WikiLeaks Sudbury
Accessing Information

WikiLeaks Sudbury Legal Defense Fund
DONATE

We keep you informed

 
                 
    Main About  Archives Editorials Donate    
   

 

 

 

 

 

   
   

Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organizations.

   
 

 

             
 

 

     October 2014        
                 
 

Brian Bigger made history, outrunning his opponents with a stunning victory
Bigger earned 46.32% popular votes

“Openness, transparency and accountability”


Elections belong to the voters, and the voters have decided. Regardless of polls commissioned by paid media outlets, specifically bogus undecided voter percentages, Brian Bigger has secured in one of the most stunning municipal electoral victories in Sudbury’s history.  
 



"Botched Analysis"
MacDonald’s interpretation of polling results statistically flaws

                            Bigger               Melanson Rodriguez


MacDonald

A recent article published in the Sudbury's tabloid news paper, Northern Life, written by City hall reporter Darren MacDonald (Oct 20, 2014 - 11:37 AM), manipulated data and contained an improper interpretation of his own polling results. The article states that the poll was conducted over two nights - Oct. 14 and Oct. 16. Live telephone interviews with 500 residents were conducted between 6-9 p.m. and 19 out of 20 times, the results are considered accurate plus or minus 4.4 per cent. 

The number of outgoing dialed calls made in order to obtain 500 residents for the live interviews is not specified and therefore the undecided voter percentages are not accurate and are biased.  Furthermore, the October 16th results were interpreted as Melanson being at 28.5% and Bigger at 30%. However, the sample size, weighted averages and the margin of error are not specified for the October 16th results. This therefore places in to serious question the validity of the results. 

Additionally, the results of October 9th were interpreted with a margin of error of 3% and the results of October 14 and 16 were interpreted with a margin of error of 4.4%. The data was collected using two different techniques, namely automated telephone surveys and telephone interviews. MacDonald’s comparison of the results with direct percentages is thus similar to comparing apples to oranges.

Based on the results of October 9th, Bigger’s popular vote ranged from 35% to 41%. Although, according to the results of October 14 and 16, it ranged from 30.5% to 39.5%. This therefore indicates that the results show a similar pattern and differences are not statistically significant (ρ0.05). These results are consistent with previous research findings and negative campaigns are not effective in gathering popular votes.  Furthermore, voters are also capable of distinguishing between what they feel are fair and unfair "attacks" in a political campaign. MacDonald is therefore contradicting his own results.

What must be taken from this is what WikiLeaks Sudbury has already previously warned; readers must be cautious about articles written by MacDonald. MacDonald is facing allegations that he is under the City’s corrupted bureaucrats’ payroll.

Bigger Leading Mayoral race
Final results will be within the range of 32.5 % - 39.7% of popular votes

Our research team’s recent poll confirmed that Brian Bigger, City’s auditor general is on leave of absence and is leading the mayoral race. As of October 16, 2014, Bigger has the support of 36.1 % of decided voters, John Rodriguez has 25.7% and Dan Melanson has 24.6%. Other candidates share the remaining 13.6%. The survey was conducted across the region of Greater Sudbury in all 12 wards and the sample size was 1856. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. In this context Bigger’s final results will be within the range of 32.5 % - 39.7% of popular votes. 

Over time course of 6 days, our research team collected data from live personal informal interviews, across the Greater Sudbury region between the dates of October 10-16. Our results consist of a medley of hardcore municipal voters who continually vote at municipal elections as well as young voters. Undecided voters account for 9.6% and this number will definitely not interfere with the pattern of the final results. 
The automated telephone surveys versus live in-person informal personal opinion severely influence the accuracy of the results. Factors such as the sample size, time of the day the survey is done, number of days over which the survey is conducted (versus a quick poll over four hours one evening) all contribute to the accuracy. This is why methodology therefore matters.

Methodology

We utilized Martin, Traugott, and Kennedy’s predictive accuracy index with modifications according to the Greater Sudbury settings.  Treating polls as random samples of a voting population, we first estimate and intercept only multinomial logit model to provide proportionate odds and measures of each candidate’s share of the vote, and thereby both un-weighed and weighed averages of these values as a summary index for poll accuracy. We then propose measures for significance testing, and run a series of simulations to assess possible bias from the resulting folded normal distribution across different sample sizes. Finally, we demonstrate the practical value of our measure by using it as a dependent variable in an explanatory model of polling accuracy. To read our adopted Methodology Click here.  

 
Who could Topple TDS Dynasty?

