juniorfox
Active Member
To my knowledge you're right. It is just a formal reprimand. It still carries no penalties that I know of. I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
Rob Ford's Toronto
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
To my knowledge you're right. It is just a formal reprimand. It still carries no penalties that I know of. I could be wrong though.
The problem with the referral is the time lag. People have short memories. It also gives Ford time to say he is "rehabilitated" blah blah blah.
Bennett000
Active Member
Tulse
Senior Member
But if Council doesn't censure, it effectively tells the world that it's OK with Ford's behaviour. Council can censure and refer to the Integrity Commissioner, and it should do both.
Ramako
Moderator
I disagree and I fear the precedent that would set. Our society functions on the basis of the presumption of innocence.
Cecelle
New Member
But the good thing about is that it's retrospective. It doesn't matter if he manages to clean up his act as it's his past actions that will be examined. I really wanted to see council take a stand, but I'm starting to think there's more value to the referral motion, given that the "censure" motion is of symbolic value, nothing more.
Steviewonders
Active Member
The other motion doesn't go through the integrity commissioner. It doesn't do anything. Unless everyone is blind, it's quite obvious that Rob (and his brother maybe)has sat down with his lawyer(s) and figured out that there is NO way they can make him take leave or resign. You've got to go the legal route, which is through the referral. They changed the wording to ASAP - not 4 months but I don't know if that does anything.
Last edited:
khris
Senior Member
What precedent would that set? I don't want addicts or irresponsible people leading this city.
juniorfox
Active Member
I agree. They need to do something now. If they refer without also doing something now they're just putting it off to a bureaucrat to tell them what should already be obvious about his behaviour. This waiting and seeing is awful.
And I'm also sick of councillors invoking the slippery slope. Jesus these are supposed to be intelligent people, just judge a circumstance on its own merits.
And I'm also sick of councillors invoking the slippery slope. Jesus these are supposed to be intelligent people, just judge a circumstance on its own merits.
mrtinfoilsocket
Active Member
Agreed. Bottom line is that politicians are "employees" and in general I reject the idea of employer mandated drug testing.
I'm not positive but I think Canadian law generally rejects it as well except in very specific professions where public safety is directly at stake.
Dizzy
New Member
Can the integrity commissioner actually give him the boot?
khris
Senior Member
If they can do both, they should do both.
ttk77
Senior Member
I believe mandatory drug/alcohol testing has been ruled as unconstitutional in Canada. There was even a case recently (this summer) at the supreme court where they ruled it was not permitted even in dangerous working environments.
From the sounds of it ASAP is February. Still too long IMHO -- it's gone on too long now.
Going to the integrity commissioner doesn't guarantee anything will happen either -- I doubt she can make him do anything either, so potentially the same result as today's motion, just three months from now.
It's just all so frustrating that those two creepy idiot brothers are sitting there all smug and that they can keep sitting there, causing distractions and getting in the way of things getting done.
"This sad sad spectacle needs to come to an end" "The Mayor has admitted he has breached the code. There isn't one person in this room who doesn't believe he hasn't breached the code". Councillor Peruzza.
Last edited:
mrtinfoilsocket
Active Member
I don't want addicted or irresponsible people doing any job that directly or indirectly affects me... but neither do I want an employer handing me a cup to pee in randomly every few months as a condition of my continual employment.
- Status