Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - June 18, 2012, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A10 EDITORIALS WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2012 Freedom of Trade Liberty of Religion Equality of Civil Rights A 10 COMMENT EDITOR: Gerald Flood 697- 7269 gerald. flood@ freepress. mb. ca winnipegfreepress. com EDITORIAL EDITORIAL T HE introduction of whistleblower legislation in various jurisdictions has been met with some scepticism. Can legislation really protect those who call out a boss or co- worker even when wrongdoing is proven? The Manitoba Ombudsman's investigation into alleged misuse of public funds at the Assiniboine Community College shows some of those concerns are valid. Ultimately, the process worked, in a manner. The ombudsman's investigation confirmed reason to suspect financial mismanagement - three employees alleged another had been buying goods for personal use. The employee and an individual who had conducted an internal audit, which did not find wrongdoing, are no longer working at the college. But the employees got no satisfaction after first complaining in 2009- 10 through the college's own whistle- blowing procedures. The ombudsman's office reviewed those procedures and found they did not meet expected standards. Further, the ombudsman found the college's internal audit was poorly conducted and insufficient to decide no wrongdoing occurred. The ombudsman recommended, as well, a forensic audit by an external agency be launched. The fact, however, was the paper trail made a clear finding of wrongdoing impossible - " the evidence was trampled." Some documents couldn't be found and the goods purchased were gone. Although the employee had in some cases provided reasons for the purchases, the reasons were unrelated to the job, the ombudsman concluded. Yet, none of those reasons was questioned by those in authority. The allegation was that the items bought over the years amounted in value to the tens of thousands of dollars. This raises the question, " How could the college not notice, eventually, something was amiss?" The ombudsman's account of the investigation under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, contained within its latest annual report, does not identify the institution ( it accounts for complaints under categories) nor the details of the wrongdoing. The PIDA's provisions for public reporting of investigations are limited, unless a special public interest is engaged, in which case the ombudsman can publish a special report. Remarkably, Assiniboine Community College, which is bound to report publicly any disclosure under PIDA, says in its 2010/ 11 annual report an investigation did not conclude wrongdoing - not factually inaccurate, but a very different account of the affair than reported by the ombudsman. There may be good reason to protect the identity of the alleged wrongdoer; this is not a criminal investigation. But there should be better public accountability for the losses to an institution that is publicly funded, and for the gross mismanagement that permitted loose financial controls to obscure or gloss over the wrongdoing. More detailed information ought to be included in the ombudsman's reporting of PIDA investigations that find reason to believe wrongdoing occurred. Finally, the experience of the ombudsman in this investigation should cause the provincial government to remind all public bodies immediately of their obligations under PIDA to have trustworthy disclosure protocols. It was only by the efforts of three diligent employees at the college, who resorted to the Manitoba Ombudsman for help, this matter finally was fully pursued. W HEN Libyan rebels were barely holding on against Col. Moammar Gadhafi's tanks, artillery and fighter jets, they demanded to know: " Where are the Americans?" The same plea is heard today from Syrian dissidents who are begging the United States to come to their rescue. An American- led force responded in Libya, but the western nations have held back on Syria, leading to accusations they are putting their narrow geopolitical interests ahead of humanitarian intervention. But when the Americans respond with force on their own, they are accused of acting unilaterally or even illegally. It is still not easy, in other words, to be the leader of the world's greatest military power. President Barack Obama, for example, may have thought he would be the next John F. Kennedy, who was widely popular around the globe, but today his popularity has fallen dramatically, according to a survey of world attitudes by Pew Research. A majority of those in the 20 countries polled, however, want to see him re- elected, with the exception of predominantly Muslim countries, where he is almost as unpopular as George W. Bush in his last year in office. Mr. Bush was disliked because he started two unpopular wars, but President Obama, who ended one war and is winding down the other, is unpopular because of the proliferation of drone strikes against presumed terrorist targets. The state of the U. S. economy has also hurt his image. ( Canadian opinion was not sampled). " There remains a widespread perception that the U. S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries," Pew said in its report. The use of drones is controversial even in the United States, where some critics question the legality and morality of targeting people in sovereign countries, even if they are plotting to kill Americans. With the memory of 9- 11 fading into history, it's unlikely President Obama will win the battle for public opinion on the use of drones, although negative attitudes in western countries could shift immediately if there was another serious terrorist attack. The goodwill America enjoyed 11 years ago, however, has dried up. Since the Vietnam War, the world has demanded America exercise restraint and stop acting like the world's policeman, at least until a disaster hits home, or a dictator's guns are pointed at the heads of children. H ERE'S a story we've heard before: The White House is suspected of leaking sensitive national security information to reporters for nakedly political reasons. The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation, but some in Congress aren't satisfied. They demand an independent counsel be empowered to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The last time an issue like this came up, some Democrats had strong views. Rep. Nancy Pelosi argued the possibility the leak came from senior White House officials created a conflict of interest for the attorney general and his staff that could be resolved only by the appointment of an outside counsel. Then- senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Biden Jr. agreed: " I think it would be very difficult for the attorney general to oversee such an investigation," said Ms. Clinton. Then, of course, the Democrats were talking about the George W. Bush administration's leak of the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame, whose husband's attacks on the case for the Iraq war had become a