“Ontarians need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into municipalities. Full investigative powers. And it’s not just Mississauga. This is for all Ontario municipalities.” MISSISSAUGAWATCH deputation to MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL

November 26th, 2009  

We’re up for air and back online.

Only purpose for this Blog is to document, for the record, a video that MISSISSAUGAWATCH showed at yesterday’s Mississauga Council meeting to oppose Mississauga Council hiring an Integrity Commissioner. MISSISSAUGAWATCH made it clear to Mississauga Council that “Ontarians need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into municipalities. Full investigative powers.”

"ONTARIANS NEED THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN LOOKING INTO MUNICIPALITIES. FULL INVESTIGATIVE POWERS." MISSISSAUGAWATCH to MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 25, 2009

Our good friend (and sometimes colleague), citizen-activist Donald Barber also called for Mississauga Council to determine how the Ontario Ombudsman might play the (invited) role of Integrity Commissioner for the City until such time as the Province Gets Real and expands the Ombudsman’s Office jurisdiction into the MUSH sector ([M] of MUSH is “Municipalities).

So here is the video we showed —video weaving clips of the December 6, 2006 Bill 130 Standing Committee Queen’s Park deliberations with “The Mississauga Muse” inside Council Chambers, four years later —on November 11, 2009.

Followed by the transcript.

Video: “INVITE THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN IN AS YOUR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER” MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL URGED” (5:51 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

Video taped at Queen’s Park regarding Bill 130 Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act Standing Deliberations,  December 6, 2006.

It includes debate between Brad Duguid, (Liberal) MPP, Scarborough Centre, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Ernie Hardeman (PC) MPP Oxford.

TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

Mr. Duguid: —this is in keeping with some of the recommendations that came forward from the Ombudsman in discussing the need that these duties be carried out in an independent manner. And that’s what this particular motion is designed to do. It clarifies that the ombudsman is to function in an independent manner.

The Chair: Very good. Any speakers to this? Mr. Hardeman?

Mr. Hardeman: I guess I say it in a kind of negative way but, it seems to me from the government’s side  —saying it doesn’t make it so. And from having an amendment that says we’re changing nothing about how it’s done but the Ombudsman says we should have an independent ombudsman or investigator —to just put that in and say they should be independent — unless it gives some direction of what independence means, I don’t know how anyone would take comfort from this being sure it’s going to be  independent.

If it still allows that independent person, that’s doing it now independently, to be an employee of council, I don’t know how the public could see that as independence.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: I really would like to think that most citizens aren’t stupid enough to accept an Integrity Commissioner that a municipality itself decides to hire. I mean there are 440 municipalities in Ontario. Some of them have to be corrupt!

And you’re gonna somehow say that we’re going to deal with this corruption by hiring our own Integrity Commissioner? What?!

Mr. Hardeman: Of course because of the whole nature of the bill, there will be no avenue for the public to be involved in whether it’s independent or not, because the very fact that the individual is appointed prohibits that person from going to the Ontario Ombudsman to ask for an independent review.

So, [inaudible] just saying it, to me, just doesn’t cut it.

There needs to be more direction as to how independent they must be, that they must be appointed separately from council, that it can’t be, as was suggested on a very negative note by the Ombudsman, it can’t be just hiring a lawyer who’s — no disrespect to lawyers — who is in fact, obligated to work for the people who hire them.

So obviously, an independent investigation by a lawyer hired is not going to suffice for the public—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: And here’s something else. If these people had done a minimum amount of homework, as far as checking the Code of Conduct and complaints system that they have passed in April 2008—if they have looked into that, and had examined what’s been happening since that one was implemented, they’d realize how important it is to get substantial complaints away from municipalities and into the Provincial realm.

Mr. Duguid: —There are a variety of interpretations to the wording in this motion that could provide some degree of difficulty for municipalities down the road, and we’d rather not complicate that. We have confidence that municipalities will — in fact, when we had AMO before us during the hearings, Mr. Reycraft made it very, very clear municipalities are not going to appoint somebody as an ombudsman who is not independent, and would not get an employee of the company, or of the corporation or the city or town or village or region to do that.

But there are issues in terms of definitions of “employee” that I think we’d rather not get into.

Mr. Hardeman: I recognize that the president of AMO, on behalf of all the member municipalities of AMO, was making a presentation and suggested that he would never, nor would any municipality, do anything that would be contrary to the best interests of the people who were being impacted by their decisions.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: And then the other thing about this report, it doesn’t deal with prior problems and any complaint —you’re only allowed six months.

Most people don’t know how badly they’ve been screwed over —for years! It took me about two years to figure out about Freedom of Information!

Mr. Hardeman: At the same time, I think, if you’re going to have a third party review for decisions that they make, I think the public would expect that third party review to be by an impartial third party. I think if we don’t do something like this, we’re going to have the old adage about “You can’t fight city hall” is going to be true, because the judge is going to be somebody at city hall, and I don’t think that’s an appropriate way.

So I think this is one that should be passed, and I do request a recorded vote on it.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: Most people don’t have the resources that I have here or the time that it’s taken me to really understand why you can’t have an Integrity Commissioner. You need —Ontarians need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into municipalities. Full investigative powers. And it’s not just Mississauga. This is for all Ontario municipalities.

They need help. You need something else, because everything else is just —pretense. Absolute pretense.

End slide: “saying it doesn’t make it so” Ernie Hardeman (PC) MPP Oxford, December 6, 2006.

NOTE: This video transcript differs from the official Hansard records and I have no idea why.

Signed,

The (Ontarians need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into municipalities. Full investigative powers. And it’s not just Mississauga. This is for all Ontario municipalities.) Mississauga Muse

"MISSISSAUGA CITIZEN-ACTIVIST" "DONALD BARBER" "CALLS UPON MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL TO INVITE THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN IN AS INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER"

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

CAROLYN PARRISH VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: “This Inquiry is about things that have been going on —murky things that have been going on around our city for quite some time.”

November 8th, 2009  

Yesterday, we posted video of Councillor Carolyn Parrish’s explanation as to why Mississauga needs a Judicial Inquiry.

