Mayor Rob Ford has been punted from office, just days short of celebrating his second anniversary of being sworn in.
Judge Charles Hackland’s eagerly awaited decision in a conflict of interest case was handed down at 10 a.m. Monday at a downtown courthouse.
About right – “T.O.’s left doing via the courts what they couldn’t do at the ballot box.”
Related: Your tax dollars at worx.
@katewerk And you’ll notice that @cbccommunity has 4 staff members to produce this crap cbc.sh/idS0J8J
— Dean Skoreyko (@bcbluecon) November 26, 2012
When I said “I doubt that this story would be the lead”, I was referring to something similar… the mayor of L.A. raising money for his charity or some such. Those NATIONAL broadcast by the 3 big networks would’ve mentioned it perhaps later in their broadcasts but certainly not as the lead.
So now Ford can be a full time football coach.
Take note,the population of the GTA,5.5 million.
That is larger than the populations of every province excepting Quebec and Ontario.They just lost their head guy.The man that was voted in by the majority of the citizens.
Did he commit a heinous crime? Did he steal from the treasury? No,he foolishly used his office to raise funds for a charity,and then even more foolishly underestimated the hate that his opponents have harbour because of his success at the polls.
They were looking for revenge. Not righteous revenge,but the revenge that spoiled children have when they are bested.
He was taken out by making an error that would be trivial to almost anyone else.
Ford was wrong. The same way as I am wrong when doing a rolling stop at a clear intersection,I am wrong. The punishment does not fit the crime. However,that does not matter ,the punishment has been given.Where do we go from here?
The left that care so much about justice do not care about other’s justice. The left-wing are our enemies,and to use one of their memes,they are the enemies of our children and our children’s children.
And to use one of Kate’s best lines;
“Not showing up to riot” is a failed conservative policy.
batb, what is also interesting, is, who paid Clayton Ruby, who was the lawyer for Paul Magder?
Ruby is extremely, extremely expensive. Who paid him?
Look this is pretty simple. Most on this thread – conservative or otherwise – get it, so I apologize if this is repetitious, but I can’t believe some are insisting on living outside of the real world on this.
1. Ford used city resources to solicit funds for his personal charity. Good, kind heart and it’s amazing what he’s done with those kids. But it was wrong, an obvious breach of City Hall’s code of ethics. Not a big wrong, but a wrong. How many times have we slapped politicians around for using taxpayer funded emails and letterhead for party purposes? It was a clear breach of the rules and everyone knew it. But Ford refused to back down. Instead, he doubled down.
2. It was also a breach of the Code of Ethics/Conduct because it is improper to try to solicit funds for anything, especially from lobbyists, as a government official. It runs the risk of people donating to your personal charity instead of you in order to curry favour. This is brain-dead obvious. As the judge pointed out. It may be unfortunate for charities and harsh, but it is a rule with a real purpose.
3. The Integrity Commissioner made many many attempts to get him to apologize and make it right, both behind the scenes and then through several letters. But Ford refused to back down. Instead, he doubled down.
4. With no other option, the Integrity Commissioner tabled a report recommending repayment of the donations and slapping him on the wrist. To me, that seemed dumb and out of her authority, but it did smell about right in terms of punishment fitting the crime, so to speak. A tough knock on the knuckles (as Ford said in Council $3100 is a lot of money, it’s not immaterial) but an uncomfortable but decent way to uphold the integrity of the rules for a clear violation. But Ford refused to back down. Instead, he doubled down.
5. Council – then dominated by Miller and his cabal – accepted the report and attempted to enforce it. Political? Yes, definitely. Within their rights? Interesting question, and I think no since they do not have the power (as I recall) to fine one of their own. But Ford broke an important ethics rule and was remaining defiant that the rules didn’t apply to him. He could have been the bigger man or a leader, but he wasn’t. They could have been leaders and not politically partisan but they weren’t.
6. Ford gets elected and with his loyalists in control, gets Council to re-vote on the motion. Could have declared the original motion was out of Council’s jurisdiction (I think it was). Could have done a number of other things, but they didn’t. And on that re-vote, Ford spoke and voted on a motion that had him as the focus. There is probably no more obvious conflict of interest than voting on your own punishment. It is not up anyone else but Ford to take responsibility for his own behaviour.
