In the first, they claim that bonus payments from suppliers that comes in sealed brown envelopes after a bid is chosen, is under strict doctors' supervision. Since 4 of the WRHA's finest open the envelopes together, surely nothing other than a cheque made out to the WRHA ever fell onto the table, they insisted.
CEO Dr. Brian Postl originally tried (on CJOB- go to the Monday Feb. 2 audio vault 9.10 AM) to mock Jen Skerritt's scoop as " an amusing view" of the bidding policy. A real laugher.
If you listen carefully to that interview with Richard Cloutier, you will note that at no time , did Postl say he had invited the provincial auditor to review their tendering practice. Nor did he once address, the $2.2 million dollars in "unrestricted" value-adds under his direct control. It was only at the conclusion of a Letter to the Editor in Wednesday's Free Press, that Postl revealed his willingness to have the WRHA's value-added policy probe. Although he framed it as asking for advice about how they should operate in the future, and NOT a review of the past revenues and expenditures of what amounted to a slush fund.
This morning in an "exclusive" segment on CJOB (after 10 AM), Postl reiterated that he invited Carol Bellringer to audit them in a letter he sent her on Monday. We can only conclude the letter was sent AFTER Conservative leader Hugh McFadyen called for the auditor to investigate.
Cloutier did not catch this weasel-wordplay. And Postl did not utter one word about the perception of conflict of interest raised, by his having a slush fund to dole out on his sole authority.
Then again, Cloutier didn't ask him about it, nor did he ask about why the Conflict of Interest/Personal Gains policy that Postl swears guided their actions, cannot be found online and is not being produced for the public to evaluate those protests of innocence.
We have made 3 requests for the documentaion that guided the WRHA in dealings with suppliers going back to 1999, when Postl became head honcho. We have yet to receive even an acknowledgement, let alone an answer.
That is hardly a surprise, since we asked Health Minister Theresa Oswald twice for an interview, were assured cabinet communications would get back to us, and again all week long, there is only silence from her on our request.
One listener in the know described the silent treatment this way:
Believe me when I tell you that the minister of Health has no intention of acknowledging that you exist. I don't know if this comes from higher up the chain or not, but you will not get acknowledgment from the minister nor the department. There is some eye rolling going on when your name is mentioned. They act as if they've never heard of you, then, when reminded, will roll their eyes and make a dismissive comment regarding your place in the media.
Considering that Madame Oswald ducked the Free Press and the Sun on Wednesday when scandal #2 broke, I guess they are now celebrating as I do, being dismissed as "Lesser media" by the NDP government.
No matter. The Doer government have been exposed for their twisting of language and changing the subject whenever the heat is put on by tough questions about the WRHA.
Oswald called Postl 'courageous' after the Free Press outed their brown envelope scheme, and lauded the WRHA for their 'transparency' at the same time as they hid behind the privacy laws and insisted reporter Skerritt file forms and wait at least 60 days for the revenue and payout details from the value-add file.
Here's an email from a concerned listener:
Hi Marty,
If nobody else says it....thanks for your contributions to better Manitoba through educational radio and for turning mountains into mole hills. Your continued coverage on this brown envelopes got me thinking.... If the following facts are true:
1) WRHA has a one shot budget to get all they need to address their needs and sometimes their wants
2) They must pad room for surprises in their budget submission
3) There will always have remainder wishes
If these budget shortcomings are know well before their bidding process, might these shortcomings be communicated discretely to said suppliers to ensure these brown envelopes collectively account for the REAL needs of WRHA? This would be advantageous especially since the Provincial Government would be trying to maintain an balanced budget illusion, while hoping Corporations can flip the bill without going to the Province for more money?
If this were true, then the brown envelopes would also become an indirect means of padding untraceable political contributions. Speculating this were true, then maybe there is a new spin on the horizon from the Government top ensure this evidence was never exposed.
Cheers, and keep up the great work!
H.
