Rob Ford's Toronto

[Juan_Lennon416]

Can't Toronto just get a mayor who understands that you need to spend money and make cuts?

 

[k10ery]

Seven, but this is where the judge has discretion. If found guilty, Ford must vacate his seat. The judge may also ban him from seeking office for up to seven years. I doubt the judge would be that harsh considering the nature of the charge. Ford might actually get himself 2 years to campaign for 2014.

Yep. I think it might go like that.

 

[Lenser]

Me too. If he were forced to step down, Ford would then instinctively try to get back into the mayor's office and feverishly launch himself into election mode. Alas, the odds would be very much against him.

 

[spider]

Despite running again as an outsider, Ford's prospects for re-election are grim. When he ran in 2010, while we knew Ford from his 10 years on council, most of the city did not.

Are you suggesting that you, as a member of "WE", were omniscent as to Ford's future as mayor or just that all the other voters were idiots? Which?

 

[MetroMan]

Are you suggesting that you, as a member of "WE", were omniscent as to Ford's future as mayor or just that all the other voters were idiots? Which?

There's a difference between being an idiot and of being simply unaware. You're calling the other voters "idiots" not me.

When I say "we", I say UrbanToronto in general. I've been here since 2002 and we -- UrbanToronto members -- have discussed his antics for about that long. It was pretty clear to many of us how Ford would be as Mayor. In fact, go to the beginning of this thread (and the Election 2010 thread) and you'll see a lot of predictions have been spot on. From his initial period of (attempted/successful) cancelling of Miller projects regardless of merit to eventually losing support of council to the emergence of a shadow Mayor to his eventual removal from office for simply continuing to do the stuff that had gotten him in trouble as Councillor.

The jury is still out on that last one, -- haha I made a pun -- but whether or not he is convicted and forced out of office, the predictions made before he was elected have come to fruition in bullet point form.

 

[adma]

Yeah i know, but they also win cases...especially when they are for a conflict of interest.

By your logic, nobody with a lawyer ever loses a conflict of interest case. In that case, maybe we shouldn't have conflict of interest laws; they're a waste of time. As in: pure legal "gravy". Right?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I see what you did there. Ford is not charged with ignoring Council's order, but having voted later on whether to reverse that order. There was no subterfuge involved, and the risk of subterfuge is why the conflict of interest legislation exists. So this is indeed a technicality.

Maybe the best chance for Ford to be re-elected is if he is ousted, so that he can run as an outsider again. If the left wing of Council is smart, then if the judge ousts Ford, then the man Council appoints to replace him will be ... Rob Ford.

Really? You see what I did there? I don't. What did I do?

The only reason it came back to Council was due to Ford's repeatedly ignoring requests to fulfill the terms of the first order -- i.e., have the Foundation pay back the cash to the lobbyists/donors. To say that it's a technicality that he did not recuse himself because 'everyone knew he was in conflict of interest because he's been fighting this for years' is hilarious. I mean... seriously? That's the way the judge should find a technicality to let him off -- by saying, yes, you did the first crime, and the second crime, but we all knew the only reason you killed the guy was because he knew you robbed the bank, so I'm letting you off on the technicality that everyone knew you had to kill the guy.
hahahaha!!

As for your 2nd para -- you posit that the best chance for Ford to be re-elected is to give him outsider status, and therefore they should re-appoint him. But, the vacancy appointment is for only the remaining term of this election cycle, not a further four years. So... why would the Left do that? Given that two years from now the world will be a different place (again), they're supposed to forecast that two more years of Ford's shenanigans will inoculate Toronto against further Ford-ism, whereas the current two year debacle was not enough? When anything could happen in-between? It'll never happen.

But, your further supposition (that Ford is better as an outsider than an insider and could very well get re-elected two years from now) is more realistic. However, IMHO, I don't think he's got the stomach for it. I think he's really, really have a hard time being Mayor. Being a gadfly Councillor suited his political and family life and allowed him the free reign he needed to do things he wanted. Being Mayor is Rob Ford's Peter Principle step, and it looks like it's killing him.

