Rob Ford's Toronto

[AlvinofDiaspar]

On a lighter note:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...-paul-magders-equals-a-whole-lot-of-confusion

AoD

 

[spider]

Grimace,
Thank you for your excellent answers to my recent questions.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yesterday, Ford lost the "inadvertence" defense by admitting he prepared the speech. He planned ahead, hence not inadvertent.

Today, the judge threw out the "insignificant amount" defense. Judge Hackland told Ford's lawyer that the Mayor made it "crystal clear" that the amount was significant. He didn't want to pay it, if it were insignificant he wouldnt have had a problem paying it.

Lenczner has a few more defense avenues but they're less and less likely to succeed. The "error in judgement" defense is Ford's best chance but it too seems to be falling apart.

On to day 3!

I would imagine hosting the BBQ at Rob's mother backyard would be significant for most of us, costing more than $3,000 for sure for the food, drinks, security, etc.. Would it be insignificant for Rob?

 

[TonyV]

Rob Ford pleads "incompetence", according to National Post's Mike Gurney

Some interesting ink from the National Post. Many of us were calling Ford 'incompetent' before he was elected.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/06/matt-gurney-rob-ford-pleads-incompetence/

Oh, my. What an astonishing display Toronto’s mayor has put on these last few days. The mayor of Canada’s largest city has been left with no defence other than ignorance, apathy and ineptitude. And that’s his version of events.

Appearing before an Ontario court in Toronto, Mayor Rob Ford has been testifying in a case that seeks to determine whether he violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA). The facts of the case are not in dispute. Rob Ford runs a charity that provides funds to get underprivileged youths involved in football. Before he was mayor, then-councillor Ford used City of Toronto stationery to solicit donations to his charity. The city’s integrity commissioner ruled in 2010 that it was improper for Ford to blur the lines between his duties as an elected official and his private activities, and ordered Ford to repay $3,150 in improperly solicited donations out of his own pocket.

If he’d done so, this problem would have gone away. But he didn’t. When the integrity commissioner appeared before City Council to ask for proof of payment, Ford made two mistakes. He voiced his disagreement with the ruling, on the record, and then voted with a majority of council to strike down the order requiring him to pay back the money. In so doing, he both spoke to and voted on a matter that he had a direct pecuniary (financial) stake in.

And that’s a big no-no. The MCIA is pretty clear on that point, stating that any government official with a financial stake in a matter “shall not take part in the discussion of, or vote on any question in respect of the matter.†The penalty for violating this rule is automatic removal from office. No wiggle room there. Removal from office is the mandatory minimum punishment for this offence.

There is only one possible escape hatch for someone found to have committed such a breach of the MCIA. In instances where the judge rules that the offence was “committed through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment,†the judge does not need to remove the offender from office. Since Ford’s actions are not up for debate — they are, indeed, literally a matter of public record — that loophole is his only defence.

If only he’d take it.

Ford’s situation isn’t complicated. He screwed up but can escape serious consequences by convincing the judge that it was a mistake made in good faith. He doesn’t even need to prove that it was — just convince the judge. And you’ve got to believe that the judge is extremely eager to be convinced of that, given that his alternative is to remove an elected mayor from office over a dispute involving a few thousand dollars of charity. No one, not even Ford’s critics, seems keen to see that happen.

Except Ford himself, apparently. On the stand on Wednesday, he repeatedly refused to agree that he’d made a mistake. Instead, he insisted over and over that he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong, that he intended to vote the way he did, and that he doesn’t agree that what he did was a conflict of interest. Ford maintains that it’s only a conflict of interest if he personally benefits in some way.

That makes a certain amount of sense on a superficial level, but even if we wanted to debate the merit of that argument, there’s one problem. Ford and the MCIA disagree, and the MCIA wins. Ford’s opinion of what a conflict of interest should be doesn’t matter given what a conflict of interest is.

Under intense questioning about his novel interpretation of what a conflict of interest is, Ford was then forced to make a series of admissions that are far more alarming. He claimed to not know what a conflict of interest was defined as. He said he never looked at the handbook that all Toronto city councillors are given when they take office. He says he skipped orientation day when he was first elected since, as the son of an Ontario MPP, he knew how government worked.

First of all — no, apparently he didn’t know how government worked. Even if he himself had been a former MPP, he’d still need to familiarize himself with the differences in how the Toronto government operates — Toronto City Council isn’t a mirror image of the Ontario legislature. And it’s even more asinine to suggest that his father’s experience at one level of government taught Ford all he knew to function in another.

The entire affair is taking on shades of those hotel commercials that suggest booking at their chain shows you’re an individual of unusual intelligence: “Do you know your responsibilities as a member of Toronto City Council?†“No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.†“Oh, OK. Case dismissed.â€

Ford was freely elected in a fair election. He should not be removed from office because of a dispute over a few thousand bucks in charitable donations that went to a good cause. But his astonishingly cavalier attitude concerning his responsibilities as a public officer holder go directly to his credibility, and worthiness of winning office again. In short, when on the stand, Toronto’s mayor has pleaded incompetence.

