Municipal Politics

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

Which sort of proves his point. Most people don't know anything about them, who knew they were a hospitality development corporation whereas Druh is front and centre. Everyone knows who she is. Not that this issue will have much affect, she'll still get voted back in, but it might sway a few people who are on the fence about her.

Yeah - the "family restaurant" articulation is spin in and of itself. Reality is quite different. We're talking a multi-million dollar operation. This is not a mom-pop eating from left-overs scenario. Far from it. This is the 1%.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Hey not arguing for either side only the optics of it, that it affects her more than the family's restaurant.

During the January or February public hearing, Cllr Chabot declared a conflict of interest on a secondary suite application on his street.

During the Hamptons Golf course public hearing Cllr Magliocca did not declare a conflict, however IMHO he should have recused himself as this was a whole community where he lived was affected by the land use change.

If Cllr Farrell was 100m from the Osteria proposal, she should have declared a conflict.

IMHO only CPC has the abundance of caution needed on conflicts of interest.

[Calgarian]

What are the city's rules for conflict of interest situations like this?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

What are the city's rules for conflict of interest situations like this?

From what I understand, there must be a pecuniary conflict of interest, so monetary gain must be involved.

Professionally I am much more used to the concept of perceived conflict of interest being the guiding principle along with err on the side of and abundance of caution. So for example, my wife works at Co-op so I don't participate on the external audit of Calgary Co-op. But this does not stop me from working at KPMG.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Cage

Professionally I am much more used to the concept of perceived conflict of interest being the guiding principle along with err on the side of and abundance of caution. So for example, my wife works at Co-op so I don't participate on the external audit of Calgary Co-op. But this does not stop me from working at KPMG.

This. In public office, perception is reality.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This. In public office, perception is reality.

Yes, but IMO, it must be deeper than:
1. Councillor lives close to a project,
2. As a result, councillor may have a strong personal opinion on the project,
3. As a result, councillor has a conflict of interest.

That's not what conflict of interest means! A councillor is allowed to have an opinion about what happens in their wards. I might even suggest having an opinion is encouraged!

I won't get into the other allegations. Not that I'm Farrell's biggest fan, but I have a healthy skepticism of the claims.

[outoftheice]

There are a lot of odd coincidences with this whole Druh Farrell thing. Judge for yourselves...

At Kensington’s Osteria de Medici, Magliocca laid down his corporate MasterCard in January for a $398 chef’s special off-the-menu lunch shared by five people, including himself. The table was never shown prices for the antipasti, angel hair pasta, veal parmigiana and more.

It’s by far the priciest meal that any of Calgary’s 14 city councillors expensed in the first half of 2014, according to expense disclosures.

Fellow first-termer Coun. Sean Chu led all councillors by expensing 62 hospitality outings in the year’s first half, many of them coffee meetings for as little as $3.

His most expensive meal was a $157 dinner at Golden Inn restaurant, with Magliocca and Maurizio Terrigno, an owner of Osteria de Medici.

Chu recalls the trio discussed Terrigno’s plans to redevelop the Kensington eatery site into a taller mixed-use project — something that goes to council for approval in coming months.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/politi...cillors+food+thought/10102777/story.html

As recently as last week, the Galan Facebook account was being used to criticize Farrell in the comments section of news stories about the knife-gesture incident involving her fellow councillor, Ward Sutherland.

But the account's online presence goes back as far as 2015, when it was posting frequently about former Alberta justice minister Jonathan Denis.

Denis denies knowing 'Galan'

"Galan" has appeared especially interested in Denis, commenting on numerous news stories that relate to the former MLA, who now practises law with the firm Guardian Law Group LLP in Calgary.

The criticisms relate largely to a lawsuit recently launched against Farrell by a Calgary family — through the Guardian Law Group — over an application to redevelop their high-end restaurant Osteria de Medici that council rejected in 2015.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calga...ounts-calgary-alberta-politics-1.4128312

Margot Aftergood — the former alderman who quit after the 2004 civic election amid allegations that her campaign team had stuffed ballot boxes — wants back on Calgary city council.

Aftergood was elected by 138 votes in Ward 10 in the 2004 election, but resigned a month later.

She was ultimately cleared of any involvement in the scandal.

