Released on March 01, 2014, 12:30 AM EDT
Tag #: 666
Global Office: Spending under scrutiny
Office Budget: Matichuk’s Adviser Saga
Advice received from the mayor’s campaign manager cost tax payers more
“Yours to discover”
1 of 4)
city of Greater Sudbury Municipal election is gearing up. Mayor
Matichuk already declared that she will be running for public office
and seeking a second term. Now this is the time to examine how
Matichuk has governed the city so far.
Sudbury Mayor Marianne Matichuk announced she will not run for mayor
again. Matichuk made the statement at her State of the City Address
at the Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce luncheon on June 19,
council members were divided and Matichuk was unable to draw support
from the majority of council members. Many accused her as
incompetent in managing sensitive issues and unable to find middle
ground or find sustainable solutions that would work with
led to a major set-back in managing city business. City’s top
bureaucrats started to walk on loose leash. Matichuk was helpless
Fiscal Responsibility: Did Matichuk save money in her office?
Sudbury uncovered more details of Matichuk’s “adviser” saga.
Interestingly, Matichuk`s election campaign manager Paul
Demers, was employed in her office soon after the election. Demers
worked from January, 2011 – April 08, 2011 in the Mayor’s
office. It seems as
though Demers worked as either consultant or adviser.
All payments made to Demers came from her global
office budget. According to leaked invoices, payments made for
service rendered by Demers are as follows.
(See Leaked Invoice
1, Invoice 2, Invoice
3, Invoice 4)
directly approved and paid $ 29,380.00 to Demers. There is no
indication that Matichuk
followed the so-called “Attrition Policy” in hiring Paul Demers
for her office.
is behind the real vendor #: 2324 and what is the real
“adviser” saga did not stop at this point. According to leaked
invoices, she paid an “undisclosed amount” from tax dollars as
“Retainer, Policy, and communication advice” from December, 2010
to March 2011. This time period directly overlaps with Demers’
invoices. It seems the payments made to obtain advice in French and
invoices were addressed to c/o Paul Demers, Mayor`s Office. Those
invoices were submitted at once, when Demers left the mayor’s
office. All invoices were stamped on June 09, 2011. It seems that
Matichuk was kind enough to pay severance to Demers from her global
was being advised by journalist Rejean Grenier, both before and after the
5,6,7,8 went to Le Voyageur
newspaper owner Rejean Grenier who also worked with Demers on
deal: Rejean Grenier get the
big payoff after the election is over with the Sudbury taxpayer footing
5, Invoice 6, Invoice
7, Invoice 8)
Matichuk was generous enough to purchase a XEROX 3250 Print
Cartridge from Toronto for
Paul Demers at a cost of $ 150.12, which was also paid from her
global office budget.
Leaked Invoice 9)
to reports, the mayor has been allotted a global office budget of close to $600,000. (No exact budget was released). The global
office budget goes towards office expenses which include: community
events, donations and sponsorships, advertising, travel and staffing
costs. Other expenses include: office supplies, and stationary for
the fabrication of proclamations, certificates, awards of merit,
to the news release in the year of 2011, the mayor's office budget
ended with a surplus of more than $76,000, which was returned to the
city’s general revenues. In
order to analyze the effectiveness of savings, we need to look at
the broader aspects of the claim. Matichuk hired Christine Hogarth
former senior adviser to Progressive Conservative premier Mike
Harris. According to the 2012 public salary disclosure, Christine
Hogarth was paid $116,484.20 and $4,200 in benefits. Matichuk did
not stop at this point. She additionally hired Sudbury Star, former
City Hall reporter Mike Whitehouse as communications and policy
adviser. According to Matichuk the “Attrition Policy” in the
office has always been followed.
seems the mayor’s office global budget numbers were manipulated to
declare a so-called surplus. In reality however, a Mayor’s office
should able to manage a far lower budget. The mayor did not look at
her own office expenses in a line-by-line principal. The gravy train
is running across the City hall starting from Matichuk’s office.
there are major issues surrounding the mayor’s global office
what criterion did the mayor`s office determine to have a budget
close to $ 600,000.00 annually?
are the exact numbers and details of Matichuk global budget?
percentage is the mayor`s office allowed to increase global
budget by annually?
Demers provided service to the mayor as a City staff member?
Demers a private consultant for the mayor, paid by tax dollars?
was the real purpose of obtaining service from vendor #: 2324?
Demers’ service was allocated as vender #: 12341. Now additional
questions are raised.
(1) Did Matichuk follow City by-laws and procedures to obtain
consultancy service from
vendor # 12341 Demers?
(2) Who approved this consultancy service ?
(3) Does Matichuck have the power to
utilize public funds, by-passing contract by-laws and procedures to
obtain services for her office?
payers should know the answers to all of those questions.
Little… Too Late
episodes continue to carry on; the leader of the political office,
Matichuk, continues to fail in providing leadership to resolve
contentious issues within City Hall. It seems that Matichuk’s
administrative skills, political knowledge and experience was
inadequate. The application of policy at the grass root level is not
effective. Regardless of media circuses, City hall is being run by
the same “old school boy’s club.” Tax payers did not see any
improvement in governance. Matichuk
has neither the strength nor strategy to topple “dominance in
bureaucratic empire” in the City Hall. What we have seen instead
is only an annually increasing tax bill.
are fed up with politicians and bureaucrats and, wondering how deep
the flagrant spending abuse runs.
regarding misspending were perceived as a sign that more
accountability was needed for all use of public money.
