Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[curves2000]

I usually don't put my $0.02 into this thread but in this case, city council and city administration are looking very very bad on behalf of the taxpayer.

The financial situation in this city needs a complete overhaul for the true financial times we are experiencing and will experience in the future. The game has changed, so to speak but the city hasn't.

At the end of the day the question is VERY simple.......will council members see a pay increase or not? There is no magic that needs to happen here.

Council needs to show that they are maintaining their salary and wages so they can take that argument to the city workers and ask them to do the same, end of story. It can't just be corporate Calgary and small and medium-sized business that are feeling the financial effects and have been feeling them for quite some time.

I don't understand some of the debate with this? People's lives, business and total financial future have been utterly destroyed with this financial crisis. Suicides, divorces, retirement's, retirement plans, careers , homes, health and mental health, businesses and more have been forever altered. Why is this a debate? Why are certain people being detached from reality here?

The actual dollar values that are being discussed here with regards to a council increase are not materially important but they are symbolic and will become important in conversations in the future about costs. Things need to change, end of story. Farkas or not, some of the questions need to be asked because they are being asked by city taxpayers.

[Tyler]

Disagree. Politicians should never be involved in setting their salaries. On the ups or on the downs. Terrible precedent.

[chemgear]

WTF, how can it even take that long to figure out what the heck they are doing?


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

Council was unanimous in condemning the post since it contradicted recent statements made by the city’s chief financial officer suggesting council pay would decrease next year.

However, Thursday it emerged that Farkas’ claim may be correct and the city is now scrambling to reconcile comments made by the CFO with administration’s actual practice when it comes to calculating salaries.

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

“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.

[Oling_Roachinen]

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.

They only look dumb if you don't actual follow what happened.

Sutherland talks about a 2.6% potential increase and proposes a pay freeze. Not Farkas.

Someone else says that they may be looking at a reduction anyways (ergo a payfreeze would be beneficial, this appears to be a mistake by the CFO), they defeat the motion. Pretty much everyone agrees that they won't take a pay increase, but will wait for actual numbers. Extremely reasonable.

There's really three sides of the debate:

• Those who don't think that the council should have any right to adjust their pay, good or bad and leave it out of their hand. (Perfectly reasonable position)
  
• Those who don't want to get a payraise. (Perfectly reasonable position)
  
• And Farkas' side which is being a dingle.

Some of the council members already donate a bunch of their salary back anyways.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

They only look dumb if you don't actual follow what happened.

Sutherland talks about a 2.6% potential increase and proposes a pay freeze. Not Farkas.

Someone else says that they may be looking at a reduction anyways (ergo a payfreeze would be beneficial), they defeat the motion. Everyone agrees that they won't take a pay increase, but will wait for actual numbers. Extremely reasonable.

There's really three sides of the debate:

• Those who don't think that the council should have any right to adjust their pay, good or bad and leave it out of their hand. (Perfectly reasonable position)
• Those who don't want to get a payraise. (Perfectly reasonable position)
• And Farkas' side which is being a dingle.

Some of the council members already donate a bunch of their salary back anyways.

Well you kind of forgot the part about everyone accusing Farkas of lying and then running him out of chambers. That part also happened. Farkas was also the one proposing a wait period to get the proper numbers. The other 9 decided to vote based on the existing incorrect numbers.



I just think it's a bit easy to say Farkas was the one grand standing when he was correct.



I don't care at all about the salaries even though they are higher than any other big city in Canada. It just bugs me when it's a popularity contest and everybody has to play the game the same way.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Well you kind of forgot the part about everyone accusing Farkas of lying and then running him out of chambers. That part also happened. Farkas was also the one proposing a wait period to get the proper numbers. The other 9 decided to vote based on the existing incorrect numbers.

The vote was in response to the potential 2.6% increase and therefore the vote was for a payfreeze. When it was brought forth that there could be a pay reduction it was defeated. Imagine if they voted for a payfreeze and didn't get the reduction that they were suppose to, you'd be up in arms calling for their head due to the freeze. Everyone agrees that the chamber would have passed the freeze if they knew that they were getting an increase, problem is the most recent numbers they had at the time were saying they would be getting a decrease. So they didn't vote in a payfreeze. It was all entirely reasonable.

There's nothing to stop them from coming back again and voting in a payfreeze if needed. Everyone knows this if you just followed along.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I just think it's a bit easy to say Farkas was the one grand standing when he was correct.

