Redford Accused of Conflict of Interest

[darklord700]

I heard Redford had instructed Notley to form a review committee to look into this.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Ya but that doesn't matter because if the Wildrose were in office they would have:

[ ] Done worse
[ ] Done the same
[ ] Something terrible
[ ] Something religious
[ ] Not raised taxes
[x] All of the above

Fixed - Brian Jean wouldn't want you to forget that one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

I'm not saying that ITRL should've been excluded from bidding, but Redford should have removed herself from making the decision knowing that Robert Hawkes is a partner of that firm.

It looks like there is pretty strong evidence that the original memos were altered and ITRL was ruled out, leaving the other two firms as the best option.

The lowest cost isn't necessarily the best option, because it doesn't always deliver the best results. The committee would have looked at lots of other factors in addition to cost, before making their recommendations.

Redford doesn't really have a great track record as Premier, and this situation seems to be another example of her corruption and manipulation.

I agree Redford should have excluded herself from the decision.

But it's possible you couldn't legally exclude ITRL based on the criteria in the original memo. If it was not a required element or mentioned as a criteria in the proposal you can't exclude someone for not meeting it. You can be sued for not awarding the contract to the lowest bidder if they meet the qualifications of the RFP. I know it's ridiculous but it exists to prevent people from awarding to who they want to instead of the lowest bidder meeting spec.

Key in the first memo is that All firms are qualified to do the work. Once you make that statement it becomes difficult to award to other than the lowest bidder.

To really know we'd need a copy of the rfp to see the evaluation criteria.

[GP_Matt]

Didn't Redford also lie about the decision?

She claimed that it wasn't a conflict because she didn't make the decision but it was determined that she did make the decision but it was above board.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by GGG

You can be sued for not awarding the contract to the lowest bidder if they meet the qualifications of the RFP. I know it's ridiculous but it exists to prevent people from awarding to who they want to instead of the lowest bidder meeting spec.

Key in the first memo is that All firms are qualified to do the work. Once you make that statement it becomes difficult to award to other than the lowest bidder.

To really know we'd need a copy of the rfp to see the evaluation criteria.

Every government RFP I have seen, for many years now, has contained a clause stating that the contract will not necessarily be awarded to the lowest bidder. They also always have a clause stating that they may choose to reject all bids and reopen the tender process. They usually award to the lowest qualified bidder but not always. Generally on large contracts they pre-qualify the bidders to avoid problems like this, sounds like in this case there was a lot of political interference which is not surprising given what we have learned. If I had to guess it would be that the procurement folks were told to include that firm even though they didn't feel they were as qualified as the other bidders.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Every government RFP I have seen, for many years now, has contained a clause stating that the contract will not necessarily be awarded to the lowest bidder. They also always have a clause stating that they may choose to reject all bids and reopen the tender process. They usually award to the lowest qualified bidder but not always. Generally on large contracts they pre-qualify the bidders to avoid problems like this, sounds like in this case there was a lot of political interference which is not surprising given what we have learned. If I had to guess it would be that the procurement folks were told to include that firm even though they didn't feel they were as qualified as the other bidders.

The original unaltered memo from the committee stated all bidders were qualified. Once that statement is made even with the clause you mention in place it would be tough to award otherwise.

Without seeing the rfp though you don't know. I think their are signs of interference here but no smoking gun to charge her. Based on available evidence their is a reasonable(not most) probability it's legit.

It should be investigated though.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

jesus christo, so everything needs to be green text. This board is rapidly becoming way too serious and way less fun.

Becoming? It's been that way for quite some time now.

[OldDutch]

More of the same from this lady. As I posted during the early days of flood, she publically told Albertans that nothing was decided on help for victims. All the time working with her riding to ensure they got Cadillac treatment. Telling her riding they would be fully restored no matter the cost, while turning to the rest of Alberta and telling them the opposite.

