Rob Ford Transgressions Thread

[Devils'Advocate]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article4593913

For those that believe he will just be re-elected, you don't understand the level of buyers remorse they are having in TO. It's very similar to Larry O'Brien here in Ottawa... I put my first municipal election sign on my lawn. It read "Anybody but Larry for Mayor". That he gets along with Grapes is appropriate. Like Don he is an egotistical loudmouth, which can be entertaining at first. But once given any sort of responsibility you realize their level of ineptitude.

[Stay Golden]

I can't imagine putting an annual salary on the line that Ford receives from the city of T.O for something so stupid. Ford is a moron.

[smoothpops]

Originally Posted by psicodude

I thought he lost the vote and was told to repay. He just chose not to.

From CBC
"The vote absolved Ford from having to comply with an August 2010 directive from council and the city’s integrity commissioner, Janet Leiper, to pay back $3,150 in donations that corporate and lobbyist donors had given to the Rob Ford Football Foundation when he was a city councillor."

and now i have another question, apparently he was told 4 times to re-pay the money before the vote. which aldermen voted along with ford to allow him to keep the money? They're not guilty of any crime, but that was some terrible voting. I'd be pissed if my city council voted like that.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

I can't imagine putting an annual salary on the line that Ford receives from the city of T.O for something so stupid. Ford is a moron.

Rob Ford is rich in his private life isn't he?

I don't think he needs to worry about the salary of the mayors office when his family owns a multi-million dollar company.

[OffsideSpecialist]

I don't actually have the hate for Ford that many do.

He was extremely respectful of his constituents. He always returned everybody's calls. He called one of my buddy's on a Friday evening in response to a text that he sent to Rob a couple of weeks prior. I also think he had good intentions and is a genuinely pretty decent guy.

However, he did have the tendency to be a bit spontaneous and not think before he acts, which is really what did him in the end. I don't think he's as bad as Doug, but his mouth got him in trouble more often than not.

With that being said, this conflict of interest ordeal is inexcusable. In the end, I imagine it will up to Toronto voters to decide if they still want as mayor. I seem to recall a similar conflict of interest issue with McCallion in Mississauga not too long ago, not sure what ever came of it. Maybe her popularity kept her from having a similar fate as Ford.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

As someone who is very familiar with the Alberta Municipal Government Act (not Ontario's, but the principal is the same), I don't agree. He willingly acted inappropriately and refused to admit that is was improper. The rules are simple. He should have abstained from discussion and voting (etc.) and this would never have happened. Let him run again and we'll see if the voters want him back.

Isn't this very similar to what got Gary Mar in trouble?
I assumed that Rob would get the same punishment. Public shaming and then quietly goes back to work when everyone is distracted.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, and I'm pretty naive on TO politics. Didn't he just use city letterhead to raise the funds? That's not really pubic money if that's the case?

I'm not normally a stickler for spelling errors, but when I am, I make sure it's awesome.

[bluejays]

McCallion's was possibly worse, where IIRC, she gave a particular lucrative city contract to her son's company or something along those lines. I agree with OffsideSpecialist about Ford though. I have a feeling he had good intentions a lot of the time, but didn't think a lot of things through, and just did thinks to benefit what needed to get done at the time. If he did it the proper way, though bureaucratic, he wouldn't be put in this position. But rules didn't apply to him and he probably let his ego get the best of him a lot of the time. What I did like about him though, is he was too stupid to hide his emotions or tippie-toe around questions, so you pretty much read through what he was up to most of the time, so from that front, despite all this happening, he was pretty transparent - good or bad.

[octothorp]

Interesting point of contention emerging today: Ford and his lawyer took the judge's ruling to mean that he would be able to run in an upcoming byelection, but the city's top lawyer interprets it to mean that Ford is not eligible to run in the byelection. It depends on whether you consider 'end of this term' to mean 2014, or when the order to vacate comes into effect December 10.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/arti...y-s-top-lawyer

[Hack&Lube]

Now who is Toronto going to get to read and drive and get away with it? Stupid distracted driving law doesn't include reading from paper apparently.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...hicago321.html

[Azure]

The Mayor of the biggest city in Canada doesn't have his own private driver?

[OffsideSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Azure

The Mayor of the biggest city in Canada doesn't have his own private driver?

Everyone, even his own loud mouthed brother has told him to get one but he refuses for some reason.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by smoothpops

From CBC
"The vote absolved Ford from having to comply with an August 2010 directive from council and the city’s integrity commissioner, Janet Leiper, to pay back $3,150 in donations that corporate and lobbyist donors had given to the Rob Ford Football Foundation when he was a city councillor."

and now i have another question, apparently he was told 4 times to re-pay the money before the vote. which aldermen voted along with ford to allow him to keep the money? They're not guilty of any crime, but that was some terrible voting. I'd be pissed if my city council voted like that.

Here is where i get lost on this story.

Since he never received any money.....why would he have to re-pay it to anyone, and just as puzzling...to whom should it be re-paid?

From what i understand...the only reason the judge made the ruling he did, was not because Ford used city letterhead even though that is a violation, its because he didnt recuse himself from the vote in council determining whether or not he should be sanctioned (or whatever term they use) for using city letterhead in a fundraising sense.

Seems like a massive over-reaction to have an elected official removed from office for something so seemingly insignificant.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by smoothpops

From CBC
"The vote absolved Ford from having to comply with an August 2010 directive from council and the city’s integrity commissioner, Janet Leiper, to pay back $3,150 in donations that corporate and lobbyist donors had given to the Rob Ford Football Foundation when he was a city councillor."

and now i have another question, apparently he was told 4 times to re-pay the money before the vote. which aldermen voted along with ford to allow him to keep the money? They're not guilty of any crime, but that was some terrible voting. I'd be pissed if my city council voted like that.

If the money went to his foundation, wouldn't the foundation have to pay it back?

[MarchHare]

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/

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.

[transplant99]

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.

Thats what I said.

And yes...to the letter of the law, he was stupid to not recuse himself...but when this thing is taken in context, does it really scream removal from office?

he raised 3000 bucks for charity...charity.

Now, I agree he should have just stayed away from the vote, but for god sakes, is it really in the interests of Torontonians who democratically elected him to see him turfed, go through another costly election to replace him, all over something so dumb?

This has the feel of a witch hunt to it...or to use another analogy, shooting a mosquito with a shotgun.

[edslunch]

I think most would agree that he did have a conflict of interest and there should be consequences, but that the MANDATORY punishment of removal from office is too harsh under the circumstances.

It's true the judge could have ruled that the amount was insignificant or that it was an error of judgement but according to reports he followed the evidence to what he saw as the logical conclusion despite the potential unfairness of the punishment (he even commented on that)

[MarchHare]

he raised 3000 bucks for charity...charity.

Not the point. You yourself acknowledge that he wasn't removed over his improper fundraising, so that's just spin to make Ford look better.

We can debate all day whether the punishment for violating the conflict-of-interest act is too severe, and I might even agree with you. But the law was clear: the only outcome for elected officials found guilty of violating the act is removal from office. There's no question that Ford is guilty of knowingly violating the act, so his ouster was the only possible punishment in accordance with the law as it is written.

[burn_this_city]

Overall this pales in comparison to Joe Fontana's wedding debacle.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

Everyone, even his own loud mouthed brother has told him to get one but he refuses for some reason.

So he used letterhead to raise $3500 for charity.

But saves the city $50k by not having a personal driver.

I'm not saying using the letterhead/influence was the right thing to do, far from it, however when it comes to inappropriate use of funds and influence I'm sure a cursory look at city finances would uncover a lot more wrong doing that dwarfs this and has nothing to do with him. Yet for some reason everything is focused on one thing and one guy...it just screams witch hunt. I don't like that. Hell the amount of resources spent on this thing alone when the guy didn't actually pocket anything and it went to charity is quite frankly obscene.