The “Honorable Members” of the Newfoundland and Labrador Government

Character is the only secure foundation of the state. - Calvin Coolidge

The qualities of a great man are vision, integrity, courage, understanding, the power of articulation, and profundity of character. - Dwight Eisenhower

I used to muse a fair bit over the years about the Newfoundland and Labrador political scene but I found that for the most part, while my musings evoked a lot of emotion in people, those same people rarely took action, preferring to complain from the sidelines, on social media or in their local coffee shop. 

My insane work schedule these days further limits my musings but occasionally something comes to my attention that bothers me so much that I need to work it out in a musing of some sort, whether it be in my journal or here in my blog.

I’ve been receiving a lot of communication over the last year or more regarding the activity of the Honorable Members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Government.

I’m not referring to the politicians themselves but rather, their “honorable members”.

It seems that the political world that exists in the Confederation Building has become overrun with predators who have learned at one point or another that one of our most basic primal needs serves as a useful tool to accomplish what they need (often to the detriment of others).

Stories of rampant infidelity trouble me but I’m not a prude, I’m not ignorant of the ways of the world nor do I judge people who prefer to throw their families and relationships under the bus as they (including Ministers of the Crown) roam the hallways of government, using their honorable member to satisfy their primal needs for sex and power (this includes certain female MHAs and their equivalent “portfolio”).

Judgment of their deeds, where appropriate and deserved, comes soon enough at the hands of others or the Ultimate Authority.

I don’t judge the married MHA who was confirmed to have an Ashley Madison account (verified by his own credit card).

I don’t judge the MHA who has a diaper fetish (not a need for adult diapers) and likes to be treated like a baby in private.

I don’t judge the spouses who have made the choice to turn a blind eye to the deeds of their partners in exchange for the benefits they derive from the power and prestige bestowed upon their partners.  I do feel badly for the ones who don’t really understand what is happening – their families will be hurt at some point by the actions of their partners.

It is true that I have been known to make a few digs here and there, such as the time when a minister was honored with new court title and I asked him on Twitter whether he told his girlfriend or his wife first.

And yes, I do judge the senior Liberal bureaucrat who has helped protect a family member from prosecution.  Many years ago, his family member had a paper route and had asked a 7-year-old boy if he would help him.  For curious reasons, the paper route went off into the woods where the family member offered the boy a nickel to be allowed to be shown “what a screw was”.  In the conversation that followed, the boy quickly determined what was happening and fled the scene untouched.  Even at the age of 7, I wasn’t that stupid but I have since learned that the behavior of this individual continued for years unabated.  Unfortunately, what I experienced cannot be used as grounds for charges and others must be willing to step forward.  Speaking in hushed tones or in private confessions of a secret do not bring people to justice and justice would be difficult to obtain when that person is protected by someone with power.

Lifestyle choices, whether I agree with them or not, are the private business of those who choose them.

For the most part.

Where I do take umbrage to someone’s lusty, licentious needs is when such needs are used to intentionally harm others or when they open the door to creating harm for others. 

When male MHAs offer or demand sex from female MHAs in exchange for favors or support of legislation, it opens the door to the female MHA (or the male one, if the female one is the instigator) feeling compromised, potentially threatening their work, their ability to retain their portfolio and their intention to serve the people as they were elected to do.

The fact that for some women, keeping their job (whether elected, appointed or hired) depends on their ability to be “a part of the team” is tremendously disconcerting.  While we in the business world understand the ramifications of being caught making such demands, it seems that those who make the rules find no issue in breaking them.  In one case where I have screen shots of the demands, I was told by police that the victim must come forward herself, which she is very hesitant to do.  Too often the women in such situations are intimidated or humiliated into silence, some fear that their naivety makes them look stupid and yes, some women encouraged or allowed “an exchange” to happen for their own gain before they realized they had gone too far and now they can’t say anything for fear of personal disgrace.

What disturbs me equally are the many women who know this is going on but accept it and say nothing.  They may express pain, concern or disgust over it in private but publicly they say nothing.  They are the embodiment of Martin Luther King when he said, “One who condones evil is just as guilty as the one who perpetrates it.” or Lieutenant General David Morrison who noted, “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”

And as I noted previously, some are active, willful participants, harvesting their own benefits from such actions.

In addition to creating a toxic environment that would sink most businesses or business people who dared to partake in such miscreant behavior, there is also the potential that people who participate in such things open themselves up to extortion.

For example, If news of the MHA with the diaper fetish came out (or, God forbid, a photo of him), that MHA could be leveraged, with the person on the other end of the lever demanding cash or some sort of government gift in exchange for silence.

When MHAs, employees or consultants have been intimidated to put out or get out in order to accomplish their own work or when they could be compromised through extortion, government ceases to be of and for the people but rather, of and for the people who hold the secrets.

While this is not unusual for governments in general (to be at the whim of those on the other end of a secret), use of behavior that intimidates people or makes use of tactics that are illegal everywhere else should be considered unacceptable.

Shouldn’t it?

The Bottom Line

Secrets have always been a part of government and business and those who have been compromised regret the impact when those secrets are revealed.