 

[Lenser]

The whole notion of Rob Ford running as an outsider was itself suspect the last time around; a guy who spent 10 years on council, an outsider? But he spun himself that way and lo and behold, it worked for him.

But a second time around? I doubt it'll fly. The people will know him as a guy who was at the helm, for better or worse, and no amount of posturing on his part will convince the majority of the electorate, again, that he's some kind of blessed newbie not tainted by the corrupting experience of being in power.

 

[TOareaFan]

Set aside (if that is possible) personal opinions of Rob Ford....is that how we want any democratic insititution to be run? Is there not a city clerk that should have been, you know, watching the rules and, perhaps, saying "Mr. Ford, you need to abstain from this vote"? Is that not the person we should be really looking at with regards to continued employment?

According to The Star version, with a link to the City memo, he was asked six times before they got fed up and went back to Council. So, a 'technical slip-up' this is not. His Fordness did not believe this law should apply to him.

I see what you did there. Ford is not charged with ignoring Council's order, but having voted later on whether to reverse that order. There was no subterfuge involved, and the risk of subterfuge is why the conflict of interest legislation exists. So this is indeed a technicality.

Really? You see what I did there? I don't. What did I do?

What did you do? In my mind, you responded to what I asked by moving it to another matter. The sequence above.

I asked, is there no one that controls votes and warns/stops councillors from voting.

You responded that he had been warned 6 times which would imply that he had been warned 6 times about voting.....when you read the referenced story in the Star, though, he was not warned about voting he was warned 6 times that he needed to correct the conflict by giving the money donated to the charity back to the donours who were lobbyists. It still did not answer the question about the administration of the vote and whether this is a "gotcha" moment....but it gives people who read this thread and not search for the link that he had been warned 6 times about voting and went ahead and voted anyway. I searched for the Star story containing the link to the ethics commissioners report because I thought "geez, the guy is not that bright but how stupid would you have to be to take part in a vote after being told 6 times that taking part in it could lead to you losing your job."....turns out that is not what happened at all.

Not saying you did this "on purpose" but in your zeal to answer my question, you moved the posts substantially and may have created a false impression.

 

[k10ery]

Really? You see what I did there? I don't. What did I do?

The only reason it came back to Council was due to Ford's repeatedly ignoring requests to fulfill the terms of the first order -- i.e., have the Foundation pay back the cash to the lobbyists/donors. To say that it's a technicality that he did not recuse himself because 'everyone knew he was in conflict of interest because he's been fighting this for years' is hilarious. I mean... seriously? That's the way the judge should find a technicality to let him off -- by saying, yes, you did the first crime, and the second crime, but we all knew the only reason you killed the guy was because he knew you robbed the bank, so I'm letting you off on the technicality that everyone knew you had to kill the guy.
hahahaha!!

Sorry for the cliche. I just meant: no matter how bad Ford's behaviour over the donations, it is not why he is before the judge. It is the failure to recuse in the meeting. If he had shut up he still would have won and we would not be in this mess.

But, your further supposition (that Ford is better as an outsider than an insider and could very well get re-elected two years from now) is more realistic. However, IMHO, I don't think he's got the stomach for it. I think he's really, really have a hard time being Mayor. Being a gadfly Councillor suited his political and family life and allowed him the free reign he needed to do things he wanted. Being Mayor is Rob Ford's Peter Principle step, and it looks like it's killing him.

Agreed. He's so pathetic my heart goes out to him. But Doug would surely goad him into running again. And to leave office in an ethics scandal would be an ignominious end.

 

[jje1000]

Haven't read the handbook despite being on council for 12 years?- a sign not of criminal intention, but criminal ignorance.