Now she's announced that she will run again in this fall's municipal election, in Ward 7, against Coun. Druh Farrell.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/margot-aftergood-runs-for-council-ward-7-1.4064694

And last but not least, Aftergood held her first campaign fundraiser at Osteria this year.

https://twitter.com/mikesbloggity/status/867244981349736448

[Cage]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Yes, but IMO, it must be deeper than:
1. Councillor lives close to a project,
2. As a result, councillor may have a strong personal opinion on the project,
3. As a result, councillor has a conflict of interest.

That's not what conflict of interest means! A councillor is allowed to have an opinion about what happens in their wards. I might even suggest having an opinion is encouraged!

I won't get into the other allegations. Not that I'm Farrell's biggest fan, but I have a healthy skepticism of the claims.

Here is the generally accepted definition of conflict of interest:
a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity

Given the above broad definition, which is overly broad in my opinion, Cllr Farrell should have declined to vote or engage in public debate. However there is nothing preventing the Cllr from privately expressing their opinions on the matter to other Councillors or administration so long as those conversations are not entered into the public record.

Conflict of interest, especially if defined in the court of public opinion, forces everyone to act like a saint.

In another matter from 2016, Cllr Carra got caught up in a potential conflict. He entered into a nonbinding gentlemen's agreement so that a house he wanted to buy and renovate could have a secondary suite in the basement. Cllr Carra did not want to pull a former Cllr Mar and be forced to declare a conflict of interest on secondary suite matters. So the arrangement was done with a friend and nothing was documented in writing.

However the house was located within the AVPA NEF 35 noise contour. the good Cllr was forced to disclose the gentlemen's agreement in order to get Council's voice on the AVPA development restrictions. "Out of an Abundance of Caution" Cllr Carra resolved the perceived conflict of interest.

[MalcolmTucker]

With the perceived conflict being a change in land value due to non adjacent use, my perspective is is that council makes a lot of decisions that change property values. If that is going to be the test soon only renters could be councillors.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

With the perceived conflict being a change in land value due to non adjacent use, my perspective is is that council makes a lot of decisions that change property values. If that is going to be the test soon only renters could be councillors.

I am of the same opinion. Unless a councilor has a direct pecuniary interest (an investor in a company involved, owns or partially owns the subject parcel or a parcel is very close proximity to a development) I don't see why a Councillor should recuse themselves.

[jawagord]

While I don't think City Council pay is excessive this treatment of the review committee is more than pathetic, shows what disdain the council (and where was the mayor?) had for the whole salary review process and committee.

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columni...tions-for-council-compensation-dont-work

Our committee attended the council meeting where these recommendations were debated and voted on. We were told to be seated at 9:30 a.m., but our item was put near the end of the agenda.

We waited through all the issues and votes on politician-centric issues such as when candidates can put up their temporary election signs, and how they can raise funds for their campaigns. They were vexed about how to address the deputy mayor who was chairing the meeting. Coun. Demong took at least 10 minutes to read a long poem written by a schoolgirl. Ironically, he would soon label our report “a little bit odd.” Coun. Farrell went on about the fate of hopscotch in Calgary, even after she was ruled out of order.

[Corndogger]

"Mayor Naheed Nenshi's exclusive fundraiser draws criticism from Calgary councillors"

Whispers of an exclusive luncheon with promises of a moment alone in Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s company have his colleagues shaking their heads.

“It doesn’t look good,” said Coun. Sean Chu. “It’s buying influence to me.”

But on Monday, the mayor’s office would not confirm the details of the lunch, stating it was a privately-organized event by a campaign supporter. According to his staff, the $5,000 donation was just a recommendation.

Kasian Architecture, whose senior principal Bill Chomik happens to be chair of the city’s subdivision and development appeal board, is hosting it. When Metro called for more details about the much-talked about luncheon, a staff member at Kasian said she didn’t have details on hand but would pass on a message to the event’s organizers.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi has long been a proponent of campaign finance reform. On one of his previous election websites, which has since been changed or removed, the mayor promised to place a cap on campaign expenditures based on city population, disclose all donors on Nomination Day (Sept. 18) and regularly thereafter and donate any campaign surplus – aside from ongoing campaign-related expenses – to the City of Calgary or charity.

Full Story at: https://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/20...-naheed-nenshi-exclusive-fundraiser.html

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

"Mayor Naheed Nenshi's exclusive fundraiser draws criticism from Calgary councillors"

Whispers of an exclusive luncheon with promises of a moment alone in Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s company have his colleagues shaking their heads.

“It doesn’t look good,” said Coun. Sean Chu. “It’s buying influence to me.”

