1. As I said in another post, I think nearly all of these international junkets are of little worth to Toronto taxpayers, but they are par for the course for ALL mayors.
You could say that for any business trip and that applies to the private sector too. I don't think there's a linear relationship between taking a business trip and seeing the benefits. It's much harder to quantify in the public sector because the city doesn't experience the benefits directly.
Why should tax-payers even have to question this? He has no integrity.
There's nothing much to question here. Either the staffer was allowef to be on the trip with him or not. We don't know if there are specific processes that the Mayor must follow in order to have a staff attend with him.
It's not just his affair. It's about the positions people held. As a Mayer of one of the biggest cities in the world, his ethics should be higher.
Yes, his ethics "should be higher" in a perfect world. You know that we don't live in that world and policies will always lag behind how people behave.
I don't remember him campaigning on running a whorehouse.
I don't know what point you were trying to make. Of course he didn't campaign on running a whorehouse. IMO he had it fairly easy the first time he ran because of the Rob and Doug circus.
I'm not suggesting it. It's literally the opening statement in one of the policies.
Many policies in the public and private sector have grey areas that can be interepreted in different ways. They don't usually explicitly forbird inter-office relationships. Maybe this incident wil cause the city to change the policies to be more explicit or not. It can't an accident that similar grey zones exist in public and private organzaions. There has to be logical and practical reasons behind it.
Companies can be sued if they are found not having integrity in the hiring process.
Theoretically, a company could be sued if they violated The Human Rights Act and didn't hire someone. Practically speaking it could be tough for someone to go through the legal process. The person making the complaint would need evidence that the discrimation happened.
What you need to understand is every employee has to uphold themselves to an ethical standards. And the standard raises the higher you go.
I honestly don't get the higher standard narrative. There should be 1 standard that everyone follows.
If this girl isn't getting special favours, how did she get a cushy MLSE job so conveniently before shit hit the fan? Are you going to tell me this is all coincidence?
Obviously, he helped her get the MLSE job, as I've already stated in this thread.
Do we have proof e.g emails, phone calls, etc that Tory helped his staffer get the job at MLSE? If not, then this is just a rumor. Even if he did help her that's not illegal in of itself. This is yet another grey area because people refer others to jobs all the time. I do know that John Tory has more influence than an average employee.
I guess someone could come forward to claim that MLSE hired Tory's staffer unfairly or violated the Human Rights Act, but they would have to prove it.