By way of introduction to today’s Blog, I will simply repeat what I wrote yesterday. The reader can regard this as my official position on the Judicial Inquiry. Yesterday I wrote:

I’ve filed two years and $2,100 worth of Freedom of Information on City of Mississauga Corporate Security. If the rest of the City of Mississauga is as corrupt and unaccountable as their Security operation, this judicial inquiry is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdue!

There you have it.

And now, the video, followed by the transcript.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH: JUDICIAL INQUIRY WILL LOOK INTO “MURKY” DEALS AROUND THE CITY (10:04 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

NOTE:  Councillor Parrish really did say “one hundred million” and the City Solicitor also did say “ten million”. Next, regarding OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retiredment System) Councillor Parrish really did say, “They gave us ten percent of Enersource” —this is clearly in error and can’t be what she meant to say based on the rest of her comments.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Councillor Parrish.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I know you’re all going to want to boo. So if you just be patient and wait til I finish speaking and then boo maybe we’ll get through this a little more quickly.

First of all I’d like to tell you, and get on the record that there’s a procedural problem here in that the judicial review was passed four weeks ago. So what Councillor Mullin has done is defer the Terms of Reference. She hasn’t asked us to reverse that decision yet. So the procedure to do that is quite different and we’ll have to discuss it.

Secondly I would like to ask the lawyer, the City’s lawyer, if in fact we can get to a 100-million dollars in your wildest dreams and secondly, can a judge order us to pay the costs of the witnesses that come before the judicial review.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Through the City Solicitor.

CITY SOLICITOR MARY ELLEN BENCH:

In my report, I set out the reasons for why I’ve estimated the costs the way that I have. I don’t think the costs are going to  be anywhere near the range of  10-million dollars. They could definitely go higher than what I’ve estimated because as I’ve said in the report, there are a number of variables depending  on what the investigation turns up and how the Commissioner decides to handle those matters.

In terms of the Third Parties or Corporations or outside parties, the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to provide funding and I set that out on page 11 of my report. In terms of who has Party status and who can participate fully in the Inquiry, if the Inquiry is held, that is a matter that will be determined by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner establishes the rules for a Judicial Inquiry —Council does not. So they will determine the rules. They will determine the Parties. They make —may make  recommendations on funding if they think it’s appropriate. But they do not have any jurisdiction to make that decision.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

Thank you. And another comment I would like to make is, with the exception of Mr. Shipp who took a direct shot at me, and I will discuss it with you later because I want you  to know what you said about me is not true.

I agree with everything that was  said today about Hazel McCallion. This Inquiry is not about Hazel McCallion. This Inquiry—no—

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Let her finish please.

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

You’ve had your opportunity.

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order.

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order!

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order. Please proceed.

[Protests, jeers from audience die down]

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

This Inquiry is about things that have been going on —murky things that have been going on around our city for quite some time.

And if you want to talk about money and you want to talk about OMERS, the first thing that was discovered after I was elected, through a very laborious process that cost us over a million dollars, was the Enersource agreement that was signed in 2000 was altered two days before it was signed on direction from the lawyers from OMERS and accepted by then City Manager.

It was altered to give Veto Power —one hundred percent Veto Power to our ten percent partner.

Now you need to understand, that’s OMERS.  They came in. They gave us [sic] ten percent of Enersource and they took one hundred percent control.

They have excuses for doing it but the main excuse was that we have a Put agreement, which is too complex to get in to. If it was a good excuse, why didn’t they bring it to the Councillors of the day in 2000 and say this is why we need this little veto in here. This is why we have to be able to veto one hundred percent of your decisions. You’re ninety percent, we’re ten percent. We have a good reason but you know what? We’re not going to tell you what it is. We’re gonna send a letter from OMERS to the City Manager of the day and to our Lawyer of the day and say, “Just slip that in.”

So that when we were looking into selling Hydro, which we subsequently decided not to, cost us one-hundred-fifty/two-hundred thousand dollars to find that little mistake. And the clock has been ticking ever since.

So OMERS, who sent us a threatening letter last night, saying, “We’ve just spent nine months trying to re-negotiate that deal because we know we shafted you, we’re going to draw the re-negotiation out of the ballpark. We’re taking it back. We don’t like what you’re doing with the Judicial Review. We don’t like being named in it. And by the way, we want you to pay for our lawyers for the last nine months while we were trying to figure out how to fix the mistake that was done without the knowledge of your Councillors or your Mayor!”

The City Manager of the day slipped the papers to her, said go ahead and sign them [inaudible word] the same as the ones Council looked at.

So Number One, I want to look at OMERS, I’m sorry. We’ve have a few deals with those guys.

Secondly, we tried to buy a piece of land to build Sheridan College here in City Centre.  What was discovered was affidavits were sent through the courts where certain persons involved in World Class Development said you have to pay us off. We’ve put in two-point-three-million dollars that we’re not going to get back. So we’re going to take you to court, hold this whole thing up and Sheridan won’t get built because they have to get built by 2011 just like the other infrastructure money.

So if we have to go to court and fight with these guys, W. [sic] World Class Development, Sheridan won’t get built!

So what do we do? World Class Development does all these affidavits, tells us about off-site meetings, tells us this, tells us that. And they say, “But you know what, for a cash settlement from OMERS we’ll withdraw our objection.” In my world, that’s blackmail.

So I want those guys looked at. Because they affect our city and they affect the prices we pay. If OMERS paid them three million to go away, I’m sure we paid them three million more than we should have for that land.

So that’s what I want to look at and that’s what we all wanted to look at.

Mayor McCallion’s Conflict of Interest is a small technicality that is absolutely irrelevant to me.

[Murmurs, groans from audience]

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

What is relevant, what is relevant, is the fact that six days after the minutes of the meeting was [sic] taken care of, somebody in this building changed those minutes. And we’ve never had an explanation.

The other thing you need to know, ‘cuz we’ve asked the City Manager in-camera, you know when you Blackberry each other in business —you guys are all in business, you all have those little Blackberrys, this City monitors our PIN to PIN conversations.