“Yours to discover”.
1: $ 9,040.00 paid to Paul Demers January 2011
2: $ 9,040.00 paid to Paul Demers February 2011
3: $ 9,040.00 paid to Paul Demers March 2011
4: $ 2,260.00paid to Paul Demers April 2011
5: Retainer, Policy, and communication advice for December,
6: Retainer, Policy, and communication advice for January
2011, - Paid Undisclosed amount
7: Retainer, Policy, and communication advice for February
2011 – Paid Undisclosed amount
8: Retainer, Policy, and communication advice for March 2011.-
Paid Undisclosed amount
9: XEROX 3250 Print Cartridge ordered from Toronto for Paul
Released on March 01, 2014 at 12:30 AM EDT
Paper prepared for
presentation at 2006 Annual Meeting of Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, USA on April 20-23, 2006. Excerpts of the article as
Corruption as Injustice
Although the general public
sees corruption as a problem of social justice, the academic literature
has explored it as a problem of development, usually in a narrow sense of
economic development. This paper attempts to develop a normative theory of
corruption as a form of injustice.
Authour define corruption
as abuse of power that is a breach of "formal justice" and a
violation of "obligations of fairness" by individuals for their
private gain, which involves betrayal of public trust. Corruption can be
justified only when the gain in substantive justice is large enough to
clearly outweigh the loss in formal justice and other alternatives are
unavailable. Unjust rules, in terms of substantive principles of justice
or in terms of implementability and observability, give partial
justification for corruption as self-defense. Hence, unjust rules and
institutions tend to breed institutional corruption. Any gains in
efficiency from corruption are accompanied by negative externalities such
as losses for honest competitors and erosion of social trust. Hence,
corruption is not functional for economic efficiency as well as for human
development in the long run.
Authour argue that the private sector as
well as the public sector is prone to corruption, that market failures as
well as government failures produce incentives for corruption, and that
principal-principal relations as well as principal-agent relations are
prone to corruption. Formal justice such as control of corruption and
substantive justice such as democracy (procedural justice) and income
equality (distributive justice) tend to mutually reinforce each other.
Rawls’ theory of justice is mostly about "substantive
justice" and presents "equal liberties," "fair
equality of opportunity," and the "difference principle" as
its basic principles.He defines "formal justice" as
"impartial and consistent administration of laws and
institutions," whatever their substantive principles are. An
institution is a public system of rules that define offices and positions
with their rights and duties, powers and immunities, and the like.
Substantive justice is about the rules of an institution, while formal
justice is about the actions of the individuals who are taking the offices
of the institution, according to Rawls.
Formal justice, or justice as regularity, limits discretion and arbitrary
decision-making to ensure equality before the law. It requires that, in
their administration, laws and institutions should apply equally. Thus,
the conception of formal justice becomes the rule of law when applied to
the legal system. If an institution is reasonably just, then it is of
great importance that the authorities should be impartial and not
influenced by personal, monetary, or other irrelevant considerations in
their handling of particular cases.
Rawls argues that even where laws and institutions are unjust, it is
"often" better that they should be consistently applied. In this
way those subject to them at least know what is demanded and then they can
try to protect themselves accordingly, whereas there is even greater
injustice if those already disadvantaged are also arbitrarily treated in
particular cases. For example, if a law discriminating against women is
not fairly and equally applied to all women and further discrimination
occurs during the implementation process, many women will suffer from
The concept of formal justice can be
applied not only to law-implementing processes but also to law-making
processes. We know that the process of enacting laws and rules can be
unfair and irregular, too. An unjust law can be enacted through fair
process. A just law can be enacted through unfair process. If a law
prohibiting discrimination against some minority group, which is
presumably just, were enacted because the minority group bribed lawmakers,
we would call the process corrupt while the legislative outcome is
substantively just. According to Rawls, legislative process is part of the
political process governed by the constitution. Thus, formal justice in
legislative process means impartial and consistent application of the
constitution, whose provisions guarantee equal liberties and equal
While corruption always involves the violation of formal justice,
violation of formal justice that is not for private gain is not
corruption. The case of dirty hands was such an example. More serious
problems arise when the rules and institutions are substantively unjust.
If a regime, a law, a rule, or a contract is extremely unjust, adherence
to formal justice will not be morally binding and violation of formal
justice can bring a much greater substantive justice. As Rawls argues,
obligation of fairness for an individual applies only when the
institution, the benefits of which the individual voluntarily has
accepted, is reasonably just. Citizens’ natural duty to comply with the
constitution and laws is not binding if the constitution or laws are
in the case of inefficient regulation, corruption may increase the
efficiency in purely economic terms, although it is unjust because owners
and employees of honest firms will incur loss. However, the prevalence of
the corrupt firms and corrupt officials and the unfortunate fate of the
honest firms will inflict other social costs. The spread of corrupt
practices will probably be extended to avoid the socially efficient
regulations and thus reducing efficiency even in economic terms. The
destruction of social trust due to the spread of corrupt practices will
increase the general transaction costs and make many economic activities
and contracts more costly or impossible, and hence overall economic
efficiency will be increasingly damaged. If existing regulations were all
efficient, any corruption would harm the efficiency. If existing
regulations were generally inefficient, the initial effect of corruption
on efficiency might be positive but the long-run effect is likely to be
negative considering the increasing transaction costs due to the erosion
of social trust as well as the contaminating effect of corrupt practices.
March 01, 2014