turdrockfromthesun
Banned
Council's big spenders
TheStar.com - GTA - Council's big spenders
TORONTO STAR GRAPHIC The wine, the limos and the bunny suits
Amid a deepening financial crisis at Toronto’s city hall, councillors’ perks and spending habits have come under increasing scrutiny. Here’s a sampling of how some spent part of the $53,100 they’re each allotted annually on office expenses — information the Star obtained by examining files available through the city clerk’s office.
Giorgio Mammoliti
200 limo ride on Feb. 20, 2007 (no destination).
Norm Kelly
On $3,100 China trip in 2006 he took with his wife: “I gave a fabulous address on water to 1,000 guests from all over China. The taxpayers got “value for their money. I showed the flag.â€
Adam Vaughan
$900 for piece called “OMB Squared†purchased from local artist.
$281 for espresso machine.
He said: “Those are two of my most ridiculous expenditures.â€
Pam McConnell
$1,741.96 for Christmas cards in 2006. Explanation from McConnell’s executive assistant Sherry-Ann Lotz: “The amount is ridiculously high. I screwed up royally there and it looks really bad. It’s on me.â€
Karen Stintz
$107.27 for bill that included five glasses of wine and a half-litre of wine at Milestones. After being asked about the expense yesterday by the Star, Stintz said the claim for alcohol was submitted “by mistake" and that she now plans to pay the city back out of her own pocket.
Sandra Bussin
$205.20 on April 9, 2007 for two rabbit costumes. Her explanation: They were costumes for volunteers in the annual Beaches Easter parade. “What do you think? That I was dressing up in a bunny costume for a private party?â€
Case Ootes
$15,184 in advertising and promotion, and $20,927 for printing, postage and couriers in 2006.
Ron Moeser
$3,576.61 on office furniture for his constituency office, including two desks, credenza, bookcase, boardroom table and leather chair.
Letting councillors okay their own expenses harms their reputation – and costs taxpayers
December 04, 2007
Royson James
City Columnist
It's been called a re-election slush fund, a loosely controlled pot of taxpayers' money available to each Toronto councillor to spend as he or she sees fit. And now, council's two notorious penny-pinchers have formally asked the city to do random audits on the way councillors spend their $53,100 office budgets.
Doug Holyday and Rob Ford, perennially at or near the bottom of the spending list, say the city's auditor general should do the audits because while most councillors live within the rules, the rules are not clearly defined, there is little monitoring of spending, and a cursory glance at the expense sheets raises alarm. For example:
Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti okayed cab trips from downtown to Bolton and Woodbridge after midnight; and he authorized a $200 limo ride, destination unknown.
"I'm looking into that," he said yesterday of the late-night cab rides to York Region and the limo ride earlier this year.
Councillor Pam McConnell spent $1,741.96 for Christmas cards last year – including $1,028.86 for 400 cards from the Flatiron Christmas Market. "Yes, that's ridiculously high," admitted McConnell's executive assistant yesterday. "I screwed up royally there."
Case Ootes, who barely fended off a strong NDP challenge in his Toronto-Danforth ward last year, winning by just 20 votes, needed every bit of the $36,111 of tax dollars he spent promoting himself in newsletters and ads in local media.
It didn't take rookie Councillor Adam Vaughan long to join the gravy train. Since his election, he's spent $900 for artwork for his office and $281 for an espresso machine. Now he says, "those are two of my most ridiculous expenditures."
Right-winger Karen Stintz, a frequent critic of council spending, got religious on her own office budget yesterday, moving to withdraw an expense she had filed for booze. "Not justifiable," she now admits.
Councillor Norm Kelly, who fancies himself an erudite, expansive thinker with wide interests, is the most peripatetic traveller, filing claims for over 15,000 kilometres last year. In addition, he ventured to China, using $3,100 of his office budget, with his wife, to lecture on water.
