Just when I believe I’ve seen the worst standards of conduct from America’s big corporations, I end up stepping in something totally fresh. The movers and shakers of boardrooms and stock exchanges, and to no lesser extent, Washington, have once again forgotten where their paychecks come from, and are attempting to land a solid right-hook to the jaw of the very group that finances their activities: the shareholders.

It was reported last week in an edition of NY Times online that corporations are attempting to shield themselves from liability in the event of executive misdeeds like cooking the books Enron-style (see Businesses Seek Protection on Legal Front, Oct. 29, 2006). Following the unprecedented financial plundering of Enron, Worldcom and Tyco shareholders, a legislation was enacted known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that would establish new standards of corporate governance and fiscal transparency for corporations, and hopefully prevent the type of corporate thievery that ruined the lives and finances of thousands of shareholders.

Not only did Sarbanes-Oxley (sometimes referred to as SOX) attempt to enforce new standards of financial reporting and corporate governance, but it also introduced an entire spectrum of punitive measures, including criminal charges, for corporate wrongdoers. Also, SOX allowed for the disciplining of public accounting firms responsible for auditing corporate books in the event the firms could be deemed negligent in their reporting of a corporation’s true financial affairs.

About bloody time. SOX, without getting immersed in the legalese and corporate jargon, allowed for hefty monetary and criminal charges against corporations and accounting firms that either looked the other way, or were too incompetent to recognize the thieves in the boardroom. Finally, investors – who have collectively financed the dizzying rise to the top of many of the Big Board’s largest players – had some protection from corporate corruption and fraudsters.

Now, some of the biggest names on The Street are saying that the rules need to be changed, that they need some protection on the legal front. That’s right, you read correctly. Some businesses have started their own crusade to draft proposals that would protect them, and the accounting firms that sign off on their books from criminal cases launched by federal and state prosecutors. These businesses also want more protection from the wrath of shareholders and the threat of class-action lawsuits. It’s more appropriate, they say, to target individual wrongdoers, instead of going after the entire company.

In relation to these proposed amendments to emasculate SOX, there are some rather interesting, um, coincidences. The first one is that one of the group’s leaders is none other than Samuel DiPiazza, chief executive of the globe’s largest accounting and auditing megalith, PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

The second coincidence is that these fiscally regressive amendments are receiving the blessing of the Bush Administration. Big business and Bush agreeing to hamstring rules that were put in place to keep the little shareholders from getting screwed over? Allowing legislation of a large legal shield to protect his wealthy golf buddies? Now why would he do that?

Most investors, at least on the retail side, will acknowledge that holding accounting firms responsible for the accuracy of their reports and audits is probably a good thing. The average investor’s last line of defense when deciding to put their hard-earned money into AB Corp. is the financial statements, assets and liabilities, profits and losses. Period. If they can’t depend on the large accounting firms to be the gatekeepers of truth in financial reporting, what then?

Moreover, while companies may not like the financial losses and stigma resulting from large class-action lawsuits launched by angry investors, let’s be reasonable. It is the corporation’s board of directors that ultimately decides who is given the most latitude with the cash drawer, so they should be checking references – carefully. Once a company puts its stamp of approval on an executive of any color who eventually commits theft or misappropriation – and brings harm directly to stockholders – the company should be held liable. It’s called due diligence, and being responsible to your investors.

A corporation that refuses to accept that responsibility is passing the price of it’s own poor judgment down to the little guy. Pure and simple.

Sounds like business as usual.

Manitoba’s much lauded Spirited Energy campaign’s financial details are available to any member of the public who wants them – for a hefty $750 price tag.

The program, designed to enhance Mantiba’s profile as a good place to live and do business, has cost Manitob taxpayers $1.6 million dollars, so couldn’t one assume that the details surrounding such a whopping expenditure would be open to public scrutiny? Not so, apparently.

Tom Broderick of the Winnipeg Sun wanted to follow the money trail to see if Manitoba taxpayers (you and me) were getting fair value for money spent on this rather lame attempt to boost Manitoba’s profile, and attract new residents and new business – but was stonewalled by government officials, who demanded $750 before he was allowed to peek at the books.

Demanding that kind of money to find out how your government spent your money is, well, nothing less than obscene, and makes a mockery of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy act. A section of that act stipulates that “[….the search, preparation, copying and delivery fees referred to in subsection (1) must not exceed the actual costs of the services.” In plain english, that means the government can’t charge unreasonable sums of money to provide information to the public that should be, for all intents and purposes, free of charge.

So why does the Doer government want to bilk taxpayers of an additional $750? One would think there would be enough money in provincial coffers from gambling revenues alone, as well as the continued financial windfall from sky-high tobacco taxes (they really DO care about your health, you know!). Why is the Doer government so reluctant to reveal the details of our Spirited Energy?’

I don’t know about you, but this tiny skirmish in the endless battle for transparency, at all levels of government, evokes memories of the Adscam affair, in which the wallets of Liberal-friendly advertising firms were fattened – at taxpayer expense – for work that was never done. That affair was an example of corruption, thievery and cronyism of the highest order.

The only way the Doer government will be able to dispel suspicion and public resentment over its reluctance to reveal the details over this particular transaction is to come clean – free of charge.

Tom Brodbeck has now filed a complaint with the Manitoba Ombudsman, stating that the $750 dollar fee to follow the money is “excessive and unreasonable”.

I am insatiably curious as to just how many 20 hour days were spent by highly-paid consultants to come up with a provincial slogan that is, at best, dull as dishwater.

Tom, I hope you can find out.