Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections: Opening comments: More at the end. To the main Judicial Inquiry page - to the Hazel McCallion page. Mississauga News - July 14, 2010 - By Editorial. Code needed at City A year or so ago, the notion that City Council needed an integrity commissioner to keep it on the straight and narrow seemed ludicrously unnecessary. Comments by others - 7 - to this web-page at time of posting; The Mississauga Muse Jul 25, 2010 8:33 PM @ Tony The Mississauga News suggesting the City of Mississauga hire an integrity commissioner is disingenuous. They KNOW better and shame on them for being part of the Great MYTHissauga Pretend. * Agree Tony Jackson Jul 14, 2010 1:54 PM If public doesn't TRUST integrity commissioner appointed by the councillors, then the public feed-back on the proposed "code" should be "no Intergrity commissioner," but "Ombudsman". If the councillors need some ethics lessons, let them pursue it in private. * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Jul 14, 2010 1:45 PM @ Uatu That Code is just like every other Corporate Policy or Guideline Paper! Paper. Paper. Paper. Window-dressing. Paper. Paper. Paper. You're dealing with people where Staff run the Joint. Where Staff feel free to slip a half dozen by-laws not on the agenda, past Hazel McCallion who'd already rubber-stamped 33 and now Council (instructed by the Mayor to listen carefully) rubber-stamped a by-law that avoided Bill 159 for cripe's sake! You can't HAVE an Integrity Commissioner where there's no integrity. Pretend's despicable enough but now we have to PAY some new municipal hack's salary for More Pretend? Even this Editorial is Pretend. And I know you know that. * Agree 1 Uatu Jul 14, 2010 1:33 PM @Muse Please don't jump to conclusions about my opinion of the proposed code. I agree absolutely concerning the Ombudsman over an in-house part-time "integrity commissioner". The comments here are limited to 150 words so I didn't get into specific criticisms. That doesn't mean I endorse the code as is. * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Jul 14, 2010 1:02 PM @ Uatu, PUH-leeeeeeeease! Do you REALLY think that the elected officials who've been sitting atop this stench of a multip-departmental s****pile can be trusted to hire their oversight mechanism? IT'S JUST ANOTHER PART-TIME CITY EMPLOYEE ON THE CITY'S PAYROLL. I'm surprised the Mississauga News is keepin' up The Great Pretend... * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Jul 14, 2010 12:57 PM Mississauga News should know better considering all the emails I've cc'd to them. AND TWO WORDS! ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN * Agree 1 Uatu Jul 14, 2010 11:59 AM How to find the Code of Conduct Despite trumpeting it on the front page and asking for citizen input, the City hasn't made it easy to read the proposed code. It's a PDF inconspicuously linked by an unhighlighted line of tiny print at the bottom of the press release: http://bit.ly/ax40ja is a direct link. My reading of the code is that "family member" includes those not residing at the same address; that part is added to include spouses and children in common-law arrangements. It does need clarification. The interesting thing is that the Mayor's actions re WCD would have been clear violations, regardless of the familial relationship. It's apalling how her supporters claim the Mayor did nothing wrong when she is now advocating a code of conduct that, had it been in place, would have made it a violation to do what she did. It wasn't wrong then, but soon it will be? Situational ethics, anyone? * Agree 2 Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top [COMMENTS BY DON B. - ] |
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated The • |