Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Tracking the warning emails on Olympic village

April 28th, 2009 · 6 Comments

The wheels of Freedom of Information grind slowly, slowly, but I finally got an answer last week to two questions: What record was there of meetings attended by the city’s chief financial officer, Estelle Lo, related to the Olympic Village? And what emails did she send to city hall staffers or councillors about the village?

According to FOI officer Paul Hancock, there is no record of her attending any meetings — a finding that several councillors didn’t know what to make of. (Suzanne Anton is sure she was there. Raymond Louie says it seems like she was being sidelined.) He also wrote to me that after an exhaustive search, he found only one email, but it’s a long one.

My story on this in the Globe is here.

Estelle’s email, or as much of it as I got, is here.

estelle-lo-email

Categories: Uncategorized

  • spartikus

    “My intention is never to get in the way of good projects that are good for the city, but to cover off risks and protect city interests”

    Oh boy. This really doesn’t look good. Buckle up your seat belts…

  • T W

    The sooner an independent auditor looks as risk management in the city government, the better we might all be.

  • OMC

    I think this is all a bunch of B.S.

    Last April, after a re-org, Estelle Lo was stripped of half of her department. Everyone knew her days were numbered.

    This e-mail, sent well after the global economic crisis was obvious, was just a parting shot to make her look good. I wouldn’t put too much into it.

    As with any real estate development, we won’t know whether it was a good deal or not until all the units are sold – in this case until sometime in 2011.

  • spartikus

    Last April, after a re-org, Estelle Lo was stripped of half of her department. Everyone knew her days were numbered.

    I’m sorry, I seem to be someone who didn’t know. Why, precisely, were her days numbered?

    Are you implying her department was gutted because of her performance? That doesn’t make any sense. Could you elaborate?

    This e-mail, sent well after the global economic crisis was obvious

    And right after she was allowed to see details of deal, apparently.

    in this case until sometime in 2011.

    Or possibly 2021, even.

  • OMC

    No one expected her to stay after she was effectively demoted when her department was gutted.

    As for her not knowing the details of the deal, I don’t buy it. From what I know about the city, I am sure she had access to all the necessary information.

  • spartikus

    No one expected her to stay after she was effectively demoted when her department was gutted.

    Okay. But you still haven’t answered why it was gutted and whether it had anything to do with her performance.

    And if it did, what was it about her performance that was mediocre?