News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.7K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 367     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 939     1 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
While I agree that this could be positioned as a witch hunt, let's not forget that Ford's dalliances with the Integrity Commissioner aren't anything new. Ignore Royson James' editorializing here and look at how long Ford has been KNOWINGLY circumventing or outright ignoring these rules.

Are opponents trying to unseat Mayor Rob Ford from office by citing nitpicky rules? Or has he brought this week’s conflict-of-interest lawsuit upon himself?

Reports from the city’s integrity commissioner, as non-partisan an arbiter as one can find, show the conflict dates back to 2005:

• A citizen complained in 2007 that Councillor Rob Ford violated two clauses in the councillors’ code of conduct when he enclosed a decal promoting his printing company in an invitation to a summer barbecue. The invitation was in an envelope bearing Ford’s City Hall address and City of Toronto logo. As Ford appeared “contrite,” the integrity commissioner pardoned him, though it was a repeat of a 2005 violation.

• A November 2009 complaint had similar concerns. Ford agreed his family business stickers should not have been included. But he argued he could use the city logo and letterhead because he pays office supplies and postage out of his own pocket. The integrity commissioner disagreed.

A councillor complained in February 2010 about similar donation letters and integrity commissioner Janet Leiper gave Ford written advice to stop using his councillor status for private fundraising.

• Leiper’s investigation uncovered numerous violations which she reported to council. Ford’s “Rob Ford for Mayor 2010” website had links to his foundation and claimed Ford had raised more than $100,000 for football equipment, but records showed only $40,000.

Leiper discovered that 11 of 26 corporations and trade associations which made donations in 2009 and 2010 were directly lobbying city councillors. Asked if they’d lobbied him, Ford said it was “ridiculous to say something like that.” Leiper found that seven of the 11 did, in fact, lobby Ford. In total, they donated $3,150 to Ford’s foundation.

She concluded this was a violation of the clause that prohibits lobbyists from providing “favours of any kind” to a councillor. And she cited the findings of the Bellamy Inquiry which identified “donations to charitable events sponsored by public office holders” as “problematic corporate benefits” because “they erode public trust.”

She found out that Ford’s staff used city time and resources in servicing the donors; that Ford himself sought out the names of donors and followed up with calls of thanks, on city time. As such he was improperly combining his role as councillor and private citizen.

• A Toronto resident complained in May 2010 after receiving a donor letter from Ford. The complainant had just heard Ford was running for mayor, and wrote:

“This left me uncomfortable. While it was not stated in words, there was a clear sense of an implied suggestion that a donation to his charity might serve me well should he be elected mayor.”

When the integrity commissioner sought Ford’s response, he dismissed the complaint as having “no basis in policy or law” and would undermine a worthy cause, namely, helping underprivileged kids.

Leiper asked Ford to reconsider because she’d advised him his behaviour was violating council rules. Ford stood firm, so Leiper wrote to council, recommending Ford return the $3,150. Council agreed in August 2010.

But Ford refused to comply. He ignored six letters from Leiper, finally telling her the donors didn’t want the money returned. So she returned to council last month, asking the politicians to back up their decision.

Instead of excusing himself from the debate, Ford actively participated, and voted against his paying back the $3,150 from his pocket. Council voted 22-12 to back him and rescind the 2010 council decision.

This week, lawyer Clayton Ruby announced he was, on behalf of citizen Paul Magder, filing court action against the mayor for conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
 
TheTigerMaster said:
This case is just a witch hunt by the left (this is coming from a liberal). But the mayor should face VERY SERIOUS consequences for his actions.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you reconcile these two statements. If the mayor did something that requires serious consequences, surely it is appropriate to bring the case, and thus this isn't a "witch hunt".
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Agreed. This case is just a witch hunt by the left (this is coming from a liberal). But the mayor should face VERY SERIOUS consequences for his actions. Perhaps a hefty fine of a few $100,000s and the loss of his salary that he got from being mayor. He should also be banned from running for office the day after he completes his first or second term as mayor.
Click to expand...