He’s the mayor, he’s been a councillor for 12 years, a fidiciary of a large business, the son of a provincial cabinet minister. To not know some of the very basics of conflicts of interest and ethics, to me, is the second worst part of all of this. The worst being that he admitted that he couldn’t ever be bothered to read the ethics guidelines, go to the many seminars on conflicts and ethics, or even consult with advisors.
He was wrong. It was a minor wrong at first. But Ford kept refusing to back down. Instead, he doubled down every time.
I really really don’t like the idea of an elected official being ousted by a judge. But that is why we have elected officials pass laws and the laws made it clear: break the law and you are out of office.
He had many many many opportunities to be contrite, acknowledge a mistake, be humble, but instead chose the opposite.
I really can’t put the blame for all of this on anyone but Rob Ford.
And it is a pattern for him. Get caught drunk driving, lie about it and accuse the accusers of political partisanship. Get caught with pot, lie about it and accuse the accusers of political partisanship. Get caught drunk at a hockey game, lie about it and accuse the accusers of political partisanship. Get caught reading while driving, and say you have more important things to do. Get caught telephoning while driving and give the finger to your accuser then lie about it. Get caught helping a guy get prescription drugs and lie about it and accuse the accusers of political partisanship. Get caught accusing a citizen of bribery and accuse the defamation claims as being political partisanship.
I am so tired of his excuses. Not one of those is on its own a big deal and certainly no where near the big deal his leftist accusers make it. But come on!! Enough.
You broke the law. A judge confirmed it. Man, up Rob Ford and take responsibility for once. That’s what being conservative is about. Not always blaming everyone else for your own screw-ups.
/Rant over.
He’d be welcome in Winnipeg.
Lots and lots of questions, ET.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Here’s Clayton Ruby and his client, Paul Magder, on CityTV. Absolutely sickening. They’re sorry about what Rob Ford did to Rob Ford.
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/toronto/citynews/news/video/237923–lawyer-clayton-ruby-complainant-paul-magder-react-to-guilty-ruling-against-mayor-ford
Ruby took this case on pro bono…bless his pea picking heart…
So, TB, what you’re really saying boils down to this: Rob Ford was ousted from his duly elected office because though “He had many many many opportunities to be contrite, acknowledge a mistake, be humble, [he] instead chose the opposite.”
Rob Ford wasn’t contrite or humble so an unelected judge, who was not bound to oust him from office but could have exacted a far less extreme penalty, exacted the most harsh penalty possible, leaving Toronto without a mayor, a mayor who was elected in a landslide less than two years ago.
Would you care, TB, to comment on all of the skulduggery and the lack of contriteness and humility on the part of Toronto’s City Councillors under Mel Lastman and David Miller? They never had to make excuses for anything because no one ever took them or their crooked, corrupt regimes to court — and not because there weren’t lots of shady deals and shenanigans going down at Toronto City Hall.
This was a trumped up charge against Mayor Ford on the part of the disgruntled and discombobulated Leftarts who just couldn’t believe — or live with — a conservative mayor.
The biggest scandal is not Rob Ford’s lack of humility or contriteness, nor the $3,000 he solicited for a charity of his choosing on City Hall letterhead, nor that he voted in his favour on this issue; the biggest scandal is that this minor fracas, compared to too many provincial and federal Liberal misdeeds, involving billions and millions of misappropriated public monies, has resulted in the ousting of a duly elected mayor. It stinks. This court case is clearly politically motivated and there are a lot of Torontonians who can see through the smoke and mirrors to the man behind the curtain.
TB, I’ll disagree with you.
Ford used city letterhead, not ‘city resources’. Kindly clarify that a sheet of paper is not a resource. That doesn’t merit dismissal from office.
The charity is run at arm’s length from him and his work. It’s not a ‘personal charity’ and therefore donations are not able to ‘curry favour’.
Many politicians, including Toronto City Councillors align themselves with charities. They are all operating at arm’s length but the politician’s name and even active participation in fundraising is most certainly affiliated with the charity.
Ford’s vote and comment was on the Integrity Report. IF it was ‘unethical’ for him to comment, even in his own defense – and I question why he shouldn’t be allowed to mount his own defense, then why did the Council Chair and lawyers allow him to vote?