That was admitted by the City Manager that the City has the technology to do that…

[MISSISSAUGAWATCH turns video camera to video surveillance camera over Councillor Parrish’s left shoulder.]

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

So somebody can find out who instructed the minutes to be changed or go into the minutes and change them. To me that’s an issue!

I’m sure you’d like to know that your minutes, when you read them from a meeting are honest, nobody has the ability to change them, and we’ve never had an explanation as to why they were changed.

So when you look at the Terms of Reference of this, it was a lengthy conversation by all the members of Council —and I didn’t give them something in their drinking water, and I didn’t promise them jobs or Heaven, or anything else.

I merely looked into this because I’m a bit of a ferret and I follow Hazel’s instructions which are “Do Your Homework” and when you keep doing your homework and you keep finding problems that you can’t answer or solve —the rest of your colleagues say, “Hey, we got to look at this.”

Now if there’s a way of doing the Terms of Reference that Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest is taken out of it, I have no problem with that because she’s admitted she had a Conflict of Interest.

I want to find out how the minutes got changed, I want to find out why OMERS took what they paid World Class Development to go away. I want to know what other deals have been going on at the City Centre like that. I want to know why we’ve spent a year-and-a-half trying to fix a deal that was signed by the Mayor without her knowledge or Council’s knowledge slipping in a huge Veto Power in there for a little ten percent partner!

My colleague, Nando, has often said, if that is acceptable in business, he’s going to buy ten percent of every one of your houses—

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

(whispers) And tell you what to do.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

—and then tell you what to do with them. When you can live in them. Who can live in them with you. He’s In Charge.

So please get it out of your heads that I— and by the way I was told by Hazel McCallion when she announced six weeks ago or whenever that she was running again, I was the only one who sent her a note congratulating her. I want her to run again!

[Laughter, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

No, I’m sorry…

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order. Order.

[Laughter, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

But I also want this judicial review to clear the air.

And I’m also surprised at how little faith you have in the Mayor when you all keep talking about this thing growing like a giant mushroom cloud.

If it’s a little Conflict of Interest, it’ll be over in ten minutes.

If it’s OMERS it might take longer.

If it’s people in this building snooping on all our PINs and changing minutes—might take a little longer. But these are the things that we want to look at.

[MISSISSAUGAWATCH BATTERY CHANGE —SPECIAL THANKS TO ROGERS CABLE 10 BROADCAST for remaining 17 seconds]

And if there’s a way in the Terms of Reference and I’m going to ask our lawyer, if we can take Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest out of it at that meeting on May 21st, I’d be happy to do so. Could I, through you, ask our lawyer?”

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Through the Solicitor.

—VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS—

Please note that video ends because YouTube allows a maximum of 10 minutes per video and this video is exactly 10:04 including the MISSISSAUGAWATCH logo.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

MISSISSAUGA Conflict of Interest Judicial Inquiry VIDEO TRANSCRIPT COMPILATION-1: IN THEIR OWN WORDS, Councillors Corbasson, Dale, Carlson, Iannicca

November 6th, 2009  

At the October 28, 2009 Council meeting, despite blistering opposition from the “Our Hazel Can Do No Wrong” crowd, seven City of Mississauga Councillors voted for a judicial inquiry into the inner “murky” workings of the Trust, Quality, Excellence people.

While the traditional media have taken considerable interest of late, the reader/viewer is limited to reporters’ version of events which in some cases are as ghastly and non-researched as what is churned out by the “Our Hazel Can Do No Wrong” crowd.

Again, to repeat, I’ve been filing Freedom of Information on City of Mississauga Corporate Security conduct, operations and adherence to policies. If there are similar WThuh?! open cesspools like I’ve dredged up with $2,100 worth of Freedom of Information, this judicial inquiry was long overdue.

So MISSISSAUGAWATCH will turn today’s Blog over to a compilation of video transcripts of four Councillors as they explained why they voted for a judicial inquiry.

These transcripts appear in the order presented in previous Blogs: Councillor Carmen Corbasson (Ward 1), Councillor Frank Dale (Ward 4), Councillor George Carlson (Ward 11) and Councillor Nando Iannicca (Ward 7).

The reader who knows a thing or two about Mississauga will notice Councillor Carolyn Parrish (Ward 6) is not among these four and not addressed at all so far.  That’s because Councillor Parrish’s October 28, 2009 comments were extensive and will need more time to work up in video as well as provide transcripts.

The next Blog (and possibly a second) will deal exclusively with Councillor Parrish’s October 28, 2009 comments.

As I’ve said in my previous Blogs, all video and transcripts will be submitted to the Mississauga City Clerk for inclusion in the October 28, 2009 minutes because frankly, I do not want Future Mississauga 30-40 years from now to read only the Corporation’s side of the story (aka manicured minutes). (As a historical record it can’t get better than video and the transcript).

Here we go.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

IN HER OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON:

Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor and I will be brief. Um, let me first say that this isn’t an easy time for any of us around this table just like it’s not an easy time for you. I don’t think we take comfort in any of the decisions we’ve had to make of late. But notwithstanding, we are elected to make some tough decisions and I think that’s the type of comment you’re gonna hear around this table today.

I am not at all overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up, Councillor Prentice. In fact, I’m surprised there wasn’t more.

And I’ll tell you why I’m surprised because we all know Madam Mayor is loved, admired and respected. And I for one moment am not going to take away that from her. For me, she has been a role model in many many ways. We both started here in the City in 1978 and I’ve learned an awful lot from her.

I— my biggest difficulty is, and I hope you can understand and appreciate that when we have in-camera sessions, we are privy to certain comments and information that the general public is not.

For me, the in-camera session on the judicial inquiry opened up more questions than it answered.

I— that Madam Mayor didn’t declare one Conflict of Interest for a 17-minute or a 17-second, whatever it was, I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem that official government documents got changed with no satisfactory explanation.

I do have difficulty that any member of Council, doesn’t matter if it’s Madam Mayor, or me, or anyone else, can have off-site meetings, with a landowner, who has an interest in the City of Mississauga, that is going to financially benefit a member of any one of our families.

