TK4
Well-known member
Another slant - John Tory should not have resigned as mayor
|
|
|
John Tory C'ya! Another Toronto Mayor bites the dust
- Thread starter sburns
- Start date
My understanding is that he's technically not resigned...he indicated his intention to resign...but hasn't filed the paperwork yet.
TK4
Well-known member
Correct.
News showed him at his desk this morning.
He's a smart guy. Maybe setting up a play. Retirement package because the city hired a temptress after he told HR he had problems? DF school of politics where you float an idea and watch reaction before deciding whether to proceed?
Council can't declare mayors office vacant until he hands in a piece of paper. It sounds like he has done a press release but no accompanying legal document to start the process.
Agree. The slightly complicating factor is he shagged an employee. That always adds to the possibility of conflict (either real or perceived). If it was some random person and consensual, I don't think there should be employment consequences.
As it is, it doesn't sound like she has complained but also I don't see how she could. She is still working in a place where JT could affect her future. Speak up and blow up your life or stay quiet and cash the cheque? That's not a good position to be in.
Agreed.
Was out consensual? Then good. Did they learn something? Good again.
The consensual question is the really hard one. If she says no officially, it potentially costs her millions of dollars. No real upside to her torpedoing him (even if it may be the "right" thing to do).
His personal life should in theory have no bearing on his ability to run the city, but....
Within the chain of command (the more direct the worse) is where things get dicey. Is it truly 100% consensual if one person has significant direct power over the other? Did the person receive favourable or perceived favourable treatment (promotions, raises, reviews, quid pro quo...)? Were employer resources or money used? Did other employees know and were they pressured to keep it quiet? These are some of the reasons it is frowned upon by HR policies.
I feel bad for his wife and family, him stretching this out (resigning, at some point) just keeps the embarrassment going. Better off is he said oops my bad lets move on or handed in the paper work right away. Now they (and we) are all living in purgaTory.
At least with Sweaty Bob, he was doing everything he could to get crack off the streets...
Within the chain of command (the more direct the worse) is where things get dicey. Is it truly 100% consensual if one person has significant direct power over the other? Did the person receive favourable or perceived favourable treatment (promotions, raises, reviews, quid pro quo...)? Were employer resources or money used? Did other employees know and were they pressured to keep it quiet? These are some of the reasons it is frowned upon by HR policies.
I feel bad for his wife and family, him stretching this out (resigning, at some point) just keeps the embarrassment going. Better off is he said oops my bad lets move on or handed in the paper work right away. Now they (and we) are all living in purgaTory.
At least with Sweaty Bob, he was doing everything he could to get crack off the streets...
Last edited:
sburns
Well-known member
True to some degree if that was his private life. In the workplace is totally different. No he wasn't doing the job as elected. His ethics and critical thinking were compromised. Getting a free pass just outlines all the questions @blackmarkerducati pointed out, and then some.
While I liked Mel he was no angel. He actually had a second family with kids. Does the infidelity affect political judgement?
If you needed a heart transplant and the best doctor was a womanizer would you take the second best?
As far as clearing out the adulterers we'd probably have trouble forming a quorum afterwards.
The civil service and military seem to be rampant with naughty stuff. So much so that the military has given up fixing their problem themselves and is turning the cases over to civilian courts.
The Supreme Court of Canada has declared that where there is a collective agreement it is not interested in hearing cases. They should be handled by arbitration. I think if we saw huge settlements for assaults the level of debt we see now would become the tip of the iceberg.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|