But when those secrets hurt innocent people such as family members unaware of what is going on, MHAs being coerced into compromising situations in order to get their own work done, workers being intimidated into submission to keep their own job or similar evil acts, we have a problem.

When those secrets can be used to compromise a Minister into performing any task at the request of a master of extortion, we have a problem.

When people who observe it do nothing to fix it, we have a problem.

When people who believe they are a guiding post of ethics, character and morals and are a role model for young people demonstrate behavior that doesn’t portray any of these attributes, we have a problem.

The dilemma with problems is that they continue to grow in scale, frequency and impact unless we choose to do something to solve them.  We may think these problems do not affect us but eventually our analysis is proven to be flawed and we claim surprise or indignation as a result.

The other dilemma is that there are many good people inside the Legislature, whether elected, appointed or hired, whose efforts and intentions are being bent, interfered with or thwarted entirely while people use their primal wiring of lust to satisfy their primal need for power.

Where is the courage for people to stand up and demand better, both inside or outside the Legislature or the courage of others to support those who would do so?

When do we demand better so that the people inside who are capable of doing better and who want to do better are free to execute without fear of intimidation or compromise?

What happens if the list of things I have seen, also in the possession of other people who are more motivated by personal power than I am, decide they want to take down a government unless they get what they want?

Where does it end?

With us, of course.

But that all depends on whether people have the courage, the strength, the wisdom and the will to stand up for what they believe in and to take a stand against behaviors that we are taught to be unethical, immoral and in many cases, illegal.

Or we can make this fodder for social media or coffee house chatter, marveling or being disgusted with it but doing nothing else until something happens that affects us directly.

Doing the latter doesn’t change anything.

In fact, finding a reason to justify why we can’t do something only becomes an excuse, an excuse that translate into ignoring the activity, then condoning it and then supporting it …. making us part of the problem despite our vehement protests to the contrary.

What does change things depends on whether people care and demand better.

Do you?

Be the change you wish to see or stop complaining about it.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS Don’t bother asking me for the list of licentious behaviors and the names attached to them.  There are plenty of people who have this information.  Unfortunately, when such deeds are so rampant, there is no shortage of sources of information.  However, my tweets in recent days referencing this behavior have produced calls, texts and emails from MHAs demanding to know who “their evil colleagues” are. Weakly disguised efforts to see if “I am on the list” only make the whole situation more comical and more pathetic.

I wonder what minor event becomes the tipping point that takes out an entire government, only to be replaced by another one that suffers from the same complexities.

---

Addendum – The Initial Reaction – July 20, 2017

After my blog was posted, I was contacted by four MHAs, two men and two women.

The men were outraged at the content and the idea that I had publicly identified them. The curious thing was that I not only didn’t name anyone in this post, I wasn’t even thinking of these two in particular.  When I tried to convince them of this, they didn’t believe me. 

Awkward.

The two women provided curious responses also.

First of all, in an attempt to identify the people I was referring to, they named other people (consistent across both of them) that again, I was not thinking of.  The plot thickens in an environment filled with rumor, conjecture and malfeasance.

The other thing is that they both found the environment incredibly difficult to survive in.  They used words like intimidation, bullying and the like to describe actions directed towards them and other women.  They freely named women who were targeted victims of intimidation and manipulation.  They both identified women who “played the game” with multiple MHAs.  They both admitted to having been offered sex by Ministers in exchange for “whatever”.  They also admitted to having acts of jealousy directed towards them when, having refused the advances of someone, were then accused of doing so only because “they must be sleeping with x”.

They both agreed with me that women should never accept abuse in the workplace or anywhere else.

All good.

However, they both admitted that they were willing to accept all of this in order to retain their seat and to continue doing the work that they do.  They also admitted that they had an acceptable tolerance level of abuse, “a price” as both named it, that allowed them to keep quiet.

Hmmmm …. didn’t they say that abuse was unacceptable?

Both had complained to someone else known to be an active participant in the environment.  Their words won’t create change and they know it but they take solace in knowing that they did talk to someone about it.

Neither is willing to take a public stand against it.

I asked them both to consider the quotes from King and Morrison in regards to saying and doing nothing while acknowledging the toxic environment.  I asked them also to consider how they would feel if they had a daughter, sister or mother caught up in such a situation. 

They are not stupid people but their willful inability to see themselves in the quotes speaks volumes.  I’m not sure either of them agree with my position – that to not take a stand outside of complaining privately makes them part of the problem. 

That’s what we are told in the private sector!

I wonder if they have read the following Government-issued documents:

• Workplace Bullying
• Maintaining a Harassment and Discrimination-Free Workplace
• Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace
• Preventing Workplace Violence

I assume HR does nothing because they see elected officials as “their boss”.  It’s a curious thing to me, working in an industry where HR heavyweights will sometimes lay into someone for looking at another person the wrong way.

In regards to accepting abuse in order to get work done, I wonder what would happen if one of my executive team were caught behaving as these people behave and when the police and legislators show up, I used the excuse, “You can’t arrest him – do you realize how much work he gets done?”

