NameVille
Well, well, well, whaddy'a know...
Turns out that someone in the 'media' has an FOI request in on 1048216 B.C. Ltd. as it pertains to a certain no bid contract out of the Premier's office (careful, link is to an .xls file):
And it's under 'Legislative Review'...
Imagine that!
______
What's it all about this time Alfie?....See previous post...Here.
And see follow-up post....Here.
.
15 comments:
Take a look at the next Excel line below 1048216 B.C. Ltd.
Line 362
A copy of contract C16PREM1341 - 1048216 B.C. Ltd. - and related invoices for goods, services and expenses, and corresponding proof of payments. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2016 To 01/05/2017)
Same Date range, Same wording
Line 363
A copy of contract CFFS16FIN/PBCEC33974 - Partnerships BC - and related invoices for goods, services and expenses, and corresponding proof of payments. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2016 To 01/05/2017)
I'm on the case. 😉
Glad to hear it Bob.
Apologies if I jumped your FOIR shark. I really was just trolling around the contract databases paying particular attention to those most interesting 'direct awards'.
.
That's great that Bob is on this.
It's interesting to note that Steve Carr shows up on the government phone directory. Contractors are supposed to work at arm's length from the government. That is, they supply their own office, phone, equipment, etc. Remember the Korbin (or was it Corbin?) Commission from approx. 25 years ago?
Why don't you send him an email and ask him what's up? Not that you'll get anything except bafflegab (if you get anything at all), but it might be kind of fun nevertheless.
Korbin Commission
contact auditor general or rcmp?
Well, having a contractor working in a government office is not illegal so there's no point in calling out the rcmp, but it might be against policy. It's hardly a major breach of policy, though. Direct awarding a contract with a phony excuse is not illegal either, nor is it unheard of in government, although it is against policy. Again, not a major breach of policy. It's done...and if you get caught, you just get your hand slapped. That's just for the peons, though. If you are in the Premiers office, you can do what you want.
The fact that Mr. Carr has a government office and communications network and is working for the Premier indicates a contract of employment.
Section 14.8 of the Public Sector Employers Act should give anyone the right to access the subject contract during normal business hours.
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96384_01#part1
CRA might actually be the most effective body to report this to if one were so inclined...there are rules around what constitutes a contractor vs an employee. Or at least there used to be.
GAB
Lew and I are sharing a brain today, apparently...
GAB
The point here is that a Mr. SJ Carr is the premier's de facto chief of staff (i.e. runs the premier's office). Additionally, another and/or the same Mr. SJ Carr was one of two directors of a company called Stevecarr Consultants that became a numbered company in late 2015 just before said numbered company received the first of its two no bid contracts in early 2016 to work for....
You got it...
The premier's office.
.
You mean we have a pattern here of occupants of the Premier's office getting paid twice, for no good apparent reason, to do one job? Looks like Dodge is now spelled Victoria. This western movie fan hopes the Man With No Name answers to John.
Beer--
Or, to be even more specific...
Is it possible that the person we are paying to run the premier's office is also being paid, also by us, to advise himself?
.
The film "Brazil" comes to mind.
Beer--
Yes, absolutely.
To the walls with us!
.
Post a Comment