NDP’s frayed lines of communication may be reason for wrongdoings

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 23/06/2015 (4052 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

What we may very well have here is a failure to communicate.

Among the various explanations for the continuing eruption of controversies around Premier Greg Selinger and his NDP government is a strong indication that many people were either unable, or unwilling, to communicate effectively with each other.

Consider the concerns raised about Transportation Minister Steve Ashton’s bid to secure a $5-million untendered contract for Tiger Dam portable flood-fighting equipment. Moreover, that Premier Greg Selinger and Ashton bullied cabinet to fast-track vague plans for a health clinic in The Pas.

Were mistakes made in both of these instances? Absolutely. Were rules broken or, at the very least, bent? Definitely.

However, it’s becoming more and more clear that a contributing factor in both of these cases was a complete breakdown in communication between the premier and key opinion leaders in his cabinet.

Flash back to the spring of 2014. The NDP is lagging well behind the Progressive Conservatives in opinion polls and Selinger continues to be hammered for his decision in 2013 to raise the PST by one point to fund infrastructure, something he had previously promised he would never do.

The NDP faithful were nervous, bordering on panicky. Some within the caucus and cabinet wanted Selinger to step down and allow a new leader to reboot the NDP brand prior to the April 2016 election.

Selinger would have none of it. Even after a group of ministers went public to pressure him to step down, Selinger remained resolute that he would lead into the next election.

In this environment, it is patently obvious Selinger stopped having any meaningful contact with some of his ministers. Primarily, the five who resigned in early November: Finance Minister Jennifer Howard, Jobs and Economy Minister Theresa Oswald, Municipal Government Minister Stan Struthers, Health Minister Erin Selby and Attorney General Andrew Swan.

Why is this important? The absence of communication meant Selinger grew to fear the dissidents in his midst. It also allowed Selinger’s critics to see the worst side of everything the premier did.

In the case of the Tiger Dam contract, cabinet dissidents became concerned about the premier’s refusal to curb Ashton’s bid to secure an untendered contract. Particularly because Ashton had close relationships with at least two of the parties involved in the deal.

Treasury Board had already said no to an untendered contract for the portable dams. However, when the Treasury Board “minute” was submitted to cabinet for final approval, it was “held,” or put over for a final decision at a later date. This was done, government sources have confirmed, at Selinger’s insistence.

A spokesman for the premier has subsequently said on the day after that minute was held, the premier told clerk of the executive council Milton Sussman to direct the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation, and the Treasury Board, to organize a tender for the portable dams.

The problem with that version of events is that, according to multiple government sources, Selinger failed to inform anyone that he had killed Ashton’s hopes for an untendered contract. That kept alive the idea that Selinger was trying to aid Ashton in his ethically questionable goal.

Why would Selinger not make his decision known to those who wanted him to step down? There is, at the moment, no adequate explanation. At least, none that is flattering to the premier.

In this context, Selinger is either weak and sloppy, or in league with Ashton. Some of the premier’s supporters would argue there is a third option: that Selinger succumbed to the stress of living with assassins in his inner circle.

That’s actually not a bad way of explaining some of the decisions Selinger made last summer and fall. In fact, other incidents demonstrated Selinger’s growing stress level.

In early November, shortly after the five ministers had resigned, at Selinger’s urging the government confirmed a contract with Jim Carr, former head of the Business Council of Manitoba and now a federal Liberal candidate in Winnipeg South. Carr was to make recommendations on improvements to aboriginal education.

It was an untendered contract, but politically palatable given the long history Carr had with the Business Council studying and promoting aboriginal education and training. Carr was in the first week of formal work when he received a phone call from Heather Grant-Jury, a Selinger loyalist who had left her union post to act as the premier’s chief of staff, informing him the contract had been terminated effective immediately.

A spokesman for the premier’s office said Tuesday that Selinger had become concerned that Carr’s contract, although defensible given his past work on the aboriginal education file, would be used “to challenge his premiership” by the dissidents.

Strangely, it is hard to find anyone in government — either then or now, for or against Selinger — who thought Carr’s contract was a political landmine. In that light, it seems Selinger’s decision to terminate the contract is evidence of the premier’s impaired judgment.

The contrast between the Tiger Dam contract (a legitimate political controversy) and the Carr contract (a justifiable decision) is incredibly vexing. Particularly, that the premier would take such a hands-off approach with Ashton and Tiger Dam, but move so decisively to nuke Carr.

It may well be that no one can fairly judge the actions of a politician who has faced the kind of stress and strain that Selinger faced over the past 12 months.

However, that is not an excuse for some of Selinger’s more curious decisions. Or his lack of interest in communicating the finer points of those decisions.

Decisions that ultimately fuelled the fire of his enemies.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca