Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts

23 September 2009

Reply from the Mayor

Well, I was absolutely honoured that our Mayor took time out from his busy schedule of driving this city into financial oblivion to tweet me:
FreeTorontoNow RT from @ mayormiller um, so private sector consultants and auditors mess up, the city catches them, and its our fault? Get a grip.
The issue is that the mayor LIED to this city's taxpayers about the level of the liability to al-CUPE, and in fact, I am not the only one highlighting this:

Miller's big fib

National Post

Re: $200M Is More Than An 'Error,' Kelly McParland, Sept. 22.

While there is a certain charm to your reporter stating that Mayor David Miller misled Toronto citizens over the sick day liability, the truth of the matter is that he lied.

We deserve a grovelling apology and a resignation; I doubt either will be forthcoming.

Nicholas Brooks, Toronto

I second the motion from Mr. Brooks and submit that if the Mayor had any backbone he would resign now. This is yet another chapter in the book on how broken the Toronto Municipal government is. Royson James at the star had a recent article on it. City Council needs to be purged as it is killing this city.

22 September 2009

$200m is more than an 'error' - Miller is the error

I believe that the mayor needs to go back to school to learn the difference between 450 million and 250 million. At this point the mayor should also resign from office for a magnitude of this lie. I wonder how much the union paid off Osama bin Miller to stay 'mum' on this difference. Where is Miller going to get the money? Here's the solution: He resigns right now. The entire contract that was negotiated becomes null and void and all city employees go onto a disability insurance plan. Kill the complete sick-day program. Do it now.

From today's National Post.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

$200m is more than an 'error'

Kelly McParland, National Post

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.nationalpost.com/0909_miller.jpg Peter J. Thompson/National Post

Even in the daffy world of municipal politics, where satire is difficult because it seldom lives up to the reality, there is the occasional event that makes you rub your eyes and wonder if you're seeing straight.

Such is the news that the sum Toronto owes its workers for sick days they don't need is $450-million, not the $250-million originally believed.

You will recall the issue of sick days. It was the central area of dispute in the strike that dragged on for five weeks this summer, producing mounds of uncollected garbage and neighbourhoods full of cranky Torontonians upset at closed pools and shuttered daycares.

Public opinion sided heavily against the strikers, especially after people learned that the city's unionized workers get 18 sick days a year and can save up the unused ones until they retire, collecting a fat payoff. Mayor David Miller insisted the city could no longer afford such generosity, repeatedly citing the heavy cost in justifying the city's refusal to cave to the strikers.

Eventually the city did cave, letting the workers keep their sick leave (or get bought out), but eliminating it for new hires.

Now it turns out the sum is far higher than Mr. Miller admitted, even though he knew the real figure well before the strike.

The 2008 audited consolidated financial statements for the city reveals the higher figure, adding: "This error was discovered in advance of labour negotiations and staff were using the most current information during bargaining and the reporting of results."

But as the Post's Peter Kuitenbrouwer, who dug up the figures, notes: They didn't tell city council or reveal it during the strike, and Mr. Miller kept using the $250-million figure even though he knew the total was $450-million.

The city's chief financial officer blamed the discrepancy on a software error. A spokesman for David Miller says the Mayor kept mum on the gap because "the city didn't want to focus on just one aspect of the audited financial statements."

"The decision was made not to release financial results on a piecemeal basis," spokesman Stuart Green told the Toronto Star.

A software error? Worth $200-million? If that's an error, pal, what's a meltdown? Rogers bought SkyDome for about a fifth of that glitch.

It's $10-million more than Toronto got in stimulus money from Ottawa, for help on 500 infrastructure projects.

Nice error.

The justification from the Mayor's office is even more ludicrous: You're in the middle of a citywide strike; people are up in arms over the sick-leave benefit; the Mayor knows the cost of the benefit is $450-million but keeps pretending it's $250-million, and this is to avoid giving out figures piecemeal?

Well, the $250-million was the only figure dangled, so that's already piecemeal, isn't it?

How is $450-million piecemeal but $250-million isn't?

The Mayor, it is pretty clear, misled the people of Toronto, and it's hard not to conclude he did it deliberately.

"The Mayor made it the most high-profile issue of the strike. The city in the end wound up capitulating on it," says Councillor John Parker, who is a member of the city's audit committee.

"Now we find out that he wasn't coming clean with the magnitude of that liability. He was sitting with that knowledge all the way through," Mr. Parker says.

"There is one heck of a lot of spinning going on in this buildng and you're left wondering if you can believe anything that you're told. It begins to erode the confidence that people can have in their government."

Why would Mr. Miller pull such a stunt? Good question. Perhaps he was anxious about permanently alienating his friends in organized labour. They already considered him a turncoat for opposing their demands.