National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com

 

[MetroMan]

Some interesting ink from the National Post. Many of us were calling Ford 'incompetent' before he was elected.

...and yet many people ignored the warnings . Some even voted for him because he was incompetent. An anti-government stance they say. I wonder how that worked out for them...

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

On a lighter note:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...-paul-magders-equals-a-whole-lot-of-confusion

AoD

I'm glad I clicked on that, I thought he was one of my local hero's, furrier Paul Magder! I'll bet many others think so too.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Peter Principle (from Wikipedia):

The Peter Principle is a belief that in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently.

For Rob Ford, we have now the Rob Principle, where politicians tend to rise to their level of incompetence.

 

[MetroMan]

I've read every article I could find and the general consensus in the media (even in the Sun!! -- exception Sue-Ann Levy) is that even if Ford is found not-guilty, he can no longer continue to be Mayor. He has proven himself inept for the job.

If he returns to work next session, City Council will not follow him. He has zero political capital and is a political liability to anybody attached to him. I think we'll witness some of the softer Conservatives like Michael Thompson and John Parker -- among others -- distancing themselves from Ford.

The remaining answer is whether we will have no Mayor for the next 2 years or if judge Hackland will give Toronto an opportunity to fill the position before then.

 

[MetroMan]

Quick note from a conversation I just had a with a lawyer friend interested in this case: he read relevant parts of the City of Toronto Act and found a possible option that the judge could use to honour the law while not being in the unenviable position of appearing to overrule democracy.

Because Ford is almost certainly guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act, the judge will have little choice but to find him guilty and order his seat vacated as is the mandatory sentence but can then order an election. According to the City of Toronto Act, an election can be called by Council if a seat is vacant but it may also be called by a judge. An election would be held in 60 days from the verdict.

This would be a satisfactory result for everyone I think -- even to Ford.

My ideal outcome to all of this is that Ford is convicted, runs in an election and is resoundly trounced.

 

[Voltz]

My ideal outcome to all of this is that Ford is convicted, runs in an election and is resoundly trounced.

What we need then is a viable candidate who is willing to run against him.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Quick note from a conversation I just had a with a lawyer friend interested in this case: he read relevant parts of the City of Toronto Act and found a possible option that the judge could use to honour the law while not being in the unenviable position of appearing to overrule democracy.

Because Ford is almost certainly guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act, the judge will have little choice but to find him guilty and order his seat vacated as is the mandatory sentence but can then order an election. According to the City of Toronto Act, an election can be called by Council if a seat is vacant but it may also be called by a judge. An election would be held in 60 days from the verdict.

This would be a satisfactory result for everyone I think -- even to Ford.

My ideal outcome to all of this is that Ford is convicted, runs in an election and is resoundly trounced.

MetroMan, any chance he happened to mention what happens in the (likely) event that Ford appeals the ruling?

 

[Joe R.]

Someone mentioned in here that the verdict could take up to 8 months. Why so long and is there a chance of us knowing the outcome, sooner?

 

[MetroMan]

DT, Ford only gets one appeal. A panel of 3 judges in a divisional court will take on the appeal. They'll review Hackland's decision and confer amongst the three of them to reach a verdict that will be final.

Joe, the current court will probably take 1 to 2 months to deliver a verdict but if it goes to an appeal, expect an additional 6-8 months. Judge Hackland could probably deliver a verdict in a week but I very much doubt that given the weight of this case.

Here's what I think though. If the judge is going to simply let Ford off the hook, we'll get an early verdict. If he takes more than a month to return a verdict, I think it's going to be bad news for Ford.

 

[Miscreant]

Quick note from a conversation I just had a with a lawyer friend interested in this case: he read relevant parts of the City of Toronto Act and found a possible option that the judge could use to honour the law while not being in the unenviable position of appearing to overrule democracy.

Because Ford is almost certainly guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act, the judge will have little choice but to find him guilty and order his seat vacated as is the mandatory sentence but can then order an election. According to the City of Toronto Act, an election can be called by Council if a seat is vacant but it may also be called by a judge. An election would be held in 60 days from the verdict.

This would be a satisfactory result for everyone I think -- even to Ford.

My ideal outcome to all of this is that Ford is convicted, runs in an election and is resoundly trounced.

Yep, mine as well. It's a win-win. Ford is held accountable to the conflict of interest charge, and he's held accountable to will of a democratic vote. 'Cause if there's no election, there's going to be a lot of obnoxious screaming about 'lefties' using the (lefty?) judicial system to oust him.

*edit: And I would definitely get mobilized to vote him out.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Someone else mentioned in another blog, that Rob Ford could be suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect. Passing this information on.

From Wikipedia:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill

Rob Ford is a prime example.