The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

All three opposition parties appear to have taken a step back. Makes sense, really. Why risk overplaying your hand now? The Tories will have a new leader in a few months, at which point the work to undermine the new leader begins in earnest.

Truer, more depressing words, have never been spoken about Alberta politics.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

Can you include the severance though? I know that as a Wildrose supporter you want to in order to drive the costs of the whole thing higher, but people who are let go get severance packages...that's the way business operates in the private sector as well.

First, this isn't a business, and it isn't the private sector, so you damn well can include the severance. Second, you're starting to look pretty desperate with your attempts to drag Wild Rose in to everything

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Truer, more depressing words, have never been spoken about Alberta politics.

Not really Alberta, but politics in general. Though in Redford's case, the work to undermine her both within the party and without was pretty unusual.

[darklord700]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ding-1.2589713

Alison Redford ordered penthouse suite in Federal Building

More Kafka from her highness.

"The design also specifies “sleeping and grooming quarters with clothing storage for an adult and one teenager (separate is preferable).” Redford has a young daughter."

Had we kept Redford in the premier chair a little while longer, we might have home grown Alberta princess in her daughter.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ding-1.2589713

Alison Redford ordered penthouse suite in Federal Building

More Kafka from her highness.

"The design also specifies “sleeping and grooming quarters with clothing storage for an adult and one teenager (separate is preferable).” Redford has a young daughter."

Had we kept Redford in the premier chair a little while longer, we might have home grown Alberta princess in her daughter.

Originally Posted by darklord700

Wow, good for Redford to have step down last week. If not, this plus the $45K Royal Canada Air Farce are going to destroy her anyhow.

Redford clearly through she was some kind of royalty in Alberta and will rule forever.

You quoted and commented on the same article at the top of this page... . Just giving you a hard time.

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

First, this isn't a business, and it isn't the private sector, so you damn well can include the severance.

I can't say anything about the amount of severance, but I thought some of the ideas I've read is to make government the same as the private sector?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

You quoted and commented on the same article at the top of this page... . Just giving you a hard time.

Ah, so much dirt dug up by the press in the last few days that I lost track on which one is which, the airfare farce, the million dollar severance, the free flights home for her staff, the premium suit ordering, could there even be more?

[Fire]

Did Redford pay back the $45000 or since she is gone now she will conveniently forget?

[Jacks]

Wow

The documents also reveal the government was keen to keep the apartment secret, and was prepared to overrule the City of Edmonton if necessary to keep it so. In an Aug. 23, 2012 email, Kent Phillips, a senior Infrastructure manager, describes “a building code issue to be resolved” with the city.
Phillips states that he and someone from the architecture firm met with Maurice Otto, the city’s chief building code official, to discuss the premier’s residence in the building. Phillips said Otto told them, “The sleeping areas are considered a ‘major occupancy’ on the 11th floor and therefore a revised Development Permit would be required. This would require a public notice.
“I politely reminded Mr. Otto that the Government of Alberta does not actually require a Development Permit, as the more senior level of government and that no public notice could be issued for security reasons.”
Phillips said that “to avoid a confrontation” the department had asked a consultant how to avoid the “major occupancy” designation associated with a residential suite.
“Our ‘fallback’ position is to seek a Ministerial ruling from the Safety Standards Branch of Municipal Affairs,” Phillips said.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

General opinion is that her aides were wildly overpaid, which in turn overvalues their severance packages. This will fall into the same category as the flight expenses: There's a reasonable figure, and then there is Redford's figure. Being a Redford crony obviously paid well before the gravy train jumped the tracks.

I've read the stuff about her aides being overpaid, and I just think that these are pretty close to the going cost for top people. I know that the wages look bad compared to the "average salary", but in truth these aren't just average employees (or at least they shouldn't be).

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

First, this isn't a business, and it isn't the private sector, so you damn well can include the severance. Second, you're starting to look pretty desperate with your attempts to drag Wild Rose in to everything

Why shouldn't we compare this to the private sector? Its a cost of running business and these people could presumably go find work there, and likely came from there as well? Her Chief of Staff was a partner at a major law firm before taking that role. I doubt he would consider that for say $75k a year to keep in line with the average employee.

Originally Posted by darklord700

Ah, so much dirt dug up by the press in the last few days that I lost track on which one is which, the airfare farce, the million dollar severance, the free flights home for her staff, the premium suit ordering, could there even be more?

That story about the suite is ridiculous. I thought that I read that today is "garbage day" and basically the party was going to bring out everything. Then in a few weeks the candidates will all start to declare and when they do they will all be the "anti-Redford" and all be appalled at what has gone on. By the time 2016 rolls around the coffers will be full again and the electorate will have long since forgotten the transgressions under the "previous regime".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I've read the stuff about her aides being overpaid, and I just think that these are pretty close to the going cost for top people. I know that the wages look bad compared to the "average salary", but in truth these aren't just average employees (or at least they shouldn't be).

I would argue that her chief of staff getting paid more then the American Presidents Chief of Staff is a overpayment.

Originally Posted by Slava

Why shouldn't we compare this to the private sector? Its a cost of running business and these people could presumably go find work there, and likely came from there as well? Her Chief of Staff was a partner at a major law firm before taking that role. I doubt he would consider that for say $75k a year to keep in line with the average employee.

Maybe not, but based on the above, maybe Redford should have let him stay as a partner at a law firm because we can certainly argue that his handling of Redford especially on the travel side makes him look like a bungling incompetent. And if we were going to treat this like a private sector then you would consider massive layoffs to be a applicable scenario due to the difficulties with the two book budget.