                                Dan Melanson
                                  Mayoral Candidate

                          Brian Bigger
                       Mayoral Candidate

Released on October 03, 2014, 10:00 AM EDT
Tag #: 673

Open and Transparent Municipal Government
Municipal Election Forcing New Politics of Sudbury Identity




Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin : 
Fairness and Administrative Accountability
(Sudbury bureaucrats fired Ontario Ombudsman)
 

 

  

From left: Benkovh - Controversial practices; Canapini - Bad legal advise; Nadorozny - Lack of accountability; Fowke - Incompetent and negligence

 
 

When viewed in the context of overall City hall failure, the alleged scandals are a drop in the bucket. The fact is that the list of the City of Greater Sudbury`s municipal government failures is long and growing. Without reforming what government does and how it goes about doing it, we’ll soon be learning of many incidents of defrauding public funds by City’s bureaucrats.

Greater Sudbury taxpayers are fed up with secret bureaucratic agendas at City hall. The disappointment mainly lies in the large amount of tax dollars scammed, misspent and improperly managed. This amount is not in hundreds, but in millions. City hall is full of scandals and secret deals. Adding to the lack of transparency. The city’s clerk office continually denied public access to the records. Furthermore, the taxpayer-funded legal service department worked against public will. The division led by Jamie Canapini, City Solicitor and  assistant City solicitor Kristen Newman take every effort not to release the information and to keep the public in the dark. Their prime task is to protect corrupted bureaucrats at the cost of taxpayers. 

Additionally City bureaucrats are stuck in a mooted sense of entitlement and as such, have burnt up thousands of tax dollars for their own personal fine dining, luxury hotels and air travel expenses.  

The lack of political leadership paired with a politically divided city council render them unable to achieve anything but the destruction of public trust. City’s bureaucrats took advantage of the instability of the political state of the City council and started to work their own way. For example, the Mayor and city Council advised City Solicitor, Canapini, to contact Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin to find if there was a possibility to have a closed-door meeting investigator during the transition period.  But Canapini did not follow instructions and instead chose to act in his own way. He did through means such as manipulating the facts and sent a disrespectful letter to the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. The letter indicated his opinion as well as his neglect towards the advice given by political leadership. It was widely reported but political leadership was unable to take any action against him. Incredulously, these corrupted well-connected, powerful bureaucrats remain in their positions and continue to rake in thousands of tax dollars.

The City’s corrupted bureaucrats secretly conspired to fire the Ontario Ombudsman which led to major public outrage. The City hired their own private investigator to investigate closed door meetings but paid using tax dollars. Regardless of public outrage however, City bureaucrats continually engage against the public will but taxpayers have not yet been able to take any action against this behaviour, instead, being left to helplessly watch these cruel and irresponsible acts. Now this is the time for Greater Sudbury citizens to provide clear mandate against corruption and in defrauding public funds.  Everyone should therefore come out in full force to vote against them.

Greater Sudbury tax payers lost over $500,000.00 tax dollars and corrupted bureaucrats attempted to bury the scandal. The City clerk`s office continually denied access to the records and City Solicitor Jamie Canapini argued they were covered by solicitor-client privilege, and that the records were the property of city council. As such, he advised them not to turn them over to the auditor. Bigger’s office then spent $20,000 on outside legal advice in an attempt to gain access to the documents. Interestingly, the audit committee chair and Mayoral candidate, Ron Dupuis, attempted to write-off this loss of public funds from the books and argued that the public has no right to know the internal affairs of City hall. Ron Dupuis’ position on the matter is that information should be released to the public on a “need to know” basis only.

Nick Benkovich, Director of Water and Wastewater - the leading group of individuals in the City hall - decided to outsource water main repairs. According to a recent Freedom of Information request (FOI 2014-133) submitted to the City, the City was not able to find who authorized to outsource the water main repair contract. This indicates the presence of secretive agendas within City hall.  The employees at the Water and Wastewater Division managed the water main repairs very well themselves up until the outsourced contract in 2005.  Benkovich was not able to find a contentious solution with his own employees. Instead, Benkovich exercised his authoritarian management style and decided to outsource the contract, at the cost taxpayers. It cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Similarly, Benkovich outsourced the remote monitoring contract, also at the cost of taxpayers, which amounted to over $59,104.65. The consultant fee alone cost taxpayers an hourly rate of $5,910.46.