And Council remains dominated by the left, not by Ford’s ‘loyalists’.
As for his refusal to back down, that is no reason for a judge to kick him out. Nor is his statement that he hadn’t read the ethics guidelines any reason to kick him out – and I would say that Mayor Miller hadn’t read them either, for Miller openly lied to Council about the rules for allowing the transit workers to strike and used that lie to influence the vote.
Using a cell phone while driving? That’s done by 60% of Toronto drivers. Are you serious that he should be kicked out for that?
My concerns are, for example, Miller’s caving in to the unions, allowing the public service unions to bloat the services of the city, where we end up with most taxes going to the unrealistic salaries and wage increases (double that of the private sector) benefits and pensions of city workers. That doesn’t seem to bother you.
You are upset because he used a cell phone in his car. That’s also breaking the law but that’s no reason to kick someone out of office.
Furthermore, as you point out, the electorate voted him in; it is up to the electorate to vote him out.
I saw Wendy Mesley on CBC about five minutes ago.
For the life of me and even doing a search I cannot find the name of the journalist who gave a presentation. Joanna with a long name was she.
A real hit piece on Mayor Ford. Clips of moments he would like to forget. The spite of these people is something else again. I suppose they are exulting over their tawdry “victory”.
KevinB said: “Wow, Phantom sticking up for cyclists. My brain reels.”
Using your car on a cyclist is bad form. The proper implement for taking out a cyclist is a sawed off hockey stick. Fair play and all that.
I say just compare what the Toronto Mayor made with his pig headed blunder to the London Mayor who gets nothing but compassion from his fellow Maoist travelers. Compare that he got nothing to the billions, yes billions stolen by socialist/Liberal politicians who have never had to account for there REAL crimes. Not even non criminal behaviors, but stupidities like this. I,m no Ford fan but this was a leftist coup if Ive ever seen one. Which after 57 years has become a host.The norm now in our dysfunctional once democracies. This is how Obama won every time before being President.Its the socialists tried & true way of removing anyone for preferred candidate. Toronto will get what it deserves.
T’is a sad day for Representative Democracy in Canada when an appointed judge can remove a duly elected official from office. It is a tragedy when this can happen at the political whim of the judge.
So, where’s the “victory for the rule of law” in the case of all of the Liberal$ who ran for the Liberal leadership and who still, six years later, haven’t paid back the loans they took out years after the legal limit for paying them back has elapsed?
This is hardly germain but I’ll entertain. I don’t like campaign finance laws because they are a violation of free speech so I’m fine with them being ignored so long as they are ignored for everyone.
Would you care, TB, to comment on all of the skulduggery and the lack of contriteness and humility on the part of Toronto’s City Councillors under Mel Lastman and David Miller?
Aw, the ‘they did it too’ “defense” arrives. That didn’t take long.
TB’s summary is the best I’ve read of the situation. I think the punishment might be outsize to the crime but honestly I wish elected officials were routinely run out of office by judges.
Toronto just fired the greatest mayor of all time
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/toronto-fired-the-greatest-mayor-of-all-time
Peter (Lock City), 10:18p.m. —
I think you’re referring to Ioanna (which is pronounced, I believe, “Yoanna”) Roumeliotis, but, as I don’t watch CBC News anymore, and I didn’t see the piece, I can’t be sure — but I try to keep abreast of the all the cool CBC chicks (well, not literally or anything…pun intended, actually — in the same kind of way that the guy on my upscale Stratford ON street has this licence plate frame that reads, “I’m not a gynecologist, but I’d be happy to take a look…”).
I don’t know about any of this business: Rob Ford is not, well, my kind of public figure, for various reasons which aren’t really germane to the discussion.
But I do feel that the Toronto Star, CBC and others (including the Clayton Ruby set) are picking on him in the same sort of way that they were completely slanted toward George Smitherman during the election campaign — and that worked rather well for Mr. Ford.
Their attitude is sort of the same as Michael Ignatieff’s in the last federal election campaign: “Rise up, you stupid people: don’t you understand that Stephen Harper is raiding the federal treasury to build outhouses in Muskoka?”
