First, Mr Bridges was said to be acquainted with the Home Secretary’s wife and his special adviser. Both the Home Secretary and the special adviser had received a copy of the submission of 17 August. Either had been in a position to tip off Mr Bridges about his suspension from the Board if so inclined, but were unlikely to have wanted to leak information on the subject to the journalist. A more possible scenario was that the leak has emanated from HM Prison Bullingdon, and particularly from a member of the Board. Mr Bridges had been unpopular on the Board.
It might not be unconnected that a copy of the submission had been sent to the Governor, albeit under a protective marking. Dissemination there was said to have been limited to the Governor’s secretary and the Deputy Governor. Nevertheless, the Governor had said that much of what had been reported to The Times had been common knowledge among Board members, himself and colleagues.
The Departmental Security Unit went on to say that those conclusions were clouded by the fact that the journalist had also had access to, or been made aware of, Mr Bridges’ letter of July 1998 to the former Minister for Prisons. They could only speculate that that letter had either been leaked by Mr Bridges himself or by one of his alleged supporters to present a balanced view of Mr Bridges in the light of the submission. The leaking of the letter could have been in response to an approach from the journalist who made clear his knowledge of the submission and Inspection Proccess.
The Departmental Security Unit concluded that no specific damage appeared to have been done. Regarding the absence of a protective marking for the submission of 17 August, the Departmental Security Unit reached the same conclusion and made the same recommendation as in their draft report of 26 November 1998. However, the investigation has not been able to establish how the information has reached the newspaper and Mr Bridges had not indicate how the information had caused him financial loss.
Who will follow the whole complex process with the experts in the building and pest inspection process?
CBE financial and staff resources are being focused on positive long-term responses and Building Surveying to these challenges. Collaborative Learning Community and Service Unit Search Conferences held in January 2000 to provide input into the System Search Conference. A System Search Conference held in February 2000 to involve constituent groups in the renewal of the CBE Strategic Plan; Consideration of the CBE Strategic Directions and Alberta Learning Goals by schools and service units in building their plans;
Consideration of the feedback from Alberta Learning on the CBE 1999-2002 Three-Year Education Plan. Percentages of students obtaining both standards on Math 30 and 33 diploma exams equal or exceed the provincial percentages, with continued higher participation rates on Math 30. Reporting on home education students in Grades 3, 6 and 9 (under development). Parents’ views of the appropriateness of the learning expectations for their child.
90% of grade 1-2 students in the 56 literacy project schools will read at an appropriate level by the end of the school year (based on the Developmental Reading Assessment); the minimum expectation is that 85% of students will do so. Kindergarten students will improve in their understanding of literacy concepts based on assessment using the Observation Survey. AISI funds are used effectively to address literacy enhancement in Kindergarten to Grade 12 with emphasis on special needs and technology. Percentage of students in early literacy programs in Kindergarten to Grade 2 who have exhibited growth in reading (as determined by teachers).
Percentage of students in ESL programs who have exhibited growth in language acquisition (as determined by teachers). the Grades 3, 6 and 9 tests: Percentage of severely disabled students who achieve the expectations in their IPP’s (as determined by teachers). Percentage of M & M and Gifted students who met the standards for expected grade level (as determined by teachers). Completion of certificates of achievement by students attending vocational high schools. An outcome evaluation framework for the Building Bridges Project, involving 3 to 5 year-old children and parents from immigrant backgrounds, is being developed.
The financial magnitude of the problem, initially estimated by the first Barrett Commission to range between $600 million and $1 billion, appears to be correct. The accommodation of this cost was assumed in the first Commission report as follows: Approximately 40% by the Reconstruction Fund; ii) 10% – 20% by NHW; and iii) the remaining 40%-50% through various tax waivers and rebates, public sector programs through CMHC, and private homeowner resources.
NHW’s failure and the lack of other financial support programs mean there is greater pressure on personal resources than initially estimated in the first Barrett Commission report. These resources will be withdrawn from the mainstream economy and reallocated to repairs. The spill-over costs of this untenable burden will ultimately be borne by consumers, taxpayers, the residential construction industry and, to a lesser extent, the entire economy.
In terms of Pest Inspection Fees economic growth and development, premature building envelope failure represents lost opportunity and wasted resources. The effect of the disaster is no different than a billion-dollar oil spill–completely avoidable, and expensive to clean up. Once a disaster like this occurs, the costs become greater if remediation is not undertaken in a timely and efficient manner. If effective, timely, and socially-responsible repairs are not undertaken, the cost of this problem will escalate quickly. Another direct cost which raises serious concerns is the cost of repeat remedial action. This is a building.
When it was three years old, they discovered a lot of rot and went in and took all the stucco off, improved details and went back with what could be called a concealed-barrier-type wall assembly, which is slightly better than a face-seal wall assembly. We’ve been back fixing this building over the last year, so in a five-year period, since the original construction, this building has been fixed twice. And you know, it’s an incredible hardship to go through this once, but going though it twice is brutal.