SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Manitoba & Saskatchewan (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   City of Winnipeg Politics | Municipal (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=197147)

chrisallard5454 Jan 18, 2012 6:48 PM

City of Winnipeg Politics | Municipal
 
So it seems Katz may be out of the job if he loses a court battle to Joe Chan. I disagree with the spending of public money on a Christmas Party, but to do it in a restaurant you own, that is just plain ballsy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...-winnipeg.html

1ajs Jan 18, 2012 7:33 PM

aww really?

cheswick Jan 18, 2012 11:59 PM

I can understand he issue with using his restsurant but those that complain about tax money going to perks like this I don't quite follow their logic.

I work in the private sector and got a company paid for holiday party. The government competes against the private sector to hire people. Similar perks that are available in the private sector should be available to government employees if they want to attract similar level of talent. Should all government employees make minimum wage as to not waste taxpayer money? Of course not. Not sure how giving the employees a Christmas lunch is any different. It's simply a form of compensation available to similar employees in the private sector.

1ajs Jan 19, 2012 12:53 AM

what hes complaining about is a confilic of interest and as a result katz is breaking the law he can be forced to vacate his position and or be forced to pay it back if found guilty

vid Jan 19, 2012 1:21 AM

If government employees were all minimum wage workers, we'd be in a truly sorry state. If you think the government wastes money now, just stick a bunch of people who skills are worth $10.25/hour in charge and see how much worse things get.

Kinguni Jan 19, 2012 4:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454 (Post 5554690)
I disagree with the spending of public money on a Christmas Party

Hey, I'm a public employee and didn't get a Christmas party! Where mine?

That said, regardless of the discount or savings, it's a conflict of interest. Fine to take staff there, but it shouldn't have cost the public purse one dime.

drew Jan 19, 2012 5:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheswick (Post 5555193)
I work in the private sector and got a company paid for holiday party. The government competes against the private sector to hire people. Similar perks that are available in the private sector should be available to government employees if they want to attract similar level of talent. Should all government employees make minimum wage as to not waste taxpayer money? Of course not. Not sure how giving the employees a Christmas lunch is any different. It's simply a form of compensation available to similar employees in the private sector.

I would argue that in a lot of cases for those middle of the road jobs, the public sector competes against the government to hire people more so than the other way around.

Christmas parties are great, but I would gladly give that up in favour of the extra holidays, sick days, pensions, job security, etc. etc. that government workers get.

dpenner Jan 19, 2012 6:01 PM

theoretically if Katz would be forced to vacate his position what process would occur to fill the position? Not really familiar with that process, would there be another municipal election or would Wasylycia-Leis take the position as she finished second in the last election?

h0twired Jan 19, 2012 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs (Post 5555278)
what hes complaining about is a confilic of interest and as a result katz is breaking the law he can be forced to vacate his position and or be forced to pay it back if found guilty

Define "breaking the law". What law or line in the City Charter is there that states that the mayor's office cannot pay for a Christmas party out of the office budget? Even if said restaurant is owned (in part) by the mayor himself.

At the end of the day there were probably 100+ people at the party and the total bill came in under $3000. That is a pretty cheap party when you really break it down.

What percentage of Hu's does Katz own?

If anything I suspect that the party was done at-cost and the owners made nothing at all. Even if there was a profit to be had Katz' portion would be laughably minimal.

Sure the optics are terrible, but people are really raising a stink about next to nothing and most of those upset vocal people will do anything to smear Katz at any tiny infraction.

Bdog Jan 19, 2012 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired (Post 5556270)
Define "breaking the law". What law or line in the City Charter is there that states that the mayor's office cannot pay for a Christmas party out of the office budget? Even if said restaurant is owned (in part) by the mayor himself.

At the end of the day there were probably 100+ people at the party and the total bill came in under $3000. That is a pretty cheap party when you really break it down.

What percentage of Hu's does Katz own?

If anything I suspect that the party was done at-cost and the owners made nothing at all. Even if there was a profit to be had Katz' portion would be laughably minimal.

Sure the optics are terrible, but people are really raising a stink about next to nothing and most of those upset vocal people will do anything to smear Katz at any tiny infraction.

I think you're missing the point of the outcry. It's not that the party was taxpayer funded, but that it was held at a restaurant owned by the mayor. Probably 100+ people? Not sure how you can guess the amount that were there (and I'm not even sure that place would hold that many).

Katz said other places were packed, and that he could get a good deal - what process is in place to make sure that's the case?