If he’s that bad, why do you need to build your case against him around such minutiae, when in another attitude, you might actually agree that outhouses in Muskoka could be a good thing (after all, people gotta…) and that athletics, of one form or another, could also be good?
Also, there’ll be a question about whether justice has really been served here (and whether a double-standard isn’t really at work) — generally, I have the impression that the legal community tends to find that the “spirit of the law” tends to be good enough when the culprit is from the “progressive” end of things, but that the “letter of the law” needs to apply when the culprit is further to the right.
So, overall, I think this whole thing helps Rob Ford, in a way that I would not have expected when it first broke, or even as late as last week.
Looks to me like Mr. Ford can and will run for office if necessary. Here’s hoping that he is re-elected with a landslide. Ah yes, the sound of heads exploding. Gotta love it.
Using your car on a cyclist is bad form. The proper implement for taking out a cyclist is a sawed off hockey stick. Fair play and all that.
Good to see you have a sense of humour, buddy.
So what about all the arts facilities that get $2 leases on city land? Isn’t that corruption or bribery?
What about Adscam? That was $250,000,000, not $3,000. Can the federal government please have that money back, as the Liberals promised?
What about the $240,000,000 energy project cancellation to help steal a couple of seats in Mississauga? Can we get the provincial Liberals to pay that out of their own pockets?
Ford was always the weakest option from the so-called right-wing councillors. He did some things right, some not, but always came off as a blowhard, unfortunately.
LAS, your assertion that the ‘tu quoque’ (they did it too) defense tactic isn’t valid here is incorrect.
Comparing the actions and judicial sentence of Ford’s case, to the actions and lack of judicial inquiry in other political situations is VERY valid here. It’s called ‘precedence’ and is a basic component of the law and legal decisions.
IF serious cases of abuse of office are carried out by various politicians, with NO accountability and no judiciary involvement, then, if we have a minor case, as in that of Ford’s charity, and the result is his being removed from office – one has to question what are the real reasons for this result.
It can’t be normative law, for other cases are ignored. Therefore, it has to be, not for legal reasons. But political reasons.
The political reasons are that the left, who dominate Toronto and Ontario politics, reject any and all conservative politicians. If the electorate chooses one, they’ll work to get rid of him.
And that’s what they’ve done. One of the most expensive lawyers in Toronto, Clayton Ruby, worked ‘pro bono’? Why? Was Ford’s violation so egregious, so damaging to the city taxpayers, so hostile to the taxpayers – that this lawyer would work for free?
What about precedent? Was the ehealth fiasco, the hydro fisco, the other implosions that cost the taxpayer millions in corrupt contracts and highly paid administrators ..weren’t these violations of the taxpayer and electorate’s trust? Yet, not one politician was kicked out of office. Hmm.
So, a judge can violate the rights of the electorate, who voted Ford in by a massive majority, for a political agenda of the left. That’s where we must take a hard look at legal precedent.
Here’s the petition to support Ford.
http://www.wesupportford.ca/
Remember, we, the people, run this country. And no legal system has the right to overturn an election.
“The Mayor Brought This Entirely On Himself” — says TorStar reporter who hounded him throughout his days in office.
A “scandal” that didn’t benefit him personally and did benefit a laudable charity… this makes Ford EVIL. Meanwhile, sleazy Jack Layton who broke the law on at least 2 occasions while he was in politics is considered a frickin’ saint.
One does wonder whether the soon-to-be-ex mayor brings the same sterling ethics and sense of decorum to his football coaching.
“LOSE? What do you mean, LOSE? WE didn’t lose! The game was stolen from us by a dishonest cabal of left wing referees! That other team is a bunch of SOCIALISTS! We’re going to APPEAL!! Who CARES about the STUPID RULES, ANYWAY?!? I’ve never read them!”
ET @ 8:57 Nails it.
David Southam 1202 am.
Thank you for the informative post. Yes it was Ioanna Roumeliotis who spoke to CBC viewers and Wendy Mesley.
I had listened on CBC Radio one this morning and it got my attention. I am glad that I went back to the original broadcast which was yesterday. I calmed down as I listened once again to the lovely Carol Off. She interviewed a councillor Giorgio Mammoliti. He delivered a careful and studied part defence of Mayor Ford. He seemed to be doing so well and cutting the whole political manoever down to size. Carol, who was the soul of politeness got just a tiny bit agitated.