Ford says the above is enough to warrant a full council investigation into office expenses, but since city council and the mayor have refused to even countenance his suggestions, he and Holyday have turned to integrity commissioner David Mullan and auditor general Jeff Griffiths for help.
"This is no expense account. Let's call it for what it is – a re-election slush fund," Ford said yesterday. "They use it for shameless self-promotion, promoting themselves at the taxpayers' expense. The mayor is the leader of council. He should be taking the bull by the horns, but he's turned a blind eye and swept it under the rug."
Ford has been in a running battle with council over office expenses since he was elected in 2000. The latest volley came when Mayor David Miller proposed the land transfer and vehicle registration taxes. Ford and others argued councillors should cut their perks first.
Yesterday, responding to the Ford/Holyday request, Mullan says he does not have the resources to do such an audit and he acts only on specific complaints about a specific councillor's alleged inappropriate behaviour or spending. Griffiths said last week that such an audit has not been his priority but he would listen to a request from city council.
Winnie Li, head of the department that monitors council spending, told the executive committee last week that her staff are there to record and track spending, not police it. Councillors approve their own expenditures and if they say it is for council business, Li and staff can rarely challenge it – except when a clear policy is clearly violated.
Unfortunately, "there are gaps," Li says. "You're talking about a guideline; it's not as clear, as you can tell by those (expense) reports," she said yesterday.
Some councillors don't include all the details required on taxi chits or restaurant receipts, contrary to city policy. Mileage claims are inconsistent and obviously incomplete.
There is little monitoring of personal use of cellphones.
Some councillors flout a policy requiring them to get three quotes before they spend more than $2,000. Mammoliti, for example, bought a video camera, printer and other equipment without three quotes. The city's purchasing processes take too long, he says. Li admits it's cumbersome.
Griffiths and Mullan may be able to help councillors here. Leaving them to their own devices is costing money. And it is costing the councillors a huge hit in their image.
"The more city councillors fight, the more we do damage to each other, the more we lend weight to people's views that we can't do our job," said Mammoliti, one of the main combatants. "We need to stop."
He meant the sparring, not spending.
TheStar.com - GTA - Council's big spenders
TORONTO STAR GRAPHIC The wine, the limos and the bunny suits
Amid a deepening financial crisis at Toronto’s city hall, councillors’ perks and spending habits have come under increasing scrutiny. Here’s a sampling of how some spent part of the $53,100 they’re each allotted annually on office expenses — information the Star obtained by examining files available through the city clerk’s office.
Giorgio Mammoliti
200 limo ride on Feb. 20, 2007 (no destination).
Norm Kelly
On $3,100 China trip in 2006 he took with his wife: “I gave a fabulous address on water to 1,000 guests from all over China. The taxpayers got “value for their money. I showed the flag.â€
Adam Vaughan
$900 for piece called “OMB Squared†purchased from local artist.
$281 for espresso machine.
He said: “Those are two of my most ridiculous expenditures.â€
Pam McConnell
$1,741.96 for Christmas cards in 2006. Explanation from McConnell’s executive assistant Sherry-Ann Lotz: “The amount is ridiculously high. I screwed up royally there and it looks really bad. It’s on me.â€
Karen Stintz
$107.27 for bill that included five glasses of wine and a half-litre of wine at Milestones. After being asked about the expense yesterday by the Star, Stintz said the claim for alcohol was submitted “by mistake" and that she now plans to pay the city back out of her own pocket.
Sandra Bussin
$205.20 on April 9, 2007 for two rabbit costumes. Her explanation: They were costumes for volunteers in the annual Beaches Easter parade. “What do you think? That I was dressing up in a bunny costume for a private party?â€
Case Ootes
$15,184 in advertising and promotion, and $20,927 for printing, postage and couriers in 2006.
Ron Moeser
$3,576.61 on office furniture for his constituency office, including two desks, credenza, bookcase, boardroom table and leather chair.