I would dig up my post, but the woman is morally bankrupt, and I as a flood victim would get angry again. She has always shown her backers will come first, everyone else is second class. Just amazing how inept and greedy some intelligent people are. Really thinks she is smarter than everyone else.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

More of the same from this lady. As I posted during the early days of flood, she publically told Albertans that nothing was decided on help for victims. All the time working with her riding to ensure they got Cadillac treatment. Telling her riding they would be fully restored no matter the cost, while turning to the rest of Alberta and telling them the opposite.

I would dig up my post, but the woman is morally bankrupt, and I as a flood victim would get angry again. She has always shown her backers will come first, everyone else is second class. Just amazing how inept and greedy some intelligent people are. Really thinks she is smarter than everyone else.

As a flood victin myself I have nothing but contempt for Redford. The DRP (disaster recovery program) is called "dead Redford promises" by many in High River. Years after the flood there are residents still fighting to get their claims resolved.

[taco.vidal]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/e...tion-1.3339147

Leaked internal Alberta government documents cast doubt on the findings of an ethics investigation that cleared former premier Alison Redford of conflict-of-interest allegations.

The Alberta Justice documents, obtained exclusively by CBC News, reveal for the first time that the supposedly independent process through which Redford personally chose a legal consortium to represent Alberta in a $10-billion lawsuit was manipulated.

It appears those documents were not disclosed by Alberta Justice to the ethics commissioner, who continues to claim they are subject to legal privilege.

"Key facts were not established, key documents were not produced, and the conclusion of the ethics commissioner was risible," said Arthur Schafer, director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics.

"The ethics commissioner's investigation appears, ironically, to have lacked all ethical integrity,"

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/e...tion-1.3339147

Redford flipped her middle finger to ethics and at the end of the day I can only surmise she felt she was untouchable. Shame we will never find out the depths of the corruption that transpired under her watch.

[CaptainCrunch]

Is anyone surprised by this?

I mean really

Fact is that the PC party is in a sink hole with that woman, and she's now linked to them forever. To fix it, all Redford Troglodytes have to be ejected from the party, both its public face and its behind the scenes face. They have to do a very public reformation of the party, and find a leader that can move them beyond her.

[darklord700]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...421/story.html

The NDP is going to investigate Alison Redford again. The previous review done by Neil Wilkinson was a joke because he was either appointed by Redford herself or by the PC party.

This is one NDP move I can get behind.

[northcrunk]

Who is going to investigate Notley? She is married to the head of CUPE. Huge conflict of interest there.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Who is going to investigate Notley? She is married to the head of CUPE. Huge conflict of interest there.

Is she involved with negotiations with CUPE? This is a huge stretch.

[Johnny199r]

So if Redford is found to have done wrong, what could she be charged with?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

So if Redford is found to have done wrong, what could she be charged with?

At this point, people are just looking to nullify the fat contract Redford handed to her ex. If Redford's found to be guilty, it'll add to her notoriety but that isn't much of a punishment to her at this stage of her career.

Any criminal charges against Redford appears to be far fetch to me.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Dion

As a flood victin myself I have nothing but contempt for Redford. The DRP (disaster recovery program) is called "dead Redford promises" by many in High River. Years after the flood there are residents still fighting to get their claims resolved.

I heard from a co-worker and high river flood victim that once the NDP got elected the cheques started flowing, formula adjusted, etc....true?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fact is that the PC party is in a sink hole with that woman, and she's now linked to them forever. To fix it, all Redford Troglodytes have to be ejected from the party, both its public face and its behind the scenes face. They have to do a very public reformation of the party, and find a leader that can move them beyond her.

Pretty sure they already jumped ship back to the parties they came from.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Is she involved with negotiations with CUPE? This is a huge stretch.

Not that big of a stretch. I, as well, have issue with our provincial leader, being married to the leader of the largest union in Alberta. Should any strike, or work to rule action be taken, on the part of the union, does the premier exclude herself from any negotiations?