News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 392     2 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 549     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 562     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
That photo of the brothers Ford... yikes. These guys are such indelicate clods. To think they represent Toronto on the world stage. They're just playing to the basest of rabble instincts.

No one's asking them to be princes of diplomacy (outright impossible anyway) but these guys are just so proudly ham-fisted and iggerint. It's a gong show.
 
So here's the thing. While everyone is still occupied with the hearings last week, and with the subsequent newspaper reports and complaints, I am left to wonder, can City Council get involved now, and if so, how?

--> Is there any sort of motion in council that some / several councillors can table? The Ford antics have now become the main show, not the sideshow, and so much precious time is being frittered away on these rather than ongoing city business and initiatives. In summary I am wondering what could be done within council, without courts, to address the mayor's behaviour and to get the focus back on our city.
 
It's official: An Integrity Commissioner complaint was filed

Rob Ford will be once again in hot water with the Integrity Commissioner as it is now official: a private citizen, Jude MacDonald has filed a complaint.

I'm checking into the implications of this with my City Hall insiders but so far it seems that if the Integrity Commissioner finds Rob Ford guilty of using city resources for non city business, Council has several options (not limited to) a fine, a salary cut, and/or suspension up to 90 days. A simple majority is all that is required.
 
The Don Bosco Gravy Trains.

I'm wondering if there aren't High School Athletic Association rules that he has contravened. Wouldn't all outside adults working with a team need to be vetted? Shouldn't there be restrictions against subsidizing participants? Could a parent who owns a business give employment to a potential coach or a ringer player in exchange for them helping his son's high school hockey team win the championship? I wonder how aggressively Rob Ford recruits skilled players. His brother says no one helps underprivileged black youth like Rob Ford, but are many Jamaicans and Guyanese in Toronto Catholic?

I'm tired of hearing how he's doing it all for the kids. Football is Rob Ford's fantasy. He's like the warden in The Longest Yard. He'd do anything to see his team win.

"Taft Robinson was the first black student to be enrolled at Logos College in west Texas. They got him for his speed." - Don DeLillo, End Zone
 
cdr108 said:
well, according to DF's comments in a G&M article that i posted, staff were volunteering after completing their 40-hour work week.

it's AMAZING Mr. Gillis (et al) were able to complete their 40-hour week by Tuesday 3:30 pm !
isn't it great that RF found such an efficient ' special assistant '.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that he meant that the employees perform their 40 hours of work, and that any volunteering does not impede on those hours. That said, one could argue that at 3:30PM they should be at City Hall, but I don't know what their shifts are like and may flex more than we think.

A lot of this controversy for Ford could have been avoided if he just said that he offered the position to staff to volunteer, but seeing as this could create a scenario of favourtism, that he will not allow city employees to volunteer anymore. This well rationed explanation would calm down all but his harshest critics, who would find some way to condemn his actions at all costs (how dare he help that old lady cross the street, he should be doing good deeds after he is done work for the day).

But of course, Rob Ford thinks that Rob Ford can never be wrong, so no chance of him apologizing or changing his actions.
 
A couple of things:

Catholic high schools are open to all. Enrollment in Catholic elementary schools require a baptismal certificate. Ford coaches at Bosco because he was kicked out of a public high school.

I've seen photos of Ford coaching the Bosco Eagles. The majority of the players appear to be of visible minorities, though that does not necessarily mean that all, or even any are economically disadvantaged.

Yes, I've heard before that Bosco is a development school and that students are recruited for that team. In any case, I'm sure he enjoys coaching, and I am sure he believes he is making a difference to the kids there, though the reasons for doing this aren't entirely altrustic.
 
Last edited:
Electrify:

You missed the point - it isn't JUST about his employees - it is the use of city resources in general, the context that he was warned repeatedly not to do so, and his assertion it is no longer the case. Whether the team is a charity, or that is serves disadvantaged kids is irrelevant. The contradictory claims and hiding behind the kids doesn't address that constant and problematic pattern. In no other work environment would that many ifs-ands-or-buts about one's character would be tolerated - and certainly I hope you aren't claiming that those are qualities that should be tolerated of the city's chief magistrate.

For someone who is supposedly all about law and order and yet couldn't, as it has been amply demonstrated, follow what he preaches suggest what, the big H word? Also, he can't even understand the CoI rules - as required of all elected representatives at the city - certainly he got some remedial work to do on that front (i.e. real city business that he is PAID to do) before hopping out to coach. Any Joe blow at the private (hell even public) sector would have been fired for that kind of inept BS.

AoD
 
Last edited:
In a supervisory position, a position of power, if I asked my staff to volunteer their time and help me on a regular basis with a cause that was close to my heart outside of work hours I'm pretty sure that I could get myself into deep trouble with my company - and for good reason. Some would have the confidence to say no to me, many would say yes thinking it may be a strike against them if they don't help me out or volunteering may help them get ahead in the company by staying in my "good books".
I do admire that Ford volunteers his time for a great cause, if everyone volunteered just five hours a month imagine what a great city we'd be living in. However what Ford has apparently done here is yet another example of poor judgement and poor leadership. I would also question who pays the costs associated with getting his staff up there and home whether it be by TTC or using gas in their own vehicles?
 
HELL. Has. Frozen. Over:

You can’t preach respect for taxpayers or criticize councillors for not doing their jobs when you miss 5 1/2 hours of an executive committee meeting.
Click to expand...

Sue-Ann Levy

The Editor at The Sun must have finally realized that Ford is going down and that they don't want to go down with him. This is at least the fourth Sun article this week that is critical of Ford.

Sue-Ann Levy tried to tip toe it -- she's his biggest cheerleader -- but there is no doubt, this article is her and The Sun trying to quietly distance themselves from Ford and his impossible to defend behavior.
 
SAL didn't tiptoe - she slung mud at everyone she could think of smearing, in a bizarre defence of the indefensible. Ford needs to resign and hope that satisfies his critics (which I'm sure it would) because he's pretty close to facing a perjury charge, IMHO.

If he really goes on the radio this weekend, I bet he says something that contradicts his testimony (since he already has, and it seems to be his 'defence') and then he'll be on tape admitting to perjury! At that point won't the judge have to ask prosecutors to look into it? What a disaster - of his own making.
 
^ There is already clear evidence of perjury. If he takes it any further, there will no doubt be charges laid. Perjury likely means jail time.

Perjury specifically is covered by sections 131, 132. 136 is related, and has to do with giving contradictory evidence.

"132. Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top