News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Filip said:
Radical views? I'd say you lefties are a bit more radical than I am- mentioning how Ford could be assassinated and all this blather that I didn't think I'd ever read about municipal politics.
Click to expand...

However--if you're trying to post this against Ford's apparent/supposed/whatever increasing popularity, you have to remember. Assassination or whatever other terror doesn't require majority approval...
 
Thanks for the lesson in straw-man argumentation:

Torontovibe said:
Filip, who are you trying to fool? You have been spouting your radical views on here for quite a while, so we all knew where you stood from way back. I wouldn't expect anything else from you. If anything, you are predictable.

Did you guys see the recent front page of the Sun saying WE'RE MAD AS HELL! lol Yeah, life in Toronto is such a hell hole, no wonder people are so mad! The right wing have control of the banks, the poilce, the federal government and now, the municiple government and they're mad? lol Will they be happy when the cons take over the province too? Is that when all of a sudden, happiness will fill their angry hearts? I would think it's the lefties that would be mad. We live in a messed up world but when you look at the power structures and who controls them, that's not surprising at all. In spite of it all, I'm still not MAD AS HELL! lol
Click to expand...
 
nfitz said:
How is this success? We replace the 4 remaining elected members with a single appointed person?

That City Council had to do something was clear. But surely they should have eliminated the current board, and simply appointed 4 or 5 councillors to be the board until the new board was constituted.

Perhaps it wouldn't be disturbing if Rob Ford didn't proposed privatizing things a couple of weeks ago.

It was amusing to watch Doug Ford and Frances Nunziata making such bald-faced lies during the debate. And OMG - I had no idea Doug Ford was such a terrible speaker.
Click to expand...

Isn't the appointment only temporary, until April?

Ford lopped off the head of a rotting organization, quickly. Yes, others would have dithered for months on end, doing little in the end and changing nothing. Ford's approach will appeal to his constituents, and will add more supporters. An Ipsos Reid poll yesterday put Ford's approval at 80%, and trending up.
 
But it's all smoke and mirrors, as you know. Keep the two board members who were elected by tenants and the slate of councillors who were newly appointed to the board in December, plus add Case Ootes as your new Interim Chair, and you have a board better prepared to deal with this transitory period than the One Man Case Ootes show. If you simply must remove the two tenant reps because they were part of the 'rot', then replace them with the also-elected-by-tenants alternate representatives, who have never been on the board but are willing to serve and completely untainted by this scandal.

Both those compromise moves were voted down. Can you justify reasons as to why?

Edit: the appointment is temporary until June at the latest.
 
Last edited:
When you have so dramatic a failure of corporate governance, swift and drastic action is required.

This is little different from what the provincial government routinely does when school or hospital boards demonstrate that they are no longer functional: They are suspended and the organization put under trusteeship -- and a "wise man" is appointed to clean house.
 
Last edited:
Again, though, it's not possible to associate any of the remaining board members with the "failure of corporate governance." Why is it so important that the interim board only be Case Ootes, and not Case Ootes plus two tenant representatives and appointed councillors Parker, Nunziata, Augimeri and Cho?
 
Valid questions GraphicMatt... but this doesn't underscore a 'victory' for the Ford team. If we have to be so silly as to look at things in this way.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Again, though, it's not possible to associate any of the remaining board members with the "failure of corporate governance." Why is it so important that the interim board only be Case Ootes, and not Case Ootes plus two tenant representatives and appointed councillors Parker, Nunziata, Augimeri and Cho?
Click to expand...

Because Ford likes everything organized under his control. With the other board members, ramming through changes would be much more difficult.
 
jje1000 said:
Because Ford likes everything organized under his control. With the other board members, ramming through changes would be much more difficult.
Click to expand...

Well, the overriding objective here is to get rid of Keiko Nakamura, who defintely does bear responsibility for the mess. Retaining tenant or council representatives on the Board might create the possibility of a stalemate.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
In what way, considering the AG's report actually exonerated her.
Click to expand...

The Auditor General's report mentions two factors that mitigate Ms. Nakamura's culpability but mitigation is very far from exoneration.

The AG fairly points out that she was "newly appointed" as CEO, although he leaves out the fact that she'd been boss for a year by the time he came sniffing around, after having been COO for four years before that.

The AG also notes the CEO has implemented a number of financial controls, but also says, "Although these actions are in the right direction, significantly more work is required in order to address the recommendations in this report." He was probably too polite to point out that the controls were implemented only after TCHC found out they were going to get audited. He also leaves out the fact that the new controls--which, by the way, amounted to basic accounting 101 stuff that any decent CFO or controller would know by rote--were recommended by outside consultants who charged $91,000 for their services.

The Board is gone and rightly so, and no one is suggesting that Ms. Nakamura is solely resposnible for this, but it is inconceivable that the current senior management team can escape this scandal unscathed.

it's called accountability.
 
I wonder why the two councilors on the board who joined the board in December 2010 got kicked off, while Mammoliti, who served during the time of the spending abuses got off scot-free?

Why is Ootes recieving a salary for this position along with his former severence?

The entire thing seems a little too murky for my tastes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top