That may not be against the Conflict of Interest Act. But in my opinion, I would hope, and it’s my understanding that a judicial inquiry can —and most probably would, depending on their findings —make some very strong recommendations to have either the Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal Act changed.

That’s simply put, Ladies and Gentlemen, for me —I’m not going to speak, I’ll let the others speak for themselves.

This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.

But I would like to see this City in particular, and certainly Madam Mayor come out with credibility, integrity and that we all maintain our dignity.

I do thank you for coming out today, Ladies and Gentlemen and I will turn it back to the Acting Mayor.

Video: Councillor Carmen Corbasson  (3:50 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR FRANK DALE:

Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor. I certainly just wanted to make a point, that I want to be clear as a member of Council that I always examine the facts that are before me and weigh them in any decisions that I make as the Councillor. And taking into, of course, the consideration, uh, taking into consideration, the best interests of this great city as well as the community in which I represent.

And I stand behind the position that that I took with respect to the inquiry primarily for the same reasons that Councillor Corbasson eloquently described.

And I do want to make it clear that this was not personal to the Mayor. This was just based on the facts that was presented before us and the recommendations that were before us by outside legal counsel —and reviewing that, and examining that, made that decision. And I stand by, and will support the recommendations that are before us today, with respect to the terms of reference.

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain.

Jeer from audience

I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

Video: Councillor Frank Dale (1:58 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR GEORGE CARLSON:

Thank you very much Mr. Acting Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity just to say a few words that may be a slightly different tone than some of the other comments made. I think it’s sad in a way that it’s looked as a win-lose here today.

This was a process because we really, as a governing body, find ourselves vexed by the issues we’re reading about here today. And they haven’t just started dogging us yesterday at noon. This has been going on for some years.

And we’ve spent a considerable amount of money trying in our own way to get to the bottom of many of these issues. And in my opinion, I don’t think we’ve been all that successful. And it continues to hang over Council .

And when you read of the divisions on Council, you’re mostly talking about Enersource and the issues associated with OMERS and partnerships. So to me, I’m delighted that the motion is to delete Madam Mayor from that minor Conflict of Interest, which she’s already said she accepts responsibility. That is a nothing-issue as far as this inquiry is concerned

And as far as I’m concerned, Explanation Accepted. Forgotten about. That part is a Big Zero to me.

So because it’s so obvious from the heartfelt response from the folks here today that this appears to be a first-class witch hunt —must be Hallowe’en, we’re too much into the witch stuff, that we need— This helps to de-focus that and gets us on the other issues which I’m afraid the media find a lot less interesting than going after dear old Hazel.

The kind of stuff about governance and ownership and shares puts most people to sleep. I have to agree with you. But, it’s Big Bucks and we have never properly settled that issue. And I don’t know how to do it other than this.

But I think another point of view as well too, the fact that we’re going to a judge, that speaks volumes to me as a Canadian. I love that we have a country where we can go to an impartial judiciary and say look, we’ve played with the damn thing for two years and we’re not lawyers, judges.

And as I said to one resident today, if there was anything going on here, I would not want this group, much as I love them all, to be sitting in judgment of me. This is a non-starter —reat group of people to work with but, this is not a court of law.

So I think sometimes when you’re stuck, you’re stuck and you’ve got to get some help from somebody. And for me, that’s all this is about and the speculation about politics and who’s the Mayor—

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor.

So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor. I’ve known her —I’m trying to think when I first met Hazel, I think I was probably three years old or something. I have no interest in any vexatious action against her.

But by golly, I don’t know what else to do. I guess you could hire a consultant —we’ve done all of the consultants. We’ve done, we’ve asked for outside lawyers and asked for —we need someone who can come in and sort out the stuff and say, here’s what you need to do and what/where you went wrong, if we did go wrong. And here’s how you can improve it for the future.

That’s all I’m voting for and if that’s bad, I guess that’s bad but that’s all I can say about it and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair

Video: Councillor George Carlson (3:53 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

And if you don’t mind, as Chair, I would like to speak if someone would so move.

[Someone does]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Thank you, I—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH into camera:

Here he goes.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

—have an obligation to my consitituents and I’ll be very very brief but I think Councillor Carmen (Corbasson) hit on the fundamental point that we’re all grappling with. This is not a fun day for us. This is a heart-wrenching decision.

The reason that I was one of the proponents of the Inquiry —the reason I stand by it emphatically needs all of ten seconds to explain.

Number One, I don’t have a crystal ball. I don’t know where this is going.

I do know that minutes have been altered —there some other things have gone on that I cannot explain to my taxpayers and I owe them an explanation.

Point Number Two, the Lady of Justice is blind for a reason. It matters not who she judges over —whether that’s your Mayor, whether that’s my brother, whether that’s the local parish priest. And I have to hold that close to my thoughts as well.

I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you, I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner.

It is not a city that I would want to live in. I’ve never conducted my affairs in that manner.

I’m shocked that anyone in the audience or anyone in this city would put the cost of such an exercise ahead of having to ensure you have Integrity and Accountability in your political system.

[Jeers and protests from the audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

I beg your pardon.

And so to conclude, at the end of the day, I was not elected for my love of the Mayor. I was elected to do the right thing.

This, as difficult as it is on an emotional level —I want you to hear from me directly, from many of you that I’ve known for a long time, on an ethical, moral, and the-right-thing level, this is one of the easiest decisions that I’ve ever had to make though I’ve never regretted a decision more.

With that I now turn to the motions before me, I need the assistance of the Clerk to make sure…

Video: Councillor George Carlson (2:23 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

MISSISSAUGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY RECORDED VOTE, October 28, 2009

Again, Councillor Parrish’s comments are on-deck and for historical reasons, transcripts and video of the Councillors who opposed the judicial inquiry will also be recorded here for posterity.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

LINKS TO PREVIOUS BLOGS of the October 28, 2009 CONFLICT OF INTEREST/JUDICIAL INQUIRY meeting

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Carmen Corbasson, “This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that”

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Frank Dale, “I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.” November 4, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor George Carlson, “I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. November 4th, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Nando Iannicca, “I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner. It is not a city that I would want to live in.”