More importantly, the fact that Katz doesn't see the conflict in this makes people worry about what other business practices he considers ethical. Maybe it's ok to give a long term library lease to a buddy's property, because they can get the best deal? Maybe it's ok to hire a buddy's consulting firm (without shopping around), because other firms were too busy? For someone always railing against taxpayer waste, I'm surprised you can defend this...

dpenner Jan 19, 2012 6:54 PM

He was quoted somewhere in the paper about specifically choosing to hold the party at his restaurant because he could provide all the food and service at cost thus saving money. I agree it looks way worse then it looks. If the bill was around 3000$ I think its ridiculous how much attention this issue has got. Smear campaign for sure, and if your going to attack that then you mine as well start investigating every single expense account by every political figure in the city and whatnot. I would assume there would be bigger issues there.

h0twired Jan 19, 2012 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bdog (Post 5556320)
I think you're missing the point of the outcry. It's not that the party was taxpayer funded, but that it was held at a restaurant owned by the mayor. Probably 100+ people? Not sure how you can guess the amount that were there (and I'm not even sure that place would hold that many).

Katz said other places were packed, and that he could get a good deal - what process is in place to make sure that's the case?

More importantly, the fact that Katz doesn't see the conflict in this makes people worry about what other business practices he considers ethical. Maybe it's ok to give a long term library lease to a buddy's property, because they can get the best deal? Maybe it's ok to hire a buddy's consulting firm (without shopping around), because other firms were too busy? For someone always railing against taxpayer waste, I'm surprised you can defend this...

You can't extrapolate something like that.

What about your neighbour kids who smoke weed? Are they also gang leaders pimping teenage girls while trafficking illegal weapons and heroin?

h0twired Jan 19, 2012 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpenner (Post 5556321)
He was quoted somewhere in the paper about specifically choosing to hold the party at his restaurant because he could provide all the food and service at cost thus saving money. I agree it looks way worse then it looks. If the bill was around 3000$ I think its ridiculous how much attention this issue has got. Smear campaign for sure, and if your going to attack that then you mine as well start investigating every single expense account by every political figure in the city and whatnot. I would assume there would be bigger issues there.

How many people are getting bus passes from Ross Eadie?

How many of those people are friends of his?

rypinion Jan 19, 2012 7:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired (Post 5556347)
You can't extrapolate something like that.

What about your neighbour kids who smoke weed? Are they also gang leaders pimping teenage girls while trafficking illegal weapons and heroin?

Is he actually extrapolating? Those other cases he mentioned actually happened, no?

h0twired Jan 19, 2012 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion (Post 5556355)
Is he actually extrapolating? Those other cases he mentioned actually happened, no?

Even if it is true, this is nothing unique to City Hall and Sam Katz and is small potatoes compared to what happens at a provincial level.

Bdog Jan 19, 2012 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired (Post 5556347)
You can't extrapolate something like that.

What about your neighbour kids who smoke weed? Are they also gang leaders pimping teenage girls while trafficking illegal weapons and heroin?

Extrapolate? Not sure what you mean. The point here is that the mayor cannot see how this scenario could be perceived as a conflict of interest. In fact, he called it a "win-win". To me, and many others obviously, this says something about the mayor's character and ethics. If using public office for private gain in this instance doesn't smell of conflict of interest to you, then we'll agree to disagree.

Bdog Jan 19, 2012 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired (Post 5556362)
Even if it is true, this is nothing unique to City Hall and Sam Katz and is small potatoes compared to what happens at a provincial level.

Ah yes - the old "well, Charlie's even MORE corrupt than me, so it's ok"...

Boreal Jan 19, 2012 10:51 PM

It's bad optics. If I was to venture a guess, yes, Sam Katz probably did save the taxpayers a few dollars, but the optics are terrible, and as a professional he should know that optics matter.

1ajs Jan 20, 2012 8:17 AM

katz is a saint now??
aww

he privitized our sand pits wa 60 millin dallor asset he sould for 10illion to a freind... like come on...

we can also bring up the parking lot he got himself free rent on beside his park no? theres endless list of scrupious buisnes deals hes made.........


if u guys even knew half the shit i've heard about him. the media knows and yet says very little

rypinion Jan 20, 2012 6:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs (Post 5557245)
theres endless list of scrupious buisnes deals hes made.........

Do you mean scrupulous? If so, probably not the word you're looking for:

scru·pu·lous/ˈskro͞opyələs/
Adjective:

(of a person or process) Diligent, thorough, and extremely attentive to details.
Very concerned to avoid doing wrong.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.