My team member would still be arrested and I would be humiliated and vilified - rightfully so for demonstrating such ignorance.

As I look at the SMS messages on my phone early this morning, I wonder if they could be used to establish a precedence whereby abuse was allowed in the workplace.

After all, if the legislators embrace it as status quo, why shouldn’t we?

Such thinking is dangerous, destructive and regressive.

Which makes me wonder why it is tolerated (and even embraced) within the highest authority in the Province.

Where are the public outcries amongst women’s groups who likely know this is happening?

Perhaps it serves their interests to stay quiet rather than risk offending “useful friends”.

And how do women expect to create respect in the workplace (whether in Government or elsewhere) when they are unwilling to stand up and demand it?

How indeed?

---

Closing Thoughts (almost - I changed my mind later)

I know from my contacts within the Government and from feedback that some MHAs have sent me to directly that once again, I have stirred up a hornet’s nest.  I have been accused of being immoral or unethical (by the people who committed the acts) for making these observations while they fail to see that had they not committed the acts in the first place, there would be no observations to make.  So in their mind, performing or accepting nefarious acts is not immoral – reporting them is.

I made some observations on social media about naming names, which was met by cries of foul from some who say that such actions will hurt the innocent.  My response to this is that the innocent are already being hurt and that the number of people who are being hurt will continue to grow as long as miscreant behavior is not addressed.

I find the ultimate message here to be confusing – the contradictory rule that certain behavior is considered unacceptable except in the areas where it is considered acceptable (based on nebulous, fluid rule interpretations and damaged rationalization).

Perhaps someone smarter than I am can enlighten me.

Perhaps.

---

Addendum – Are You Really Surprised? Who Wants to Bell the Cat? – July 23, 2017

When people act surprised about something, it’s always an interesting exercise to see if they are truly surprised or just feigning surprise.

A few people brought the story of Valerie Penton to my attention, a woman who was being sexually harassed by a fellow employee of the Government and who felt that Human Resources within the Government did little if anything to help her. 

She eventually settled a  harassment suit out of court and moved on to other opportunities.  One writer writing about her story noted that the man who harassed her (and used access to DMV records to examine her personal records including her address) was still working there.  I don’t know if that is still the case but most of us get fired immediately for such indiscretion.

Interestingly enough, many of the stories written about Ms. Penton by the local media have been deleted (although some are still available in different web cache locations).

There are at least four articles that remain that don’t require exploring the web cache (at the time I write this):

• Feeling Abandoned (Gander Beacon)
• No Place to Turn (Southern Gazette)
• Bad Behavior in the Civil Service (The Pilot)
• Davis Orders External Review of Harassment Policies (Pink White Green)

The people who came forward telling similar stories after Valerie Penton’s story became public indicated that HR did little if anything for them when their harassment was reported.

Those same people indicated that Ministers were slow to respond to their concerns and needed to be prompted multiple times to take action.

Some people inside and outside of Government said, after reading my post, that they have never heard of any type of harassment inside Government before I posted my piece.

And yet an external review was undertaken to review this very subject after Valerie Penton’s case became public.

So where is the surprise regarding any of this?

Maybe the answer can be found in a personal experience of mine.

Some years ago, I was on the board for an international charity when some significant indiscretions by staff members were discovered.  When I reported them to fellow board members, I found out that they already knew.

When they discovered that I now knew also, they demanded to know what I was going to do about it.

When I asked them why they hadn’t already done something about it, they replied that they didn’t want to jeopardize their other board postings.

Ah yes … courage only when convenient and risk-free.

We need to find a way to encourage those who are victims to know that they have our support in ferreting out miscreants.

And we need to find a way to pressure those with authority to stand up for them.

Many of the latter have been coming to me demanding to know what I am doing about this.

I am asking them in return,“What are you doing about it?”

It reminds me of this story:

A group of mice were arguing in a mouse hole one day about a cat that had been terrorizing them.  With every passing day, the cat would sneak up on one of them without warning and would make off with the unsuspecting victim.  The mice were now tired of this and were arguing about what to do about the villain.

One mouse suggested that if they put a bell on the cat’s neck, then he would no longer be able to creep up on them unawares.

Recognizing the brilliance of the solution, the mice spent considerable time congratulating themselves on how they had solved the problem when their celebration was interrupted by a lone voice in the back of the mouse hole.

“The solution may be brilliant”, observed a wise old mouse, “but who will bell the cat?”

Silence filled the mouse hole and eventually the mice went about their business, realizing that there is a big difference between being full of ideas and having the courage to carry them out.

So … who wants to bell the cat?

Character, Values and the Price of Success

Knowledge will give you power, but character, respect. - Bruce Lee

Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character. - Albert Einstein

No amount of technical administrative skill in laboring for the masses can make up for lack of nobility of personal character in developing relationships. - Stephen Covey

In the middle of a large deal, my team and I had the opportunity today to meet with one of the top lawyers in the mergers and acquisition space.  With only a few minor minefields left to navigate, we were told that this person would be one of the best people to represent us in bringing our “little baby” in for a soft landing.