As for scandal # 2, is there anything more pathetic than Dr. Brock Wright, the number 2 executive in the WRHA office, contorting himself yesterday to the point of asphyxiation when revising the actual facts of the Brian Sinclair death at the HSC emergency room to meld with his 4 month campaign of excuses and distortion, which he did conducted having seen all the evidence ?
"Wright said the system relies on people approaching the triage desk ... staff was surprised Sinclair wouldn't have checked in at the triage desk." (CTV Sept. 23rd)
"I didn't feel the need to review the videotape myself... My information is that he did not formally present himself to the triage desk" (CTV News Wednesday)
"Wright now says the video shows that Sinclair wheeled himself into the line at the triage desk where the triage nurse on duty was seeing one person ahead of him." (Winnipeg Free Press Thursday)
(Entirely missing from all MSM reporting on the changing Sinclair story is the abandoned claim about the Health Sciences Centre nursing complement being short-staffed, and that a concerned onlooker was told "they were too busy to check on him." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvlrAH3kT5M )
As a listener told us yesterday, an internal "Sinclair update" was issued to staff after Wright was forced to issue the statement Thurday reversing his field and admitting the truth.
Wright's excuse for not looking at the tape ?
"To avoid any suggestion of interference while the incident was being reviewed".
And Brian Postl's explanation on CJOB this morning?
"one of the points of view that was dominant was that we should limit access to the tapes" to avoid "TAMPERING".
So which is it? Was the WRHA worried about perceptions of conflict of interest about their internal Sinclair death review - which they utterly dismiss is a concern when it comes to their addiction to brown envelopes - or was it their officials could not be trusted with evidence about Sinclair's last hours? (This on the eve of the Provincial Auditor waltzing into their offices looking for financial records about the value-adds.)
On CJOB this morning, Postl concluded "Dr. Wright was caught in a misperception, yes it is a mistake", that led him to repeat a lie about Brian Sinclair to the public, and blame the dead for not checking in at the triage desk to get processed.
Yet Postl assures the public, "his (Wright's) future is as strong and bright as it has ever been."
That, in a nutshell, is the way the WRHA interprets the meaning of transparency and accountability in health care. And Theresa Oswald, their political master, see Postl as a "courageous" leader.
The sound you hear is of Tommy Douglas spinning in his grave.
Postscript: an email from a listener
Hi Marty,
To hear you today indicate the Mr. Postl didn`t share the details of a video footage from both the Minister of Health, and Dr. Brock Wright because of potential tampering of evidence is irresponsible on his part. Seems we continue to have a problem with responsibility of management in the Manitoba public sector that just cannot compare to the private sector. Case in point:
1) If Mr. Postl is the man in charge, has the responsibility to act as the liaison between his department and the public who rely on his guidance to protect them from malpractice, mistreatment, or potentially their own death under the care of his operations......then when something does happen, he should be the first man to rally the troops, assess the situation and delegate responsibilities and responses to address the concerns of the public who affect his livelihood.
2) If the public were to be questioning others within his department, then they SHOULD have a story (abet a company line story) to adhere to before addressing the media.
3) If you have evidence that must remain confidential under investigation....again....you would pass along a press release to have everyone understand what actions are underway, what is being reviewed, and a projected date of a response to address their concerns.
Because you takes a `Greater than Thou` approach to your position, would indicate that you are quite happy if anyone other than yourself takes the rap for any irresponsible acts within your control (sounds like he`s qualified to be an NHL General Manager, or bidding for Gary Betman`s job).
In the Private sector...Maple Leaf is labeled to potentially tainted meat. THey immediately pull the products in question off the market, investigate their operations, uncover the source, and the President of the company has enough sense to address it publically through VARIOUS media to take responsibility, provide a vision of what actions he has taken to regain credibility and address any customer concerns.
I believe it is time for action Dr. Postl, or are you just not responsible enough to handle your job.....
Cheers,
H.
