[Eug]

Regardless of how good he was at his job, he's irreplaceable in the sense that nobody who's qualified would want to work in an environment where you're not supposed to give your impartial, professional opinion but where you're supposed to tow the political line.

There is a difference between giving your impartial, professional opinion and orchestrating a coup.

I'm sure you've been in the situation where you've given your boss sound advice, and s/he's chosen to do the exact opposite. In that situation you have a few options. One is just to chalk it up to the difficulties of dealing with a hierarchical command structure, and another is to go out of your way to try to make your boss look bad.

Firing people with cause happens all the time in the public service.

Not for being just a mediocre manager.

How exactly did Webser "orchestrate a coup"? lol. Rob Ford isn't a dictator with absolute power, although I'm sure he'd like to be. He's a mayor in a system where the real power lies with council. There was no coup. Just a manager who was asked to produce a report, a spiteful mayor who hid it away because he didn't like what it said, and a bunch of councillors who are getting sick of the mayor's crap.

Uh. Please tell me you aren't that naive. Stintz would never had done what she did if she didn't have Webster feeding her the info. Ford's group is smart enough to realize this.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The question is - is the mayor really the GM's boss? Or is the the commission, which is answerable to council? It isn't as hierarchical as we're lead to believe.

Not like Ford wanting to get rid of Webster from day one being exactly a secret. And why shouldn't Webster "feed" Stintz info? As the chair of the TTC you'd hope he is doing that.

This also shows me why Toronto needs a strong mayor system (as advocated by David Miller no less). Right now the executive powers are so diffuse. And electoral legitimacy is confusing at best. Mayors campaign like they can do grand things. In reality, they have no power to implement anything they campaign for (this is true of Miller and Ford). The mayor says he won on a platform to build subways. The councillors positions were wide and varied on the other hand. My councillor (Raymond Cho) didn't really support Transit City and then gave a pitiable soliloquy when the mayor cancelled the SELRT. Look at Cho's campaign material. Tepid support for LRT and Transit City. He wanted subways because that's what a lot of his constituents wanted. In the last few monts, he's changed his mind, essentially, and now claims electoral legitimacy for his support for LRTs. And this mess will continue until there is a strong mayor system which allows a definitive vision to prevail. We need a system where a Mayor can run the city with council acting as legislative body. Let the mayors live and die by their visions. Or, if we insist on having the weak mayor system, let's allow political parties in. Let them run on cohesive platforms for council and the mayor's chair.

Or mess up royally. Besides, is the current morass really the fault of the lack of a strong mayor system, or the fault of a mayor who by all accounts blew this one? He could have used the window of opportunity a year ago to confirm his vision - he chose not to. Anyone this inept with the application of power deserves to fail. Besides, seeking a institutional solution (i.e. when things don't work, change the system - the easy solution that rarely works) to the malaise just let the electorate off the hook for their own failings and lack of wisdom.

AoD

 

[Eug]

The question is - is the mayor really the GM's boss? Or is the the commission, which is answerable to council?

Oh I understand. Ford isn't really his boss direclty, but nonetheless, the anti-TC plan put forward by the Fords was clear as day, and already got support of the provincial government. It was even supported (apparently half-heartedly) by Karen Stintz.

Then all of a sudden Stintz and Webster come to the forefront and antagonize Ford in public. Obviously Webster decided to take a stand, and Stintz and Webster used each other to further their agendas. This is a really big deal.

He probably figured he wouldn't get fired, but at least he knew he'd never get fired with cause, because he hasn't done anything that would justify getting fired with cause. So, he took the gamble... and won one battle but lost another.

 

[MisterF]

Uh. Please tell me you aren't that naive. Stintz would never had done what she did if she didn't have Webster feeding her the info. Ford's group is smart enough to realize this.

Uh. Please tell me you're not still buying into Ford's BS. What exactly do you mean by "feeding her the info"? Like Alvin said, it's the bureaucracy's job to give information to the TTC chair and to councillors. Of course he was giving her info, that's what he was supposed to do.

And how exactly did Webster antagonize Ford in public? By preparing the report that Ford swept under the rug?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Eug:

Then all of a sudden Stintz and Webster come to the forefront and antagonize Ford in public. Obviously Webster decided to take a stand, and Stintz and Webster used each other to further their agendas. This is a really big deal.

He probably figured he wouldn't get fired, but at least he knew he'd never get fired with cause, because he hasn't done anything that would justify getting fired with cause. So, he took the gamble... and won one battle but lost another.

Something doesn't quite add up - for all the talk about agendas, just what is there to be gained by Webster? Considering his close brushes with getting terminated - and his familiarity with commission politics, I find it hard to believe he went in without expecting that getting fired is a end result.