As is always the case, I always perform significant due diligence before such meetings and I was cautioned by more than one person to be careful of a peculiarity that this person had and so I went to the meeting as prepared as I possibly could be.

Sure enough, part way through the meeting and in the middle of his song and dance about why he was the best person to represent us, he suddenly started speaking with a fake Australian accent, telling us about how his clients had lived in fear and terror in such deals until he came along and “saved the day”.

The accent threw me off and I thought perhaps he was having a stroke but then the moment I had been warned about materialized.  He reached into his bag and said “And when the other side brings a knife to the negotiating table, I say ‘That’s not a knife, this is a knife’” and he laid a large, Crocodile Dundee-like knife on the boardroom table.

No one said anything for a moment before I leaned over the table and said, “This is a friendly acquisition.  Why do I need you to bring a knife, even if only symbolically, to the table?”

“You missed my point”, he said, somewhat aloofly, “I help people to get over their fear by showing that I have their back.”

“Really?”, I asked, “Why do you think I should accept the insult that you believe we would be shaking in fear without you or that intimidation is the best way to complete a friendly business deal?”

He said nothing and then I picked up his knife and asked him, “Would you put this knife up to your throat and shave yourself with it?”

“Of course not”, he replied, “That would be crazy.”

I nodded and laid his knife on the table.  I had been warned of his presentation style and props and so I reached down into my bag and retrieved something specifically for the moment.

I laid my straight razor on the table beside his knife, its viciously sharp, unforgiving blade gleaming in the boardroom light. 

“I shaved with this blade this morning”, I said, “Now tell me why I should be afraid of whatever it is I’m supposed to be afraid of and how you are going to guide me past this fear.  And when you are done explaining that, I want you to tell us how intimidation trumps respectful dialog.”

I paused before continuing.  “My point’, I said, “Is that suggestions of fear or intimidation becoming part of our team and how we interact with others are not welcome here.  If you have anything else to offer, let’s continue otherwise the meeting is over.”

The meeting continued for an hour or so before we decided to take a break.

Everyone left the room except for one of his team who stayed behind.

As I caught up on my emails, she started some idle chatter about the need for the team to be at the airport before evening but as luck would have it, she was staying overnight.

I made a perfunctory response but she pressed the point, indicating that perhaps we could get together for dinner and drinks to smooth over any misunderstandings between myself and her boss.

I focused on my emails and she went for broke.

The offer, which I won’t get into here was direct and specific.  The only thing I didn’t know was whether I would be allowed to stay in her hotel room for the rest of the night or if I would be dismissed after “the smoothing of misunderstandings” process had been completed.  I also wasn't sure what complexity the wedding band on her finger would offer, if any.  It didn't seem to get in her way.

Plan B was in progress, given that the meeting itself was not going well.

I took out my phone, Googled some of the sex shops in the area and showed her the search results.

“Here’s what you need”, I said, directly, “The stuff they have in these stores is more in alignment with what you need.  They don’t have any character or values either – they just exist.”

She was very angry and said that she would take this up with her boss.

“Go ahead”, I replied, pointing to the device in the center of the conference room table, “You forgot that we are recording this session today.  I will play your offer to the team and invite you to explain it.”

She left the room without a sound but returned a few minutes later with “Crocodile Dundee”.

In the confrontation that ensued, it turned out that he wasn’t unhappy with what I said to her.  However, he was VERY unhappy with the fact that I had turned her down.

“I get it”, I said, feeling my blood pressure rising, “You’re both deal closers.  She closes the deal with me and then you close the larger deal for me.”

“Whatever it takes”, he replied.

I leaned in towards him, close enough to smell his cheap cologne.

“I don’t do whatever it takes”, I said, staring him in the eye, “I do whatever my values, ethics and character call me to do to deliver the best result possible for everyone around me.”

At the moment, the team began returning to the conference room.

I turned to the team and announced that we had decided that it was in our best interests to not work together and that he and his entourage would be returning to the airport ahead of schedule.

There were a few cries of surprise and as he left, he held out his hand.

“Sorry”, I replied, “I only shake the hand of people I respect.”

He left and I explained to the team what had happened, replaying the recording of both her offer and the lawyer’s subsequent challenge to me.

I wonder how many more out there are like him …

… or who don’t have the courage or the willpower to turn people like him away.

Meanwhile …. related and not ….

I had two interesting conversations with colleagues in the last week regarding similar subjects.

In one, a Government Minister whom I have the HIGHEST regard for in regards to character, values, ethics, Life purpose, service to others and other noble attributes, lamented that their results were being compromised because of the fine line they walk, where the balancing act of accomplishing great things for their constituents while towing the party line was difficult to manage, with the latter being complicated by the skullduggery, backstabbing and yes, adultery going on all around the Minister.

I challenged the Minister to live by their character and values (which far outshine the Minister’s colleagues).  I will be curious to see what happens next - courage requires small steps at first.  However, I was encouraged today when I received an SMS from the Minister, quoting Ruth Gordon:

Courage is very important  Like a muscle, it is strengthened by use.

In the other conversation, a friend of mine, a subject matter expert on guiding organizations through change and transition, suddenly found herself being talked around in a meeting otherwise attended by only men.  Even though SHE was the subject matter expert in the room, they talked around her as if she didn’t exist.