Sutherland would be correct if anything. But the numbers haven't been released. So just wait the three days to find out the real numbers and then go on your crusade if the council is still going against a payfreeze, but get your facts right first. Don't misconstrue what happened in the vote like Farkas did. Farkas is grandstanding that he's trying to fight against a payfreeze when he's not, that's the issue. There may have been some misinformation brought forward by the CFO, which sucks, but the numbers aren't final. If it's announced that the council will get a pay raise and they don't vote for a payfreeze, then he can be justified in his future actions, but right now that hasn't been the case.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't care at all about the salaries even though they are higher than any other big city in Canada. It just bugs me when it's a popularity contest and everybody has to play the game the same way.

Waiting for the numbers to be released, so you can make informed decisions, doesn't seem like a problem.

[OMG!WTF!]

Sutherland would be correct if anything. But the numbers haven't been released. So just wait the three days to find out the real numbers and then go on your crusade if the council is still going against a payfreeze, but get your facts right first. Don't misconstrue what happened in the vote like Farkas did.

My problem isn't at all with whatever council wants to do with their pay. It's meaningless to me. The problem I have is the unanimous vote to get rid of Farkas. It's grand standing on the mayor's part. It's council doing what they accuse Farkas of doing. The interview of Nenshi saying we all have to act honestly every day is really hard to take. There was no reason to act they way they did. That's all.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Well you kind of forgot the part about everyone accusing Farkas of lying and then running him out of chambers. That part also happened. Farkas was also the one proposing a wait period to get the proper numbers. The other 9 decided to vote based on the existing incorrect numbers.

He did lie.

He said that Council voted against the pay freeze and then against a pay cut (which was never voted on because no one seconded his motion). He did so implying that he's the only member of Council in favour of freezing or reducing their pay, which is patently false.

They voted against the freeze because they were given updated information that suggested there would be a rollback, so a freeze would effectively been a raise in that case. They voted using that information. When the final numbers are in, they'll vote again.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's grand standing on the mayor's part. It's council doing what they accuse Farkas of doing.

How is it grand standing? How is it what Farkas did? He misconstrued the vote, what happened, the debate and ultimately the results to make it seem like council had voted against a payfreeze so they could get an increase in salary.

That wasn't the case.

They wanted him to apologize.

Asking councilors to be honest with their constituency doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

If the numbers come in, and they are expected to get a raise based on the numbers, and they do vote against a payfreeze, then let him pick up his crusade. But wait until they actually do what he's accusing them of doing...

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

My problem isn't at all with whatever council wants to do with their pay. It's meaningless to me. The problem I have is the unanimous vote to get rid of Farkas. It's grand standing on the mayor's part. It's council doing what they accuse Farkas of doing. The interview of Nenshi saying we all have to act honestly every day is really hard to take. There was no reason to act they way they did. That's all.

He made his facebook post saying it was going to be a certain number when he didn't know yet either. That's blatantly false information. He also showed a vote that didn't actually happen, which was also blatantly false. You think that's all okay because the numbers now appear to be closer to his suggestion than the originally thought lower number?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by getbak

He did lie.

He said that Council voted against the pay freeze and then against a pay cut (which was never voted on because no one seconded his motion). He did so implying that he's the only member of Council in favour of freezing or reducing their pay, which is patently false.

They voted against the freeze because they were given updated information that suggested there would be a rollback, so a freeze would effectively been a raise in that case. They voted using that information. When the final numbers are in, they'll vote again.

That's not what the vote to kick him out was over and that's not what Nenshi was mad about. The issue with Farkas lying was that he was apparently using bad information.

"That information is dated Nov. 21. You had information today, Dec. 17, a full month later. And frankly, to rely on the old information … when there is newer information is dishonest and irresponsible," Nenshi said.
He said Farkas' post appears to have breached council's code of conduct.
"What we have in this Facebook post is not just spin, it's untrue," Nenshi said.

The issue is the use of "old info". That was unfounded. The spin you're talking about is arguable. No one seconding your motion is kind of the same as voting against it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

He made his facebook post saying it was going to be a certain number when he didn't know yet either. That's blatantly false information.

That's not true at all. The numbers are from the city's own controller and were correct up until the council meeting. If you can't take first hand information as correct then I guess there's not much left to go on.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I usually don't put my $0.02 into this thread but in this case, city council and city administration are looking very very bad on behalf of the taxpayer.