Benkovich and fellow corrupted bureaucrats work for the best interests of special groups.  They did not consider the value of tax dollars by neglecting to find efficiencies of the Water and Wastewater Operations and the possibilities and alternatives that would have saved a millions of tax dollars. According to the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards, operation staff to managers’ ratio should be 8:1. However, the City’s water operation ratio is 3:1. It means every three workers have one manager or supervisor. This poor management decision directly contributed to increase of water bills for Sudbury residents.

The value of tax dollars was neglected and for the mere benefit of a special, interested group - the core services outsourced. Finally, the total cost passed on to the taxpayers. After the large amount of tax dollars scammed and misspent, no one is willing to claim responsibility and not even the person who authorized such outsourcing was discovered. It therefore comes as no surprise that City bureaucrats do not hesitate the proposed 4.9% tax increase for next fiscal year.

This corrupted TDS regime must be toppled and bureaucrats involved in corruption and defrauding public funds must be booted out from City hall.  

The following demonstrates how City’s bureaucrats wasted your millions of tax dollars.

Who was Involved / Responsible

Uncovered Facts

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water and Wastewater Services

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer

Utilized public funds

Director of Water/Wastewater Services was reimbursed from tax dollars 
$ 36,120.96
 from 2005 to 2011. Highest amount reimbursed was in 2007 totalling $ 8,597.76.

Details are as follows:

2005- $ 3,067.59
2006- $ 6,097.42
2007- $ 8,597.76
2008- $ 4,815.16
2009- $ 6,089.46
2010- $ 2,636.29
2011- $ 4,817.28

Total: $ 36,120.96

This is in addition to $ 130,000 / year salary and benefits

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water and Wastewater Services

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer  

 

SCADA Contract Scandal

Did not utilize available in-house resources and service was outsourced. Professional fees paid for 10 hours of work for 3rd party contractor for SCADA monitoring contract from tax dollars to a total of $59,104.65

Hourly Rate: $ 5,910.46

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water and Wastewater Services

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer  

 

Emergency Water-Main Repairs Scandal

City resources not properly managed.

Service was outsourced. Internal resources improperly managed and utilized. The term of the contract was for three years with the option to extend the contract for two additional one-year terms. The selected proponent, bid an estimated annual amount of $247,437.

The City extended the 2005 Tender contract for the full five years, during the term of which the City spent approximately $8.1 million under the contract, which was over six times the original estimate bid by the selected proponent.

Contract #2005-45

2006 (4 months) – $ 543,000.00
2007 (12 months) –$  1,205,000.00
2008 (12, months) – $ 1,329,000.00
2009 (12 months) -  $ 2,051,000.00
2010 (12 months) - $ 1,645,000.00
2011 (8 months) - $ 1,305,000.00

5 year Total: $ 8,078,000.00
Yearly Average:  $ 1,616,000.00

Contract #: ENG 12 -42

Based on the increased quantities in the 2011 Tender, the amount of the annual estimate that was bid increased. The bid in the 2011 Tender was again submitted by the same contractor at an estimated annual contract amount of $740,550.

2011 (4 months) – $ 1,036,000.00
2012 (12 months) – $ 2,152,000.00
2013 (12 months) – $ 3,399,000.00

Total : $ 6,587,000.00

Yearly Average: $ 2,823,000.00
(Note: This matter is still under investigation and more details will be released to public) 

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water Wastewater Services

Utilized tax dollars to pay personal dispute 
Legal Fees paid for personal disputes

 Court File No. 12-9145‏

Total amount paid to Lawyer from Toronto Legal firm: over $6,000.00. Part of the expenses recovered but not yet paid balance to the City over $2,000.00.   

Keven Fowke
Director, Human Resources and Organizational Development

Utilized Public Funds

Director, Human Resources and Organizational Development of City of Greater Sudbury claimed:

In 2010 - $3,541.33 and in 2011 - $ 4,691.13 as his expenses from taxpayers,

Total of  $8,232.46
This in addition to salary and benefits Total: $ 139,667.43 

Keven Fowke
Director, Human Resources and Organizational    Development.

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water and Wastewater Services

James Canapini
City Solicitor

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer

Gross Incompetence in Managing Human Resources Issues

Legal fees paid using tax dollars for Human Rights Tribunal Legal proceedings against own City employees.

2009 Payment: $ 808.00
2010 Payment: 12,895.00
2011 Payment: $10,480.00
2012 Payment as of August: $ 61,959.00

Total: 86,142.00

Keven Fowke
Director, Human Resources and Organizational    Development.

James Canapini
City Solicitor

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer

Transit Ticket Scandal

 

Over $860,000.00 tax dollars missing and not recovered

Keven Fowke
Director, Human Resources and Organizational    Development.