She stuttered slightly and broke in three times. She tried to trap the councillor into nailing the judge. He was not going to be caught (wise man). They cannot win in the polls, said he. They then win in the courts.
People are wise not to listen or watch CBC though. I do and it does my blood pressure no good. Somebody has to do it! (chuckle) Yes, some very attractive CBC women, I do concede. I wished I was the other Peter sometimes, as he exchanges quips with the weather lady.
ET nails nothing. ET’s blather about legal precedent is completely wrong-headed in this case, but she’s so hell-bent on finding some Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (TM) that she refuses to see the plain facts of the case (as laid out by TB) and the plain wording of the law.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90m50_e.htm) says that if a member is found to have violated it, the judge SHALL declare the member’s seat vacant. Not “may”. Not “if it pleases the judge”. Not “unless it’s a mere $3000.” It’s “SHALL”. It’s an absolute, no-discretion allowed, requirement.
Ford was found to have broken the law. The law plainly says that the judge shall remove the offender from office. It is not a question of precedent or conspiracy or politics. It’s a question of FOLLOWING THE LAW. Something we conservatives are supposed to favour, even when it goes against us, and even when left-wing crooks somehow escape justice.
Ford cooked his own goose by being an ignorant, arrogant ass who thought the law didn’t apply to him. I fail to see why any of us should weep over his downfall.
The key issue is whether one person and his pro bono lawyer (why would one of the most expensive lawyers do it for free?) has the legitimate right to overturn the Will of the People.
In a democracy, the electorate must retain the power of their government. No individual must be allowed to overturn the electorate.
The electorate of Toronto voted Ford in as mayor by a large majority. They are the only ones who have the right to remove him from power.
The left, with their authoritarian elitism, reject this democratic right of the people and instead, prefer to govern by ‘executive fiat’.
ET: It wasn’t “an individual”. It was the law. Soon-to-be-ex-mayor Ford broke it. Are you seriously suggesting that elected officials are NOT subject to the law because they’re elected?
Incidentally, I’d refrain from using the term “authoritarian elitism” and “executive fiat” as pejoratives if you’re attempting a defense of Mayor Ford. Just a suggestion.
balbulican – the ‘law’ that Ford broke is, in the estimation of even the judge himself, inadequate. The reality is that Ford’s action involved ‘no corruption or pecuniary gain’, and to boot out an elected Mayor for using city letterhead is a violation of the rights of the electorate.
And I’ll continue to define the left’s actions as ‘elitism’; this includes the City Council passing a law that forbids people from using plastic bags. They did not, of course, because they are ‘elite’, discuss this ban with the public.
And for one citizen, who is himself a leftist, to violate the will of the people, and get rid of their elected mayor, is indeed, ‘rule by executive fiat’.
IF the people consider that Ford’s actions were a violation of his duty, then, it’s up to them to vote him out.
Don’t hide behind obscure sections of the law; the law is not akin to Sharia Law, ie, written by god. Our law is made by men for men. As such, it has to be responsible to us, and not violate our trust. Was justice served? This action violated the will of the people. Think about it.
I.M.: “Ford was found to have broken the law.”
So, I.M., McGuilty and countless other Liberal$ have broken the law umpteen times and have they been taken to court? (And, in the meantime, McGuilty has prorogued the provincial parliament for six months, for crying out loud, to no hue and cry from the lamestream media, whereas, when PM Harper prorogued parliament for a mere few weeks, there were Leftard eruptions.) Have they been ousted from office when they damned well should have been? (Even though Judge Gomery pointed out that the Liberal Party of Canada “operated within a culture of corruption,” he was not given the power to prosecute them. Pity. ‘Only in Canada, you say? And when the Librano$ are in power?)
The law plainly says that there are lesser penalties than being removed from office, so why did this judge (well-named” Hack[land]) hit Mayor Ford with the maximum penalty when he admitted there was no corruption or personal financial gain on Ford’s part?
This judgment stinks to high heaven. No manner of attempted justifications cuts it. As ET points out, only the Toronto electorate should have both the right and the power with which to remove Mayor Rob Ford from office. An unelected judge, hearing evidence from a pro-bono, in-the-Leftards’-corner, lawyer should not be able to remove an elected official from office.
It is widely known that this particular law is bad law — and Clayton Ruby would have known this, which is probably why he and his client used it to (attempt to) bring down Mayor Ford.
We haven’t heard the last from Mayor Ford and I have a feeling that Ruby and Magder may have the smug smirks wiped off their faces in the months to come.
“And note, no-one in the Toronto City Council Chamber – not the other Councillors who insist they know all about The Rules, and not the legal staff who sit at the front table during every session and who must know The Rules and are there to guide councillors on their votes – no-one spoke out and said that Ford should not, legally, vote. Why not?”
This would be my complaint. If the sitting councillors didn’t protest Ford’s participating in the vote at the time it happened, then as far as I’m concerned, that makes every single one of them knowing accomplices in permitting a compromised vote to go forward, and they should all be kicked out.
(Heck, probably not a bad idea in general — every ten years, a Total Political Reset? Nobody who held any elected office during one decade can hold any elected office anywhere, anytime, during the next?)
ET:
“And for one citizen, who is himself a leftist, to violate the will of the people, and get rid of their elected mayor, is indeed, ‘rule by executive fiat’.”
Uh…no, it’s not. But never mind. It sure sounds earnest.
So since we are up holding the law.. Does Marg Delahunty (this hour has 22 mins) get charged with trespassing at the Ford home?
I could not believe that cbc had the gall to trivialize this blatant disenfranchisement of the voters by offering another stupid Delahanty skit. Given the seriousness of this issue, I thought it was completely tacky. What creeps they are at the cbc.
Fogged Over Requiring Defense
“So since we are up holding the law.. Does Marg Delahunty (this hour has 22 mins) get charged with trespassing at the Ford home?”
Ummm…can the alert readers of Small Dead Animals identify the very, very, very basic error in logic here? Sure you can. Think hard.
balbulican, uh, no. Ummmm. But, oh, just a suggestion, but I’d refrain from promoting the agenda of a leftist activist, a pro bono lawyer, and a law whose lack of definitive perimeters violates the elected rights of the people.
Think hard about this. Oh never mind, gosh, you sure sound earnest.
@ ET at November 27, 2012 3:47 PM
ET,quite simply,you are an idiot. Just because Ford won an election doesn’t mean that he is above the law.
ET, I’m promoting a principle called “Rule of Law”, and an even more complicated notion called professional ethics and standards of conduct. Ford was wrong, and is now apologizing. You can set your bar as low as you want (and you apparently you have), but mine’s a little higher.
balbulican, uh, gosh, can I point out the very, very basic error in logic in your comment?
Uh, but did you know that laws were written by men and that they can, in their wording, not fit a particular action, and must therefore be changed?
Can an alert reader like, uh, you, think of some examples? Sure you can. Think hard.
Oh never mind. You can focus on the trees and ignore the forest. The unions. But you sure sound earnest.
Sorry, ET. No points for that. You don’t get to redefine the law unilaterally, in retrospect, to forgive a member of your tribe.
batb: “The law plainly says that there are lesser penalties than being removed from office”
NO IT DOES NOT. Good freaking grief, what does it take to get this through to people? Here is the black letter text of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, Section 10:
“(…) where the judge determines that a member or a former member while he or she was a member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), the judge,
(a) shall, in the case of a member, declare the seat of the member vacant; and (…)”
See that? The word is SHALL. The judge had NO option. The law is crystal clear with no room for ambiguity or discretion.
I will not deny for one minute that the McGuintys & Libranos are total slimeballs who have probably escaped legal consequences for their dealings. That does not change the facts or the law in Ford’s case. It also does not change that Ford himself had AMPLE opportunity to stop this from happening, but arrogantly chose to assert that he hadn’t broken the law or that it didn’t apply to him.
It really is saddening to see so many conservatives behave as a booster club for ‘team blue’ and are perfectly willing to discard inconvenient principals to do so.
I.M.: Very well put. Once you lower the bar to let one of you own creep over, you lose the moral right to raise it again when the next guy tries.
No, the law requires, always, an interpretation of its intent. That’s what the verb ‘determine’ means. If no such determination were needed, there’d be no need for a judge to make that interpretation.
