Corruption Survey

I cannot believe this. It blows my mind

THE MAYOR DID NOT GET SWORN AFFIDAVITS YET FROM HIMSELF, COUNCILLORS AND ADMINISTRATORS RESPECTING THE LEAK!

• "Once Basse's investigation is complete, Mayor Eddie Francis said council may revisit getting sworn affidavits from all the participants of the June meeting in question.
  
  "I'd still like to see legal counsel follow through ... as per the original plan," Francis told The Star. After the initial leak, the mayor told reporters that councillors would be asked to swear affidavits that they were not the source of the confidential information getting out, but he said that effort was "put aside" at the request of the integrity commissioner pending his investigation."

I never knew that. I do not remember it being reported.

Next we might hear that there was NO internal investigation since none has been reported yet.

Did you notice, the Star has still never reported the Basse leak results that the City was at fault.

Oh sure, they put the Report on line and wrote:

• "An investigation lasting several months and costing up to $15,000 failed to reveal the source of a media leak that many blamed for torpedoing a contract agreement during the strike by municipal workers, according to the city's integrity commissioner."

But where did you see the Star report that the Leakor had to be someone who was in attendance at the in camera Council meeting according to Basse:

Typical Star non-coverage when it hurts City management!

IGNORE AND DO NOT REPORT.

Can you imagine the headline if CUPE was at fault!

But the shock for me as a BLOGGER is the mini-Gord disclosure that a Councillor called him 6 months ago, in mid-May during the strike, and offered to be his source of information, his Leakor. And it was NOT Councillor Jones.

In passing, there was a lot of action in mid-May too that a columnist would loved to have had as a scoop I am sure that showed how hardlined the Council majority was. Certainly good for the re-election image:

• May 11, 2009
  
  1. Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Postma:
  
  THAT the City’s negotiating team remove from the bargaining table the issue of ending employer paid post retirement benefits past the age of 65 for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2009 in the current negotiations with CUPE Local 82.
  
  MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.
  Councillors Jones, Lewenza and Postma voting aye.
  Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Hatfield, Marra, Valentinis, Dilkens voting nay.
  
  2. Moved by Councillor Lewenza, No Seconder – as a result the motion was never on the floor for consideration and is included here only for sake of completeness:
  
  THAT CUPE Locals 82 and 543 be provided the option of retaining employer paid post retirement benefits for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2009 if they will agree to no wage increases for the term of a two year contract OR the option of ending employer paid post retirement benefits for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2009 and receiving a 2% wage increase in year 1 of a two year contract and a further 2% wage increase in year 2 of the contract.
  
  NO SECONDER FOR THE MOTION.
  
  3. Moved by Councilor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor Lewenza:
  
  THAT the issue ending employer paid post retirement benefits for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2009 be removed from the bargaining table and that the following terms be offered to CUPE Local 82:
  
  a) $1000.00 lump sum payment to all full time employees in year 1 of a three year contract;
  b) 2% wage increase in year 2 of the contract; and
  c) 2% wage increase in year 3 of the contract.
  
  MOTION DOES NOT CARRY
  Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting aye.
  Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Marra, Valentinis, Dilkens and Mayor Francis voting nay.
  
  4. Moved by Councillor Halberstadt, seconded by Councillor Gignac:
  
  THAT City Council accept the recommendation of the General Manager of Corporate Services regarding a further offer to CUPE Local 82
  
  1. Three year contract.
  2. No wage increases.
  3. ODA increases on a net zero basis
  4. Job Security for the life of the contract;
  5. Lump Sum payment of $1000 for all full time employees/$500 for all part time employees.
  
  CARRIED. Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting nay.
  
  5. Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Brister:
  
  THAT the same terms be offered to CUPE Local 543.
  
  CARRIED. Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting nay.

I wonder if this really was a clue from mini-Gord as to who that Councillor was since there was no reason to give a time-frame

So we have a corrupt Councillor on hand, someone no one should trust, who is privy to confidential City information which he/she is prepared to use for his/her own benefit, who in good conscience ought to resign now but won't.

Now who could this person be?

I created a CORRUPTION POLL where you could vote as to your choice of the corrupt Councillor, if you thought there was one

But in the end, I decided not to run it. It would not have been fair to the "innocent" members of Council although to be honest it would be interesting to know what my readers think of them and why.

I will just have to think up other things to do until the Star decides to tell us who is corrupt on Council or the police undertake an investigation!

Do not hold your breath for the Star though. Nothing has happened so far. It is better to ignore this story too.