[ByeByeBaby]

Here's a couple of (very different) interesting election thingies:
This episode of The Strategists podcast is great if you have any interest in political strategy -- it's a full hour of Stephen Carter* (Gondek's campaign manager and chief of staff, also Nenshi 2010 campaign manager) talking behind the scenes of the campaign. Key notes include that the Gondek campaign was really low on cash at the end, that Davison could have won, that the crucial date in the election was June 15, and that the Nenshi campaign looked at a certain Skyscraper forum back in the day as a leading indicator.
This visualization of election results by polling station, shown below is Gondek vs. Farkas vote ratio.

Spoiler: *

Carter is also someone who believes vote splitting isn't a thing, and also someone married to Heather McRae, one of the three ward 7 progressives who got 23, 21 and 15 percent of the vote and lost to Terry Wong's 25%

 

[JonnyCanuck]

Gondek refused to swear in Chu yesterday. The new council is not starting on a positive note. The animosity will probably get worse during council sessions. This combined with Chu's very narrow margin of victory (not exactly a clear mandate from voters) tells me that Chu should do the right thing and resign.

 

[DougB]

Why would Chu resign? If he holds out, he will likely be entitled to 4 years salary and pension entitlement as severance. Gondek should not have pulled the swearing in stunt as it would only strengthen Chu's case for severance. He was duely elected and can't be fired for cause.

 

[Colinfill]

Here's a couple of (very different) interesting election thingies:
This episode of The Strategists podcast is great if you have any interest in political strategy -- it's a full hour of Stephen Carter* (Gondek's campaign manager and chief of staff, also Nenshi 2010 campaign manager) talking behind the scenes of the campaign. Key notes include that the Gondek campaign was really low on cash at the end, that Davison could have won, that the crucial date in the election was June 15, and that the Nenshi campaign looked at a certain Skyscraper forum back in the day as a leading indicator.
This visualization of election results by polling station, shown below is Gondek vs. Farkas vote ratio.
View attachment 358328

Spoiler: *

Carter is also someone who believes vote splitting isn't a thing, and also someone married to Heather McRae, one of the three ward 7 progressives who got 23, 21 and 15 percent of the vote and lost to Terry Wong's 25%

Wow! Looks like there's a big divide between Calgary north and south of Glenmore

 

[Silence&Motion]

Gondek's "coalition" (not sure I like that term) looks very similar to Nenshi: broad support across the whole city, combined with intense support in both the inner city and the ethnically diverse northern suburbs (particularly NE).

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Gondek's "coalition" (not sure I like that term) looks very similar to Nenshi: broad support across the whole city, combined with intense support in both the inner city and the ethnically diverse northern suburbs (particularly NE).

\

There are definitely similarities, in particular strength in the inner city wards 7 and 8; weakness in the southeast and deep south (10, 12-14). Also, maybe don't pick blue as your campaign colour.

But there are also differences:

• 2010 was so clearly a three candidate race; other notable candidates (Hawkesworth, Burrows) dropped out and endorsed big 3 candidates, where the Fields and Damerys remained in it to the end this time.
• There was a myth of Nenshi doing well in high visible minority areas; ward 10 (which included Marlborough and most of Forest Lawn) was his worst single ward; ward 5 (the Properties and Castleridge/Falconridge) was not great for him, and ward 3 was about average. Gondek did slightly better in these areas, although not remarkably so.
• 2010 had a lot more variance from ward to ward; McIver won two and Higgins won one. 2021 was much more even throughout; Gondek won every single ward and the biggest difference was Davison's strong showing in his former ward 6. I think this might be because of a trend towards a more ideological view of municipal politics, but that would make a good research paper.
• As an example of the above; Gondek's gap from best (ward 7, 58%) to worst (ward 6, 37%) is 21%; similarly, Farkas' gap from best (11, 36%) to worst (5/7, 21%) is 15%. In 2010, Nenshi's gap from best (ward 8, 57%) to worst (10, 26%) was 31%; McIver's gap from best (12, 52%) to worst (8, 20%) was 32%. That's over twice the gap of Farkas, despite both being very similar candidates -- strong conservative incumbent councilors who spent the previous term grandstanding and voting no to everything.

 

[Disraeli]

Province can't remove Chu from council: McIver

Alberta Minister of Municipal Affairs Ric McIver re-iterated Friday that he doesn't have the authority to remove Calgary Councillor Sean Chu from his council seat.

calgary.ctvnews.ca

The Minister sought advice from a top municipal law firm which concluded it's a no go on having the Minister remove Chu based on the MGA. I'm curious whether the government will seek to amend the MGA through the legislature to cover situations like this. More likely than not they will just leave the matter be and hope that it blows over.

 

[darwink]

Sad as it is - covering this would require a provision as an other reach.

 

[DougB]

Province can't remove Chu from council: McIver

Alberta Minister of Municipal Affairs Ric McIver re-iterated Friday that he doesn't have the authority to remove Calgary Councillor Sean Chu from his council seat.

calgary.ctvnews.ca

The Minister sought advice from a top municipal law firm which concluded it's a no go on having the Minister remove Chu based on the MGA. I'm curious whether the government will seek to amend the MGA through the legislature to cover situations like this. More likely than not they will just leave the matter be and hope that it blows over.

Ammend it how? Chu isn't even accused of an indictable offense. Someone can't be dismissed for cause for simply being unpopular. All that could be done would be to severance him, likely at a cost in excess of $500K.

 

[Disraeli]

Ammend it how? Chu isn't even accused of an indictable offense. Someone can't be dismissed for cause for simply being unpopular. All that could be done would be to severance him, likely at a cost in excess of $500K.

