ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
They showed him on Sportscentre at the Blackhawks/Sharks game tonight
|
|
|
Rob Ford's Toronto
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
They showed him on Sportscentre at the Blackhawks/Sharks game tonight
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Boo hoo, Gord Perks does not know how to work with anyone from the right...period.
.. Now that people have figured him out, his days in Parkdale and the rest of the ward are numbered..the landslide wins are over.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Magder will get off on a technicality, just like Ford.
adma
Superstar
Given what that particular ward's about at the present, in the event that (if) Perks is dethroned, it's unlikely that it'll be dethroned by a Fordista--at most, a Mary-Margaret McMahon or Ana Bailao "moderate". And it may also require an assist from ward redrawing/council reduction/gerrymandering for that to take effect.
Anyway, it's funny the way conservative trolls like to use the the unprefaced term "people" as if it meant "overwhelming consensus"...
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Doubtful. It's all about precedent. You can't go around suing public officials and get off scot free when your allegations are deemed baseless.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
nfitz
Superstar
The people from the right don't appear to work with the people on the right either, it would seem.
Don't you think it's rather absurd that Rob Ford is so utterly incompetent that he hasn't started the transportation plan yet that he was talking about 3 years ago before he was elected?
What, he couldn't take time out from abusing his wife for a few minutes to ask someone to prepare it for him?
CanadianNational
Senior Member
Who knows? Maybe there will be a surprise or two in the plan. Something desireable, like getting the Eglinton DRL to the airport started. I'd expect the contentious Scarborough Subway issue to be re-opened at least. Maybe he will add an extra word 'subway' to his already familiar mantra. He's already stated he does not want to look for new revenue streams from the public, so I doubt the city's "Feeling Congested" transit funding questionnaire is an object of fascination for him.
I don't expect too many surprises from Ford - unless there's some startling and unforseen alliances with Metrolinx, Harper and Kathleen Wynne in the works. I think, as usual, that the surprises (laughs or consternation) will come from the jostling and pushing from those who might find some merit for themselves in the plan and their activity. He's low on active allies and routes to implementation of ideas.
I don't expect too many surprises from Ford - unless there's some startling and unforseen alliances with Metrolinx, Harper and Kathleen Wynne in the works. I think, as usual, that the surprises (laughs or consternation) will come from the jostling and pushing from those who might find some merit for themselves in the plan and their activity. He's low on active allies and routes to implementation of ideas.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
Meanwhile, I was wondering what was happening with this:
(From the Star)
Get to bottom of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign spending: Editorial
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford broke election spending rules, according to a special audit, so now he should face a prosecutor appointed by the city’s compliance audit committee.
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford will soon learn if his image receives a fresh insult: the sorry distinction of having his actions investigated by a special prosecutor. A three-person committee is to consider the matter on Monday and — given the damning results of an audit into Ford’s election finances — it’s hard to see that panel doing anything other than opting for prosecution.
Under these circumstances, anything less would be an affront to democracy. Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act exists to provide fair contests for civic office and it’s a serious matter when its rules are breached. The public’s democratic choice is diminished whenever candidates disregard or deviate from the law for their own gain.
That’s why the findings of auditor Bruce Armstrong, of Froese Forensic Partners, make such worrisome reading. His 50-page analysis of Ford’s campaign contributions, fundraising and expenses in the 2010 election reveal a long list of “apparent contraventions” of the law.
These rules aren’t mere technicalities. In an attempt to provide at least the semblance of a level playing field, they require a candidate’s spending to be capped. That way the rich can’t buy their way into elected office simply by flooding a race with dollars. Toronto’s mayoral contest had a $1.3-million limit for each candidate. According to the auditor, Ford exceeded the cap by more than $40,000, or about 3 per cent.
When candidates borrow money for their campaigns they’re supposed to use a bank or other recognized lending institution. That way all are treated the same way — the rich can’t borrow money from well-heeled friends, or family, at little or no interest. Yet, according to the audit, Ford received “generous credit terms” from a family company called Doug Ford Holdings.
Corporate and union donations are banned in Toronto, limiting the ability of politicians to gain special advantage by leveraging their business and labour connections. Despite that clear prohibition, the Ford campaign accepted 11 corporate donations totalling $6,000. Furthermore, it issued personal receipts for this money to people, including former Ontario premier Mike Harris, as if the contribution had come from their own pockets.
Money spent on campaign fundraising doesn’t count as an expense governed by the cap. And that’s fair. It leaves people running with less cash free to fundraise for more. What’s unfair is when campaign promotional events are wrongly listed as fundraisers, thereby escaping the spending cap. The audit found that the Ford campaign apparently contravened the law because it inappropriately logged almost $33,000 as fundraising costs. That’s the source of most of Ford’s overspending.
There’s more — a lot more — in the special audit. But candidates suspected of wrongdoing cannot be punished on the grounds of an audit alone. After all, they’re innocent until found guilty in court. The city’s compliance audit committee is to decide whether this case warrants appointment of a special prosecutor who, in turn, would choose the charges best put before a judge.