She reached out to me for advice on how to deal with such ignorance in the 21st century and this is what I told her.

“Go to a local adult store and buy the largest phallus you can find.  Bring it to the meeting but leave it put away.  If the same level of disrespect occurs and you can’t get yourself inserted into the conversation, take it out, place it on the table and express gratitude that you brought yours to the meeting also and thus deserve to be heard.”

“Or”, I continued, “buy the smallest one you can find, take it out during the meeting and make an observation that having presented the largest one in the room, you now have a right to speak and to be heard.”

After she expressed gratitude that I used comedy to give her the best laugh she had had all day, I replied that I wasn’t joking.

We must always take a stand against the ignorant and those who choose to limit the result of others who champion character, values, ethics, respect and higher standards.

We must do it directly and respectfully.

But we must do it.

The price we pay for not doing it is too high and grows every time we choose not to take a stand.

The Bottom Line

In thinking through my event today, I wonder how many people would have taken the lawyer’s assistant up on her less than generous offer, especially if they thought they could do it without anyone knowing about it.

I could have accomplished that easily and no one would have been the wiser.

But I would have known - how could I demand that others live to a higher standard if I chose to live to the contrary?.

And an Authority that judges me would have known.

I wonder how many people may have turned down the original offer but then succumbed to the pressure that her boss attempted to exert under the confident “whatever it takes” banner.

Success is a tempting mistress and human frailty has undermined many a good human being.

The point is that when people collaborate with us or represent us, their character becomes a projection of ours.  So when they sit before others at the boardroom table, no matter how much I try to live by a higher standard, the only thing the other people in the boardroom would remember me for would be this person’s character and values …. or lack thereof.

We are the company that we keep or whom we allow to speak on our behalf.

This lawyer’s projection on my behalf wouldn’t be acceptable to me.

Would it be acceptable to you that someone else would do “whatever it takes” in order to get something done?

Are you willing to literally do “whatever it takes”?

Are you willing to reap the harvest or pay the price for how you live your character and values (or how someone else represents them)?

Are you sure?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

I looked up her husband and discovered that he has a successful practice in Toronto.  I wonder what would happen if I sent him a copy of the recording of his wife "in action".  Would he be offended, hurt or would he respond with a "So?  What's your point?"?

The young lady was also potentially setting herself up.  What if I had agreed to the rendezvous just to use her and then turn down their offer to represent us?  What if I was a nut who caught her by surprise and hurt her?

Then there's the possibility that if I had succumbed to such an offer, a recording of the event could have placed me (or them) in a professionally compromising position.

And finally, what if we had agreed to team up with this bunch of miscreants and the same tactics were used with the people we were negotiating with, potentially costing me a sale, a friendship or both?

The sad reality is that they likely had enough previous experience with some sense of success to believe that this was going to be a successful option today.   What does this say about the people they collaborated with in the past?

So many possibilities, all of them wrong, but the possibilities having been created with the first terrible choice.

Coal miners often had a canary in the mines with them and if the canary died, it would be a warning that the air was unsafe and so they had to evacuate immediately.  As a colleague said to me today, events such as this one are a "canary in the coal mine" in regards to how society is evolving (or devolving).

What do you think?

Newfoundland Politicians–Candidates For the People or For the Waterford

One of the reasons people hate politics is that truth is rarely a politician's objective. Election and power are. - Cal Thomas

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation. - James Freeman Clarke

The general election in my ancestral province of Newfoundland and Labrador is just around the corner (November 30, 2015) and as I ponder what type of future the citizens of that great province are contemplating, I can’t help but cast an eye of discernment over the candidates themselves.

As a person who evaluates people using data, I always examine politicians by the things that predict their behavior – things like their ethics, their morals, their values, their character and the people that they associate with.  It is contrary to how many voters evaluate candidates – based on their party, their looks, the selfish needs of the voters themselves or a small subset of the politician’s intentions or beliefs without looking at the larger picture.

It is because of how many voters select their candidates that they don’t foresee where their candidates will take the government and so today’s Leader-of-the-year, can-do-no-wrong hero becomes tomorrow’s despised, have-to-get-them-out-at-any-cost bucket of manure. 

The people leading us into heaven today become the people leading us into the apocalypse tomorrow and yet the funny thing is that they didn’t change and neither did we.  The only thing that changed was the revealing of their character, their motives, their abilities and their intentions.