But on Monday, the mayor’s office would not confirm the details of the lunch, stating it was a privately-organized event by a campaign supporter. According to his staff, the $5,000 donation was just a recommendation.

Kasian Architecture, whose senior principal Bill Chomik happens to be chair of the city’s subdivision and development appeal board, is hosting it. When Metro called for more details about the much-talked about luncheon, a staff member at Kasian said she didn’t have details on hand but would pass on a message to the event’s organizers.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi has long been a proponent of campaign finance reform. On one of his previous election websites, which has since been changed or removed, the mayor promised to place a cap on campaign expenditures based on city population, disclose all donors on Nomination Day (Sept. 18) and regularly thereafter and donate any campaign surplus – aside from ongoing campaign-related expenses – to the City of Calgary or charity.

Full Story at: https://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/20...-naheed-nenshi-exclusive-fundraiser.html

I don't get what is wrong with fund raising. I hear some other potential mayoral candidates are completely bypassing all rules by doing stuff before announcing their candidacy, and also channeling money to third-parties to run campaigns outside of campaigns. Now that is dodgy.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I don't get what is wrong with fund raising. I hear some other potential mayoral candidates are completely bypassing all rules by doing stuff before announcing their candidacy, and also channeling money to third-parties to run campaigns outside of campaigns. Now that is dodgy.

No idea what you're talking about but if they're not candidates how can any rule apply to them? As for Nenshi, the big issue with what he is doing is it smells like people are being asked to pay to get his time as mayor and not as a candidate. If he was just fundraising for his campaign this wouldn't be an issue. I've stated before I'm against limits so it's not the $5K that's an issue to me. What I do want to know is the amount of the donation, who made it, and when and I want to know all of this before the election not six months after. I couldn't care less if Nenshi or anyone else was getting $10 million donations from companies. I'll factor all of that into my decision when it comes time to vote.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

No idea what you're talking about but if they're not candidates how can any rule apply to them? As for Nenshi, the big issue with what he is doing is it smells like people are being asked to pay to get his time as mayor and not as a candidate. If he was just fundraising for his campaign this wouldn't be an issue. I've stated before I'm against limits so it's not the $5K that's an issue to me. What I do want to know is the amount of the donation, who made it, and when and I want to know all of this before the election not six months after. I couldn't care less if Nenshi or anyone else was getting $10 million donations from companies. I'll factor all of that into my decision when it comes time to vote.

Prior to getting the nomination forms, the candidate must be registered. The registration process includes an oath the candidate has not received any donations or conducted any fundraising activities prior to be accepted as a registered candidate.

So if there are mayoral candidates who are not registered but are fundraising, they will have a problem on nomination day.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

No idea what you're talking about but if they're not candidates how can any rule apply to them? As for Nenshi, the big issue with what he is doing is it smells like people are being asked to pay to get his time as mayor and not as a candidate. If he was just fundraising for his campaign this wouldn't be an issue. I've stated before I'm against limits so it's not the $5K that's an issue to me. What I do want to know is the amount of the donation, who made it, and when and I want to know all of this before the election not six months after. I couldn't care less if Nenshi or anyone else was getting $10 million donations from companies. I'll factor all of that into my decision when it comes time to vote.

Do you have evidence that he was getting $10M from companies, or is that just BS to try and get people to think he is crooked?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Do you have evidence that he was getting $10M from companies, or is that just BS to try and get people to think he is crooked?

Reading comprehension at times here leaves a lot to be desired. I was just saying I couldn't care less how much any candidate received in donations as long as it's fully disclosed. And I don't need to make anything up to make Nenshi look bad on this matter. He's doing a great job all by himself.

Do you have any evidence for your clear claim that there are potential candidates violating the rules? Or are you just launching preemptive strikes against anyone who might threaten Nenshi?

[rotten42]

In Nenshi's world. Residential developers trying to influence a member of council = bad.
Commercial developers trying to influence a member of council = good.


Hypocracy.

[artvandelay]

Hopefully one of the challengers presents a viable option to Nenshi. I'm not sure if I can bring myself to vote for him again.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by rotten42

In Nenshi's world. Residential developers trying to influence a member of council = bad.
Commercial developers trying to influence a member of council = good.

Hypocracy.

It's the hypocrisy and confrontational attitude that will hurt him the most. Last night Jason Markusoff tweeted an image of a column Nenshi wrote in 2008 about the need for campaign finance reform. Nenshi said it was the number one issue that needed to be dealt with! Markusoff bolded the sections where Nenshi is completely contradicting himself now.