Best quotes for people to Get It.

“This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.”

—Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain. (Jeer from audience) I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor. So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

And I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you, I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar matter. It is not a city that I would want to live in.

—Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Nando Iannicca, “I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner. It is not a city that I would want to live in.”

November 5th, 2009  

[The BACKGROUND (all in dark blue font) is a repeat from previous blogs. You may just want to scroll down directly to the video and transcript.]

BACKGROUND

The October 28, 2009 Mississauga Council meeting will always be remembered as the Judicial Inquiry Meeting.

Facing blistering criticism from angry Hazel McCallion supporters and even dire threats of defeat from “When-Our-Hazel-Dies-I-Want-Her-Here-In-This-Hall” Mega-builder Harold Shipp, seven Councillors held their ground —and put their political futures directly on the line.

HERE COMES THE SUN

In his October 31, 2009 article, Mississauga melee gets ugly, Toronto Sun, columnist Ted Woloshyn telegraphs the 2010 pro-McCallion strategy.

He writes:

So expect Hurricane Hazel, who’s facing a tornado of trouble right now including a judicial inquiry into her actions and the inability to win key votes at council, to fight back hard.

To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.

The other seven incumbents are now seen as anti-Hazel. If even two of those went down in defeat, control of Mississauga’s council chamber would shift dramatically, and in the end control of council equals control of the city.

An endorsement from a mayor who continuously garners in excess of 90% of the vote would carry a ton of weight. Would a politician who runs as part of Team Hazel get a little more attention and maybe a few more lawn signs?

I suspect an endorsement from Mississauga Mega-builder Harold Shipp is worth a mega-ton as well. Not to mention a mega-ton of lawn signs!

Having researched City of Mississauga governance (videotaping, Freedom of Information etc) and documenting “citizen input” over the years, this is the Picture…

The vast majority of Mississaugans do not know what’s going on. Second, of those who don’t know what’s going on, I’ve concluded that sadly, few would care if a judicial inquiry confirmed widespread malfeasance and corruption. Voters clearly vote with their wallets and wallets don’t care about ethical governments.

During his deputation in support of a judicial inquiry, Donald Barber stated:

“I’m not here to discuss anything about Hazel. We all know that, you know, even if she was dead and buried, her name was on the ballot sheet, she’d be elected  That’s fine.”

To which Mr. Barber received strong applause and cheers.

I’d go so far as to say that even if headlines confirmed that she routinely stuffs cats and political opponents into a wood-chipper, Mississaugans would re-elect Hazel McCallion. Such is the Pathology of MYTHissauga.

Over the next while, MISSISSAUGAWATCH will post videos of the October 28, 2009 Council meeting onto YouTube for posterity. Regardless of who is speaking, all videos will begin the same way —with Harold Shipp and his $$$threat$$$ of political oblivion to any Councillor who’d stand up during a recorded vote in support of a judicial inquiry.

Video: “Mega-builder” Harold Shipp warns MISSISSAUGA Councillors. Councillor Nando Iannicca responds

So. First video of  Ward 7 Councillor Nando Iannicca and why he supported the judicial review, followed by a transcript from the video. All transcripts will be sent to the City Clerk for inclusion into the Council minutes for this meeting.

We begin.

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

VIDEO INTRODUCTION speaking AGAINST a judicial inquiry. “Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP:

If I were sitting there among you, Ladies and Gentlemen, who serve on our Council today, I would be wondering what my position would be one year from now when an election is held and how many of you might have a chance for re-election —IF you proceed with the action you are contemplating now.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Now that’s a threat. Isn’t that interesting..

DIP TO BLACK (to signify later in the meeting).

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

And if you don’t mind, as Chair, I would like to speak if someone would so move.

[Someone does]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Thank you, I—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH into camera:

Here he goes.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

—have an obligation to my consitituents and I’ll be very very brief but I think Councillor Carmen (Corbasson) hit on the fundamental point that we’re all grappling with. This is not a fun day for us. This is a heart-wrenching decision.

The reason that I was one of the proponents of the Inquiry —the reason I stand by it emphatically needs all of ten seconds to explain.

Number One, I don’t have a crystal ball. I don’t know where this is going.

I do know that minutes have been altered —there some other things have gone on that I cannot explain to my taxpayers and I owe them an explanation.

Point Number Two, the Lady of Justice is blind for a reason. It matters not who she judges over  —whether that’s your Mayor, whether that’s my brother, whether that’s the local parish priest. And I have to hold that close to my thoughts as well.

I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you,  I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner.

It is not a city that I would want to live in. I’ve never conducted my affairs in that manner.

I’m shocked that anyone in the audience or anyone in this city would put the cost of such an exercise ahead of having to ensure you have Integrity and Accountability in your political system.

[Jeers and protests from the audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

I beg your pardon.

And so to conclude, at the end of the day, I was not elected for my love of the Mayor. I was elected to do the right thing.

This, as difficult as it is on an emotional level —I want you to hear from me directly, from many of you that I’ve known for a long time, on an ethical, moral, and the-right-thing level, this is one of the easiest decisions that I’ve ever had to make though I’ve never regretted a decision more.

With that I now turn to the motions before me, I need the assistance of the Clerk to make sure…

—VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS—

MISSISSAUGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY RECORDED VOTE, October 28, 2009

Signed,

The (I am so proud of these Councillors) Mississauga Muse

LINKS TO PREVIOUS BLOGS of the October 28, 2009 CONFLICT OF INTEREST/JUDICIAL INQUIRY meeting

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Carmen Corbasson, “This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that”

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Frank Dale, “I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.” November 4, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor George Carlson, “I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all.  November 4th, 2009

Best quotes for people to Get It.

“This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.”

—Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain. (Jeer from audience) I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor. So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

And I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you,  I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar matter. It is not a city that I would want to live in.

—Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

MISSISSAUGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY: HAROLD SHIPP (AGAINST) DONALD BARBER (FOR)

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor George Carlson, “I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all.”