The financial situation in this city needs a complete overhaul for the true financial times we are experiencing and will experience in the future. The game has changed, so to speak but the city hasn't.

At the end of the day the question is VERY simple.......will council members see a pay increase or not? There is no magic that needs to happen here.

Council needs to show that they are maintaining their salary and wages so they can take that argument to the city workers and ask them to do the same, end of story. It can't just be corporate Calgary and small and medium-sized business that are feeling the financial effects and have been feeling them for quite some time.

I don't understand some of the debate with this? People's lives, business and total financial future have been utterly destroyed with this financial crisis. Suicides, divorces, retirement's, retirement plans, careers , homes, health and mental health, businesses and more have been forever altered. Why is this a debate? Why are certain people being detached from reality here?

The actual dollar values that are being discussed here with regards to a council increase are not materially important but they are symbolic and will become important in conversations in the future about costs. Things need to change, end of story. Farkas or not, some of the questions need to be asked because they are being asked by city taxpayers.

Excellent post. The bottom line is that Farkas is the only councillor who seems willing to discuss the reality here. His entire point is that council should be leading with a pay cut to enter in negotiations with the major cost line items (SALARY) during upcoming negotiations.

Under Nenshi's leadership, salaries, wages and benefits at city hall have increased 15% between 2014 and 2017 alone. Taxes continue to skyrocket while businesses are closing everywhere. What planet are these people living on?

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by getbak

He did lie.

He said that Council voted against the pay freeze and then against a pay cut (which was never voted on because no one seconded his motion). He did so implying that he's the only member of Council in favour of freezing or reducing their pay, which is patently false.

They voted against the freeze because they were given updated information that suggested there would be a rollback, so a freeze would effectively been a raise in that case. They voted using that information. When the final numbers are in, they'll vote again.

It's on the public record (and easily available online) that council in 2012 agreed to change the benchmark to a 12 month average. The fact of the matter is that 14 council members failed to recognize that one set of numbers was correct and the other (provided by the CFO) clearly wrong. Had others been paying attention instead of rushing to lynch Farkas over a social media post, there should have been no "confusion" at all.

Had councilors been paying attention, they would have obviously voted for the motion to freeze pay on Monday. Obviously it's not a huge issue, as they seem willing to make changes retroactively, but it's clear that Farkas is owed an apology in this case.

[Kerplunk]

I am amazed and saddened by the fact that people don't see falsifying a voting record and posting it to social media as lying.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

I am amazed and saddened by the fact that people don't see falsifying a voting record and posting it to social media as lying.

I think it's a difference without much distinction. The motion was his, and was not seconded by anyone. Is that not, in essence, the same as voting against it?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

That's not what the vote to kick him out was over and that's not what Nenshi was mad about. The issue with Farkas lying was that he was apparently using bad information.

That is exactly why he was kicked out. He was kicked out because he refused to remove a Facebook post that is misleading at best. This is the post that he refused to remove...

[Oling_Roachinen]

Why owe Farkas an apology? Everyone at city hall has pretty much agreed that, should they receive a payraise, that the vote will instead favour a payfreeze. There was no reason to continually beat a deadhorse except for Farkas to somehow try to make himself a martyr, which is exactly what he got.

They should be looking at firing the CFO for giving wrong numbers, but it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things if they vote for a payfreeze anyways.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think it's a difference without much distinction. The motion was his, and was not seconded by anyone. Is that not, in essence, the same as voting against it?

Surely you're kidding. Right?

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

I am amazed and saddened by the fact that people don't see falsifying a voting record and posting it to social media as lying.

The vote on the left happened and the one on the right didn't. It's a misrepresentation and I don't think he should have posted it - although the fact that his motion wasn't seconded indicates that nobody else on council is in support of a pay cut of that magnitude.

However, he wasn't kicked out of the meeting for misrepresenting the vote. He was kicked out for using "old information." Of course it has turned out that this information, using the correct methodology, was more accurate than the erroneously cited Y/Y figure. Here are some comments from Monday:

“Frankly, to rely on the old information when you know, as it says in the code of conduct as any reasonable Calgarian would, that there is newer information is dishonest and irresponsible,” Nenshi said. “So I’ll ask for that retraction without the if, and with an apology.”

Farkas, however, said the numbers released Monday were conjecture and without the finalized numbers, he was standing by his statement.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4771966/j...y-change-vote/