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water and Wastewater Services

James Canapini
City Solicitor

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer

Gross Incompetence in Managing Human Resources Issues

Legal fees paid matters for arbitrations and mediation from tax dollars violating Labour Rights (2005-2011).

Compensation: $ 321,062.00

Mediation Fees paid:

2005 Payments: $114,172.81
2006 Payments: $154,444.20
2007 Payments: $146,632.29
2008 Payments: $225,373.59
2009 Payments: $288,228.87
2010 Payment:  $303,633.42
2011 Payment:  $ $407,862.15

Total: $1,640,347.33

Keven Fowke
Director, Human Resources and Organizational    Development.

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water and Wastewater Services

James Canapini
City Solicitor

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer  

 

Gross Incompetence in Managing Human Resources Issues

Legal Fees Paid to third party external law firm for Labour and employment matters from tax dollars
Budget: $ 455,000.00 for 3 years

Spent:
2008 - Payments: $ 1,357,541.85
2009 - Payments: $ 4,492,678.91
2010 - Payments: $ 1,886,428.62

Total: Payment:   $ 7,736,649.38

Keven Fowke
Director, Human Resources and Organizational    Development.

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water and Wastewater Services

James Canapini
City Solicitor

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer  

Gross Incompetence in Managing Human Resources Issues

Legal Fees paid to third party (external law firm) for Labour and employment matters from tax dollars

Budget:  $151,865  per year

Spent:
2011 Payment: $ 681,682.27

Keven Fowke
Director, Human Resources and Organizational    Development.

Nick Benkovich
Director, Water and Wastewater Services

James Canapini
City Solicitor

Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer  

Gross Incompetence in Managing Human Resources Issues

Legal fees paid using tax dollars for third party company in Toronto.
Annual Budgets for Labour and employment matters:  $ 75,932.50 (est)

Spent $ 717,123.22



It is time for institutional reform and positive change for the city, and those involved in the misspending of tax dollars must be held accountable. This particularly includes Doug Nadorozny, CAO; Keven Fowke, Human Resources Director; James Canapini, City Solicitor; and Nick Benkovich, Director of Water and Wastewater Services. They should immediately step-down and provide taxpayers with answers.  

As time reveals, we see the power, responsibilities and budgets devolved from the federal/ontario government down to the local level. This includes anywhere from social welfare to land development.   It can also be noted that local governments are playing a greater role in designing policies and delivering key public services.

When considering methods for improving the current situation, one method that can be looked at is decentralisation. However, while decentralisation processes can positively affect accountability by bridging the gap between the people and their government, decentralisation can also present corruption risks since corruption is a problem at all levels of municipal government. For example, local officials may have greater vested interests that can influence decision- making. These interests may lie in family, friendship and business ties.

A more viable solution however includes ensuring that transparency, accountability and integrity are emphasized as the central focus of local governance systems. In this way the risks of corruption are significantly reduced. This is also because citizens can participate in and influence policy design and implementation. They are thus also able to hold local officials accountable for their actions or lack thereof. In such a scenario local government officials therefore act effectively in the public interest and are open about their activities.

Finally, we need a mayor and council that competent and confident enough to make certain that city departments deliver the projects needed to improve the conditions of the city of Sudbury. Without leadership and direction from a sound city council that serves the public interest, Sudbury will continue on its current path of being nothing other than a second class city that is in serious danger of decline. In order to exemplify this lack of leadership on behalf of both the mayor and city council, it is worth pointing out the issue concerning our failure to develop streets and roads accessible to all. This however is only one example. Furthermore, this is also an example of the unwillingness of staff to work effectively for the benefit of the citizens of Sudbury.

It is time for change. 

----------------End

Editorial
Released on October   03, 2014 at 10:00 AM EDT

The article initially published on American Political Science Review, 9(4), 851-875 . Excerpts from the article as follows.

Note:
A recent article written by Darren MacDonald, published in the Sudbury tabloid newspaper: The Northern Life ,(September 18, 2014 - 5:00 PM) misinterpreted the political communication concept of “negativism.” The concept of Negativism means political criticism of opposing “individuals” but does not refer to their concepts and ideas.  This criticism is mainly involved with “personal attacks” towards the opponents. For example, recently, the conservative party’s television advertisement campaign was clearly a personal attack against liberal party leader Justin Trudeau. This advertisement was a true representation of Negativism.

