny they get is charity.

Actually, it's obligated by law.

[jbg]

The band presents a budget, or makes one with his/her help, then submits proper documentation before any money is paid out. This of course is paternalist racism so will never fly.

Colonialist and Zionist as well as racist and paternalistic,

[dre]

Colonialist and Zionist as well as racist and paternalistic,

That posted added what to the conversation exactly?

[Bryan]

Actually, it's obligated by law.

What they receive is exponentially more than what is actually obligated.

[Evening Star]

I'm no expert in this area and don't have a hard-set position. So far I've leaned towards the prevailing opinion here as concerns Attawapiskat. I'm interested, though, in what you guys think of this:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2013/01/true-scandal-first-nations-funding-not-deloitte-and-touche-ver

It's actually possible to believe that there likely was mismanagement but also that the problems Fraser mentioned may have been real.

[g_bambino]

What they receive is exponentially more than what is actually obligated.

You did say "every penny" was charitable. Regardless, can you say how much more is than what's obligated by law?

[g_bambino]

That posted added what to the conversation exactly?

He's having a little fun mocking First Nations radicals.

[Michael Hardner]

You're at least touching on the issue in the part I've highlighted, but you need to go a bit further. They understood the rules, they disregarded them and they did so knowing that nobody would have a clue how the money was spent. Would you not agree that this is really, really unbelievably basic common-sense stuff??

Yes, I agree that this is common sense stuff that they didn't do.

I'm sorry, but questions like that are fluffy.

How about asking me repeatedly to pass judgement on this ? I'm gracious enough to answer your questions, even though they're becoming repetitive.

What we can do, however, is judge her based on very obvious criteria for things like due-diligence and care for the responsibilities and vast sums of money entrusted to her and her band.

We who ? You and me. We've DONE that here. As for the band, there are only so many options politically. Some good ones have been suggested, such as trying for another audit, 3rd party management etc.

In that she's failed miserably. Without this basic first-step, how is anyone supposed to judge her performance on anything else? How do we know if she squandered money on stupid projects that went nowhere, or if she spent money wisely?

Yes, agreed, we need to set up steps for improvement.

A red-herring. We're not talking about government transparency. That's another topic altogether. If you know of vast sums of money disappearing without record in the government, please let me know.

They have never publicly audited things like eHealth.

I'll be equally outraged, and at least there I have the option to do something about it.

Like what ? The Liberals have been re-elected after scandals like this came out federally and provincially.

Well first of all, going forward, the goal is for 100% of spending to be documented, immediately, because that's an easily achievable goal. If they can go backwards and put together earlier ones, that's great too. That's not what I was talking about though. What I meant by goal setting is how can the federal government have a realistic idea of the needs of the Attawapiskat reserve when we have such terrible accounting for the money already spent? How do we know if more should be sent, or less? As far as we know, as much as 50% of that could have been completely wasted/hidden/stolen. That's the situation Theresa Spence and her band put Attawapiskat in, and that's what the federal government is left dealing with.

Ok, that sounds like a first step. It won't fix the situation though.

The change was forced on the band. It wasn't voluntary. It took co-management and third-party management to force them to wise up. That's how little they were willing to cooperate.

But the problems continued after the change was forced on them.

Have you read the audit yet ?

[jbg]

That posted added what to the conversation exactly?

It expresses my point of view that this thread promotes the agenda of the the colonialist, Zionist and paternalistic exploitation of FN's, Palestinians, and gays and bis.

[Moonbox]

Yes, I agree that this is common sense stuff that they didn't do.

How about asking me repeatedly to pass judgement on this ? I'm gracious enough to answer your questions, even though they're becoming repetitive.

I'm not asking you to pass judgement. The evidence is there and it's damning. What I'm trying to do is point out how silly some of the defenses/excuses have been for Theresa Spence's behaviour, and how she's the absolute worst spokesperson the First Nations could find to start a productive dialogue with the government.

They have never publicly audited things like eHealth.

Well the auditor general went through the books. This was a boondoggle, no doubt, but no-bid contracts aren't the same thing as money disappearing altogether.

Like what ? The Liberals have been re-elected after scandals like this came out federally and provincially.

