Røe Isaksen receive criticism in the Westerdals-matter – Daily

By Anne Marjatta Gøystdal

the Labour party, the center party, SV, MDG, and Sector found reason to use the term objectionable in their notes.

the Case is about an illegal transaction, which were uncovered by the imf in October of last year. Skolekonsernet Anthon B. Nilsen had merged three colleges, and at the same time, the shareholders ‘ equity of more than nok 100 million taken out in profit, even though state aid to private schools, according to the law to get the students to the good.

Majority meant that Røe Isaksen and the ministry of education and both could and should have acted differently. It was enough varsellamper that burned, believe the party’s Jette Christensen.

Management in skolekonsernet notified what they intended to do, and provided information both orally and in writing. They showed the ministry to and with a power point presentation where the actual heading was where you could take out dividends, she says.

– Should know

An important part of the criticism against the minister talks about that the ministry failed to follow up Riksrevisjonens recommendation in 2013 that the man should initiate a special review of the skolekonsernet.

– the Minister has not followed up Riksrevisjonens recommendation, he has given a misleading answer in Parliament and he has pushed the ministry ahead of him, thinks Christensen.

Minority consisting of the Right, the Progress party and the Left thought it was not the basis for the formulation objectionable. But they also found reason to mention the matter as serious and noting that the minister should have asked more questions earlier.

– are Reserved for the most serious cases

Christensen believes ordbruken, after all, is pretty strong meat from the minister’s own ranks.

– That the minister’s party, regjeringspartner and partner do not wish to use the wording objectionable, it will be up to them. But I can’t describe it any other way, ” she says.

Conservative Erik Skutle believes the case is not serious enough that you would land on such a conclusion.

– It is the deepest scratch you can get as a minister before it is to talk about distrust or formal criticism, ” says Skutle.

He refers to a decision of criticism the last few years is reserved for cases in which the 22. July case, the Mongstad case and the so-called asylbarnsaken.

– We believe that this case is not close to those dimensions, ” he says.

Christensen believes the comparison is done on the wrong basis, and that argument does not hold.

– In this case, it was not to talk about the decision about the criticism, but rather notes how the committee uses the phrase objectionable, ” she. (NTB)