Turning up the heat might have produced a permanent rupture, costing Mr. Miller the campaign support he relies on to get elected.

Maybe he knew the real figure would reduce his ability to compromise in the end. Torontonians are plenty upset that Mr. Miller gave in on the $250-million. If they'd known the real figure, the strike might still be on.

In any event, it suggests a degree of dishonesty in the Mayor that puts him in a new light.

This is clearly not a man people in Toronto can trust to tell the truth.

Good intentions are one thing. Basic honesty is another.

13 August 2009

Paul Moist - al-CUPE Terrorist Boss Speaks

Excellent comment on this article:

Welcome to Bizarro world, where you pay taxes to fund this jackass so he can write for a private company extolling the virtues of the public sector.

"Working people built Canada. They deserve a better shake than they have received in recent weeks."

Exactly. They need to be rid of the disgusting parasites such as you and your ilk.
Read this article with a metric tonne of salt, as it is written by an al-CUPE Terrorist. If (when) privatisation occurs, Moist and the rest of his terrorist ilk will be out of a job, living like leeches on the forced union dues (i.e. extortion money).

Paul Moist: Privatizing city services has never worked, and wont work in the future

Shared via AddThis

06 August 2009

A Petition for Investigation into Sandra Bussin's Alleged Fraudulent Campaign Contributions

Here is a site detailing what appears to be some of the legal issues that Sandra Bussin wants Toronto Taxpayers to pay for. Now even in the letter from Mr. St-Germaine, he states that if he is wrong, he will pay Sandra Bussin's legal fees, so why are Torontonians being asked to pony up the funds instead of Sandra Bussin? Here is the link to the petition to get the investigation going, as well as a letter to the integrity commissioner (really needed with this City Council!) calling for an investigation.

Councillors reject libel-suit funding policy

Well, I am glad to see that common sense prevailed on this issue (unfortunately, common sense in Toronto City Council is EXTREMELY uncommon!) and this motion to have Toronto Taxpayers pay for Councillors legal bills has been rejected by a vote of 28-2 (nothing posted  yet on who voted for it).  What is interesting, is that Mayor Miller couldn't make it for the vote...

What is also very interesting is that councillors DID vote 25-5 in favour of taxpayer funds to be spent on legal fees for Sandra Bussin's attempt to fend off what she feels is a
pernicious falsehoods and slander that have been circulated about her in her ward through a leaflet campaign.

I am not sure exactly what it is, but it might have something to do with allegations of her taking funds for awarding of a contract on a concession stand in the Beach.

Obviously, she is innocent until proven guilty, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire...An investigation is definitely warranted...

05 August 2009

And Here's Some More Corruption in the Danforth from Janet Davis

Well, here is another article on the corruption that seems to be happening in the Danforth, this time from Janet Davis.  Apparently there are some missing funds in her election campaign accounting...

Janet Davis’ Missing $6,250


Posted by ward31 on July 5, 2009

When a candidate uses their election budget to throw a “fundraising” party, the money raised should be accounted for, but Janet Davis wasn’t shy about forgetting where $6,250 of hers went. According to the financial records, she spent $1,000 dollars of the NDP “supporters” money to arrange a party for to do some fundraising, which was a resounding success. 90 tickets were sold at $125 per ticket, but for some reason only 19 of the 90 people who bought tickets were listed in her financials. The tickets included dinner, but according to the bar bill, only 19 dinners were actually sold. The remaining $6,250, and the absentee partygoers seem to have vanished into thin air…

It doesn’t seem fair that people can use financial power to win an election and lie about it. Shouldn’t there be some law against that sort of thing? There actually is, and taxpayers can hire a criminal lawyer to question what a candidate does… as long as they do so within 30 days of the financials being filed in the first place. But, what’s the point? The jury of a bunch of appointed POLITICIANS will most probably throw out the case.

The NDP “supporters” can only spend $26,599.90 to get a candidate elected, but Janet Davis has reported spending $44,915.95 for her campaign. The extra money was more than likely use to paid for her provincial / federal NDP re-election staff. The $26,599.90 is the set limit by the city of toronto to keep the playing field fair. Is she buying the election, or are people buying it for her??

The Municipal Elections Act does limit what NDP “supporters” can spend, but there is no limit on “Fund-Raising”, which isn’t actually defined. Basically, if something puts a candidate over his or her budget, the cost simply has to be under the heading of “Fund-Raising” to be exempt from any scrutiny. Since Janet’s proceeds from her “fundraising” party all but disappeared, maybe what she took from her budget wasn’t for fundraising after all. Maybe she got a few extra signs nailed up to boost the illusion of her growing popularity.