And so now as I cast an eye of discernment over the candidates in the upcoming general election, some interesting things stand out:

• At least two candidates who are heavily into BDSM.  I don’t care about their personal preferences but their spouses are unaware of their interests since their acts are performed with others.
• At least one candidate who believes that they are one of ten prophets on planet Earth who have been selected to channel a new way of living on the planet, advice which is being sent from beings from another planet or dimension.  One individual tried to convince me that I was one of the ten as well.  Really.
• At least one candidate who makes a living promoting products and services for a company founded by a man who has been fleeing US authorities for years, wanted for fraud, tax evasion and a pile of other things associated with this company.  We are the company that we keep.
• More than one candidate who already has lined up lucrative deals with private corporations and individuals.  Forget the Tendering Act – it is merely a suggestion that is easily circumvented.  Some businesses are smart – they have secured the help of all sides.  The humorous thing is that each candidate is unaware that they are all being used.
• At least one candidate who has spent so much time gathering dirt on other people ala J. Edgar Hoover that the candidate is unaware that dirt is being shared about them amongst others with the belief that this may be leveraged to their advantage some day.  Some people have been waiting for an opportunistic moment to take the person out with litigation – the timing may be right if the candidate is elected since litigation is as much about emotion and leverage as it is about facts.

The list in front of me is long, complex, disturbing and frightening and includes most of the candidates.

Don’t ask me for it – I won’t share it – at least for now.

When I suggested on Twitter that I might share it, eight candidates reached out to me to ask me who I was outing.

Seven of them are on the list.

Oh well.

I’m not expecting candidates to be perfect.

However, I am expecting candidates to be in a position in their Life such that they can’t have their personal interests used against them in order for others to achieve greedy or nefarious objectives.

For some, I would expect the candidates to at least be sane since they are leading the Province legislatively, morally, etc.

And while there are politicians who exist to serve the people and leave the place better and stronger than they found it, they are in the minority.

The rest fall prey to greed, ignorance, ego and opportunism – either their own or someone else’s and it either takes them off the focus of serving the people who elected them or it throws them into disarray as they find themselves serving different masters who use personal information to direct their puppets.

When these things happen, we find them ignoring data at the risk of the Province.  When I wrote the blog post Newfoundland–Should We Just Shoot It And Put It Out Of Its Misery? in March of 2014, where I discussed the concern of the Newfoundland Government projecting $105 / barrel oil while Goldman Sachs was projecting $80 / barrel or worse, I was contacted by the Government and told to stop fear mongering.  As I write this, oil is hovering around $41 / barrel and budgets in the near term do NOT look good.  Ego has a way of not listening, doesn’t it?  Ego’s favorite tool, unfortunately, is intimidation and not education.

When these things happen, we find people using power to promote the unqualified or their own selfish needs.  When I wrote the blog post The Power of the Four-Poster Interview in October of 2013, I created a fuss when I opined on why and how someone with a high school education and no relevant job experience could be appointed to chair the College of the North Atlantic Board of Governors (amongst other appointments).  I suggested that it was possibly related to the reality that the minister who made the appointment and the person who was appointed were dating each other.  No conflict of interest there.

When these things happen, we find people who forget that they exist to serve the interests of the people transparently and honestly.  When they don’t as I mused in the blog post Muskrat Falls–Mastering the Art of Communication Failure in October of 2014, people should rise up in arms.  Instead, they complained a lot in coffee shops, op-eds and call-in programs.  That doesn’t change much.

Such things suggest to me think that despite the quality (or lack of) in people who get elected, the Province relies on the hard work and insight of the bureaucrats to make the Province work at all.  I mused about this in October of 2013 in the blog post The Newfoundland Government–Headed For the Garbage Can.

If the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador dare to demand better of their government, I would suggest that they dare to demand better of their own level of discernment first, to understand why a candidate seeks to be elected and whether that candidate is truly capable, able and worthy of serving the people.

Desire to serve the people is not enough – worthiness, ability, capability and intention matter.

The Bottom Line

Many fine, well-intentioned, capable, intelligent, moral, ethical, character-driven people offer themselves for public office.  We should never forget this or the sacrifices that such people make in order to serve us nor should we become cynical of the great system of democracy that we live in.

Unfortunately, it is rare to find all of these attributes within a single body and so government often elates us during the honeymoon phase only to leave us seeking the divorce lawyer quickly thereafter when the elation of the early romance has worn off.

The interesting thing that voters should always ask is this:

Why is it that when most politicians are voted out of office or leave of their own accord, they often leave the place worse off than it was when they were elected yet magically their personal situation has greatly improved during the same time period, with much additional prosperity (however you measure it) projected for them in the future.

To the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, know your candidate well before casting your vote on election day.

To do otherwise is to subject yourself to something you may not like and which may be less than you deserve.

Or at least less than what you think you deserve, for if you don’t make your choices wisely, you deserve whatever you get.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS For those who don’t understand the Waterford reference, it is a facility that is part of the hospital system in the Province. The Waterford facility has at various times contained treatment centers for those suffering from various psychological concerns and so years ago, to suggest that you were sending someone to the Waterford was to suggest that they weren’t terribly well-balanced.

As for what motivates me to write posts like this, I ask you consider this quote from Romans 12:2

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.

People complain a lot about politicians but do little, thereby giving them more to complain about.

This doesn’t make sense to me.

Does it make sense to you?

What are you doing about it?

When?

---

Addendum – The Courage to Not Conform – November 13, 2015

Many times when my blog posts muse about unethical, immoral, illegal or strange behavior, the people affected or people representing them reach out to me and tell me that I can’t say what I said.

