THE DEMOCRATIC REPORTER
Pages of Special Interest;
Other Table of Contents;
Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections:
Mississauga News - June 8, 2010 - Editorial by ?
Inquiry costs climb
Costs for the judicial inquiry that is investigating issues around the City of Mississauga’s acquisition of approximately 8.5 acres of land and the December 2000 Enersource Shareholders Agreement to which the City was a party continue to mount daily.
Comments by others, 6, to this web-page;
Uatu Jun 11, 2010 9:23 PM
Saying the Mayor can't be found guilty is nitpicking to evade the real issue. She can be found culpable, and it is highly likely that she will. The Commissioner's finding could lead to charges, although I for one do not believe that they will, no matter what he says in his findings.
* Agree 1
MISSISSAUGAWATCH Jun 11, 2010 9:05 PM
@ Tony, who among us remembers what happened ten years ago?
I was there for Mayor McCallion's testimony. She had strong recollection and handled herself extremely well. The problem of course came when it came time to explain the veto clause sneak-in. I really believe 100% that if she knew about a last minute veto clause that she would've insisted that Council be informed. She'd have called an ultra-fast Councilmeeting. That's consistent with what I know about her since first observing her in June 2006. Here's something else you can bank on. Staff run the City of Mississauga and not the Mayor or Councillors. Audit Committees have confirmed repeatedly how Staff feel free to change contracts BIG and small. They betted they wouldn't be found out. And they were right!
Tony Jackson Jun 11, 2010 7:56 PM
Unfortunately, Mantis' point seems right. Then, why McCallion needed a 400K worth lawyer's assistance to say "she has no recollection of anything since she became mayor"?
Therese Taylor Jun 11, 2010 10:58 AM
Uatu's Got it Right! And it begs the question, why are we paying McCallion's legal bills?
If the judge finds her guilty, will she reimburse Mississauga taxpayers? (She should do that anyway, considering all the salaries she's been collecting over the years. It's not like she can't afford it, topped with her pension and her husband's.) She got herself into this mess and admits it. It's not the first time she's been convicted of conflict of interest charges. She got a slap on the wrist the first time. I guess she's expecting that again. If she's found guilty, surely council and the public should demand that she return the lawyers' fees.
* Agree 5 Offensive 2
zdotb Jun 9, 2010 9:31 PM
i agree 100%. I give her full credit for holding the cities "top" position for so long, and for the many great things she done, and for the fact that shes almost 90, but this isnt the first time she hasnt declared a conflict of interest. i wonder what else goes on too. and how was uatu's comment offensive?
* Agree 5 Offensive 1
Uatu Jun 9, 2010 1:33 PM
The real problem
The Mayor has already admitted to wrongdoing, she just denies that what she did was wrong. She has admitted being at meetings that involved the financial interests of both the City and her son. That is as clear as conflict of interest can get. If the Commissioner doesn't find her guilty of at least that, then I will be extremely interested in his reasoning. The real problem here is that the Mayor insists she did nothing wrong. If that's her true belief then I shudder to think about what might have gone on over the past 30 years.
* Agree 9 Offensive 2
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated