Revision as of 00:19, 15 February 2006 editJoshuapaquin (talk | contribs)2,314 edits →Ontario Liberal Party nomination: got a source← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:02, 19 February 2006 edit undo64.231.172.236 (talk) →Ontario Liberal Party nominationNext edit → | ||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
] 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Yup, it was true (according to Mario Racco). Racco tried to get the federal nomination, but in turn lost to Kadis. | ] 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Yup, it was true (according to Mario Racco). Racco tried to get the federal nomination, but in turn lost to Kadis. | ||
Racco never attempted to get the federal nomination, if he did he would have "steamed rolled" over Kadis for the nomination like he did Provincially. Kadis was aclaimed as the federal liberal candidate--] 05:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
The point of all the above is that it has to be ]. Word of mouth, even if true, is not verifiable for Misplaced Pages. You need to have documented sources without ]. --] 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC) | The point of all the above is that it has to be ]. Word of mouth, even if true, is not verifiable for Misplaced Pages. You need to have documented sources without ]. --] 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:02, 19 February 2006
The following POV-pushing text needs to be fixed:
- In May 2004, she abandoned her position as city councillor to pursue her own agenda federally and then in July 2004 she officially resigned her position as city councillor in mid-term after being elected federally (source of info. City of Vaughan http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/
The word "abandoned" is not needed, as "resigned" suffices. Also the text "her own agenda federally" seem unecessary, once it's stated she's ran for, and won federal office. Also, the link given, is just a city's home page, and the home page doesn't specifically relate to this. --rob 13:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
"abandoned" and "resigned" have two differnt meanings. The link is to the City of Vaughan website once there you have to click on governement. It shows tha facts about that she "abandoned" her position in May, 2004 and "resigned" in July, 2004 Thivierr/Rob asked for me to put a source of info. up so I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)
Hello, User:64.231.242.98. I have added a referenced note to the page showing the date of Susan Kadis' resignation from the Vaughan City Council. Please add the same for the "abandoned" comment. --YUL89YYZ 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The "abandoned" was not official like the "resignation" an exact date I don't think could be pin-pointed. She just stopped attending meetings starting in May, 2004 to run her campaigne federally. I think the attendance of councillors are listed somewhere on the City of Vaughan website. Just for your information the proper proceedure (here in Canada) when an elected official seeks another elected position while still serving the original term they must resign (or in some cases take an official unpaid leave of absence) there position prior to starting there campaign for the new position they are seeking. she did not do this. Susan Kadis was under a lot of scrutiny (locally) after the election for making this mistake and there was a group that even attemped to get her impeached for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)
I was thinking about this and isn't this normal when a person runs for a federal position. If I was to run for office, I would ask for a leave of absence from my current job, and if I were to win I would then resign. You can't expect a City Counillor or anyone to always wait for her term to expire and then wait for the next federal election to run. Isn't this what Olivia Chow did? --YUL89YYZ 15:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I hope this answers your question. Susan Kadis did NOT take an unpaid leave of absence she just stopped attending meetings and therefore abandoned her position. She had to take an unpaid leave of absence or resign prior to running her campaign federally which she did not therefore she was still on the city pay roll during and even after she was elected federally, if you look at her resignation letter you will notice that the letter was written and received on July 9th and she requested that her resignation to be retro-activated to June 28th. The proper procedure is to write a letter prior to starting your campaign of either resignation or a letter stating that you are taking an unpaid leave of absence with an understanding that this letter will also act as a letter of resignation pending the outcome of the election. If Vaughan council wanted to give her a hard time and voted against retro-activating her resignation she would not be able to be sworn in as a Member of Parliament. Lots of politicians do run for other positions while still in office including your example of Olivia Chow but they take an official unpaid leave of absence (that could be found in the council meeting minutes) and then either return to office or automatically resign after the election depending on the out come of the election. In Olivia Chow’s case she requested to end her unpaid leave of absence and returned to office after losing federally. The reason they have this in place is to avoid already elected candidates an unfair advantage by 1. Getting paid from their original position to fund their campaign 2. To avoid them using the resources from there original elected position 3. To use there position as an elected official to convince voters to vote for them EG: vote for me and I will get you break on your (municipal) property tax before I resign, to builders and construction companies, vote for me or you will never get a building permit from the city again. (I used these two examples for a reason because they were used) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)
Misplaced Pages has rules about the application of POV bias. This article will not use the term "abandoned", and it will not describe a federal election campaign as "pursuing her own agenda". This is a fundamentally biased and inappropriate description. Bearcat 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
November 22 edits
What the anon editor posted:
- In a report from CTV news it said Susan Kadis and her cronies spent over $380.000.00 of taxpayers money this year on lunches.
- No, it did not. It said that Kadis and other MPs get free lunches. These MPs, from all four parties and independents, are not Kadis's cronies by any stretch of the imagination. The article quotes her, but does not suggest that she is a ring-leader in MPs getting free lunches, as they have done for a long time.
- Kadis has got her family members and cronies on the federal payroll .
- The reference does not say that Kadis got her family members and cronies on the federal payorll. All it says is that Jim Peterson, MP, has someone with the last name "Kadis" on payroll. Even if it is her son, there is nohing in federal hiring rules to prevent children of MPs from working for other MPs or federal agencies.
- Her illegal interference in a municipal by-election where she got her federal employees to run her friends campaign.
- No evidence provided by anon editor.
- In May 2004 under controversial circumstances, she stopped attending city council meetings without taking a leave of absence to pursue election to the Canadian House of Commons, and then on July 9, 2004 she officially resigned her position as city councillor after being elected federally on June 28, 2004.
- The reference here does not provide evidence of any of the so-called "controversy". It only provides evidence that she resigned her position as councillor after she was elected to the House of Commons, which is perfectly legal. No evidence has been provided that she "abandoned" her position or failed to take a leave of absence. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that no evidence has been provided for that. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
So I'll revert again. This page may require protection from the anon editor who is pushing a bizarre and unsubstantiated POV. Ground Zero | t 23:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
No evidence that she supported the issues posted
--67.71.86.17 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Susan Kadis is one of four MP's mentioned in the CTV report that supports free lunches for MP's--67.71.86.17 01:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
External Links
- I don't think the external links on this page really need to be there. They're clearly partisan in nature and they're things that could be found by simply searching her name on Google. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to try and present one-sided, biased news articles pm_shef 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Once again, the external links to news sources do not need to be on this page. They are easily findable via google and serve no purpose on this encyclopedia entry. pm_shef 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- News links can certainly be relevant when they are needed to back up facts in the article. In general, citations on Misplaced Pages are a good thing. So the relevance of news links should be judged by that standard. -Joshuapaquin 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Ontario Liberal Party nomination
I have seen the following statement, "Kadis ran for the provincial Liberal Party nomination for the riding of Thornhill in 2003, but lost to fellow city councillor Mario Racco.", added and removed many times. It would seem pretty easy for someone to find a reference for this. If it is true it should stay in the article. --YUL89YYZ 13:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is definitly true. I worked on that campaign 69.156.207.61 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good, now is there any public documented and referenceable proof of this? --YUL89YYZ 21:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- No. To my knowledge the Liberal Party of Ontario doesn't keep records of such things. And if they do, they would only be available in their files. 69.156.207.61 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, the above comment was me, just forgot to log in pm_shef 05:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Theonlyedge 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Yup, it was true (according to Mario Racco). Racco tried to get the federal nomination, but in turn lost to Kadis.
Racco never attempted to get the federal nomination, if he did he would have "steamed rolled" over Kadis for the nomination like he did Provincially. Kadis was aclaimed as the federal liberal candidate--64.231.172.236 05:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The point of all the above is that it has to be verifiable. Word of mouth, even if true, is not verifiable for Misplaced Pages. You need to have documented sources without original research. --YUL89YYZ 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Got it: Toronto Star, Sept. 3, 2003, pg A8. "Liberals see a 905 opportunity" by Ian Urquhart:
- Kadis entered the nomination fray but faced an uphill climb against Racco, who had a head start. McGuinty could have made it easy for her by using his power to appoint a candidate in up to five ridings. That would have been highly controversial, however, because Racco had already seen a federal nomination ripped from his grasp in 1997 when Prime Minister Jean Chretien appointed Elinor Caplan as the Liberal candidate in the riding.
- So McGuinty let the nomination battle proceed in May of 2002, and Racco won.
I know there's a convention for how newspapers should be cited in Misplaced Pages now, but I'm not familiar with it. Perhaps someone who is could set it up. -Joshuapaquin 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)