Why do you keep bringing this up? I hope that you can understand the different between between a bungled/mismanaged project involving a vast bureaucracy (eHealth), and money actually going missing altogether amongst a tiny handful of people. Regardless, Sarah Kramer was forced to resign and David Caplan's political career ended over this. A better comparison would be the Liberal's Adscam, and we don't have to go over the consequences there. Regardless, one scandal does not excuse another, nor provide any framework on how to deal with another, especially when they're this unrelated.

But the problems continued after the change was forced on them.

The changes the government was allowed to impose were limited. Regardless, the situation has improved now and that's largely because of these changes and because the band is receiving far more scrutiny and has been publicly embarrassed. They didn't change their practises because they wanted to cooperate.

Have you read the audit yet ?

From start to finish? No. There was no reason to. Quotations like the following tell us everything we need to know:

An average of 81% of files did not have adequate supporting documents and over 60% had no documentation for reason of payment.

and

There is no evidence of due diligence in the use of public funds.

Michael this is literally the worst possible outcome of an audit. The language of an audit does not get any more negative than that.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not asking you to pass judgement. The evidence is there and it's damning. What I'm trying to do is point out how silly some of the defenses/excuses have been for Theresa Spence's behaviour, and how she's the absolute worst spokesperson the First Nations could find to start a productive dialogue with the government.

Ok - understood.

Well the auditor general went through the books. This was a boondoggle, no doubt, but no-bid contracts aren't the same thing as money disappearing altogether.

Why do you keep bringing this up? I hope that you can understand the different between between a bungled/mismanaged project involving a vast bureaucracy (eHealth), and money actually going missing altogether amongst a tiny handful of people. ... Regardless, one scandal does not excuse another, nor provide any framework on how to deal with another, especially when they're this unrelated.

You`re right - one doesn`t excuse another. My reaction is to the over-the-top complaints on here (not from you) that we don`t see for those other scandals. That`s why I nitpick on this.

From start to finish? No. There was no reason to. Quotations like the following tell us everything we need to know:

An average of 81% of files did not have adequate supporting documents and over 60% had no documentation for reason of payment.

and

There is no evidence of due diligence in the use of public funds.

Michael this is literally the worst possible outcome of an audit. The language of an audit does not get any more negative than that.

WIth the web - it`s illuminating to go to source material like this when it`s provided. The CBC provided some information, but it was summarized by somebody for you. You`re trusting that person to get all the information. I recommend going to the source whenever possible.

I wanted to see if the situation had improved any since the co-manager was reinstalled and it seemed like it did - the CBC summation didn`t tell me that.

[Moonbox]

You`re right - one doesn`t excuse another. My reaction is to the over-the-top complaints on here (not from you) that we don`t see for those other scandals. That`s why I nitpick on this.

Okay fair enough.

WIth the web - it`s illuminating to go to source material like this when it`s provided. The CBC provided some information, but it was summarized by somebody for you. You`re trusting that person to get all the information. I recommend going to the source whenever possible.

I wanted to see if the situation had improved any since the co-manager was reinstalled and it seemed like it did - the CBC summation didn`t tell me that.

Those quotations were directly from the aadnc website. I pulled them right off the PDF of Deloitte's Letter to Management, which I read in its entirety along with a few other documents posted there. I did not, however, review the full audit line by line because I understand what an audit is, the terminology they use and I read financial statements for a living. If you have specific criticisms or points to note from the actual audit that change how we should be perceiving things, then I'll take a look at it, but I know that the summary of the file presents almost literally a worst-case scenario in terms of audit results. When an auditor says there's no documentation, that's what it means, and they have a professional responsibility to be accurate and impartial in their findings.

[Michael Hardner]

I pulled them right off the PDF of Deloitte's Letter to Management, which I read in its entirety along with a few other documents posted there. I did not, however, review the full audit line by line because I understand what an audit is, the terminology they use and I read financial statements for a living. If you have specific criticisms or points to note from the actual audit that change how we should be perceiving things, then I'll take a look at it, but I know that the summary of the file presents almost literally a worst-case scenario in terms of audit results. When an auditor says there's no documentation, that's what it means, and they have a professional responsibility to be accurate and impartial in their findings.

No fair enough - I only glanced at the audit itself as well.

[Smallc]

So why the continuous attempt to tone things down when the situation really isn't deserving of that?