Redford Accused of Conflict of Interest

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Whereas Redford did not vote, but unilaterally awarded a contract that directly affected her ex husband (and I assume her friend) to the tune of millions of dollars.

Hmmmm voting on a motion vs. awarding a contract.
Hmmmm $3000 that went to a charity vs. Millions of $ going into your ex's pocket

I wasn't making a moral blameworthiness comparison. I was correcting a misstatement of fact.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

What if the firm was the best firm for the job? I don't know if it was or not but I would rather the government select the best law firm for the job rather than worry about who the minister used to be related to. I agree the optics are bad but does that necessarily mean that there is a practical conflict of interest - I partially think no, but much like those who take major issue with that it could also be a direct consequence of my political beliefs.

The Dec. 14 memo, from Redford to deputy justice minister Ray Bodnarek, says: “I note that the review committee considers all three firms interviewed to be capable of adequately conducting the litigation and believes that while no consortium stood above the others, all three have unique strengths and weaknesses.

The committee felt that all three firms were equally qualified for the job.

However when it came time to pick one of the three, Redford felt that her husband's (sorry ex-husband's) firm was the best choice. I wonder why and how she arrived at that conclusion?

There was definitely a conflict of interest here when Redford selected her ex-husband's and her child's father to be the firm that would conduct the litigation.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'd put her on the same level, actually no, Farmer Ed was incompetent and probably overwhelmed by the job, but I believe that he was sincere.

I don't believe that Redford is sincere, I think that she's far and away more arrogant and egotistical then Ed.

I believe that she's a bit corrupt too.

I think by the time that she leaves office she will leave a legacy of destruction behind.

I don't care if he is Santa Claus. Sincere means jack crap if you are incompetent to run the most powerful province in Canada.

Danielle Smith doesn't look really sincere either .None of these current leaders are fit to lead this province. I really hope Nenshi jumps ship in time for the next provincial election.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The committee felt that all three firms were equally qualified for the job.

However when it came time to pick one of the three, Redford felt that her husband's (sorry ex-husband's) firm was the best choice. I wonder why and how she arrived at that conclusion?

There was definitely a conflict of interest here when Redford selected her ex-husband's and her child's father to be the firm that would conduct the litigation.

And that's the primary reason why there has to be an investigation by an outside source and not a government panel.

With all of the stuff that happened with the donations to the PC's and with this, I would think that you almost have to have the same kind of investigation as what's going on in Montreal with the corruption hearings.

This has to be looked at.

If Redford was a honest politician instead of saying I don't know over and over again, she would push for a crown committee unlinked to the government.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The committee felt that all three firms were equally qualified for the job.

However when it came time to pick one of the three, Redford felt that her husband's (sorry ex-husband's) firm was the best choice. I wonder why and how she arrived at that conclusion?

There was definitely a conflict of interest here when Redford selected her ex-husband's and her child's father to be the firm that would conduct the litigation.

See this is the part I have an issue with. You don't know why she arrived at that conclusion, but you automatically assume that the only reason was that her ex was employed by the firm.

At the very least, you are totally disregarding the other contents of the memo:

Considering the perceived conflicts of interest, actual conflicts of interest, the structure of the contingency arrangement and the importance of a ‘made-in-Alberta’ litigation plan, the best choice will be the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers.

I don't know about you, but it seems like it shows that a lot of things were taken into consideration than who her ex worked for. Of course, I have no idea who else was in the running for the job, or what conflicts might have existed (real or perceived), or what the other considerations mentioned factored in.

I have no problems throwing her under the bus for this, but I would like to have all the details before I do.

[GP_Matt]

I may be among the minority of Wildrose supporters on this issue, but I think it is more likely than not that the decision was made for the right reasons. The issue that I have is that she shouldn't have made the decision. It had to be known that it could come out that she weighed in on the decision.
Looking at it another way, what if she proposed using one of the other groups. Would her ex husband have grounds to complain that she was biased against him and awarded it elsewhere out of spite. Maybe she considered that and awarded it to them to avoid it coming up?
There are a ton of possibilities and no matter what decision is made it will look bad from one angle or the other. The better move is to abstain from the decision to avoid the possibility of looking improper. I think it shows bad judgment on her part.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Too bad there is not a credible alternative to the PC party in this province.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Whereas Redford did not vote, but unilaterally awarded a contract that directly affected her ex husband (and I assume her friend) to the tune of millions of dollars.

Hmmmm voting on a motion vs. awarding a contract.
Hmmmm $3000 that went to a charity vs. Millions of $ going into your ex's pocket

The Ford situation doesn't have to do with him actually raising money, rather it has everything to do with him voting on whether he should repay the money. Which went against the Ontario laws governing municipal politics and was ruled on by a judge.

The situations really aren't comparable. I agree the optics are bad and she should have deferred the judgement to someone else, however that doesn't necessarily mean that she was doing so in order to make someone else rich.

Really I think that Redford has a pretty short shelf life as a Premier - which is a shame because I think she is exactly what Alberta needed after the Klein years where there was so much emphasis placed upon repaying the debt that long term projects and the population health needs were seemingly ignored resulting in ballooning costs in later years.

[Flash Walken]

This thread is like getting a free show of SuperDogs.

Look at those hoops!

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Really I think that Redford has a pretty short shelf life as a Premier - which is a shame because I think she is exactly what Alberta needed after the Klein years where there was so much emphasis placed upon repaying the debt that long term projects and the population health needs were seemingly ignored resulting in ballooning costs in later years.

The Klein years were the result of the free spending Getty years. Sometimes the pendulum has to swing a little further to the right in order to counteract all the time it spent stuck on the left.

I think the province benefited enormously from having Ralph as its premier. I wish we had another one like him. I loved the man. He called a spade a spade and was humble enough to admit when he was wrong.