liberal cause c�l�bre. Now, following stories containing disclosures about a cyberattack against Iran and an al- Qaida double agent, those same Democrats are happy to leave the investigating to the two federal prosecutors named by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last week - even though one of the stories, which portrayed President Obama in a favorable light, was sourced in part to unnamed " members of the presidentAs national security team." In 2003, we were initially sympathetic to the Democrats' position. We came to regret that view as special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald pursued a lengthy, costly and ultimately counterproductive investigation in which several reporters were forced to disclose confidential sources, a New York Times reporter was jailed for 85 days while refusing to do so, a senior White House official was prosecuted for perjury - and no one, including the primary source of the original leak, was sanctioned for that disclosure. Whether undertaken by Justice's prosecutors or an independent counsel, the current investigation should, and almost certainly will, lead to a similar dead end - which is one reason we believe it should not have been begun at all. As in previous cases, including the six mostly unsuccessful leak prosecutions so far launched by the Obama administration, it's doubtful any law was broken. Disclosing classified information is not by itself a crime, and courts have found under the flawed 1917 espionage statute used in such cases, prosecutors must show a leak was intended to harm U. S. security - an appropriately high bar. Last week Mr. Obama indignantly denied that " my White House would purposefully release classified national security information." But the president has authority to declassify and disclose such information and did so this year when he spoke about the use of drones to target al- Qaida operatives. In general, the more that can be made public about a president's decision- making - whether it is in selecting terrorists for drone strikes or ordering a cyberattack - the better the public is served. Whatever their impact on his re- election prospects, the recent stories about Mr. Obama's national security decisions were illuminating about critical areas of policy- making. They deserve more airing and debate, not a criminal investigation. Every generation has its own foodies. Clarence Birdseye, born in Brooklyn in 1886 and remembered as the father of frozen food, was one of the leading foodies of his generation. He loved food, talked about it constantly and mentioned what he was eating in almost every letter he wrote. In a 1915 letter to his family from Labrador, where he was a fur trader, Birdseye wrote: " Every letter has to begin with something about food. These are the two items of principal interest today," and proceeded to describe the butter he had acquired from a neighbor and the fresh seal meat he had eaten. When he encountered a new plant or animal, he immediately wondered what it would taste like. He would kill it, cook it and eat it. He also loved to cook. Among the treats he wrote home about from Labrador were polar bear, snipe, skunk ( he claimed the front end was the tastiest), horned owl, beaver and hawk. Later the process became more sophisticated. He would kill it, freeze it, then cook it. Birdseye was born into a time some have labeled " the age of extermination," in which buffalo, whales, coyotes, wolves, passenger pigeons and many other species were slaughtered by the thousands without a second thought. The most famous man living in New York during that era - the most famous man in the world, according to some historians - was Buffalo Bill Cody, who was celebrated for having shot 4,280 wild bison in an 18- month hunting spree. But it also was the height of the Industrial Revolution. New life- changing mechanical devices were being invented and mass produced. Not unlike today with electronic gadgets, young people eagerly awaited each invention, and there was much talk about how these new devices were going to alter everything. And because of that excitement, combined with his love of food, Birdseye believed industry was going to do wonderful things with food. Industry would free the consumer from the small local farm and, with the help of the fast- freezing process he devised, would bring everyone food from around the world, any time of year, free from seasonal restrictions. Birdseye, however, grew up in a locavore world. Farming was local and artisanal, yields were small and the process was organic, or at least lacking in chemicals. The result was most people had very limited food options, almost no fresh food in the winter and shortages caused by blights. Birdseye imagined something better. In Labrador, he had often noticed when the Inuit fished, their catch would freeze almost instantly in the 40- degree- below- zero winter. Unlike the dreaded frozen food known at the time, this fish tasted remarkably fresh. Sometimes he insisted it even swam away when thawed. He began freezing food for the health of his wife and infant son because there was no other source of fresh food in the eight- month Labrador winter. Today, many of us don't think his ideas were better, and we don't believe his argument frozen is as good as fresh - or food should be always available, no matter the season. We have to remember when he talked about how fresh his frozen food was, he was comparing it with the other off- season food that was available: salt- cured, canned or slow frozen and mushy. It is also important to remember we tend to want what we can't have. This thinking may explain why so much of the modern locavore movement comes out of California. The state historically had a weak tradition of small family farms. Today, the $ 34 billion in products California family farms are bringing to market every year is probably the highest yield from family farming the state has ever known. California was the birthplace of American agribusiness, and when small family farms around the nation failed, the farmers packed up and went to California to work for agribusiness. If we ever achieve the goal of getting all of our food from local family- owned organic farms, we might end up wanting industrial food again because it's quicker, easier, more varied and possibly cheaper. Birdseye's leading food ideas - freezing and dehydrating - were about producing more food less expensively that could be more easily transported over long distances. The truth is that both approaches have failed. Today, about one in six North Americans is malnourished. The important issue is not how to produce the best food but how to feed everyone a healthy diet. We haven't figured that out yet. Mark Kurlansky is the author of, most recently, Birdseye: The Adventures of a Curious Man. - The Los Angeles Times Whistle blown on law By Mark Kurlansky Labrador Inuit inspired frozen food inventor U. S. wants love, but reaps scorn OTHER OPINION Cyberattack leaks better than coverup The Washington Post A_ 10_ Jun- 18- 12_ FP_ 01. indd A10 6/ 17/ 12 9: 48: 45 PM ;