November 4th, 2009  

[The BACKGROUND (all in dark blue font) is a repeat from previous blogs. You may just want to scroll down directly to the video and transcript.]

BACKGROUND

The October 28, 2009 Mississauga Council meeting will always be remembered as the Judicial Inquiry Meeting.

Facing blistering criticism from angry Hazel McCallion supporters and even dire threats of defeat from “When-Our-Hazel-Dies-I-Want-Her-Here-In-This-Hall” Mega-builder Harold Shipp, seven Councillors held their ground —and put their political futures directly on the line.

HERE COMES THE SUN

In his October 31, 2009 article, Mississauga melee gets ugly, Toronto Sun, columnist Ted Woloshyn telegraphs the 2010 pro-McCallion strategy.

He writes:

So expect Hurricane Hazel, who’s facing a tornado of trouble right now including a judicial inquiry into her actions and the inability to win key votes at council, to fight back hard.

To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.

The other seven incumbents are now seen as anti-Hazel. If even two of those went down in defeat, control of Mississauga’s council chamber would shift dramatically, and in the end control of council equals control of the city.

An endorsement from a mayor who continuously garners in excess of 90% of the vote would carry a ton of weight. Would a politician who runs as part of Team Hazel get a little more attention and maybe a few more lawn signs?

I suspect an endorsement from Mississauga Mega-builder Harold Shipp is worth a mega-ton as well. Not to mention a mega-ton of lawn signs!

Having researched City of Mississauga governance (videotaping, Freedom of Information etc) and documenting “citizen input” over the years, this is the Picture…

The vast majority of Mississaugans do not know what’s going on. Second, of those who don’t know what’s going on, I’ve concluded that sadly, few would care if a judicial inquiry confirmed widespread malfeasance and corruption. Voters clearly vote with their wallets and wallets don’t care about ethical governments.

During his deputation in support of a judicial inquiry, Donald Barber stated:

“I’m not here to discuss anything about Hazel. We all know that, you know, even if she was dead and buried, her name was on the ballot sheet, she’d be elected  That’s fine.”

To which Mr. Barber received strong applause and cheers.

I’d go so far as to say that even if headlines confirmed that she routinely stuffs cats and political opponents into a wood-chipper, Mississaugans would re-elect Hazel McCallion. Such is the Pathology of MYTHissauga.

Over the next while, MISSISSAUGAWATCH will post videos of the October 28, 2009 Council meeting onto YouTube for posterity. Regardless of who is speaking, all videos will begin the same way —with Harold Shipp and his $$$threat$$$ of political oblivion to any Councillor who’d stand up during a recorded vote in support of a judicial inquiry.

Video: “Mega-builder” Harold Shipp warns MISSISSAUGA Councillors. Councillor George Carlson responds (3:53 min)

So. First video of  Ward 11 Councillor George Carlson and why he supported the judicial review, followed by a transcript from the video. All transcripts will be sent to the City Clerk for inclusion into the Council minutes for this meeting.

We begin.

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

VIDEO INTRODUCTION speaking AGAINST a judicial inquiry. “Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP:

If I were sitting there among you, Ladies and Gentlemen, who serve on our Council today, I would be wondering what my position would be one year from now when an election is held and how many of you might have a chance for re-election —IF you proceed with the action you are contemplating now.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Now that’s a threat. Isn’t that interesting..

DIP TO BLACK (to signify later in the meeting).

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Councillor Carlson.

COUNCILLOR GEORGE CARLSON:

Thank you very much Mr. Acting Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity just to say a few words that may be a slightly different tone than some of the other comments made. I think it’s sad in a way that it’s looked as a win-lose here today.

This was a process because we really, as a governing body, find ourselves vexed by the issues we’re reading about here today. And they haven’t just started dogging us yesterday at noon. This has been going on for some years.

And we’ve spent a considerable amount of money trying in our own way to get to the bottom of many of these issues. And in my opinion, I don’t think we’ve been all that successful. And it continues to hang over Council .

And when you read of the divisions on Council, you’re mostly talking about Enersource and the issues associated with OMERS and partnerships. So to me, I’m delighted that the motion is to delete Madam Mayor from that minor Conflict of Interest, which she’s already said she accepts responsibility. That is a nothing-issue as far as this inquiry is concerned

And as far as I’m concerned, Explanation Accepted. Forgotten about. That part is a Big Zero to me.

So because it’s so obvious from the heartfelt response from the folks here today that this appears to be a first-class witch hunt —must be Hallowe’en, we’re too much into the witch stuff, that we need—  This helps to de-focus that and gets us on the other issues which I’m afraid the media find a lot less interesting than going after dear old Hazel.

The kind of stuff about governance and ownership and shares puts most people to sleep. I have to agree with you. But, it’s Big Bucks and we have never properly settled that issue. And I don’t know how to do it other than this.

But I think another point of view as well too, the fact that we’re going to a judge, that speaks volumes to me as a Canadian. I love that we have a country where we  can go to an impartial judiciary and say look, we’ve played with the damn thing for two years and we’re not lawyers, judges.

And as I said to one resident today, if there was anything going on here, I would not want this group, much as I love them all, to be sitting in judgment of me. This is a non-starter —reat group of people to work with but, this is not a court of law.

So I think sometimes when you’re stuck, you’re stuck and you’ve got to get some help from somebody. And for me, that’s all this is about and the speculation about politics and who’s the Mayor—

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’  a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor.

So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still  have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor. I’ve known her —I’m trying to think when I first met Hazel, I think I was probably three years old or something. I have no interest in any vexatious action against her.

But by golly, I don’t know what else to do. I guess you could hire a consultant —we’ve done all of the consultants. We’ve done, we’ve asked for outside lawyers and asked for —we need someone who can come in and sort out the stuff and say, here’s what you need to do and what/where you went wrong, if we did go wrong. And here’s how you can improve it for the future.

That’s all I’m voting for and if that’s bad, I guess that’s bad but that’s all I can say about it and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Thank you. Councillor Mullin…

—VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS—

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

“This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.”

—Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain. (Jeer from audience) I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

MISSISSAUGA MUSE, MISSISSAUGAWATCH "Conducting Administrative, Oversight & Ombudsman Investigations" GARETH JONES


Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Frank Dale, “I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.”

November 4th, 2009  

[The BACKGROUND (all in dark blue font) is a repeat from a previous blog. You may just want to scroll down directly to the video and transcript.]

BACKGROUND

The October 28, 2009 Mississauga Council meeting will always be remembered as the Judicial Inquiry Meeting.

Facing blistering criticism from angry Hazel McCallion supporters and even dire threats of defeat from “When-Our-Hazel-Dies-I-Want-Her-Here-In-This-Hall” Mega-builder Harold Shipp, seven Councillors held their ground —and put their political futures directly on the line.

HERE COMES THE SUN

In his October 31, 2009 article, Mississauga melee gets ugly, Toronto Sun, columnist Ted Woloshyn telegraphs the 2010 pro-McCallion strategy.

He writes:

So expect Hurricane Hazel, who’s facing a tornado of trouble right now including a judicial inquiry into her actions and the inability to win key votes at council, to fight back hard.

To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.

The other seven incumbents are now seen as anti-Hazel. If even two of those went down in defeat, control of Mississauga’s council chamber would shift dramatically, and in the end control of council equals control of the city.

An endorsement from a mayor who continuously garners in excess of 90% of the vote would carry a ton of weight. Would a politician who runs as part of Team Hazel get a little more attention and maybe a few more lawn signs?

I suspect an endorsement from Mississauga Mega-builder Harold Shipp is worth a mega-ton as well. Not to mention a mega-ton of lawn signs!

Having researched City of Mississauga governance (videotaping, Freedom of Information etc) and documenting “citizen input” over the years, this is the Picture…

The vast majority of Mississaugans do not know what’s going on. Second, of those who don’t know what’s going on, I’ve concluded that sadly, few would care if a judicial inquiry confirmed widespread malfeasance and corruption. Voters clearly vote with their wallets and wallets don’t care about ethical governments.

During his deputation in support of a judicial inquiry, Donald Barber stated:

“I’m not here to discuss anything about Hazel. We all know that, you know, even if she was dead and buried, her name was on the ballot sheet, she’d be elected  That’s fine.”

To which Mr. Barber received strong applause and cheers.

I’d go so far as to say that even if headlines confirmed that she routinely stuffs cats and political opponents into a wood-chipper, Mississaugans would re-elect Hazel McCallion. Such is the Pathology of MYTHissauga.

Over the next while, MISSISSAUGAWATCH will post videos of the October 28, 2009 Council meeting onto YouTube for posterity. Regardless of who is speaking, all videos will begin the same way —with Harold Shipp and his $$$threat$$$ of political oblivion to any Councillor who’d stand up during a recorded vote in support of a judicial inquiry.

Video: “Mega-builder” Harold Shipp warns MISSISSAUGA Councillors. Councillor Frank Dale responds (1:58 min)

So. First video of  Ward 4 Councillor Frank Dale and why he supported the judicial review, followed by a transcript from the video. All transcripts will be sent to the City Clerk for inclusion into the Council minutes for this meeting.

We begin.

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

VIDEO INTRODUCTION speaking AGAINST a judicial inquiry. “Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP:

If I were sitting there among you, Ladies and Gentlemen, who serve on our Council today, I would be wondering what my position would be one year from now when an election is held and how many of you might have a chance for re-election —IF you proceed with the action you are contemplating now.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Now that’s a threat. Isn’t that interesting..

DIP TO BLACK (to signify later in the meeting).

COUNCILLOR FRANK DALE:

Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor. I certainly just wanted to make a point, that I want to be clear as a member of Council that I always examine the facts that are before me and weigh them in any decisions that I make as the Councillor. And taking into, of course, the consideration, uh, taking into consideration, the best interests of this great city as well as the community in which I represent.

And I stand behind the position that that I took with respect to the inquiry primarily for the same reasons that Councillor Corbasson eloquently described.

And I do want to make it clear that this was not personal to the Mayor. This was just based on the facts that was presented before us and the recommendations that were before us by outside legal counsel —and reviewing that, and examining that, made that decision. And I stand by, and will support the recommendations that are before us today, with respect to the terms of reference.

I want to be clear though that the decision I  make,  the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain.

Jeer from audience

I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Thank you Councillor Dale. Councillor Saito…

—VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS—

For serious students of municipal governance, there’s a timely article in the November/December 2009 issue of the Municpal Monitor.  Written by Gregory J. Levine, (Lawyer, Southampton and London, Ontario), you can find “Ethics in Municipal Government: The Law in Ontario” online at:

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/MCTS0609/index.php#/6

Signed,

The (“Big Brother has his hand firmly planted in our back pocket – government revenues his lifeline; unaccountability his refuge.” —Andre Marin, Ontario Ombudsman, June 27, 2007) Mississauga Muse

“This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.”

—Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

"ETHICS IN MUNIICIPAL GOVERNMENT: THE LAW IN ONTARIO" online at the MUNICPAL MONITOR" BY GREGORY J. LEVINE

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Carmen Corbasson, “This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that”

November 3rd, 2009  

BACKGROUND:

The October 28, 2009 Mississauga Council meeting will always be remembered as the Judicial Inquiry Meeting.

Facing blistering criticism from angry Hazel McCallion supporters and even dire threats of defeat from “When-Our-Hazel-Dies-I-Want-Her-Here-In-This-Hall” Mega-builder Harold Shipp, seven Councillors held their ground —and put their political futures directly on the line.

HERE COMES THE SUN

In his October 31, 2009 article, Mississauga melee gets ugly, Toronto Sun, columnist Ted Woloshyn telegraphs the 2010 pro-McCallion strategy.

He writes:

So expect Hurricane Hazel, who’s facing a tornado of trouble right now including a judicial inquiry into her actions and the inability to win key votes at council, to fight back hard.

To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.

