MLAs on the legislature management committee voted Wednesday to hire a lawyer, which confirms the obvious: The mystery scandal is likely going to get expensive and even more complicated.
The more immediate consequence is how it might affect Speaker Darryl Plecas’s plans to reveal “outrageous” mismanagement of the legislature next month.
Plecas stunned the committee on Dec. 6 when, under questioning by the Opposition about the suspension of the two senior officers of the legislature, he promised that a “long laundry list” of concerns needs to be revealed and if it doesn’t outrage taxpayers to the point of making them “throw up,” he will resign.
That was three weeks after all three parties voted unanimously to abruptly suspend clerk Craig James and sergeant-at-arms Gary Lenz. The vote was held after Plecas told the parties the two men were under police investigation overseen by two special prosecutors.
That investigation was based on information Plecas developed with his special adviser, Alan Mullen.
Plecas chaired a long, fractious session on Wednesday that pitted two B.C. Liberals against him and the NDP and Green MLAs. Getting legal advice was the only thing they agreed on all day.
The majority shut down numerous Opposition attempts to get more information on the Speaker’s concerns before approving the legislature’s $83-million budget for the upcoming year.
Plecas repeatedly said it would be inappropriate to comment because of the police investigation. That aspect is why the lawyer is being hired.
NDP House Leader Mike Farnworth moved to seek legal advice on the “appropriateness and scope” of the forensic audit that Plecas said on Dec. 6 he wanted started as soon as possible. Farnworth said it was needed “so that any decisions the committee takes will not impede an ongoing, active police investigation.”
Plecas has already retained a lawyer — Wally Oppal — as a special adviser. He retained another lawyer earlier for specific advice on the suspensions. The new lawyer will offer advice to the committee as a whole, rather than Plecas, Farnworth said.
The pending budget includes a hike in the clerk’s budget for possible legal costs, as “a reflection of an awareness of the circumstances that the office is currently in,” acting clerk Kate Ryan-Lloyd told MLAs.
The suspended officers also have counsel, who has demanded the house reinstate the two.
Plecas again promised that issues would be “very clear” at the next meeting set for Jan. 21. The central legal issues for the committee is how he can reveal the incendiary details and start a forensic audit without compromising the police investigation.
MLAs spent hours going over details of next year’s budget, with Liberals insisting they had an obligation on every line item to ask if any spending arises from programs that might be involved in the investigation.
Plecas declined to answer, with NDP and Green MLAs backing him up and stressing the committee should not impinge on the police investigation.
NDP and Green worries on that front might extend to Plecas, as well. NDP MLA Garry Begg said: “It would be redundant, superfluous, for us … to launch any other type of investigation or process. If at this stage we were to countenance some other type of investigation, inquiry or examination … it would do nothing to help us get closer to the truth.”
But that’s exactly what Plecas has in mind.
In the background, Liberals loathe Plecas for bolting their caucus to become Speaker. NDP and Greens need him there for the seat count. But they look nervous about what he has in mind.
Just So You Know: There was a curious reversal on a sidelight issue. During his angry Dec. 6 ultimatum, Plecas referred to a $180,000 allowance for independent MLAs to which he is entitled, but does not receive.
“If I was really playing it right, I would add another $180,000 to my budget. … I didn’t want to burden the taxpayers with that.”
But on Wednesday, he said that’s no longer realistic. He wants the money.
MLAs deferred it, but he said: “I see no reason why I shouldn’t be entitled to that. I’m going to be asking for that money. … That is going to happen, unless somebody has some reason why I ought not to be entitled to it. I can’t think of why.”