‘Conflict of interest’ requires that the agent stands to gain some benefit to themselves. As the judge himself said, there was no indication of this in Ford’s case. He got no money, no benefit to himself. Nothing was corrupt.
I’m not going to argue the ‘tu quoque’ agenda because it is indeed an invalid argument.
My argument simply points to the meaning of ‘conflict of interest’. What ‘interest’ or benefit was there that Ford could gain from this action? That it was unprofessional to use City Hall stationary is unquestionable. But ‘conflict of interest’?
What you people are missing, by considering only the semantics, is the deeper battle in this issue: between the agenda of the unions and the left and the agenda of the conservatives.
The latter, led by Ford, are focused on saving millions, yes millions, in taxpayer money that the previous administrations poured into the salaries and benefits of the unionized City Hall workers. Effectively over the last few administrations, the unions have taken over the income from the taxpayers.
Wages and benefits have increased far beyond market worth, far beyond anything existing in the private sector. Strikes, carried out with the taxpayer as hostage, have been used to force the union power.
Only Ford has confronted the unions, only Ford has managed to control the leftists on Council. The taxpayers voted for him and his agenda, in a large majority.
What has the left done? They have removed this agenda – I repeat, the agenda, of disempowering the strangle the unions have had on the taxpayer – via a minor breach of professional conduct. Not a corrupt action; not a genuine conflict of interest. Who benefits? The unions and the leftists on Council. Who loses? The taxpayers.
Conflict of interest arises when one participates in decision making on a matter which may yield a financial or other benefit to ones’ self, ones’ company, one’s family. In this case, soon-to-be-ex-mayor Ford participated in decision making that yielded a direct benefit to his foundation. He should have declared the conflict and refrained from voting OR discussion on the topic. He did not.
I will point out that election to public office holds the office holder to an even higher standard, which is the obligation to avoid even the PERCEPTION of conflict of interest, to protect the honour of the office.
Ford didn’t get that, or is pretending he didn’t. Ditto yourself. That’s fine: that’s why we have laws. Because some folks don’t get it.
As for the rest – your moving peroration on the Evil Left and Heroic Ford – I rather suspect you’re embarrassing your fellow conservatives here.
Sue-Ann Levy, who writes in the Toronto Sun for City Hall, has an excellent column on the vindictive agenda of the left and the unions to get rid of Ford, to sustain the power of the unions over the money from the taxpayers at City Hall.
Ford was the only councillor who had the courage to confront the almost total control over the taxpayer money that has been developed by unions during the past several administrations.
This expansion of control by the unions is why we see unskilled ticket takers with salaries, not including benefits and pensions, over 100,000 a year, while 45% of the time, the escalators in the subways never work. That’s why we see city hall employees with salaries, benefits and pensions – and jobs for life – all far beyond their market worth.
She outlines how the people involved, including the Integrity Commissioner, and the two who filed the objection are union members and/or activists for the left and are all part of the union clique at City Hall. Their clear agenda is to maintain union control over the taxpayer money. Oh, and an intent to put Olivia Chow in as ‘their man’ to maintain this control.
Balbulican, your argument is weak, ie, that Ford was ‘benefitting his foundation’. It was operated at arm’s length. Furthermore, campaigning on behalf of a registered foundation, even one’s own, is not and can never be, a conflict of interest.
After all, one could claim that union donations, given by current unions working at City Hall, to the election campaigns of politicians, and any acceptance of these donations by a politician, are clearly ‘conflicts of interest’ for they are geared to establishing ‘you owe us’ connections between the unions and the politicians.
Certainly, his use of city hall stationary was unprofessional, but, is hardly a conflict of interest nor is it serious enough to merit removal from office.
Just did my usual check up on CBC.
They(Press) are now after Premier Alison Redford of Alberta.
CBC in full cry regarding “conflict of interest”.
ET…you can stop if you want to. You don’t understand the concept of conflict of interest or the onus on public officials to avoid it, or the appearance of it. That’s ok. As I said above, that’s why we have laws. They worked, and Ford is out.
I understand your need to turn this into a story of Evil Lefties and the Persecution of the Righteous. If it helps to get you through the night, you hang on to that.
But you DO know you’re embarrassing equally conservative writers and commenters here who actually DO understand the principle involved here?