Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Appreciate your insight.

To answer your question on what makes a 'good' mayor, I think that's changing with the advent of social media and how it's used.

FWIW, good to me means a mayor who left the city in a better position than he found it by most measures.

Social media capability is pretty low on my requirements as a mayor. Leaving a city in a better position is much. much higher.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by redforever

Duerr was mayor during the time the feds were addressing Canada's defiicit problem.

Basically, managing the deficit was financed to a large extent on the backs of provinces and municipalities across Canada.

Yep. And Klein dramatically cut funding for municipalities too as part of his deficit reduction program.

Duerr gets a bad rap, but he had to deal with an energy industry on its knees from low prices, while senior governments choked off funding. Nenshi has received far more funding from senior governments than Duerr ever got.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

There really is a simple decision to be made here. They won't get the final and accurate number until Dec 20. So maybe just decide in the new year and retroactivate it. Done. You're welcome. Farkas isn't wrong here. There's a discrepancy with the numbers. Voting on the wrong numbers is stupid. I kind of hope he gets an apology.

I think the problem his colleagues had was that what he posted deliberately mislead their votes (and even conjured a voting "record" for a vote that didn't even take place). There isn't a single Councillor that won't vote for a freeze or accept a reduction if that is what the independent formula and recommendation from the committee in charge of Council compensation recommends. Everyone was voting with intent based on the best information at the time available to them. The problem is, the Councillor is representing something completely different in the media. That is highly deceptive and self serving.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think the problem his colleagues had was that what he posted deliberately mislead their votes (and even conjured a voting "record" for a vote that didn't even take place). There isn't a single Councillor that won't vote for a freeze or accept a reduction if that is what the independent formula and recommendation from the committee in charge of Council compensation recommends. Everyone was voting with intent based on the best information at the time available to them. The problem is, the Councillor is representing something completely different in the media. That is highly deceptive and self serving.

I kind of disagree. Anyone looking at the different numbers can see one number relied on a massive difference between the October numbers and the projected end of the year numbers...to go from a 2.3% raise in october to a small cut in two months should have raised some questions. At very least it should have been looked at for what it was, a time to ask questions and get answers, not as an opportunity to gang up on someone you don't like. As I said before, he wasn't wrong. Now what do you do about demanding an apology and calling the guy a liar? You have to play the liar card under much different circumstances than what was presented to council at the time.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I kind of disagree. Anyone looking at the different numbers can see one number relied on a massive difference between the October numbers and the projected end of the year numbers...to go from a 2.3% raise in october to a small cut in two months should have raised some questions. At very least it should have been looked at for what it was, a time to ask questions and get answers, not as an opportunity to gang up on someone you don't like. As I said before, he wasn't wrong. Now what do you do about demanding an apology and calling the guy a liar? You have to play the liar card under much different circumstances than what was presented to council at the time.

Farkas also proposed just delaying the vote until the final numbers were in.

But instead, Council feels it's more important to attack anyone not willing to join the Nenshi Parade.

Speaking of Nenshi, this article has been making the rounds again after he spoke down to the demonstrators at the pipeline parade and was booed off the stage.

https://calgarysun.com/2013/09/06/me...9-3bd663608e78

[Jimmy Stang]

So basically, people got angry that council used to vote themselves a pay raise (even if it was reasonable and in line with the cost of living). So a formula was adopted. And now people are angry when that formula is followed and councillors don't vote against using the formula?

So outrage when they vote themselves a raise. Now outrage when they don't vote against a raise. I guess as long as there is outrage. Populism 101.

I understand this has more to do with the correct numbers being used, etc. but just let the city sort the numbers out accept the results. This charade of not voting for a raise, but being asked to vote against it is absurd. Especially when the numbers might yield a reduction anyway.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Farkas also proposed just delaying the vote until the final numbers were in.

But instead, Council feels it's more important to attack anyone not willing to join the Nenshi Parade.

