Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by nik-

You realize it's not about numbers on a spreadsheet right?

Yes, but dwarfing the fraudulent costs by over 12 times seems a bit much.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yes, but dwarfing the fraudulent costs by over 12 times seems a bit much.

And what does the number end up being when these people know they won't pursue it based on investigation costs?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by nik-

And what does the number end up being when these people know they won't pursue it based on investigation costs?

Did I say you shouldn't investigate?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yes, but dwarfing the fraudulent costs by over 12 times seems a bit much.

Its ok to take the partisan blinders off once in a while.

[Table 5]

That 5K is what's on record, but I imagine the backroom handshake deals and freebies are considerably larger than that.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yes, but dwarfing the fraudulent costs by over 12 times seems a bit much.

As an Oiler fan you must be so used to this.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Its ok to take the partisan blinders off once in a while.

Is thinking that $64,000 is excessive to audit 2 years of expenses partisan now? That's paying someone $160/hr for 8 hours a day for 10 weeks.

[MoneyGuy]

I have some experience with this (have never been investigated) and know a few consultants who do this work, also some accountants. They could get this done for a tenth of that cost. Maybe there is much more to it than we realize.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is thinking that $64,000 is excessive to audit 2 years of expenses partisan now? That's paying someone $160/hr for 8 hours a day for 10 weeks.

Ergo, its now the city's fault?

I'm not sure how we can comment, despite MoneyGuy's post below, the appropriateness of the cost of investigating. Seems too much? Maybe? Do we know the extent that the investigation went, what was uncovered, etc? It was also referred to police for potential criminal investigation, so that implies at least some level of seriousness to it.

Ultimately, this money would not have been spent....if those expenses would not have been spent.

May not be your intent, but as you can see by other responses to your comments in this thread, it comes across a bit as a "oh hey, don't look at this, look over there instead".

[Erick Estrada]

I feel duped voting for this guy. Is this how some Liberal supporters feel ha ha ha?

[Wormius]

So just let anything slide if the cost of investigating it is too much? Alright then. Maybe think that through to see how that would play out. “Lets just Rube Goldberg the heck out of our fraud, we should be okay.”

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So just let anything slide if the cost of investigating it is too much? Alright then. Maybe think that through to see how that would play out. “Lets just Rube Goldberg the heck out of our fraud, we should be okay.”

No one has said that.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is thinking that $64,000 is excessive to audit 2 years of expenses partisan now? That's paying someone $160/hr for 8 hours a day for 10 weeks.

How much should it cost?

[Table 5]

Maybe the investigation was run by Magliocca.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

How much should it cost?

I haven’t read all of the background but I’m friends with the most respected municipal consultant in Canada; he’s in Alberta. I think he’d do a basic review for less than a third of that price and I know accountants who could review the finances around the expense claims for far less. There must be much more than I’m aware.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I feel duped voting for this guy. Is this how some Liberal supporters feel ha ha ha?

I dunno. Voting for a guy who plainly looks and acts (champion of public purse!) like a corrupt politician is pretty bad.

I made a jokes about him to my NW friends that Mayor Quimby was running for them, and he won. Then he turned out to actually be Mayor Quimby.

Who woulda thunk?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

How much should it cost?

I'm not sure, but I am familiar with the group from PWC they used, and I think that is overkill for what they are trying to investigate here.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I'm not sure, but I am familiar with the group from PWC they used, and I think that is overkill for what they are trying to investigate here.

That cost isn't surprising. PwC and Deloitte are embedded with audit committee and city council. Those two firms have been The City's external financial auditor for the past two decades and council also gives them millions of dollars in side projects every year on top of that.



Don't get me wrong, they're still independent from city council, but PwC could charge $300/hr and the internal budget holders won't bat an eye because council trusts the work that they do (regardless of cost).

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I dunno. Voting for a guy who plainly looks and acts (champion of public purse!) like a corrupt politician is pretty bad.

I made a jokes about him to my NW friends that Mayor Quimby was running for them, and he won. Then he turned out to actually be Mayor Quimby.

Who woulda thunk?

Corrupt politicians come in all shapes and sizes so I'm not exactly sure what you found in his appearance that pointed to him being corrupt.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I dunno. Voting for a guy who plainly looks and acts (champion of public purse!) like a corrupt politician is pretty bad.

I made a jokes about him to my NW friends that Mayor Quimby was running for them, and he won. Then he turned out to actually be Mayor Quimby.

Who woulda thunk?

As opposed to sleezeball Trudeau, who is even more corrupt, yet people love him based on his appearance. Guess being decent looking gets you a free pass.