Good Name Back?
Well, gee whiz, I don't think so, Mr. Radwanski. Simply because the presiding judge felt that the evidence as presented did not adequately indict you as an irresponsible bureaucrat, one who saw nothing amiss in squandering the public trust and with it a goodly proportion of taxpayer dollars, does not truly release you from responsibility.
You can't have been all that ignorant of the guidelines issued to all public civil servants. When in doubt, enquire. No need to be oblivious to responsibility, other than to shirk it.
And you cannot have been entirely unaware that the government looks rather askance at their senior employees who seek to advantage themselves to the extent that you obviously did. Your expense claims were outrageous. The manner in which you took advantage of perquisites not meant to be utilized in the manner you felt comfortable in doing, mark you as a rather unintelligent self-availer.
How absurd it was that you have been acquitted, when you are clearly in breach of the public trust. As privacy commissioner you were entrusted to perform at a certain level of competence. It would have been assumed that you would perform the many duties you were entrusted with with diligence and honesty.
You harassed, intimidated and created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among the workers whom you were responsible for. You would brook no criticism, and any who were sufficiently audacious to comment unfavourably on your techniques and findings discovered themselves to be downgraded and marginalized.
You saw nothing amiss in treating yourself and a favoured minion to luxurious treats you termed "working" lunches. Anyone might consider a bill representing $122 for a single breakfast, lunch or dinner, and up to $250 for a dinner on the taxpayer dime rather excessive, but not you.
Your extended periods of time away from the office in favour of summertime visits to your cottage did you no credit. Nor did your claims to time you weren't entitled to.
Your juggling of accounts for travel advances was rather irregular and questions your understanding of the basic requirements for self-direction and responsibility as a trusted public servant with access to public money.
In short, sir, you haven't a good name at all, and that's truly a shame.
You can't have been all that ignorant of the guidelines issued to all public civil servants. When in doubt, enquire. No need to be oblivious to responsibility, other than to shirk it.
And you cannot have been entirely unaware that the government looks rather askance at their senior employees who seek to advantage themselves to the extent that you obviously did. Your expense claims were outrageous. The manner in which you took advantage of perquisites not meant to be utilized in the manner you felt comfortable in doing, mark you as a rather unintelligent self-availer.
How absurd it was that you have been acquitted, when you are clearly in breach of the public trust. As privacy commissioner you were entrusted to perform at a certain level of competence. It would have been assumed that you would perform the many duties you were entrusted with with diligence and honesty.
You harassed, intimidated and created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among the workers whom you were responsible for. You would brook no criticism, and any who were sufficiently audacious to comment unfavourably on your techniques and findings discovered themselves to be downgraded and marginalized.
You saw nothing amiss in treating yourself and a favoured minion to luxurious treats you termed "working" lunches. Anyone might consider a bill representing $122 for a single breakfast, lunch or dinner, and up to $250 for a dinner on the taxpayer dime rather excessive, but not you.
Your extended periods of time away from the office in favour of summertime visits to your cottage did you no credit. Nor did your claims to time you weren't entitled to.
Your juggling of accounts for travel advances was rather irregular and questions your understanding of the basic requirements for self-direction and responsibility as a trusted public servant with access to public money.
In short, sir, you haven't a good name at all, and that's truly a shame.
Labels: Canada, Justice, Life's Like That
posted by Pieface | 7:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home