The committee did not shirk from doing the right thing when it voted earlier this month to have a prosecutor pursue a case against Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, also the subject of a troubling campaign audit. And it must not falter in moving against Ford. Only by putting the mayor’s alleged breach of election law before a court can the public be sure that justice has been done.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/23/get_to_bottom_of_toronto_mayor_rob_fords_campaign_spending_editorial.html
(From the Star)
Get to bottom of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign spending: Editorial
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford broke election spending rules, according to a special audit, so now he should face a prosecutor appointed by the city’s compliance audit committee.
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford will soon learn if his image receives a fresh insult: the sorry distinction of having his actions investigated by a special prosecutor. A three-person committee is to consider the matter on Monday and — given the damning results of an audit into Ford’s election finances — it’s hard to see that panel doing anything other than opting for prosecution.
Under these circumstances, anything less would be an affront to democracy. Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act exists to provide fair contests for civic office and it’s a serious matter when its rules are breached. The public’s democratic choice is diminished whenever candidates disregard or deviate from the law for their own gain.
That’s why the findings of auditor Bruce Armstrong, of Froese Forensic Partners, make such worrisome reading. His 50-page analysis of Ford’s campaign contributions, fundraising and expenses in the 2010 election reveal a long list of “apparent contraventions” of the law.
These rules aren’t mere technicalities. In an attempt to provide at least the semblance of a level playing field, they require a candidate’s spending to be capped. That way the rich can’t buy their way into elected office simply by flooding a race with dollars. Toronto’s mayoral contest had a $1.3-million limit for each candidate. According to the auditor, Ford exceeded the cap by more than $40,000, or about 3 per cent.
When candidates borrow money for their campaigns they’re supposed to use a bank or other recognized lending institution. That way all are treated the same way — the rich can’t borrow money from well-heeled friends, or family, at little or no interest. Yet, according to the audit, Ford received “generous credit terms” from a family company called Doug Ford Holdings.
Corporate and union donations are banned in Toronto, limiting the ability of politicians to gain special advantage by leveraging their business and labour connections. Despite that clear prohibition, the Ford campaign accepted 11 corporate donations totalling $6,000. Furthermore, it issued personal receipts for this money to people, including former Ontario premier Mike Harris, as if the contribution had come from their own pockets.
Money spent on campaign fundraising doesn’t count as an expense governed by the cap. And that’s fair. It leaves people running with less cash free to fundraise for more. What’s unfair is when campaign promotional events are wrongly listed as fundraisers, thereby escaping the spending cap. The audit found that the Ford campaign apparently contravened the law because it inappropriately logged almost $33,000 as fundraising costs. That’s the source of most of Ford’s overspending.
There’s more — a lot more — in the special audit. But candidates suspected of wrongdoing cannot be punished on the grounds of an audit alone. After all, they’re innocent until found guilty in court. The city’s compliance audit committee is to decide whether this case warrants appointment of a special prosecutor who, in turn, would choose the charges best put before a judge.
The committee did not shirk from doing the right thing when it voted earlier this month to have a prosecutor pursue a case against Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, also the subject of a troubling campaign audit. And it must not falter in moving against Ford. Only by putting the mayor’s alleged breach of election law before a court can the public be sure that justice has been done.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/23/get_to_bottom_of_toronto_mayor_rob_fords_campaign_spending_editorial.html
adma
Superstar
If anything, at "best" it'd be less a matter of him having "active allies", than of him being an "active ally" of a generic, competent right-of-centre executive mechanism. That is, the Holyday/Milczyn/Ainslie/Thompson gang working around his incompetence by doing the mayoral-type dirty work on his behalf.
With that in place, Mayor Ford needs to do nothing more than to grunt and say "aye".
Hank
Active Member
They weren't baseless; he won at trial, so he had something going for him. The court of appeal's ruling was 100% based on the fact that they didn't like the laws being used in this way, so they went out of their way to rule in favour of Ford on something that another court could have easily gone the other way on. I wouldn't be surprised if Ford was awarded a nominal cost award...but we'll see, I guess.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
You might be right there. Let's see what the court says.
I have to look at it from Ford's point of view, some guy sues you, you incur substantial legal fees, and then the judgement goes your way. So, you're out of pocket for all those court costs and the guy who sued you at no cost to himself (with a pro bono lawyer) gets to walk away with no financial penalty?
What's to stop the same guy(s) from suing other city officials if there's no cost or risk of financial penalty when the courts throw out the suits?
I have to look at it from Ford's point of view, some guy sues you, you incur substantial legal fees, and then the judgement goes your way. So, you're out of pocket for all those court costs and the guy who sued you at no cost to himself (with a pro bono lawyer) gets to walk away with no financial penalty?
What's to stop the same guy(s) from suing other city officials if there's no cost or risk of financial penalty when the courts throw out the suits?
nfitz
Superstar
And if that ever happens, you may have a point. However the judgement went against Ford. Ford only won appeal ... and on a very narrow argument.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
That's exactly what I meant by 'huh'? Thx for the clarity. I'd say, in fact, Ford should be happy to pay his lawyer. That was some lawyerin'! (Not that he shouldn't ask for costs, why not?) I was under the assumption that costs were only awarded when the lawsuit was vexatious -- in this case, it was obviously a close-run thing. Is that not the case? How does a court decide on awarding costs (I assume there are guidelines.)? Could anyone fill me in?
- Status