Anyone who has ever worked in a busy office, particularly in
a supervisory role, knows that you do not have to give explicit instructions to
get things done. It is easier when you
trust the people who work for you and who are prepared to carry out your needs.
That struck me this week when I was listening to all the
talk about who knew what about the sad events in the Canadian Senate
recently. The current controversy
revolves around the PM’s chief of staff giving what most of us would think of
as a lot of money to a Senator who had claimed expenses he was not entitled so
that the Senator could pay off the outstanding funds owed. The deed actually happened a couple of months
ago, but the payoff only came to light within the last ten days. Now everyone
is trying to figure out if the PM himself had a hand in this. He has said that he did not “sign off” on the
payment, and that he only found out about the payment within the past two
weeks. And I believe him on the letter
of his statement.
But let me give you a little scenario about how I think it
could have happened. In February and
March, things were going pretty bad for the Senator in question when the extent
of his undeserved expenses came to light.
Since said Senator was a member of the PM’s party and had been appointed
by the current PM, it was spoiling the image of that party. I suspect that one day, the PM expressed to
his chief of staff that he wished that some way could be found to make the
problem go away. The PM didn’t have to
tell him explicitly how to make this happen.
He trusted that the CoS would find a way. The chief of staff found a
way. So the PM had deniability of the
facts. But does he really have
deniability of the direction he probably gave?
No comments:
Post a Comment