MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Wormius]

Am I understanding it correctly that they were all invalid because the page didn’t indicate what the petition was for?

People actually willingly signed a piece of paper that didn’t indicate what it was for? Holy cow. Those people need to be protected from themselves.

[Muta]

When these people approached us for a signature (annoyingly right at a private restaurant at our table, no less), I refused to - told 'em I'm not enthused with Gondek's performance, but she's not recall-worthy yet and I'm definitely not signing anything directly or indirectly affiliated with TBA. The whole thing seemed super sketchy too; the potential to forge a mass amount of signatures on their sheet seemed incredibly easy if they wanted to.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Muta

When these people approached us for a signature (annoyingly right at a private restaurant at our table, no less), I refused to - told 'em I'm not enthused with Gondek's performance, but she's not recall-worthy yet and I'm definitely not signing anything directly or indirectly affiliated with TBA. The whole thing seemed super sketchy too; the potential to forge a mass amount of signatures on their sheet seemed incredibly easy if they wanted to.

Wait, they approached you while you were seated at a restaurant table? Did the restaurant manager kick them out for disturbing their patrons, or were they allowing this to go on?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Wait, they approached you while you were seated at a restaurant table? Did the restaurant manager kick them out for disturbing their patrons, or were they allowing this to go on?

Yep, they approached us in a private establishment. To be honest with you, I didn't even think about it in the moment - seems like the staff didn't even know it was going on. It was super busy that night too. This was at Jameson's in Brentwood.

[Ashartus]

69,344 signatures, they sample only 369 at random, and they still get a duplicate within that 369? That means there were probably a tonne of duplicates.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

69,344 signatures, they sample only 369 at random, and they still get a duplicate within that 369? That means there were probably a tonne of duplicates.

The issue was that the template they used didn't meet the legal requirements.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The full number that signed? Yes, it's in that twitter thread. 69,344 unverified signatures in total.

I was wondering about the totals that were actually valid but it looks like they’re only releasing the sample size. Which is probably a good indication anyways.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Am I understanding it correctly that they were all invalid because the page didn’t indicate what the petition was for?

People actually willingly signed a piece of paper that didn’t indicate what it was for? Holy cow. Those people need to be protected from themselves.

It’s most likely a case where the wording wasn’t sufficiently clear.

Like it should I have said something along the lines of “I the undersigned am freely signing this petition in support of recall campaign x” whereas they probably just had it say something like “me no like gondek”

It should leave no room for confusion as to why they’re signing it so that people can’t say they didn’t understand what they were signing for.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It’s most likely a case where the wording wasn’t sufficiently clear.

Like it should I have said something along the lines of “I the undersigned am freely signing this petition in support of recall campaign x” whereas they probably just had it say something like “me no like gondek”

It should leave no room for confusion as to why they’re signing it so that people can’t say they didn’t understand what they were signing for.

Assuming they just used a template and copied it for each, would this mean that nothing was valid? That would be embarrassing.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Assuming they just used a template and copied it for each, would this mean that nothing was valid? That would be embarrassing.

Because the petition wasn't too begin with? Buddy has egg of his face now.

[Looch City]

This is actually hilarious now hahahaha, may it go down in Calgary history as one of the most ridiculous and incompetent citizen initiatives.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Assuming they just used a template and copied it for each, would this mean that nothing was valid? That would be embarrassing.

I wouldn’t put it past them

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Looch City

This is actually hilarious now hahahaha, may it go down in Calgary history as one of the most ridiculous and incompetent citizen initiatives.

So far.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Assuming they just used a template and copied it for each, would this mean that nothing was valid? That would be embarrassing.

Apparently so.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...dek-is-invalid


Also, Don Braid's point is pretty weak in this story. If anything, they should be happy the deficiencies were found in a petition that was going to fail even if every signature was immaculate.

If the City had ignored the deficiencies and just said, "not enough signatures, we're not even going to look at them", when the next petition is filed with enough signatures but the same deficiencies, they'd be whining that the city was ignoring the will of the people due to a technicality that no one knew about.

[monkeyman]

I'm surprised the city could find anyone who could count to 369.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I'm surprised the city could find anyone who could count to 369.

Ha! Good one, Langdon.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I'm surprised the city could find anyone who could count to 369.

Silly Hall, amirite?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Silly Hall, amirite?

Big Blue Playpen.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by getbak

Apparently so.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...dek-is-invalid


Also, Don Braid's point is pretty weak in this story. If anything, they should be happy the deficiencies were found in a petition that was going to fail even if every signature was immaculate.

If the City had ignored the deficiencies and just said, "not enough signatures, we're not even going to look at them", when the next petition is filed with enough signatures but the same deficiencies, they'd be whining that the city was ignoring the will of the people due to a technicality that no one knew about.

Yup, that is exactly how the clowns who ran this petition would describe a basic requirement for the petition, that is laid out plainly in black and white .

[timun]

Originally Posted by getbak

Apparently so.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...dek-is-invalid


Also, Don Braid's point is pretty weak in this story. If anything, they should be happy the deficiencies were found in a petition that was going to fail even if every signature was immaculate.

#### does that Braid op-ed make me mad. What a turd.

That’s because a random sample of 369 did not include a copy of the “notice of recall petition.”

Not a single one arrived with the required notice.

(A recall rule, set by the province, lets the city assume that the 369 signatures tell the story of all 69,000.)

City clerk Kate Martin said the requirement to include the petition notice is outlined in the provincial Municipal Government Act.

It is in there — I think.

“A recall petition must consist of one or more pages, each of which must contain the notice of recall petition referred to in section 240.2(2),” the act says.

There doesn’t seem to be a clear statement that every signature requires a copy of the recall petition.

Gee I don't know Don, maybe if you read the ####ing thing you'll find "a clear statement that every signature requires a copy of the recall petition": (https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/st...ec240.2subsec1)

240.6(1) A recall petition must

(a) consist of one or more pages, each of which must contain the notice of recall petition referred to in section 240.2(2), and

(b) conform to the regulations, if any.

(2) The recall petition must include the following in legible print, where applicable, and within reasonable proximity to the signature to which it relates, for each petitioner:

(a) the printed surname and printed given names or initials of the petitioner;

(b) the petitioner’s signature;

(c) the street address of the petitioner or the legal description of the land on which the petitioner lives;

(d) the petitioner’s telephone number or email address, if any;

(e) the date on which the petitioner signed the petition.

(3) Each signature must be witnessed by an adult person who must

(a) sign opposite the signature of the petitioner, and

(b) make an affidavit that to the best of the person’s knowledge the signatures witnessed are those of persons entitled to sign the petition.

(4) The recall petition must have attached to it the affidavits referred to in subsection (3).

(5) A recall petition may not be signed in digital form.

Seems to make it pretty ####ing clear that every page needs the notice on it, Donny-boy...