AoD

 

[Eug]

Uh. Please tell me you're not still buying into Ford's BS.

? It was clear as day that Webster and Stintz are allies when all of this entered the news. Do you really think Stintz just read a report, and decided to go it alone, after suddenly learning all the TTC ropes by becoming an undercover boss?

Whether or not I agree with Ford's actions (I don't) is beside the point. The point here is that Webster tried to use Stintz to counteract Ford's plan, and everyone knows it. He put a target on his own back, and Ford took the kill shot.

Something doesn't quite add up - for all the talk about agendas, just what is there to be gained by Webster? Considering his close brushes with getting terminated - and his familiarity with commission politics, I find it hard to believe he went in without expecting that getting fired is a end result.

The optimist in me says that Webster was standing up for what he believes in, and I respect him for that. I just think it's ludicrous that some people here think he was just an innocent bystander. He knew what he was doing, and tried to play the game using Stintz. As for the risk of getting fired, I don't think he necessarily realized he'd get fired, but perhaps he did. However, he did know he wouldn't get fired for cause. Depending on the terms of the contract, that can be very good for him in a sense. He's (near) retirement age, and now he has many moons' worth of salary and doesn't have to work for it. In that sense he didn't have much to lose.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Eug:

Exactly. As they say: "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully"

AoD

 

[GraphicMatt]

? It was clear as day that Webster and Stintz are allies when all of this entered the news. Do you really think Stintz just read a report, and decided to go it alone, after suddenly learning all the TTC ropes by becoming an undercover boss?

Whether or not I agree with Ford's actions (I don't) is beside the point. The point here is that Webster tried to use Stintz to counteract Ford's plan, and everyone knows it. He put a target on his own back, and Ford took the kill shot.


The optimist in me says that Webster was standing up for what he believes in, and I don't fault him for that. I just think it's ludicrous that some people here think he was just an innocent bystander. He knew what he was doing, and tried to play the game using Stintz. As for the risk of getting fired, I don't think he necessarily realized he'd get fired, but perhaps he did. However, he did know he wouldn't get fired for cause. Depending on the terms of the contract, that can be very good for him in a sense. He's (near) retirement age, and now he has many moons' worth of salary and doesn't have to work for it. In that sense he didn't have much to lose.

You're making assumptions about Webster's personality that don't really hold up. He was never much of a game player. He's straight-arrow to the core.

Had Ford compromised or been politically savvy enough to get council to endorse his underground-only transit plan, there's no doubt that Webster would have worked in his role as CGM to implement that plan to the best of his ability. He's been doing exactly that in coordination with Metrolinx for the last year.

Webster's great sin wasn't buddying up to Stintz to work against the mayor. It was his refusal to produce reports and give answers that show justification for Rob Ford's subways.

 

[Eug]

Exactly. As they say: "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully"

One of my favourite movies of all time is Ikiru.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Eug:

Thanks for bringing that movie to my attention - will definitely look it up.

AoD

 

[Tulse]

The optimist in me says that Webster was standing up for what he believes in

And that was his job -- to provide objective information to guide decision-making. Do you want civil servants to slant or bias information in order to please their political masters?

 

[nfitz]

Do you want civil servants to slant or bias information in order to please their political masters?

There does seem to be a desire among Conservatives to do that ... look at how the federal government has been controlling stuff in recent years.

 

[Paleo]

Nah, but it seems like he orchestrated the coup against the Fords with the help of Stintz and her political aspirations.

LOL. What a load of partisan crap. Writing a report that poured cold water on the mayor's ideas is considered orchestrating a coup? I'd consider the act of suppressing the report from the public far more egregious.

 

[Tulse]

Writing a report that poured cold water on the mayor's ideas is considered orchestrating a coup?

I suppose it would have been disloyal for Webster to report that, contrary to the mayor's position, the moon is in fact not made of green cheese.

 

[Jonny5]

Slightly OT, but of interest to people who visit this board.

I LOVE the view out the window behind Stinz in this CBC story. It looks very Manhattan-like.
Is she in Scotia Plaza?

Back on topic, from The Star: TTC light rail plans are full speed ahead, regardless of politics

TTC chair Karen Stintz also expressed frustration with the mayor Wednesday.

“There’s this notion that there’s a ‘subway plan.’ Rob Ford keeps talking about a subway plan, and there’s no subway plan. As soon as Rob Ford can tell us where he’s going to get $4 billion for a subway, then we can discuss a subway,” she said. “Until that point, we cannot. It’s frustrating that he’s talking about subways on Eglinton and subways on Sheppard, when we actually have no plan.”