My reply is always “If I have said something not factual or not accurate, then tell me immediately and I will correct it or retract it otherwise the post stands” and I never hear from them again.  Oftentimes, what I have shared is just the tip of the iceberg and they recognize that to pursue their intention is to invite much worse to be revealed.

Unfortunately, many people who have gotten used to bullying and intimidating others into silence fall back on such techniques automatically to defend actions that they know are incorrect.

I don’t know what’s worse … that they find those techniques to be an acceptable form of defense for the indefensible or that people easily fall prey to such tactics, even when the people are in the right.

Are you easily intimidated?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

---

When Our Values Become Inconvenient

I was intrigued to see a Roman Catholic hospital win a malpractice suit in Colorado on the claim that fetuses aren’t really human.  The story of the lawsuit is here.

It is intriguing because a major tenet of Roman Catholic belief is that:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Unfortunately, it appears that this Catholic hospital is ok with living the values and tenets of the Catholic Church until they become legally inconvenient, at which point they make an abrupt turn to protect their own interests.

Whatever side of the pro-choice / pro-life dialog we find ourselves on, I still find it an interesting reflection on humanity that the dialog is even taking place while we admit that should we find bacteria on Mars, it will be automatically hailed as a sign of Life.

Meanwhile, we can’t agree on whether or not a fetus is alive (or even human, as in this case).

This case also reminds me of how wishy-washy many of us are when it comes to living our values, ethics and morals.

We claim to live by them when convenient or when Life is not squeezing us too hard.  But when Life squeezes us to the point where it is safer or more convenient to abandon them, then we do so as this hospital did.

Einstein reflected on this lack of personal fortitude when he said:

“Relativity applies to physics, not ethics”

Twain wondered about it as well when he noted:

It is curious - curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare.

The world would be a much better place if we were authentic in living the values, ethics and morals that we claim to embrace.

As Robert Kennedy said:

Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.

Are you authentic as far as your values, ethics and morals are concerned?

Or do you have a price, after which you find it easy to allow them to “slide” a little.

Or even worse …. do you present them as a facade portraying that which you do not really care about but which serves as a convenient platform for the purposes of reward / self-promotion / elevation?

How do you know?

Do you even care?

Someday you will.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Ethics and the Courage To Do What’s Right

On Friday night, I happened to watch Courageous, a powerful movie from the makers of Fireproof about the idea that “honor begins at home”.  I highly recommend the movie although I will warn viewers, even big tough men like myself, that a box of Kleenex will come in handy in a couple of places.

After the movie was finished, I reflected on the importance of honor and ethics in my professional career.  Many times over the years, I had to choose between doing the right thing (potentially impacting myself and my family in a significant, negative way) versus turning a blind eye to a situation in order to “play it safe”.

At one client on Wall St, a household-name in the banking industry, a number of “star players” inside the Bank had been running a significant pornography operation on Bank servers (unbeknownst to senior Bank officers).  So the same infrastructure that ran online banking for customers also provided pornography services to other clients.

When I stumbled upon this, it seemed to me that the obvious thing to do was to point this out and have it shut down.  However, I was immediately cautioned against this by Bank staff, suggesting that since these guys were “the stars” of the organization, the Bank would punish whistleblowers in an effort to cover up the situation while allowing the whistleblowers to go about their business.

So the message was:

It doesn’t matter what you believe is right. Shut up and suck it up like everyone else and everything will be ok for everyone.  If you speak up, the only person who will be punished is you.

It was a time when I couldn’t really afford to be without work and so for a moment, I was stymied as to what to do.  If I did what I knew was right, I risked losing it all and putting my family in financial trouble.

If I chose to do nothing, income would continue to flow but I knew that I would carry an ever-growing burden that I was doing something against my own beliefs.

In the end, my belief in doing the right thing overpowered my fear that I would fall into catastrophic financial disaster and I blew the whistle on these guys.  I stepped out in faith, believing that ultimately good things happen to good people.

The right people heard the message, did the right thing, the pornography sites were shut down, the “stars” were dismissed and I was thanked profusely for having done the right thing.

It also produced many years of abundance, when oftentimes the tie breaker between myself and other candidates competing for the same business was my high level of personal ethics and my courage to do the right thing in difficult times.

As I reflected on this event and other experiences over the years, both my own and those of my colleagues, I realize that the structural tension of “doing the right thing” today is more difficult than ever.

We have many competing pressures in today’s world, not the least of which is taking care of ourselves and our families in challenging times. 

Meanwhile, the professional world is filled with people who use various of intimidation, including reminding people of potential financial or reputational impact if they insist on following their ethics to do “the right thing”.

But as I think back to many situations where I was called to make difficult decisions based on my own ethics and suffered through endless sleepless nights agonizing about “should I do this or should I not”, I realize a few important things.

While the transition through such times was difficult, the long-term rewards were far greater than the short-term “carrot” of keeping the pay check coming in or avoiding a bully who threatened to slam my reputation in an effort to force my compliance to his / her agenda.

Equally important, doing the right thing allows me to stand proud, knowing I did the right thing when many people admitted that they would have “sucked it up” just to keep a pay check coming in, even if they felt guilty about doing it.  I was true to myself, a principle that brings great personal peace to one’s Life.