Speaking of Nenshi, this article has been making the rounds again after he spoke down to the demonstrators at the pipeline parade and was booed off the stage.

https://calgarysun.com/2013/09/06/me...9-3bd663608e78

By voting against the freeze motion - that's essentially what they did. That's what was on the floor. Even the mover voted against his own motion on the possibility that the formula may result in a reduction - that was the indication by Administration at the time. The issue Council had was that Farkas was going on previous information on a possible raise - representing that's what all his colleagues wanted by voting against the freeze and his reduction motion. It's that deception they are objecting to - it's simply a self serving lie when that's not how it went down at all. He's not technically wrong that the number was a raise based on the formula and it may end up being when the dust settles once Administration clarifies, but how he portrayed intention of his colleagues in voting the way they did based on the information they had. Or is just that 13 councillors and the mayor are just that slippery. Please.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Speaking of Nenshi, this article has been making the rounds again after he spoke down to the demonstrators at the pipeline parade and was booed off the stage.

https://calgarysun.com/2013/09/06/me...9-3bd663608e78

And by rounds you mean all of the elderly people sharing it on Facebook.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Let's not kid around - Farkas is going to be running for Mayor. And the anti Silly Hall crowd won't care what he actual abilities are, just that here's there to "drain the swamp".

This is what I've been saying, that everything he's doing is to set himself up to look good for a mayoral run, not necessarily because he's just so full of ethics and integrity. If you look at his echo chamber, he would appear to have a ton of support. Look elsewhere, and people hate him. I can't stand him or Chu, which is neither here nor there since I don't live in the city, but their nonsense is always hitting one feed or the other, so I end up seeing a lot of it.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

So basically, people got angry that council used to vote themselves a pay raise (even if it was reasonable and in line with the cost of living). So a formula was adopted. And now people are angry when that formula is followed and councillors don't vote against using the formula?

So outrage when they vote themselves a raise. Now outrage when they don't vote against a raise. I guess as long as there is outrage. Populism 101.

I understand this has more to do with the correct numbers being used, etc. but just let the city sort the numbers out accept the results. This charade of not voting for a raise, but being asked to vote against it is absurd. Especially when the numbers might yield a reduction anyway.

What's going to be interesting is if they decide to vote against this raise based on the formula, the following year the salary adjustment could easily be double the amount for this year. Prepare for more faux outrage over maths.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Minnie

This is what I've been saying, that everything he's doing is to set himself up to look good for a mayoral run, not necessarily because he's just so full of ethics and integrity. If you look at his echo chamber, he would appear to have a ton of support. Look elsewhere, and people hate him. I can't stand him or Chu, which is neither here nor there since I don't live in the city, but their nonsense is always hitting one feed or the other, so I end up seeing a lot of it.

I mean in reference to social media you can say this about any politician in Canada.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Farkas just got booted from a Council meeting on a 14-1 vote for posting (clearly deliberately) false statements on Facebook about Council pay, and refusing to "apologize to the meeting".

He'll love it - fits his martyr complex beautifully.

If I'm following this saga correctly, it would appear that Farkas may have been correct in posting the numbers he did:

In an email sent to council members and the mayor Thursday morning, the CFO apologized for the “confusion” on council renumeration.

“I am sorry that there is some confusion around how council members’ compensation is calculated,” wrote Male.

She went on to say that since 2012, the city’s human resources department has used a formula to calculate annual changes to council pay based on a 12-month average of Alberta’s average weekly earnings.

Male said her suggestion that council pay would decrease was based on a different policy, one that made a simpler September-to-September comparison of weekly earnings.

“It is obviously essential that we determine which documents accurately reflect council’s most recent decision on this topic,” Male wrote, adding that she hopes to investigate further and return with a report to council in the new year.

Finalized wage numbers for the fall were released by Statistics Canada Thursday.

The formula used by HR, and cited by Farkas, would yield a pay bump of 2.37 per cent in 2019, increasing councillor salaries from $113,325.63 to $116,011.45.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...hes-vindicated

I'm certainly not a fan of Farkas' brash antics on council, but it appears that he was the only one out of 15 members paying appropriate attention to detail on this matter.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I mean in reference to social media you can say this about any politician in Canada.