Amend it as in amend the MGA through the legislature to give greater discretion to the Minister to remove councillors for reasons similar those of Chu's past misconduct. I challenge you to find me a source in the law that says a provincial legislature cannot do that

Also, sexual assault, which is what the allegations are, is absolutely, %110 an indictable offences.

 

[DougB]

No charges have been filed. Until they are, allegations don't mean much.

What changes would you propose to the MGA that would allow the Minister to remove councillors without cause? Again, as serious as the allegations may be, they have not lead to criminal charges.

ASIRT didn't exist in the mid 90's. Now that it does, the chances of similar circumstances leading to dismissal would be much greater. About the only other change would be to not allow law enforcement officials to be unionized, as that provides another avenue to avoid accountability.

 

[Disraeli]

No charges have been filed. Until they are, allegations don't mean much.

What changes would you propose to the MGA that would allow the Minister to remove councillors without cause? Again, as serious as the allegations may be, they have not lead to criminal charges.

ASIRT didn't exist in the mid 90's. Now that it does, the chances of similar circumstances leading to dismissal would be much greater. About the only other change would be to not allow law enforcement officials to be unionized, as that provides another avenue to avoid accountability.

Of course allegations matter. There are a number of reasons why the Crown might not seek to prosecute the matter past or present. First and foremost is the difficult burden of proving the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean that allegations do not create "cause" to remove someone from public office.The legislature can grant as much discretion to the Minister as they want to remove a councillor they believe brings disrepute to the municipality with or without the allegations being proven in criminal proceedings.

I also feel like you are mixing up employment/ contract law with administrative law which are two distinct areas of the law. Depending on the terms of the employment contract in place, it could be possible to claim damages in contract (assuming the legislature didn't also explicitly preclude claims for damages in contract) , but that is a separate civil matter. As a matter of administrative law, it would ultimately be up to the legislature to determine the grounds required to remove a councillor from office. If there is a requirement that there be a criminal conviction, then there would need to be a criminal conviction. If they gave the Minister wide, unfettered discretion to remove a councillor, then a councillor could be removed with or without the allegations being proved. The MGA in its current form gives little discretion to the Minister to remove a councillor, which is why they currently do not have authority to do so.

 

[MichaelS]

I feel the lack of discretion is probably a good thing. What would prevent a provincial minister from removing a Mayor/Councillor who had diametrically opposed views from them (say, on an issue such as a climate emergency) for instance? That is extreme perhaps, but legally not much different than the Chu situation.

 

[DougB]

Of course allegations matter. There are a number of reasons why the Crown might not seek to prosecute the matter past or present. First and foremost is the difficult burden of proving the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean that allegations do not create "cause" to remove someone from public office.The legislature can grant as much discretion to the Minister as they want to remove a councillor they believe brings disrepute to the municipality with or without the allegations being proven in criminal proceedings.

I also feel like you are mixing up employment/ contract law with administrative law which are two distinct areas of the law. Depending on the terms of the employment contract in place, it could be possible to claim damages in contract (assuming the legislature didn't also explicitly preclude claims for damages in contract) , but that is a separate civil matter. As a matter of administrative law, it would ultimately be up to the legislature to determine the grounds required to remove a councillor from office. If there is a requirement that there be a criminal conviction, then there would need to be a criminal conviction. If they gave the Minister wide, unfettered discretion to remove a councillor, then a councillor could be removed with or without the allegations being proved. The MGA in its current form gives little discretion to the Minister to remove a councillor, which is why they currently do not have authority to do so.

Chu bringing disrepute is the Municipality's problem. If it wants him gone, it will have to arrive at a mutually agreeable severance agreement, or wait until the next election at which point he probably will not run. Would you have supported the Province whacking Nenshi for lying about the City hiring undercover actors to pose as pedophiles to see if Uber would still hire them? Changing the MGA to expedite the problem of the moment would reek of corruption, as would enabling a Provincial Minister to remove a municipal official for cause on a whim. Chu also likely has a breach of confidentiality case against the Police Department as generally, HR records are absolutely confidential. Employers can only publically disclose an employee's dates of employment and title. Resolving this situation will not be simple. The City would be best to pay Chu off, move on and take whatever measures are needed to ensure that something like this is unlikely to occur again.

Perhaps Alberta should introduce a US style impeachment process toreally bring disrupute to the political system.

 

[Disraeli]

I feel the lack of discretion is probably a good thing. What would prevent a provincial minister from removing a Mayor/Councillor who had diametrically opposed views from them (say, on an issue such as a climate emergency) for instance? That is extreme perhaps, but legally not much different than the Chu situation.

It's definitely a valid concern but there are ways to draft the provision to avoid that problem

Chu bringing disrepute is the Municipality's problem. If it wants him gone, it will have to arrive at a mutually agreeable severance agreement, or wait until the next election at which point he probably will not run.

But if the municipality doesn't have the power to act then it becomes the provinces' problem. You are still stuck on the issue being compensation for some reason. It's not. If Council could fire Chu like a regular employee they would have done so already.

Would you have supported the Province whacking Nenshi for lying about the City hiring undercover actors to pose as pedophiles to see if Uber would still hire them?

Not for that, but i would have if similar allegations of sexual assault were made against Nenshi

Changing the MGA to expedite the problem of the moment would reek of corruption, as would enabling a Provincial Minister to remove a municipal official for cause on a whim.

What's corrupt about empowering a Minister to remove councillors for allegations of past sexual assault against a minor while a police officer or for similar situations? Or is that too whimsical in your opinion?

Chu also likely has a breach of confidentiality case against the Police Department as generally, HR records are absolutely confidential. Employers can only publically disclose an employee's dates of employment and title.

Except for the fact that Law Enforcement Review Board decisions are not confidential and are made available to the public. So yeah, not really your typical HR decision