Oda’s Spending Behavior Odious

Canada’s International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda seems destined to go down in Canadian political history as the self-appointed Queen of Spending from the Public Trough for her apparent extravagant financial habits at the public’s expense. She has been caught on at least two separate occasions in the past six years, racking up expenditures that apparently were more a result of her high opinion of herself, rather than necessity. Oda apologized this week for her latest publicized overspending, in London, England last June. But the situation still reeks of her apparent cavalier approach to spending money that isn't hers.

In the first publicized instance of Oda's perceived reckless spending of taxpayers' money, in 2006, she was called on the carpet for paying to use limousines at Canada's biggest music show, the Juno Awards, in Halifax. At that time, according to The Huffington Post, "Oda told the Commons she had partially repaid the government for her use of limousines. In 2006, she had spent $5,476 for the limos during the Juno awards in Halifax. She later reimbursed the government for $2,226 of the bill."
Now, this week Oda apologized in the House of Commons, this time for her latest big-spending extravaganza last June--or at least the latest one that has been made public. But saying 'I'm sorry' only when questioned about her extravagances, a year after the fact, leads her so-called apology to seem questionable at best. 
Childish or Piggish?

In the latest instance of Oda's wild overspending of taxpayers' money, in June 2011 while attending a conference in London, England, she seemed to behave like a kid locked in a candy store--determined to take all she could while the going was good; or like a hog at meal time--determined to slurp up as much slop as she could at the public trough before the farmer saw what she was doing and made her stop.

Oda apparently thought staying at London's swanky Grange St. Paul’s Hotel—where the conference was being held--wasn’t good enough for her. So she upgraded herself to the five-star Savoy Hotel. According to The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/24/bev-oda-sorry-apology-hotel-expenses_n_1449784.html), the London Evening Standard newspaper claims the Savoy “has been a favoured destination of royalty — the real kind, as well as the Hollywood and rock-music variety.”

Just a Politician, Not a Princess

Unfortunately, Oda doesn’t seem to realize she is really just a well-paid public servant and not an actual princess or other royalty—notwithstanding her apparent self-perception. Perhaps she thought the accommodations at the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel were inferior for someone of her perceived stature; and that being booked into that hotel reflected badly on her, compared to accommodations she believes she deserves. 
So Oda did what seems to come so naturally to her: using taxpayers' money, she blithely upsized her London living quarters to the Savoy. To those who haven’t been to merry old England, the Savoy Hotel reportedly is just a 25-minute walk from Oda’s conference at the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel; also the site of her original accommodations. 
Then, despite the short distance from Oda's new accommodations at the Savoy Hotel to the conference site at the Grange St. Paul's Hotel, The Huffington Post says today Oda charged $2,850 for three days of a luxury car service, "including 15 hours on June 13, 2011. Oda’s itinerary shows she was supposed to be at the conference site — the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel — from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. that day, after which she had private time.”

Access to Information

Oda apparently felt no shame or guilt or otherwise had no qualms about her spending in London until earlier this week when the media got wind of her actions. The Huffington Post says The Canadian Press obtained documents under the Access to Information Act, showing “Oda refused to stay at the first location, and was booked into the Savoy hotel two kilometres away for $665 a night. The government was billed a cancellation fee for the Grange hotel of $287. Oda repaid $1,353.81 to cover the difference between the two hotels, the cancellation fee, plus a $16 orange juice she had charged to her room.”

An Apology of Convenience?

Earlier this week, Oda apologized in the House of Commons for her extravagance last June in London: "Mr. Speaker, the expenses are unacceptable, should never have been charged to taxpayers, I have repaid the costs associated with the changing of hotels and I unreservedly apologize," Oda told the House of Commons (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/24/bev-oda-sorry-apology-hotel-expenses_n_1449784.html).

Despite Oda’s apology, many of her spending critics, including me, think she apologized because she got caught and felt forced to apologize, not because she really believed she did anything wrong. Otherwise, why didn’t she come clean and repay the money long before now? Why did she apologize and say her spending was out of line only when questioned about it and when she knew the jig was up?

Earlier this week NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) took Oda to task in the House of Commons. He said he even called the Grange St. Paul’s Hotel and was told the hotel had free limo service Oda could have used if she felt compelled to have that kind of transportation. Even so, in Oda’s apology this week she didn’t explain why she changed hotels, or why, at the time of her apology, she was not reimbursing taxpayers for a luxury car and driver that spirited her around London at nearly $1,000 a day.

Repaid Expenses

Today, though, the Halifax Chronicle Herald (http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/90511-oda-has-repaid-limo-bill-her-office-says) reports that a brief message from Oda’s office said all incremental costs "that should not have been expensed" — including the car service — have been repaid.

“The repayment covered the costs associated with changing hotels: the difference in cost between the two hotels, the cancellation fee, the car service in London, and all incremental costs that should not have been charged to taxpayers,” spokesman Justin Broekema is quoted as saying, but apparently without providing a dollar figure.