From the looks of the statute, there's no ability for a judge to change the punishment. It looks pretty clear that giving up your seat is the only punishment under the statute. Do judges have some 'wiggle room' even when it's written this clearly?
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
From the looks of the statute, there's no ability for a judge to change the punishment. It looks pretty clear that giving up your seat is the only punishment under the statute. Do judges have some 'wiggle room' even when it's written this clearly?
Click to expand...

A recent ruling had the judge deem a punishment too harsh and would not impose the penalty because it represented "cruel and unusual punishment".

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TorontoNewHome/20120214/mcguinty-firearm-minimum-120213/
 
Agreed. This case is just a witch hunt by the left (this is coming from a liberal). But the mayor should face VERY SERIOUS consequences for his actions. Perhaps a hefty fine of a few $100,000s and the loss of his salary that he got from being mayor. He should also be banned from running for office the day after he completes his first or second term as mayor.
Click to expand...

Ok...if the punishment is going to be determined by the fine citizenry of Toronto, here's my submission....

Ford must publicly recreate Meatloaf's video for Paradise by the Dashboard Light as the inaugural act to open the new stage in NPS (complete with long wig and pirate shirt). With Kristyn Wong-Tam playing the part of Karla DeVito. I haven't decided whether he has to lip sync or sing it live.
 
Oh cruel and unusual punishment...I don't know, make him ride the 501 during rush? Or bike (human powered) to work from Etobicoke? Finish reading a novel by Margaret Atwood? Attend Pride in drag...or car free days at Kensington? Dress up like Cherry dePinko every time he attends council (and no, attendance is mandatory). The possibilities are endless!

AoD
 
Last edited:
freshcutgrass said:
Ok...if the punishment is going to be determined by the fine citizenry of Toronto, here's my submission....

Ford must publicly recreate Meatloaf's video for Paradise by the Dashboard Light as the inaugural act to open the new stage in NPS (complete with long wig and pirate shirt). With Kristyn Wong-Tam playing the part of Karla DeVito. I haven't decided whether he has to lip sync or sing it live.
Click to expand...

Better yet, Rob Ford as Dr. Frank-N-Furter, Doug Ford as Rocky Horror, Frances Nunizata as Magenta, and Mammo as Riff-Raff, full costumed and no lip-syncing allowed.
 
If the judge has some wiggle room, I would think this would be fair:

- $850,000 fine
- The return of all salaries earned while mayor
- 500 hours community service
- Banning Ford from running for public office for the next 15 years

I think this sends a clear message to Ford while at the same time respecting the voters who voted for Ford.

Or we could just do what some have suggested above. In fact, I think those are even better ideas.
 
Actually, I would just ban him from running for 5 years, with the explicit warning that given his history of blatantly ignoring the rule of law, any further violations will lead to an exponential increase in punishment allowable by law. That's quite sufficient to send a clear message, I think.

AoD
 
TheTigerMaster said:
If the judge has some wiggle room, I would think this would be fair:

- $850,000 fine
- The return of all salaries earned while mayor
- 500 hours community service
- Banning Ford from running for public office for the next 15 years

I think this sends a clear message to Ford while at the same time respecting the voters who voted for Ford.

Or we could just do what some have suggested above. In fact, I think those are even better ideas.
Click to expand...
Why are you so nice? Rob Ford does not deserve all this room.
 
Well, if you want to do something extreme, there's an Esso station at Scarlett & Edenbridge, just down the street from Ford's home

mjdmu.jpg
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
From the looks of the statute, there's no ability for a judge to change the punishment. It looks pretty clear that giving up your seat is the only punishment under the statute.
Click to expand...

Yes, that reads so "Conservative Crime Bill" with its mandatory sentencing in place. So much for accusations of liberal witch-hunts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top