Would be interesting to learn your reasons for supporting Houston, the man who appointed close friends to run important government services. The man who posted a surplus one year which was coincidentally roughly equivalent to federal money not spent on its intended purpose, to clean the air in schools. Who reported another surplus the year homelessness boomed with still no effort to provide proper public housing. The man who has ridden roughshod over HRM planning, including opportunities to mitigate effects of changing climate. The man who is increasingly turning to private interests to provide healthcare. The man who discarded the Coastal Protection Act which had previously received all-party support.
I would love to talk to you about this. But to do it we'll have to come to a shared understanding about two things:
1/ The Premier isn't the boss of Nova Scotia in the way your notes insist.
2/ The elected official in Canada's modern representative government has an almost impossible job - struggling to influence the biggest, most entrenched and powerful bureaucracy in human history.
However, if we did come to that shared understanding then we surely would not have to talk about any of this because we would agree these questions... aren't the questions.
Probably we'd never agree. :D But I will read your links. Thank you!
Just after I sent my note my husband reminded me about an auditor-general's report which stated over the years the Houston government had spent over 2 billion dollars without legislative approval. From Halifax Examiner:
I agree! This off budget spending is not good. Whoever set that system up in 2010 should be held accountable.
In most jurisdictions, provincial or state governments are generally required to adhere to their approved budgets and can’t spend money outside of these budgets without specific authorization. However, there are usually mechanisms in place to address unforeseen circumstances or emergencies.
For instance:
1. Contingency Funds: Some provinces or states have contingency or emergency funds set aside for unexpected expenses. These funds can be accessed without requiring a full budget amendment if the change does not result in a budget overage.
2. Legislative Approval: If additional spending is necessary, the provincial government might need to seek approval from the legislative body (like a provincial parliament or state assembly) for a supplementary budget or emergency spending.
3. Legal Framework: The specific rules and procedures vary by jurisdiction, but there’s typically a legal framework governing how and when additional expenditures can be made.
4. Executive Orders: In some cases, the executive branch (like the premier) might have limited authority to make emergency expenditures, but this authority is usually defined and constrained by law.
So, while there are ways to address urgent needs outside of the regular budget, they usually involve some form of oversight or approval.
It would be better if the 2010 change was not made. And I would propose it be changed back so that only the above mentioned processes could be employed.
Would be interesting to learn your reasons for supporting Houston, the man who appointed close friends to run important government services. The man who posted a surplus one year which was coincidentally roughly equivalent to federal money not spent on its intended purpose, to clean the air in schools. Who reported another surplus the year homelessness boomed with still no effort to provide proper public housing. The man who has ridden roughshod over HRM planning, including opportunities to mitigate effects of changing climate. The man who is increasingly turning to private interests to provide healthcare. The man who discarded the Coastal Protection Act which had previously received all-party support.
Yes, I'd really like to know.
I would love to talk to you about this. But to do it we'll have to come to a shared understanding about two things:
1/ The Premier isn't the boss of Nova Scotia in the way your notes insist.
2/ The elected official in Canada's modern representative government has an almost impossible job - struggling to influence the biggest, most entrenched and powerful bureaucracy in human history.
I write about these points constantly.
https://thebeens.substack.com/p/the-bureaucratic-party-of-canada
https://johnwesleychisholm.substack.com/p/how-do-you-like-justin-trudeau-being
https://thebeens.substack.com/p/hey-whos-running-this-town-anyway
However, if we did come to that shared understanding then we surely would not have to talk about any of this because we would agree these questions... aren't the questions.
Probably we'd never agree. :D But I will read your links. Thank you!
Just after I sent my note my husband reminded me about an auditor-general's report which stated over the years the Houston government had spent over 2 billion dollars without legislative approval. From Halifax Examiner:
https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/government/province-house/auditor-general-says-houston-government-has-blank-cheque-to-spend-public-money/
I agree! This off budget spending is not good. Whoever set that system up in 2010 should be held accountable.
In most jurisdictions, provincial or state governments are generally required to adhere to their approved budgets and can’t spend money outside of these budgets without specific authorization. However, there are usually mechanisms in place to address unforeseen circumstances or emergencies.
For instance:
1. Contingency Funds: Some provinces or states have contingency or emergency funds set aside for unexpected expenses. These funds can be accessed without requiring a full budget amendment if the change does not result in a budget overage.
2. Legislative Approval: If additional spending is necessary, the provincial government might need to seek approval from the legislative body (like a provincial parliament or state assembly) for a supplementary budget or emergency spending.
3. Legal Framework: The specific rules and procedures vary by jurisdiction, but there’s typically a legal framework governing how and when additional expenditures can be made.
4. Executive Orders: In some cases, the executive branch (like the premier) might have limited authority to make emergency expenditures, but this authority is usually defined and constrained by law.
So, while there are ways to address urgent needs outside of the regular budget, they usually involve some form of oversight or approval.
It would be better if the 2010 change was not made. And I would propose it be changed back so that only the above mentioned processes could be employed.