Appearance of Wrongdoing Important

Ultimately, Oda doesn’t seem to realize or care that the appearance of wrongdoing is just as important as actual wrongdoing itself. When she was elected by her constituents she was effectively hired by them as a Member of Parliament. Thus, she works for her constituents and all other Canadians. She is not self-employed as she seems to think she is; she cannot do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, with public money.
Oda Owes Better Behavior
Finally, by any reasonable standards, Oda is obligated, as a minister of the Crown, to behave responsibly in every way when representing her constituents and the country at home and abroad. She cannot be allowed to rip off taxpayers, and squander money from the public purse out of an apparent need to feed her ego; whenever she feels like it, or whenever she thinks she can get away with it.

As an employee of the taxpayers of Canada, Bev Oda was hired, in part, with the implicit understanding she would spend taxpayers’ money wisely and carefully. Clearly, however, she, and those who allow her to thumb her nose at honest Canadians have a lot to learn about maturity and behaving responsibly.

On Misteaks and Spell Cheque

Sew, the universe of north Carolina (UNC) has decided to change it’s spelling and grammar test for students studying journalism and mass communications. Starting in the fall of 2012 these students are naught going to halve two pass a spelling test on they’re own, using there own no how. 

The students—who might bee the professional righters of too morrow--won’t half two show they no how too spell write, with there own a bill a tea. They will bee able two rely on spell cheque on there computers and other devises. And UNC has decided grammar is more important than spelling any ways. That is good too no.

Puzzling

I halve to say eye was perplecksed when I red about this in the Toronto Star (Shauna Rempel, April 4, 2012). Rempel sez the university “introduced the famed spelling test in 1975 and has made it a requirement that students pass the test with a grade of 70 per cent or higher. But in a memo to students…the school explained its decision to drop the spelling portion of the spelling and grammar test.” 

On the UNC web cite, Andy Bechtel, an associate professor who teaches courses in copyediting, reportedly “originally suggested the change because he believes memorizing a spelling list isn’t the best measure of competence in communication” (http://www.jomc.unc.edu/homepage-news-slot-23-merged/j-school-spelling-and-grammar-test-revised-to-better-measure-language-expertise).

The Change

According to Rempel, beginning in the fall of 2012 journalism students at UNC will have to complete a ‘word choice’ section on “problems that spell checkers can’t catch such as the proper use of it’s and its, your vs you’re or their/they’re/there” (Toronto Star, April 4, 2012). Rempel ads the ‘word choice’ section of the test “will also test knowledge of commonly confused homonyms: Did she pore or pour over the dictionary when studying?” (Toronto Star, April 4, 2012).

This distinction buy Rempel between the ‘word choice’ and ‘homonyms’ aspects of the test shows she does not no that “the proper use of it’s and its, your vs you’re or their/they’re/there” actually pertains to homonyms; and is not different from homonyms as she implies. Sow, can we assume she studied journalism at UNC and took it’s test four wood-bee reporters and other righters?

In fact, one online definition of ‘homonyms’ states they are “Two or more words that have the same sound or spelling but differ in meaning…Generally, the term homonym refers both to homophones (words that are pronounced the same but have different meanings, such as which and witch) and to homographs (words that are spelled the same but have different meanings, such as "bow your head" and "tied in a bow") (http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/homonymterm.htm).

The Rationale

Chris Roush, senior Associate Dean of UNC’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, suggests the update to the spelling and grammar test is a natural change in this technological day and age. “Word usage is a much more important skill to have given the widespread use of spell check on most computers,” he said. “And the change reflects that we expect our students to know how to spell by the time they get to college.”

Roush seems naïve on too counts—at least inn the comments at tributed two him on UNC’s web cite. First, he seems two believe spell cheque on computers will always provide the write word four student’s all the thyme—weather they use spell Czech won time or fore times. Second, he seems too expect all post-secondary students will no how two spell write just because they are inn college, and will all ways use the rite words in the wright way.

Dreaming

Roush’s ladder point is a nice idea, but is wishful thinking, from my experience. An acquaintance of mine who has been teaching high school for 25 years told me recently students at his school are no longer taught the basics of grammar and spelling in high school. So, when they go to college they are unprepared for even the most basic academic writing. I have scene this many thymes as a college professor who is currently teaching critical thinking-writing-reading. 

Some of my first-year students regularly make many astonishing basic spelling and grammatical mistakes in essays. Yet, these students claim they’re high school teachers always told them they where “great” writers and they always got writing marks in the 80s and 90s in high school. If this is rite, these student’s righting skills suddenly got much worser between finishing high school and starting college.

Spelling Important

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe student’s knead to no how to spell write. I think they are wrong to believe they’re computer will think for them, and they are wrong to think there computers spell cheque will all ways spell rite for them. I do not encourage students to use spell cheque because I think its naught RE lie able.

Dr. Rhonda Gibson, associate professor in UNC’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, seems to disagree with her colleague, Roush, about the reliability of spell cheque on computers. Wear Roush suggests, above, that this popular fee chur on computers can all ways bale out students when they halve spelling problems, Dr. Gibson is quoted on UNC’s web sight as saying “Spell check can tell you whether ‘their’ is spelled correctly but not if it’s the right word.”

On the face of Dr. Gibson’s comment, above, I agree with her intended or unintended implication: student’s RE lying on spell cheque is knot a good idea. In fact I halve learned only two well that many college student’s don’t no how too spell even the most basic words in English; sad but troo. 

Four my part, I am glad I usually spell things write. But some thymes I half made spelling misteaks two and then even I mite yews spell cheque…like I did in this peace so I wood no eye got every thing rite.