Letting councillors okay their own expenses harms their reputation – and costs taxpayers
December 04, 2007
Royson James
City Columnist
It's been called a re-election slush fund, a loosely controlled pot of taxpayers' money available to each Toronto councillor to spend as he or she sees fit. And now, council's two notorious penny-pinchers have formally asked the city to do random audits on the way councillors spend their $53,100 office budgets.
Doug Holyday and Rob Ford, perennially at or near the bottom of the spending list, say the city's auditor general should do the audits because while most councillors live within the rules, the rules are not clearly defined, there is little monitoring of spending, and a cursory glance at the expense sheets raises alarm. For example:
Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti okayed cab trips from downtown to Bolton and Woodbridge after midnight; and he authorized a $200 limo ride, destination unknown.
"I'm looking into that," he said yesterday of the late-night cab rides to York Region and the limo ride earlier this year.
Councillor Pam McConnell spent $1,741.96 for Christmas cards last year – including $1,028.86 for 400 cards from the Flatiron Christmas Market. "Yes, that's ridiculously high," admitted McConnell's executive assistant yesterday. "I screwed up royally there."
Case Ootes, who barely fended off a strong NDP challenge in his Toronto-Danforth ward last year, winning by just 20 votes, needed every bit of the $36,111 of tax dollars he spent promoting himself in newsletters and ads in local media.
It didn't take rookie Councillor Adam Vaughan long to join the gravy train. Since his election, he's spent $900 for artwork for his office and $281 for an espresso machine. Now he says, "those are two of my most ridiculous expenditures."
Right-winger Karen Stintz, a frequent critic of council spending, got religious on her own office budget yesterday, moving to withdraw an expense she had filed for booze. "Not justifiable," she now admits.
Councillor Norm Kelly, who fancies himself an erudite, expansive thinker with wide interests, is the most peripatetic traveller, filing claims for over 15,000 kilometres last year. In addition, he ventured to China, using $3,100 of his office budget, with his wife, to lecture on water.
Ford says the above is enough to warrant a full council investigation into office expenses, but since city council and the mayor have refused to even countenance his suggestions, he and Holyday have turned to integrity commissioner David Mullan and auditor general Jeff Griffiths for help.
"This is no expense account. Let's call it for what it is – a re-election slush fund," Ford said yesterday. "They use it for shameless self-promotion, promoting themselves at the taxpayers' expense. The mayor is the leader of council. He should be taking the bull by the horns, but he's turned a blind eye and swept it under the rug."
Ford has been in a running battle with council over office expenses since he was elected in 2000. The latest volley came when Mayor David Miller proposed the land transfer and vehicle registration taxes. Ford and others argued councillors should cut their perks first.
Yesterday, responding to the Ford/Holyday request, Mullan says he does not have the resources to do such an audit and he acts only on specific complaints about a specific councillor's alleged inappropriate behaviour or spending. Griffiths said last week that such an audit has not been his priority but he would listen to a request from city council.
Winnie Li, head of the department that monitors council spending, told the executive committee last week that her staff are there to record and track spending, not police it. Councillors approve their own expenditures and if they say it is for council business, Li and staff can rarely challenge it – except when a clear policy is clearly violated.
Unfortunately, "there are gaps," Li says. "You're talking about a guideline; it's not as clear, as you can tell by those (expense) reports," she said yesterday.
Some councillors don't include all the details required on taxi chits or restaurant receipts, contrary to city policy. Mileage claims are inconsistent and obviously incomplete.
There is little monitoring of personal use of cellphones.
Some councillors flout a policy requiring them to get three quotes before they spend more than $2,000. Mammoliti, for example, bought a video camera, printer and other equipment without three quotes. The city's purchasing processes take too long, he says. Li admits it's cumbersome.
Griffiths and Mullan may be able to help councillors here. Leaving them to their own devices is costing money. And it is costing the councillors a huge hit in their image.
"The more city councillors fight, the more we do damage to each other, the more we lend weight to people's views that we can't do our job," said Mammoliti, one of the main combatants. "We need to stop."
He meant the sparring, not spending.
