Another party caught with their hands in the cookie jar

vancouversun.com/news/bc-ele … story.html

Which cookie jar? It’s not taxpayer money, is it?

[quote]Leaked portions of a draft report from auditor general John Doyle said that by March 2009, the NDP had amassed $260,000 from monthly constituency office payments and most of the money was used to fund partisan activities.

Those activities included hiring cultural outreach coordinators, joint advertising for events such as Lunar New Year, Diwali and Vaisakhi, and translation services, said NDP caucus chair Shane Simpson.

He added there is “no comparison” between the fund, which drew $200 a month from constituency coffers, and the B.C. Liberal plan to use taxpayer dollars to court ethnic voters, which ignited controversy last month.[/quote]

Pffft. A little over $250,000 used for partisan purposes. The BC Liberals recently spent $15,000,000 of tax payer money on partisan activities, and they will continue to spend our money to get re-elected.

I think you’re confusing a cookie jar with smoke and mirrors

yes it is taxpayers money, the money for constituency office is only supposed to be used for that not put into a pooled general fund for whatever purposes the party wants to use it for, in other words Coons constituency money is supposed to be used for office and staff expenses only, anything else is not allowed especially not for cultural outreach coordinators. that is the conclusion of the outgoing Auditor General

[quote=“hitest”]

from monthly constituency office payments and most of the money was used to fund partisan activities.

Those activities included hiring cultural outreach coordinators, joint advertising for events such as Lunar New Year, Diwali and Vaisakhi, and translation services, said NDP caucus chair Shane Simpson.

He added there is “no comparison” between the fund, which drew $200 a month from constituency coffers, and the B.C. Liberal plan to use taxpayer dollars to court ethnic voters, which ignited controversy last month.

Pffft. A little over $250,000 used for partisan purposes. The BC Liberals recently spent $15,000,000 of tax payer money on partisan activities, and they will continue to spend our money to get re-elected.[/quote]

So its only ok to use money on partisan purposes if your the NDP?

Is this what you are trying to say?

the ndp should ya, just like have someone impartial like adrian dix’ mom investigate this, maybe fire someone, and call it a day. thats what a real leader would do!

This was covered on the news already, it was a draft report, and the allegation did not show up in the final report.

[quote=“bthedog”]

So its only ok to use money on partisan purposes if your the NDP?

Is this what you are trying to say?[/quote]

I did not say that. I’m saying the amount the NDP used is miniscule compared to the millions that the Liberals are currently spending.

This is a non-issue. Before creating the pooled fund, the ndp consulted the legislative comptroller, who informed them that they would be acting appropriately within the rules. John Doyle removed the issue from his final report, but is suggesting that the existing rules need to be revised. So, really, on this issue he is either unhappy with the rules, or with the comptroller’s interpretation. In neither case can the ndp be accused of the kind of wrongdoing that is so clear in the Liberals Ethnicgate, Woodgate, or “everything we do seems to have a gate attached to it” (gate).

This story will die once the msm does some actual digging.

[quote=“teacher”] In neither case can the ndp be accused of the kind of wrongdoing that is so clear in the Liberals Ethnicgate, Woodgate, or “everything we do seems to have a gate attached to it” (gate).
[/quote]

I am hopeful that the voters of BC are as outraged as I am with the lapses in judgement clearly evident in the present government. I hope that the Liberals are shown the door in mid May.

another article about the draft which lists what else the fund was used for

canada.com/Auditor+General+r … story.html

and just because it wasn’t included in the final draft does not mean it occurred, but the fact that in the draft version he raises up concerns about it means it should be looked at more closely to make sure there was no polictical use of those funds which would be against the law.