Rob Ford Transgressions Thread

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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.

Haven't read everything but my understanding is that the judge could have dismissed this as an error in judgement or found that the amount was inconsequential.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by ernie

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.

And you'll find a handful related to him as well (rescheduled buses to transport his football team, unscheduled city improvements near his house etc.)

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.

When you're a jerk to your peers, they're going to come back and get you. Had Ford been even slightly more tactful (and significantly less of an arrogant #######) he could have gotten out of this. Instead his opponents found a legal way to get him booted, which he had multiple attempts to avoid. This didn't come out of the blue, this was a long process that gave him several outs. He was just too stubborn to do so.


As for the judge being able to dismiss as an error in judgement, he can only do that if it is deemed an 'honest mistake'. The way to admit such a mistake was paying the money back. Ford didn't do that and in fact denied that he did anything wrong at all according to the rule book (which he didn't read). He did everything he could have to force the judge to not be able to make such a judgement. He defeated himself.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Haven't read everything but my understanding is that the judge could have dismissed this as an error in judgement or found that the amount was inconsequential.

The judge wasn't ruling on whether Ford inappropriately used city letterhead or not. The quantity of money and the fact that it was for a charity are irrelevant red herrings for this case. The only question before the judge was whether Ford violated the code of ethics by voting on a motion in which he had a personal financial stake. The exact nature of his financial stake is immaterial to the case.

And it could not have been an error if judgement because the speaker explicitly cautioned Ford to recuse himself prior to the vote, advise which Ford chose to ignore.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Originally Posted by ernie

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.

The only thing that gets me is why can't someone like McCallion be treated with the same standard that Ford is getting treated with? She has been accused of conflict of interest time and time again but nothing has ever come of it. Actually, as Fleury mentioned earlier, I'd argue that McCallion voting for a large contract to be awarded to a family member was MUCH more significant than what Ford did, yet nothing ever came of that.

Also, Ford actually reminds me quite a bit of McCallion, but people seem to love Hazel because she's an old lady. I don't mind either of them, but I don't understand why one is being held to a higher standard than another.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

The only thing that gets me is why can't someone like McCallion be treated with the same standard that Ford is getting treated with? She has been accused of conflict of interest time and time again but nothing has ever come of it. Actually, as Fleury mentioned earlier, I'd argue that McCallion voting for a large contract to be awarded to a family member was MUCH more significant than what Ford did, yet nothing ever came of that.

Also, Ford actually reminds me quite a bit of McCallion, but people seem to love Hazel because she's an old lady. I don't mind either of them, but I don't understand why one is being held to a higher standard than another.

This just seems to be a case of picking and choosing and a judge who seems to have a dislike for Ford.

When you have other mayors who are completely corrupt and lining their pockets.

Or city Aldermen paying $12,000 dollars out of their office fund for a retirment party for themselves.

Its crazy that a judge can overturn a basic election result based on this.

Did Ford do something stupid, absolutely, but I don't know if it should have been enough for the bench to step in and kill a results election.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This just seems to be a case of picking and choosing and a judge who seems to have a dislike for Ford.

When you have other mayors who are completely corrupt and lining their pockets.

Or city Aldermen paying $12,000 dollars out of their office fund for a retirment party for themselves.

Its crazy that a judge can overturn a basic election result based on this.

Did Ford do something stupid, absolutely, but I don't know if it should have been enough for the bench to step in and kill a results election.

That's an unfair accusation to make. Justice Hackland really had no choice, Rob Ford voted in council on a matter that he was in financial conflict, and that he did it knowingly. The mandatory punishment is removal from office nothing else is permitted under the law. The only thing that Justice Hackland could adjust is how long Rob Ford could be barred from Municipal office and Hackland choose to bar him from the rest of his term rather than the maximum of 7 years. The law is both too narrow in it's application and too harsh because of the law of judicial flexibility, points that both Judge Douglas Cunningham (the Judge who oversaw Hazel McCallion's inquiry) and Justice Hackland have both made in their inquiry/verdicts.

[longsuffering]

I'm surprised that so many upright citizens can so easily dismiss a clear and obvious ethics violation as "no big deal". Shows you how much our standards have fallen.

