Friday’s headlines

14 comments

1. What exactly is the point of having ETA devices in the subway?? When running regularly the trains are only a few minutes apart and if there’s an issue and trains are delayed the TTC announces it (making these devices useless and a waste of money). These devices are needed at bus stops and streetcar stops and not in the subway…

2. Yet another example of pigs at the trough!

   If Miller’s cadre believes it should be covering his councillors legal bills then we should submit ours as well.

   Such a self-serving waste of time and money. Such arrogance by those who should be spending our funds more responsibly than on themselves.

   Time for a change?

3. It’s time for a change but not at City Hall, at Queen’s Park. This Toronto Star editorial speaks to the importance of not allowing sitting politicians to be run out of office by deep-pocketed opponents. And I think that is particularly relevant given that the case against Heaps is being pursued by the employee of one of the candidate’s husband (the local MPP).

4. Jeff, that $50000 works out to half the councillor’s annual salary. I’d be discouraged from running for office knowing I risk losing six month’s pay because someone might file a frivolous lawsuit against me.

   But $50000 divided by 2.5 million people works out to 2 cents per citizen. I’m okay with paying 2 cents to remove any disincentive to running for office. If it means more people running for a position, by all means pay for their potential legal expenses. How else are you going to get anyone better than the incumbents elected?

   The alternative is a council made up of independently wealthy politicians — the only ones who can afford to fight (or start) legal challenges.

5. Most professionals can rely on their company to back them up with legal council when sued about something that involves their professional life.

   Of course, if you truly believe in rhetoric like “pigs at the trough” none of this matters, and we’ll eventually get the kind of politicians we deserve.

6. Shawn, more likely professionals will only get their company to back them up with legal council when sued for *acting in the company’s interest* and where the professional *can prove that the company compelled them* to do so.

   In other words, where a court may find the company to be liable instead of the professional.

   It’s harder to prove whether or not an elected official was acting in the interest of those who elected him, however.

7. That’s true — but I think as an above comment touched on, if you could scare away potential politicians with suits like these, we’d start to get a certain kind of politician only.

   Though perhaps there should be a clause — if they are indeed found to have violated laws/rules, they pay their own legal fees retroactively — but they’ll be protected from frivolous claims that can destroy and individual’s finances just to defend against them.

8. If there is no vicarious liability then the legal expenses should not be paid for by the city.

9. Shawn with respect, ‘that kind of politician’ is most often what we have. And in the case of a Mr. G Mam, a very expensive taker. Heaps I’m not as familiar with.

   Diane’s comment is on point and most common. Perhaps a fairer compromise would be allowing councillors to claim against an insurance policy providing they have first won at court. That way we weed out the frivolous and the abusive.

   FYI even court awards are never 100% to the victor as they recognize every individuals right to challenge under our system. The exact same should be held for councillors and NO more. In other words, they should not expect a total payment of costs as that is far richer than they would ever receive at court.

   Regardless, I find it interesting the priority council places on taking care of its own ahead of the real job.

10. I’m just not that cynical. With respect, how can you say “is most often what we have” when in this case you are only familiar with one out of two?

11. Shawn I’m familiar with many of our council and I’m not pleased. Mayor Miller included.

    Plus, actions do demonstrate something about an individual and repeated similar actions demonstrate a pattern. Such is the situation with many of these individuals.

    Ever check out their spending habits? Their issues, etc.? Speaks volumes. Hence my conclusions.

    Not cynical… realistic and with very open eyes.

12. Ever check out their spending habits? Their issues, etc.? Speaks volumes.

    speaks volumes about what? What they are legally allowed to spend? What council (right, middle and left) have decided is fair? Spending an amount that pales in comparison to the true troughs of Queen’s Park and Ottawa?

    C’mon, Jeff. Anyone who has watched city hall since amalgamation knows full-well that this is a much more transparent government than the pre-2003 councils. Its whatthe leading forensic accounting firm has stated in their professional analysis. I’ll gladly take their word over yours since THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    I have no problems with you not liking the political leanings of Miller et al, but to claim you’re looking at this with “realistic… very open eyes” is just a crock of horse crap. You have a ideological bone to pick, so just admit it instead of hiding behind the “objective” guise you are trying to pull.

13. ahhh molly you couldn’t be more wrong.

    my only ‘bone to pick’ is based on PERFORMANCE and theirs leaves much to be considered… except when it comes to themselves.

    and that’s not to say they are the first but when this mayor claims to clean the place out with his broom and only digs in deeper that pisses me off regardless of his political leaning.

    amalgamation is history and I am tired of it being the go to excuse to rationalize everything by city hall and staff and some others it appears. move forward with open eyes.

14. Well, I know now to move forward with open eyes now with regards to this commentator: some guy on the internet who rants about councilors and the government but “isn’t familiar with all of them” but “knows something” we seem to overlook. Thanks for the insight.