[morgin]

Married for six years, 20+ years ago. Friends now. Unknown (but unlikely) if there are spousal payments.

You are all extremely crazy if you think that personal relationships don't or shouldn't have an impact on who you hire when there is no direct conflict of interest.

Do you think major companies hire law firms based on raw data about the firms alone? No, they do not. All things being equal, most major national firms have similar strengths and weaknesses, and regionals have different strengths and weaknesses. The reason certain firms get work from the top companies in Calgary over others is entirely down to individual lawyer reputations + personal relationships between decision makers.

JSS is an extremely well regarded regional firm. Shouldn't our government try to work all the relationships they can to get the best deal for the province? Why does Redford having a previous relationship 20+ years ago with a partner there, and now being friends, automatically mean someone is illegally or unfairly profiting? What if it means that there will be a better working relationship, less money billed to the government for the file due to a better working relationship, etc?

There is no legal conflict of interest. If someone comes up with evidence showing we got a raw deal due to this decision, then I will be appropriately upset. The memo says all choices were equal. Other factors to make that decision, including existing relationships, SHOULD COME INTO PLAY. Conflict of interest rules exist to limit rewarding those relationships when there is a true conflict. She is outside the scope of those rules. If you want conflict of interest to include "never make a decision where someone you know could theoretically profit" (and unless you want a hermit for a premier, she's going to know a lot of people in the legal community given her history) then lobby to have the rules changed. Rational people who understand the importance of professional relationships in decision making will mock you, however.

Until such time that someone can show an actual conflict of interest, let the government operate like the sophisticated entity it should be (and mimic how business is done) instead of looking for issues where there aren't any yet.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I guess we have different views on the Klein legacy - I think that often times cuts are made without looking at the long term ramifications of those cuts. I really think that there should be economists who assist with the formation of a budget and they can look at the short and long term costs and hopefully savings. The truth of the matter is that the government has a responsibility to assist in keeping the populace healthy and productive in our society.

The costs associated with homelessness for instance are huge, in terms of social services, health care costs and temporary shelters alone. Putting money into the prevention of these issues - investing in mental health care and education to prevent the socio-economic conditions associated with homelessness is a very effective way to save money by spending money. To take a Libertarian approach where the government doesn't get involved and relies on free-market capitalism is destined to fail those who are most at risk in our population. I know this won't be a popular opinion but sometimes not every dollar spent is a dollar wasted.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The committee felt that all three firms were equally qualified for the job.

However when it came time to pick one of the three, Redford felt that her husband's (sorry ex-husband's) firm was the best choice. I wonder why and how she arrived at that conclusion?

There was definitely a conflict of interest here when Redford selected her ex-husband's and her child's father to be the firm that would conduct the litigation.

Her ex-husband is not the father of her child. They divorced in 1991 and her daughter is only 10 years old.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I guess we have different views on the Klein legacy - I think that often times cuts are made without looking at the long term ramifications of those cuts. I really think that there should be economists who assist with the formation of a budget and they can look at the short and long term costs and hopefully savings. The truth of the matter is that the government has a responsibility to assist in keeping the populace healthy and productive in our society.

The costs associated with homelessness for instance are huge, in terms of social services, health care costs and temporary shelters alone. Putting money into the prevention of these issues - investing in mental health care and education to prevent the socio-economic conditions associated with homelessness is a very effective way to save money by spending money. To take a Libertarian approach where the government doesn't get involved and relies on free-market capitalism is destined to fail those who are most at risk in our population. I know this won't be a popular opinion but sometimes not every dollar spent is a dollar wasted.

That's a lot of big words for a vapid opinion. You want the government to hire economists to look in to the long term costs of homelessness to save money? And then you declare that homeless is magically curable by throwing money at it?

How about the government just listens to economists, who are willing to tell them for free, that they shouldn't implement budgets based on unattainable oil prices.

[Tinordi]

Wild Rose Party people should be focusing less on trying to discredit the government with strained accusations of corruption and more on bringing their party to reflect a party capable of governing a modern, cosmopolitan jursidiction.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This thread is like getting a free show of SuperDogs.
Look at those hoops!

Hahahaha this sums it up perfectly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Wild Rose Party people should be focusing less on trying to discredit the government with strained accusations of corruption and more on bringing their party to reflect a party capable of governing a modern, cosmopolitan jursidiction.

Except I don't think they want to do that. Its always easier to make the other guy look bad and just say "We're not them". I think for the next 4 years their strategy will be "Bring down the PCs" more than "Here's our ideas and why we think they're better".

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

That's a lot of big words for a vapid opinion. You want the government to hire economists to look in to the long term costs of homelessness to save money? And then you declare that homeless is magically curable by throwing money at it?

How about the government just listens to economists, who are willing to tell them for free, that they shouldn't implement budgets based on unattainable oil prices.

I would say that the government should invest money in the prevention of homelessness such as mental health care and education - with initiatives aimed at high risk groups such as aboriginals and those in abusive situations. What we are doing right now isn't sustainable and just making wild cuts wherever people don't see an immediate return on their investment is a guaranteed way to spend more money later.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I would say that the government should invest money in the prevention of homelessness such as mental health care and education - with initiatives aimed at high risk groups such as aboriginals and those in abusive situations. What we are doing right now isn't sustainable and just making wild cuts wherever people don't see an immediate return on their investment is a guaranteed way to spend more money later.

Well that I can agree with, that's a lot more realistic. But the cuts have to come somewhere when you're spending more than you bring in.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Well that I can agree with, that's a lot more realistic. But the cuts have to come somewhere when you're spending more than you bring in.

Or through increasing revenue, such as a sales tax (a recommendation of many observers [for example] incidentally.)