Sure. But he buys into it. He thinks, from all the backpats & eyelid fluttering he gets from his echo chamber, that everyone feels that way about him. I don't know if he still does it, but for a while, he proudly and loudly promoted himself as the Troublemaker At City Hall, and people ate that shizz up with a spoon. I haven't watched closely, but may start now, to see if there's a correlation between him blowing his trumpet on his various social media accounts, prior to there being any ruckus in chambers, to see if they tie in. I think he deletes a lot though, so it may be hard, unless a person is on it like flies on pig poop, to grab screenshots.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Zarley

If I'm following this saga correctly, it would appear that Farkas may have been correct in posting the numbers he did:



https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...hes-vindicated

I'm certainly not a fan of Farkas' brash antics on council, but it appears that he was the only one out of 15 members paying appropriate attention to detail on this matter.

I wonder if it is more likely that 14 of the other councillors are better suited at seeing the forest through the trees, and not worrying about an overall expenditure of $40,000 per year for the entire council, conpared to the operating budget of the city, which is about $4.5 billion? It's like 0.0009% of that.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I wonder if it is more likely that 14 of the other councillors are better suited at seeing the forest through the trees, and not worrying about an overall expenditure of $40,000 per year for the entire council, conpared to the operating budget of the city, which is about $4.5 billion? It's like 0.0009% of that.

Or is it more likely everybody agrees to no freeze because they can use one set of numbers to make it look like they'd be getting slight reduction in pay. But then they can use the other numbers that everyone knew were just as applicable as the first set to get themselves a decent raise. Happy accident. We actually get a raise!


Either way, Nenshi et al look dumb. They weren't seeing anything through the trees in this matter.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I wonder if it is more likely that 14 of the other councillors are better suited at seeing the forest through the trees, and not worrying about an overall expenditure of $40,000 per year for the entire council, conpared to the operating budget of the city, which is about $4.5 billion? It's like 0.0009% of that.

That's obviously not the case based on the statements and actions of Nenshi and other council members on Monday.

“Over the course of the debate it became clear that given the slowdown in the economy, we probably would have frozen or cut our salaries anyway,” said Nenshi. “So, the whole thing became a bit moot.”

Council ultimately voted 9-6 against the freeze, which means council will see the automatic adjustment to their salary in January.

Councillors Jyoti Gondek, Ray Jones, Evan Woolley, Diane Colley-Urquhart, Farkas and Druh Farrell voted in favour of the freeze. The remaining nine council members, including Sutherland, voted against.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-facebook-post

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Or is it more likely everybody agrees to no freeze because they can use one set of numbers to make it look like they'd be getting slight reduction in pay. But then they can use the other numbers that everyone knew were just as applicable as the first set to get themselves a decent raise. Happy accident. We actually get a raise!


Either way, Nenshi et al look dumb. They weren't seeing anything through the trees in this matter.

Maybe I am not cynical or pessimistic enough, but would somebody already making $113k a year, really care to scam the city coffers of what amounts to about $250 a month before taxes? It seems like pittance either way. To worry about reducing it or worry about actually getting it. I don't know. I wouldn't risk my reputation or waste people's time fighting for either side.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Maybe I am not cynical or pessimistic enough, but would somebody already making $113k a year, really care to scam the city coffers of what amounts to about $250 a month before taxes? It seems like pittance either way. To worry about reducing it or worry about actually getting it. I don't know. I wouldn't risk my reputation or waste people's time fighting for either side.

I just find it hard to believe that one guy out of 15 could see what in retrospect is patently obvious. Like it's right there for everyone to see. I guess we could be dealing with 14 morons but I doubt it. What I think is really the case is Nenshi doesn't like Farkas and it was just a case of dog piling on the trouble maker guy.



But actually I do think these guys care about their 200-300 a month.

[habernac]

https://livewirecalgary.com/2018/12/...h68UJrTW60ngho

Coun. Ward Sutherland initially brought forward the motion to freeze pay and later asked council to vote against it, once he learned from Male that pay was likely to drop,

He said he’d received Male’s email at 6:04 a.m.

“This city has given no numbers, so there are no numbers,” said Sutherland.



“It’s saying there’s two different documents that show different calculations and that’s a problem,” he explained.

He added that the drama surrounding these numbers is probably not warranted, because he and 11 other councillors are ready to make retroactive changes to pay to ensure that they do not receive a raise.

“No matter what the number is, it’s not going to increase,” he said.

“We’re not taking a raise no matter what,”

[Bunk]

I mean, even Druh Farrell made public statements in support of a salary reduction. They were all acting in good faith, and one Councillor was determined to make it look otherwise.