Documents hint at Mayor Rob Ford’s defence in conflict of interest case
KELLY GRANT
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Aug. 27 2012, 4:00 AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Aug. 27 2012, 11:26 AM EDT

When Rob Ford testifies next week in a legal hearing that could see him kicked out of office, Toronto’s mayor is expected to argue that he made an honest mistake over a trifling amount of money.

Hints of Mr. Ford’s strategy can be gleaned from a 148-page transcript of a cross-examination that Mr. Ford underwent behind closed doors, and which is now part of the court record.

A judge decided Friday that Mr. Ford will have to appear in person to answer allegations he broke the Municipal Conflict-of-Interest Act when he voted to let himself off the hook for failing to repay $3,150 that lobbyists and their clients had donated to his personal football foundation.

The looming court case is the latest in a string of incidents that raise questions about Mr. Ford’s judgment and distract from his day-to-day work as mayor, such as the recent furor over his reading while driving on the Gardiner Expressway.

But this time, there is more at stake than unflattering headlines: If Mr. Ford is found to have broken the Act, he would automatically lose his job.

The judge could then decide to ban him from running again for up to seven years.

The severity of the penalty could mean that Mr. Justice Charles Hackland, the Ottawa judge overseeing the case, might be sympathetic to defence arguments that would keep Mr. Ford from losing his job – especially considering the incident arose out of the mayor’s passion for a charity that provides football equipment to underprivileged high schools.

Alan Lenczner, the prominent lawyer defending the mayor, will start by arguing that council did not have the power to order Mr. Ford to pay back the money in the first place. “Our alternative defences are if there is any contravention, and we say there is not, then it was by inadvertence or error in judgment … †Mr. Lenczner says, adding that the money was “not a significant sum of money for any one of those donors.â€

Clayton Ruby, the high-profile lawyer who will grill the mayor, will be arguing that Mr. Ford, a 12-year veteran of city council, knew he should have recused himself from the debate and vote. The rules are right there in the council handbook, Mr. Ruby suggests at the start of the June 28 cross-examination. Mr. Ford says repeatedly he cannot recall ever receiving or reading a handbook.

“Do you have any memory of the handbook?†Mr. Ruby asks.

“I just answered that question,†Mr. Ford replies.

“You said, ‘I have a memory in my mind.’ What is it you have in your mind?â€

“I can remember what I ate for breakfast this morning.â€

At the heart of the case is a speech and vote that Mr. Ford made on Feb. 7[...]

The rest of the cross-examination can be found here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-in-conflict-of-interest-case/article4500451/

 

[PinkLucy]

What is it you have in your mind?

Ah, the million dollar question we'd all love to have answered.

 

[jamincan]

If the law prescribes a penalty, how much discretion do judges have in applying it? It seems the law is quite clear that the person is removed from office if they are found guilty and that the amount of time they are barred from running for another office is at the discretion of the judge.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

What did you do? In my mind, you responded to what I asked by moving it to another matter. The sequence above.

I asked, is there no one that controls votes and warns/stops councillors from voting.

You responded that he had been warned 6 times which would imply that he had been warned 6 times about voting.....when you read the referenced story in the Star, though, he was not warned about voting he was warned 6 times that he needed to correct the conflict by giving the money donated to the charity back to the donours who were lobbyists. It still did not answer the question about the administration of the vote and whether this is a "gotcha" moment....but it gives people who read this thread and not search for the link that he had been warned 6 times about voting and went ahead and voted anyway. I searched for the Star story containing the link to the ethics commissioners report because I thought "geez, the guy is not that bright but how stupid would you have to be to take part in a vote after being told 6 times that taking part in it could lead to you losing your job."....turns out that is not what happened at all.

Not saying you did this "on purpose" but in your zeal to answer my question, you moved the posts substantially and may have created a false impression.

TO - unless you're also K10, that comment was not aimed at you.

 

[TOareaFan]

TO - unless you're also K10, that comment was not aimed at you.

No...I am not K10...but I thought that, since it was my question/comment that started the discussion, I had some "standing" in the conversation....guess not...so I will leave until addressed.