Quote:
|
Seems like a massive over-reaction to have an elected official removed from office for something so seemingly insignificant.
|
Violating the municipal code of ethics is insignificant?
Rob Ford was not removed from office because he improperly used city letterhead to raise funds for his charity. He was removed from office because he didn't recuse himself from voting on a council motion in which he had a personal conflict-of-interest. This despite the fact that the council speaker explictly warned him before the vote that he had a conflict-of-interest. This is akin to a citizen sitting on the jury of a trial in which they themselves are the defendant.
Good explanation from the G&M here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...rticle5718418/
Quote:
Rob Ford was found to have breached a law called the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by voting in council on whether he would be forced to pay back $3,150 in funds he collected for his private football charity. He had solicited the funds by improperly using city resources and the City of Toronto logo in contravention of Toronto’s Code of Conduct for Members of Council.
Mr.Ford did not lose his job because he was raising money in a manner contrary to the Code of Conduct, but because – contrary to the MCIA – he took part in debate and voted on the issue of whether he must pay back the funds. Section 5 of the MCIA expressly prohibits members of council from such involvement in any matters where they have a direct or indirect financial stake.
[...]
In designing the MCIA, the Ontario government determined that the ethical basis for the conflict-of-interest law was of such grave importance that offenders deserve the ultimate political price.
That is a legitimate, democratic decision over which reasonable people might reasonably disagree. But in making that determination, the Legislature chose to permit no judicial discretion nor offer any other options for sanctioning a member of municipal council who has been found in breach of its provisions.
For a judge to craft such an alternative on his own, in the face of a clearly drafted law and in the absence of identifiable constitutional problems, would have been judicial activism at its most extreme.
|