Integrity commissioner Robert Swayze has submitted his bill for reviewing a Guelph Mercury article earlier this year.
The total is $10,462.50, plus HST. At Swayze's hourly rate of $225 that represents 46.5 hours of work.
Coun. Cam Guthrie was so blown away by the total he has suggested the 10 councillors who voted to have the review done should split the costs, and has already pledged to "give back $1,000 out of my pocket to the taxpayers" before the end of this term.
We'll have more in the paper tomorrow.
Pay the bill and vote to end this now.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | July 11, 2012 at 06:38 PM
One group of councillors and staff trying to muzzle another group of councillors who were trying to do the job they were elected to do.
Paying a man $10,000 plus to review a Guelph Mercury article?
The one thing missing from this sad sordid story is any sign of integrity from Farbridge or her supporters.
Mr. Chamberlain is right, pay the guy and then get rid of the guy.
I'd like to say I'm outraged but I grow numb.
Posted by: geo | July 11, 2012 at 07:29 PM
(Thanks geo. Numb, indeed.)
Our Council's Frankenstein.
Http://www.craigchamberlainonline.com
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | July 11, 2012 at 11:28 PM
I suspect that the initial commissioning of an integrity expert is to simply provide the preliminary legwork to establish agreed-on vocabulary for future best practices management. They will (should) also provide a baseline for which to apply empirical science to future endeavors. (These initial costs only a prelude of that yet to come. The hiring of integrity commissioners is not yet passé.)
The main objective of commissioning is to provide the foundation or fundamental structure that will ensure the effective management of those who are commissioned to do so by the electorate.
How is it that we are lacking necessary checks and balances or the appropriate framework to ensure best business practices are being utilized? Where is the structure?? Does the integrity exist to manage the management of change?
Posted by: mp | July 12, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Cam Guthrie for Mayor - seriously...
Posted by: K. | July 12, 2012 at 02:34 AM
This council sure knows how to spend the taxpayers hard earned dollar. If the money was coming out of their pockets, it would not be spent on this crook. Is this commissioner related to Farbridge? STOP this ridiculous waste of money NOW!
Posted by: Gord | July 12, 2012 at 08:32 AM
wow!
and he only interviewed one side in the original dispute.
imagine what his bill would have been had he actually done a proper job.
i agree Craig, pay him and wash our hands.
useless waste of $12K ... which if I recall correctly is about two years worth of public internet access at the libraries.
Posted by: D C | July 12, 2012 at 09:02 AM
Does the integrity commissioner only act when a majority vote of council directs him to? If so, this is wrong on many levels. Since we have voting blocs in the current council, mostly based on favour trading, the integrity commissioner will never be asked to investigate a member of the majority group. Secondly, it's a conflict of interest, since he is investigating the very group that gives him billable work - the council.
This whole idea has been flawed from the very beginning.
Posted by: Steve | July 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM
That said, Cam's offer to pay $1000 of the cost is pure pandering, although it apparently seems to work on some people.
Posted by: Steve | July 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM
I've pondered asking the commish why Ian Findlay is constantly allowed to vote on downtown matters that it could be suggested might help or hurt his business, but at $245 an hour it doesn't seem fair to the taxpayers, which includes me. I just wish that our councilors had the stones to do the morally correct thing without looking for outside help. Surely there is some higher power that comes for free?
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | July 12, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Only two Councillors voted against the Ethics Commissioner - Bell and Kovach.
46.5 hours to read a column and talk to one side only. Ridiculous!!
However Council has an option. Firat since the Commissioner is a Lawyer - Have staff or better yet the Mayor(who caused this Kangaroo Court) take his bill to the Taxing Master for an ethical review.
The Taxing Master can then review and adjudicate on whether the amount charged is fair.
Then have a motion to revisit and rescind this poorly thought out piece of bullying, and there is no shortage of Councillors to move and second such a motion. Failure to do so will guarantee that all Councillors except Bell and Kovach will wear this one in the next election.
Posted by: Serious Cynic | July 12, 2012 at 01:14 PM