The other seven incumbents are now seen as anti-Hazel. If even two of those went down in defeat, control of Mississauga’s council chamber would shift dramatically, and in the end control of council equals control of the city.

An endorsement from a mayor who continuously garners in excess of 90% of the vote would carry a ton of weight. Would a politician who runs as part of Team Hazel get a little more attention and maybe a few more lawn signs?

I suspect an endorsement from Mississauga Mega-builder Harold Shipp is worth a mega-ton as well. Not to mention a mega-ton of lawn signs!

Having researched City of Mississauga governance (videotaping, Freedom of Information etc) and documenting “citizen input” over the years, this is the Picture…

The vast majority of Mississaugans do not know what’s going on. Second, of those who don’t know what’s going on, I’ve concluded that sadly, few would care if a judicial inquiry confirmed widespread malfeasance and corruption. Voters clearly vote with their wallets and wallets don’t care about ethical governments.

During his deputation in support of a judicial inquiry, Donald Barber stated:

“I’m not here to discuss anything about Hazel. We all know that, you know, even if she was dead and buried, her name was on the ballot sheet, she’d be elected  That’s fine.”

To which Mr. Barber received strong applause and cheers.

I’d go so far as to say that even if headlines confirmed that she routinely stuffs cats and political opponents into a wood-chipper, Mississaugans would re-elect Hazel McCallion. Such is the Pathology of MYTHissauga.

Over the next while, MISSISSAUGAWATCH will post videos of the October 28, 2009 Council meeting onto YouTube for posterity. Regardless of who is speaking, all videos will begin the same way —with Harold Shipp and his $$$threat$$$ of political oblivion to any Councillor who’d stand up during a recorded vote in support of a judicial inquiry.

So. First video on tap, is Ward 1 Councillor Carmen Corbasson and why she supported the judicial review, followed by a transcript from the video (minus my whisperings into camera). All transcripts will be sent to the City Clerk for inclusion into the Council minutes for this meeting.

We begin.

Video: “Mega-builder” Harold Shipp warns MISSISSAUGA Councillors.
Councillor Carmen Corbasson responds” (3:50 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

VIDEO INTRODUCTION speaking AGAINST a judicial inquiry. “Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP:

If I were sitting there among you, Ladies and Gentlemen, who serve on our Council today, I would be wondering what my position would be one year from now when an election is held and how many of you might have a chance for re-election —IF you proceed with the action you are contemplating now.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Now that’s a threat. Isn’t that interesting..

DIP TO BLACK (to signify later in the meeting).

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Councillor Corbasson…

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON:

Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor and I will be brief. Um, let me first say that this isn’t an easy time for any of us around this table just like it’s not an easy time for you. I don’t think we take comfort in any of the decisions we’ve had to make of late. But notwithstanding, we are elected to make some tough decisions and I think that’s the type of comment you’re gonna hear around this table today.

I am not at all overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up, Councillor Prentice. In fact, I’m surprised there wasn’t more.

And I’ll tell you why I’m surprised because we all know Madam Mayor is loved, admired and respected. And I for one moment am not going to take away that from her. For me, she has been a role model in many many ways. We both started here in the City in 1978 and I’ve learned an awful lot from her.

I—  my biggest difficulty is, and I hope you can understand and appreciate that when we have in-camera sessions, we are privy to certain comments and information that the general public is not.

For me, the in-camera session on the judicial inquiry opened up more questions than it answered.

I— that Madam Mayor didn’t declare one Conflict of Interest for a 17-minute or a  17-second, whatever it was, I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem that official government documents got changed with no satisfactory explanation.

I do have difficulty that any member of Council, doesn’t matter if it’s Madam Mayor, or me, or anyone else, can have off-site meetings, with a landowner, who has an interest in the City of Mississauga, that is going to financially benefit a member of any one of our families.

That may not be against the Conflict of Interest Act. But in my opinion, I would hope, and it’s my understanding that a judicial inquiry can —and most probably would, depending on their findings —make some very strong recommendations to have either the Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal Act changed.

That’s simply put, Ladies and Gentlemen, for me —I’m not going to speak, I’ll let the others speak for themselves.

This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it  ten million? I don’t know.

But I would like to see this City in particular, and certainly Madam Mayor come out with credibility, integrity and that we all maintain our dignity.

I do thank you for coming out today, Ladies and Gentlemen and I will turn it back to the Acting Mayor.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Thank you…

—VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS—

Here’s a fact. Throughout its 30-year history, there has never been anything resembling legitimate oversight of City of Mississauga conduct and operations, let alone independent external scrutiny.  Don’t believe? I’m only too happy to hand over three years’ worth of video of Audit Committee meetings (and almost two years worth of Freedom of Information!)

Councillor Corbasson summarized our MISSISSAUGAWATCH research goal in her own justifications for a judicial inquiry. She said:

“— it’s my understanding that a judicial inquiry can —and most probably would, depending on their findings —make some very strong recommendations to have either the Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal Act changed.”

That’s our goal here too at MISSISSAUGAWATCH! We must change the Municipal Act (Yes. Really).

And we hope to use City of Mississauga Corporate Security’s conduct and operations as “Poster Boy” for precisely why citizens need the Province to grant the Ontario Ombudsman full investigative authority into Municipalities.

There’s every reason to suspect that some (perhaps even many) municipal governments harbour institutional bullies —with Zero Conscience.

Freedom of Information has revealed City of Mississauga  “public servants” with Zero Conscience. And residents should have “Zero Tolerance” for that!

CHANGING PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE GOVERNANCE

Councillor Corbasson cares not just about Mississauga. Clearly, her support of a judicial review proves that she has her sights set for improving Government throughout Ontario.

Signed,

The (Changes to the Muncipal Act…  can’t happen soon enough) Mississauga Muse

SHERI-LYNN RUFFO (SLR) SHIFT SUPERVISOR: CITY OF MISSISSAUGA CORPORATE SECURITY NOVEMBER 14, 2008 BAN OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE OF 9/10, 15/16 AND 16/17 YEAR OLD FEMALES (from Mississauga Civic Centre, Living Arts Centre and Central Library)

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article