Candidates are required to ACCURATELY REPORT all financial records, including any of these fundraising activities. The “supporters” can PAY for fundraising, and then the candidate can sell tickets for people to eat some food and wash it down with an impressive amount of alcohol at restaurants outside the ward. These tickets are exempt from the maximum amount of money allowed to elect a candidate, because he or she is “fundraising”, but each one must be reported BY NAME when they are sold at $125 each. There isn’t any record 79 of the people who were kind enough to fork over cash for her fundraising, nor is there any record of where the money went.

Whenever there is a municipal election, a particular name or colour seems to dominate the signs in each ward. Is it reasonable to question whether the monopoly is an accurate reflection of what represents the best interests of the community? Is it reasonable to assume that every candidate has the same resources at their disposal; for printing, posting signs, canvassing? One might think so, but they are probably wrong. And besides, what’s the point in voting when the winner already APPEARS inevitable? No one should be able to manipulate the system or buy popularity- everyone should have an equal platform. Legally, in some way, everyone sort of does, but there are loopholes. Even when a candidate steps out of line, chances are they will get away with it and the taxpayers will be stuck with legal costs.

In one attempt to ensure a LEVEL playing field, candidates are prohibited from accepting donations of more than $750.00 from one source. Janet Davis got $7,650.00 from, not an individual, but from a GROUP of trade unions. Is Davis using Ward 31 to promote The NDP’s issues instead of addressing the empty stores, drugs and prostitution that contribute to the highest crime rate in the area. If she wants to get that money again for the next election, she has to humour the unions, not the people she’s actually been chosen to represent.

Editor’s Note: All the info came from filed copies of their financial statements with the City of Toronto. You can not give a councillor over $100.00 without Identify yourself.

Here's Where It Started - Sandra Bussin

Here is where it all started for Sandra Bussin and her whinge to have her legal bills paid for.  I commend Leroy for his reporting - keep up the fight against government corruption.

01 January 2009

About FreeTorontoNow

This blog was established as a direct response to the incompetence and treasonous actions demonstrated by his blondeness, Mayor David Miller, during the extortion conducted by CUPE 416 and 79 in the summer of 2009. Its aim is to remind Toronto voters to remember the actions of David Miller and to hold him and those councillors, the Treasonous Toronto 20, accountable in the next municipal election. Remember and make your vote count.

Remove the following from City Council:

Mayor David Miller
Maria Augimeri (York Centre)
Sandra Bussin (Beaches East York)
Shelley Carroll (Don Valley East)
Raymond Cho (Scarborough Rouge River)
Janet Davis (Beaches East York)
Glenn De Baeremaeker (Scarborough Centre)
Frank Di Giorgio (York South Weston)
Paula Fletcher (Toronto Danforth)
Adam Giambrone (Davenport)
Mark Grimes (Etobicoke Lakeshore)
Suzan Hall (Etobicoke North)
Adrian Heaps (Scarborough Southwest)
Doug Holyday (Etobicoke Centre)
Pam McConnell (Toronto Centre Rosedale)
Joe Mihevc (St. Paul’s )
Joe Pantalone (Trinity Spadina)
Gord Perks (Parkdale High Park)
Anthony Perruzza (York West)
Bill Saundercook (Parkdale High Park)
Adam Vaughan (Trinity Spadina)

Further, the secondary aim of this blog is to promote the privatisation of city services, the dismantling of all unions (terrorists) and increased city accountability and fiscal responsiveness.

Ward 31




This is the first in a series of profiles of the Treasonous Toronto 20. I thought that I would start with my local councillor, Janet Davis. So far my review of her performance indicates that it has been less than stellar and has been unduly influenced by unions and costly to taxpayers! Here is how she voted on some of the main issues:

Taxation

This councillor likes to spend your money, so it wasn't a surprise that she needs more of it and voted to tax your registration of vehicles, your garbage collection and your transfer of land. She also voted not to defer the new taxes and to increase your property taxes 3.8%. Interesting that she wanted to give CUPE a 5.6% raise, so you can imagine where the difference is going to come out of...new taxes!

Spending

Now that the money has been taken from taxpayers, Councillor Davis voted to spend more of your hard-earned money and deliver a money-losing theatre for $1.2 M and a homeless shelter for $6 M. If she had been thinking, we could have saved $5 M and put the homeless in the theatre when it wasn't in use. At least the homeless would be entertained...unlike the taxpayers!

Accountability

This councillor obviously missed the part in civics class on a representative and responsive government. She has successfully voted in favour of secrecy and keeping information from the public. She voted against the public attending consultation hearings, against an open tendering policy, for contracting in garbage collection in the City of York (more Union Dues to be paid = more campaign funds), against an effective lobbyist registry and against an open appointment process for the Police Services Board.