Thirdly, there were many people who supported my decisions – I was never alone.  Neither are you.

Finally, there are many who look to us for guidance and inspiration.  Our actions not only impact our Life but the lives of many who see us as a model to be emulated …. so we should choose wisely.

Maybe doing the right thing here and there doesn’t mean much to some people.

However, over a lifetime, little things here and there add up to a lot.

It forms the basis for how we will be remembered long after we are gone.

And clients who engage with me know what the rules are before we engage.  I am flexible in every aspect of negotiation and execution except when it comes to my ethics, morals and values.

I’m not perfect by a long shot and have made my share of mistakes.

However, when my end-of-days has arrived, I will have done my best to say that I lived a life with no regrets and I will face my judgement knowing that I did the best I could with what I had.

Are you willing to stand up for what you believe in or are you one of those people who constantly brings the tension home to your family or to your friends at the coffee shop, constantly expressing frustration over a situation while doing nothing about it …..

…. as the structural tension between knowing the right thing and doing the right thing slowly tears you (and potentially others) apart.

In difficult times, it is important to remember that you are never alone nor are you the first person to experience what you are experiencing.  Many people have lived through what you are experiencing and are thriving as a result of the experience.

And knowing this, remember also that the world is waiting for more people to do the right thing, based on a higher level of ethics, morals and values.

The question is …. what are you waiting for?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS  I wouldn’t be half the person I am had it not been for great mentors in my Life.  I was thinking about a great mentor of mine, Richard Giordanella, whom I last saw 5 years ago just before he died of cancer.  He was a huge proponent of living by a strong code of ethics.  I share a blog entry here that I wrote about him a few years ago.

Ethics–Winning At Any Cost

I overheard an interesting conversation this morning between a small business owner and a tax advisor that reminded me that ethics may be going the way of the dodo and the carrier pigeon.

This wasn’t just any tax advisor.  This was a former senior employee of a federal taxation agency.

And it wasn’t just any tax guidance this person was providing.  She was providing her client with ways to cheat the system (not just to use loopholes) in such as way as to not set off any of the internal alerts that the taxation authority might have.  By the time they are done, pretty much none of his fairly decent income (in excess of $200K per year) will be taxed or even known by the taxation authority.

This got me to thinking about what we are willing to do ethics-wise in order to win, whether professionally or personally.

A little while ago, I was solicited by someone who wanted me to vote for their company in a competition that would award startup capital and guidance to the top entrants.  Each entrant must be in business a year or less to be eligible for this funding.  When I pointed out to the CEO who had solicited me that being in business almost four years disqualified them and potentially could deprive a real startup from obtaining this essential head start, the response was that they found a loophole that allows them to enter in good conscience, since the most recent version of their product was less than a year old.  That’s  not what the rules state, but he rationalized that it made sense and within the rules.

Here’s the funny part (not really) – they are winning the competition so far.   The judges know but are ignoring the violation.  Why?  Because the competition itself is a sham, a piece of selfless promotion by an organization using it to find additional companies to sell their own services to and to find ways to take partial or total ownership of these entrants.

Each side is trying to out-scam the other, each side thinking they have fooled the other.  They deserve each other.

A few months back, a household name in the not-for-profit space asked me to bid on a significant piece of work which I happily did, reducing the price significantly because of who they are.  We had quite a number of discussions over the proposal until they admitted that they never had any money budgeted for it and never had any intention of paying for the work.  They hoped that if I spent enough time exploring it with them, that I would eventually give it to them for free out of the kindness of my heart.  This strategy was their plan all along.

However, my biggest surprise came when they became indignant over my observation that this wasn’t an ethical way to run a business.  They thought I was the one being unethical, since I wouldn’t serve a well known organization for free.

This makes me wonder if to many people, ethics are merely a perspective, one that can be skewed to serve one’s needs (and to make them feel good about themselves in the rationalization process), even though ethics appears to be fairly cut-and-dried to many of us.

It reminds me of the old joke about the two guys who were always competing for everything no matter what the cost.  One day, they were both skydiving.  As one guy drifted lazily to earth, his friend whooshed by, his parachute and spare hopelessly entangled.

As he saw his friend hurtle to earth, he began to unbuckle his chute, shouting at the top of his lungs “Oh, so it’s a race you want, is it?”.

This is the way people who are willing to sacrifice ethics are acting.  They are willing to do whatever it takes so that THEY win (or so that they think they are winning).  They just don’t think far enough ahead to see what their actions are producing in the long run.

It is true that, just as the skydiver learned, we may win when we make sacrifices in common sense or ethics.

But will it have been worth it in the long run?

Those who still adhere to ethics learn that it may take longer to win than those who don’t, but the victory is sweeter, more long-lasting and produces far greater return for themselves and others.

And they will still be standing when many who don’t care about ethics have long since vanished.

But then again, this only happens when we work hard to create such a future.

How do you think we are doing?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS The company that was cheating in the competition won.  However, business, like Mother Nature, is self correcting – I don’t think their success is going to be very long-lasting.  Ethics DOES make a difference.