Additionally, MacDonald’s main objective is to discredit mayoral candidate Brian Bigger. Bigger is advocate of transparency and exposing secrets within City Hall, and thus the article clearly only served the best interests of a specific group of individuals affiliated with City hall.  Furthermore, MacDonald is facing allegations that he is under the City bureaucrats’ payroll. Readers must henceforth be very cautious when reading and interpreting articles written by MacDonald.

This article provides a clear definition and example of the concept of political communication Negativism.

Political communication: Negativism - A Meta-Analytic Assessment

Synthesis of findings reported in the literature does not bear out the main claims made about the effects of negative advertising. The great majority of the effects reported are of modest magnitude, with effect sizes clustered in a narrow band that extends from slightly above zero to slightly below zero. Researchers observed no significant tendency for negative ads to evoke lower affect than other campaign ads, contrary to the common contention that citizens reserve special disdain for negative ads. As noted earlier, this does not mean that negative political ads are well liked. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that they are not; for example, 75% of those interviewed in a 1994 poll said they were "turned off" by negative ads.

Rather, it simply means that, according to the available evidence, negative political ads are not disliked significantly more than other political ads or, for that matter, than ads in general. In an era when majorities or substantial minorities of adult Americans consider television advertising unhelpful, unbelievable, and misleading, and respond by leaving the room, attending to chores, or channel-surfing during commercial  should the unpopularity of negative political ads be considered especially noteworthy? More important, we did not uncover consistent, let alone strong, evidence that negative ads work to the advantage of their sponsors and/or the disadvantage of their targets. In this respect, it appears that, in a Newton's third law, for every research finding there is an equal and opposite research finding. Only a handful of the positive effect sizes we catalogued are large, and these are counterbalanced or even overbalanced by another handful of effect sizes on the negative side. There simply is no compelling evidence that negative advertising "works." Of course,  the effects of negative campaign ads need not be statistically significant in order to be politically significant or even decisive. Even a tiny advantage to the sponsor can be enough to determine the outcome of a close election, and even an attack that fails to sway voters can cause the target to divert precious resources in order to answer it. The results of our meta-analysis should not, then, be interpreted as saying that negative advertising is invariably a poor tactic. In general, however, negative campaign ads appear to be no more effective than positive campaign ads and even somewhat less so. Thus, while we concede that a well conceived negative advertising campaign can be a key to electoral success, the same can be said, and with somewhat greater confidence, about a well-conceived positive advertising campaign.

Finally, our meta-analysis also fails to confirm the widely held view that negative advertising should bear a major share of the blame for the widespread political disaffection of recent decades. The effects we observed for the "unintended consequences'' measures are too small in magnitude and too mixed in direction to provide empirical support for heated claims that negative ads are undermining public confidence and participation in the electoral process. We should note, however, that all the studies analyzed here focused on the immediate or short-term effects of viewing negative ads rather than on the long-term consequences of being subjected to a continuing barrage of such ads. A quarter of a century ago, researchers McCombs and Shaw attributed the prevailing lack of understanding of the effect of political advertising to the dearth of research on the subject. Since then, a great deal of research has been completed, but if the findings reported here are to be believed, widespread misunderstandings remain, at least in the form of overly expansive claims about the effects of negative ads. Why are claims about the effectiveness of negative advertising so far removed from the findings reported in the literature?

Academic research had hardly dented the consciousness of those who shape public discourse concerning negative advertising. Also, campaigners, consultants, and pundits are not immune to a wide array of perceptual and attributional. Researchers cite three such biases. In campaigns in which both sides go on the attack, the well-known tendency toward internal attributions of success and external attributions of failure can lead winners to credit their own "brilliant campaign strategy'' and losers to blame their opponents' '"vicious attacks." Both claims bolster the impression that negative advertising '"works," even though it obviously did not work for the losers. A different bias that produces the same result is the tendency to over generalize from a vivid example that is easily retrieved from memory. More broadly, people often misperceive, reinterpret, or ignore information that is inconsistent with their preconceptions, and any or all of these tendencies can lead candidates, consultants, journalists, and political reformers to exaggerate the effectiveness of negative political advertising. Which, if any, of these accounts is most accurate must remain a matter for speculation at this point.

Editor
WikiLeaks Sudbury
October 03, 2014

Reference  
Lau, R. R; Sigelman, L; Heldman, C; Babbitt, P. (1999).
The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment December 1999. American Political Science Review, 9(4), 851-875.


Related Documents
A Meta-Analytic Assessment - Part 1

A Meta-Analytic Assessment - Part 2

 
             
     

 

Contact and Media Inquiries