The Union of Northern Workers has set up a whistleblower hotline to act as a watchdog on "questionable decisions and questionable deals" within government.

The idea is not a bad one if it is carried out with an emphasis on objectivity and integrity.

Who knows better than workers where tax dollars are being wasted by duplication of services and inefficiencies created by outdated or misguided policies? Then there is mismanagement, either unintentional or calculated, on the part of upper managers.

Uncovering incidents of mismanagement or corruption at high levels is the most attractive target for a workforce battered by rollbacks and layoffs. But it is also the most dangerous and can too easily backfire and undermine the credibility of the union's role as a watchdog.

Two recent reports the union has acted upon are good examples of impetuous decisions.

One involved a "leaked" copy of a job description that violated labor codes. The minister was able to laugh that one off as a practical joke and the UNW failed to provide any documentation the job description was authentic.

The second report came out of Rankin Inlet, implicating upper management in a government department of forging a minister's signature. The UNW charged that the employee discovering the so-called forgery had been fired.

The RCMP found no forgery. The cheque had been issued for a small amount and was for a legitimate purpose and the employee's work record was called into question as was the UNW's credibility once again.

The union, its members and taxpayers would be far better served by a whistle blower hotline if personalities and conspiracy theories were dealt with in other ways rather than going public before the facts are known and tested.

UNW members have suffered alongside the public because of past government spending practices not in their control. A watchdog hotline, if executed with integrity and fairness, could well give some measure of control back to the people. (November 01, 1996)

Mackenzie-Delta MLA David Krutko is about to find himself entering the dark side of political life. It's a world where a person's private affairs suddenly become painfully public.

Krutko, who applied for and was granted a $25,000 forgivable homeowner's loan, has acted as any other citizen might when taking advantage of a government program designed for ordinary people. But Krutko is not ordinary people. He sits in the legislative assembly across from the minister in charge of the fund to which he has applied. That's the problem.

Ordinary people don't work with ministers as political colleagues. MLAs simply have to accept the fact they are not ordinary citizens while they are serving. The potential for conflict and public perception of favortism is unavoidable.

It's a necessary price for accepting the privilege and responsibility of public office. (November 01, 1996)