Originally Posted by Slava

That story about the suite is ridiculous. I thought that I read that today is "garbage day" and basically the party was going to bring out everything. Then in a few weeks the candidates will all start to declare and when they do they will all be the "anti-Redford" and all be appalled at what has gone on. By the time 2016 rolls around the coffers will be full again and the electorate will have long since forgotten the transgressions under the "previous regime".

you're right it is ridiculous that the Premier of the Province is basically having a presidential palace built. She isn't the Prime Minister of Canada, From what I understand she gets a housing allowance, not a residence. So was her housing allowance paying for this penthouse suite, or was she going to live there rent free and still claim the allowance?



I doubt that people are going to forget this and they shouldn't, this is a unprecedented level of graff and entitlement.

I would also expect that there are going to be other scandals dug up on other members of the ruling party.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I've read the stuff about her aides being overpaid, and I just think that these are pretty close to the going cost for top people. I know that the wages look bad compared to the "average salary", but in truth these aren't just average employees (or at least they shouldn't be).

Why not? Where are you getting your data that these people are "top people"? Where are you getting your data that their roles require so much more than the average?

Why shouldn't we compare this to the private sector? Its a cost of running business and these people could presumably go find work there, and likely came from there as well? Her Chief of Staff was a partner at a major law firm before taking that role. I doubt he would consider that for say $75k a year to keep in line with the average employee.

I agree we should compare it to the private sector. Did you find a comparison of the role to determine it required a partner of a major law firm to complete the tasks?

If we don't require a partner of a law firm to run a premier's staff, can you explain why we should pay them like they are still in the same position as their previous employment?

Or is this really just another example Redford helping out her buddies?

[Shawnski]

Ah Slava, predictable as my morning dump.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Why not? Where are you getting your data that these people are "top people"? Where are you getting your data that their roles require so much more than the average?



I agree we should compare it to the private sector. Did you find a comparison of the role to determine it required a partner of a major law firm to complete the tasks?

If we don't require a partner of a law firm to run a premier's staff, can you explain why we should pay them like they are still in the same position as their previous employment?

Or is this really just another example Redford helping out her buddies?

Good lord. Now we don't think that the premier should have top people in her staff? I get the partisanship, but gimme a break. I'm not even a PCAA supporter and I can see that these are significant positions and should be staffed by well qualified and well compensated people.

I was just noting that he was a partner at a law firm before that position, I don't know that you have to be one in order to get there. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that the premier is going to hire professionals for these roles though, and they're going to be compensated in line with the private sector?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Ah Slava, predictable as my morning dump.

I think my favorite part of the predictability is that when I criticize the suite as ridiculous it basically gets glossed over and we talk more about severance packages and wages. Who could ever see that coming!

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why shouldn't we compare this to the private sector? Its a cost of running business and these people could presumably go find work there, and likely came from there as well? Her Chief of Staff was a partner at a major law firm before taking that role. I doubt he would consider that for say $75k a year to keep in line with the average employee.

Because severance packages in the private sector only need to be acceptable to either the shareholders, or the owners, of the business. The public has no say in the matter, nor should they as they are not required to pay for any of it.

Public sector employees are accountable to a completely different set of expectations and standards. It's not the cost of running a business, it's the cost of serving the public. And their severance packages are completely out of line with the service they supplied to the public. The information coming out now is showing us they only served themselves and the premier. They did so, without remorse, from the public purse. You want them to be rewarded for this?

This isn't just a culture of entitlement we're seeing now with Redford and her cronies. This is corruption and deliberate malfeasance.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Because severance packages in the private sector only need to be acceptable to either the shareholders, or the owners, of the business. The public has no say in the matter, nor should they as they are not required to pay for any of it.

Public sector employees are accountable to a completely different set of expectations and standards. It's not the cost of running a business, it's the cost of serving the public. And their severance packages are completely out of line with the service they supplied to the public. The information coming out now is showing us they only served themselves and the premier. They did so, without remorse, from the public purse. You want them to be rewarded for this?

This isn't just a culture of entitlement we're seeing now with Redford and her cronies. This is corruption and deliberate malfeasance.

Who drafts the contracts for these employees? That's an honest question because I don't know. I know politically Redford takes the blame, but I doubt that she has to sit down and decide what to pay each staff member and figure out the terms of the contract?

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess I would ask why Alison would possibly need a senior partner from a law firm to be her chief of staff?

that to me screams way over qualified for the job and there are already plenty of lawyers for the job.

And he did seem to be pretty incompetent or tied to the gravy train.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who drafts the contracts for these employees? That's an honest question because I don't know. I know politically Redford takes the blame, but I doubt that she has to sit down and decide what to pay each staff member and figure out the terms of the contract?

She brought in people she's worked with before. Whether or not she drafted the contract, she is directly responsible for their employment.

[CaptainCrunch]

They are part of her office budget as well, so she is directly responsible for them, her staff are not government appointees.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Good lord. Now we don't think that the premier should have top people in her staff? I get the partisanship, but gimme a break. I'm not even a PCAA supporter and I can see that these are significant positions and should be staffed by well qualified and well compensated people.

I was just noting that he was a partner at a law firm before that position, I don't know that you have to be one in order to get there. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that the premier is going to hire professionals for these roles though, and they're going to be compensated in line with the private sector?

Where did I say any of that?

You're the one insinuating that we REQUIRED a senior partner of a law firm to be the premier's chief of staff, and because of that we have to pay them the same as what they would be paid outside of government.

Why not show us the data you've used to conclude this? Is the premier's chief of staff pretty much the same job as senior partner of law firm, yes or no?