Redford Accused of Conflict of Interest

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So the gist is:

Federally I used to support the CPC but I don't anymore because I don't like them now, so I vote Green at election time.

You're not very good at this.

Provincially I'm split... although the Wildrose party is definitely not one of parties that I'm split about. You'll have to guess which party I vote for.

I've voted for three provincial parties in my time (in order: Liberal, PC, Alberta Party). The reasoning: I thought it'd be cool to see the PCs lose Klein's seat. I thought the PCs should get the seat back because I don't actually like the provincial Liberals. And because Greg Clark stood at Elbow and 5th St. many mornings and figured I'd throw him a bone. I knew Redford was winning Calgary-Elbow but decided not to vote for her (see my CPC stance).

Municipal elections... I vote for the best man/woman available and party policies don't come into play, but that doesn't mean there aren't people on city council that I dislike.

You got it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Her sister is now vice-president of special projects for AHS now too. whatever that is. sounds like a patronage appointment to me.
And lets not forget it was Redford herself while Minister of Justice, who made it illegal for the Chief Electoral Officer to publish the results of the investigation into illegal campaign contributions too. hmm, think she knew that when she took that big cheque from Katz?
This government sure feels dirty to me and i have a feeling Albertans are going to be feeling the sting of Allison Redford for years and years after she is no longer Premier. I bet when she does leave, she'll walk away with millions of Albertans dollars lining her pockets and Alberta billions in debt.

And a fat pension paid for completely by taxpayers because she signed off on a plan that decreased MLA contributions and increased contributions from the voter base.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Caught for what? Doing something that doesn't actually violate the conflict of interest laws for the province? Very ambiguous indeed. Even if her ex-husband was handling the case directly it is still only a PERCEIVED conflict of interest rather than a legal one. Ford was a conflict of interest in the legal sense regardless of the dollar amount.

It's really a simple question. Do you think it's a conflict of interest to award a million dollar contract to a firm you have personal ties to?
whether or not she "legally" broke any laws is not really the point. she's smart enough to skirt those laws.
her ex-husband is a partner, whether or not he's involved directly is irrelevant. he's going to profit from it. he's going to profit because of a recommendation directly from Redford that the government use his firm.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

It's really a simple question. Do you think it's a conflict of interest to award a million dollar contract to a firm you have personal ties to?
whether or not she "legally" broke any laws is not really the point. she's smart enough to skirt those laws.
her ex-husband is a partner, whether or not he's involved directly is irrelevant. he's going to profit from it. he's going to profit because of a recommendation directly from Redford that the government use his firm.

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.

[Hatter]

I can't stand what the PC party has become. That being said, I'm not really seeing the huge issue here.

It appears that no laws have been broken, and the government's rationale for choosing this particular law firm seems sound. They specialize in this type of litigation, and in principle I like the idea of not hiring a firm that could potentially be tied up in issues for the other provinces, when the only province I care about as far as my tax dollars are concerned is Alberta.

The optics are bad, but I highly doubt even Redford would jeopardize her position to get more money for her (presumably) already wealthy ex-husband.

[monkeyman]

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.

Well,thats just it. nobody knows for sure how the decision was made, it could very well be the best firm for the job. The point is, she should have recused herself so somebody with no personal ties could make that decision.
The very fact that you have to question how the choice was made should worry you, it should worry all of us.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Well,thats just it. nobody knows for sure how the decision was made, it could very well be the best firm for the job. The point is, she should have recused herself so somebody with no personal ties could make that decision.
The very fact that you have to question how the choice was made should worry you, it should worry all of us.

I think it's pretty clear from the memo Redford signed, how the decision was made .... she was given 3 choices and choose the firm ex is a partner at.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sion-memo.html

Now, were any laws broken? Likely not. But the moment she saw her ex's firm was one of the three she should have (IMHO) taken a step back and asked the committee to make the decision.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Ace

Redford is the worst premier we've ever had, just completely incompetent. I'd be surprised if she survives that parties leadership vote.

Wow you must have been out of the country when Alberta was destroyed by a Farmer.

[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.

[Tinordi]

Rabble rabble rabble

[1stLand]

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 believe Ed was sincere too. I met him on a few occasions when I was a member of the PC party.
My sense was that his inner circle led him to make most of the decisions. He had a terrible inner circle. Not suited to be Premier either, but a darn good MLA.

It's time for the Wildrose Party to govern.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Rabble rabble rabble

[crazy_eoj]

I think this accusation is particularly interesting in light of the comparison with Rob Ford.

We have one conflict of interest, where a mayor is guilty of raising a relatively tiny amount of money for charity using city letterhead, and another where a premier (justice minister) made a decision to benefit an ex-husbands company, likely to the tune of several million dollars, and which one gets fired....?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think this accusation is particularly interesting in light of the comparison with Rob Ford.

We have one conflict of interest, where a mayor is guilty of raising a relatively tiny amount of money for charity using city letterhead, and another where a premier (justice minister) made a decision to benefit an ex-husbands company, likely to the tune of several million dollars, and which one gets fired....?

Rob Ford WAS NOT fired because he used city letterhead to raise money for his charity.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Rob Ford WAS NOT fired because he used city letterhead to raise money for his charity.

Sure he was. If he hadn't done that would he have been fired? The central reason he was in any hearings at all was because of raising money for charity.

Now, if his ex-wife had been using the city letterhead, there would have been no issues.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Sure he was. If he hadn't done that would he have been fired? The central reason he was in any hearings at all was because of raising money for charity.

Now, if his ex-wife had been using the city letterhead, there would have been no issues.

No, the central reason he was accused, and found guilty of, a conflict of interest is because he voted on a motion that directly affected him (i.e., whether he should pay back the ill-begotten money or not.)

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Sure he was. If he hadn't done that would he have been fired? The central reason he was in any hearings at all was because of raising money for charity.

Now, if his ex-wife had been using the city letterhead, there would have been no issues.

By that logic, Redford is in trouble for waking up that morning.

Because, if she hadn't, she wouldn't have been able to write that memo.

The comparison between Ford and Redford is thin, because Ford directly had a conflict of interest and Redford had a perceived conflict. One is against the rules, and one is just poor judgement.

That doesn't excuse what Redford did, and it does reflect poorly upon her, but I don't think that the cries of corruption etc that are coming from the WRP faithful in this thread are really justified.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

By that logic, Redford is in trouble for waking up that morning.

Because, if she hadn't, she wouldn't have been able to write that memo.

The comparison between Ford and Redford is thin, because Ford directly had a conflict of interest and Redford had a perceived conflict. One is against the rules, and one is just poor judgement.

That doesn't excuse what Redford did, and it does reflect poorly upon her, but I don't think that the cries of corruption etc that are coming from the WRP faithful in this thread are really justified.

Oh please, the only distinction is a slight difference in wording of the law. Any rational person can understand the central issues are very similar. One person is fired for conflict of interest related to raising $3000.00 for charity and one person is not in conflict of interest for granting their ex-husband a multi-million dollar business opportunity.

[MarchHare]

One person is fired for conflict of interest related to raising $3000.00 for charity

facepalm

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

No, the central reason he was accused, and found guilty of, a conflict of interest is because he voted on a motion that directly affected him (i.e., whether he should pay back the ill-begotten money or not.)

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