[Flamenspiel]

I don't think people are dismissing it, no one questions it as an ethincs violation, in fact its a point of law and indisputable. What is questionable is the removal of the mayor by fiat as a penalty.

The rules of the MCIA allow exceptions for cases where: "...conflict was an inadvertent error, or the sum of money involved was so trivial as that no conflict would be created...." You could argue that both of those exceptions apply. I don't see the penalty surviving an appeal.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I don't think people are dismissing it, no one questions it as an ethincs violation, in fact its a point of law and indisputable. What is questionable is the removal of the mayor by fiat as a penalty.

The rules of the MCIA allow exceptions for cases where: "...conflict was an inadvertent error, or the sum of money involved was so trivial as that no conflict would be created...." You could argue that both of those exceptions apply. I don't see the penalty surviving an appeal.

[42] The respondent argues that the amount of money involved ($3,150.00) is very modest considering his salary as Mayor. It is stated at para. 59 of the Respondent’s Factum that, “No objectively reasonable person could conclude that the Respondent, a City Councillor for ten years and Mayor for two years would jeopardize his position for $3,150 …”
[43] The issue posed by s. 4(k) of the MCIA is whether the respondent’s pecuniary interest in the matter before Council – whether he should be required to furnish proof of repayment of $3,150.00 to donors – involved such an insignificant amount that it was unlikely to influence him in his consideration of that matter. While s. 4(k) appears to provide for an objective standard of reasonableness, I am respectfully of the view that the respondent has taken himself outside of the potential application of the exemption by asserting in his remarks to City Council that personal repayment of $3,150.00 is precisely the issue that he objects to and delivering this message was his clear reason for speaking and voting as he did at the Council meeting. The respondent stated, in his remarks at the Council meeting, “[A]nd if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment….”
- 17 -
[44] In view of the respondent’s remarks to City Council, I find that his pecuniary interest in the recommended repayment of $3,150.00 was of significance to him. Therefore the exemption in s. 4(k) of the MCIA does not apply.

[51] I find that the respondent’s conduct in speaking and voting on the matter involving his repayment obligation did not occur through inadvertence. Inadvertence involves oversight, inattention or carelessness. On the contrary, the respondent’s participation was a deliberate choice. He testified in this proceeding that he appreciated that the resolution before Council impacted him financially because it required him to repay funds he believed he did not owe. He received the Council agenda a week prior to the meeting, considered the matter, planned his comments, which were designed to “clear the air,” and came to the meeting with the intention of speaking. He admitted that he sought no advice, legal or otherwise, as to whether he should be involved in the debate. The respondent gave the following evidence in the cross-examination on his affidavit:
376. Q. So your speaking and voting were deliberate acts, correct?
A. I’m voting because I know my foundation…it’s a fantastic foundation.
377. Q. You deliberately chose to make the speech you did and vote the way you did?
- 20 -
A. Absolutely.
378. Q. And you don’t regret for a moment having done that?
A. Absolutely not.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/full-text-o...162434278.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm surprised that so many upright citizens can so easily dismiss a clear and obvious ethics violation as "no big deal". Shows you how much our standards have fallen.

I don't think its a matter of dismissal, its a matter of a inconsistent application of the law.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its crazy that a judge can overturn a basic election result based on this.

Did Ford do something stupid, absolutely, but I don't know if it should have been enough for the bench to step in and kill a results election.

Whether or not it should be allowed is up to the provincial government of Ontario. As the law is written the bench didn't have a choice. Would you rather the bench make decisions based on harsh laws, or overrule the laws made by a democratically elected legislature?

Ford let it get to that point and gave the judge no other choice. He convinced them he knew what he was doing and that it wasn't a trivial dollar amount. It was probably one of the easiest rulings the judge has had to make, all the while wondering how the leader of the biggest city in the country could have let it get to that point.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think its a matter of dismissal, its a matter of a inconsistent application of the law.

Are there other cases from Ontario where this law was applied differently? If not, how is this an inconsistent application of the law?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Whether or not it should be allowed is up to the provincial government of Ontario. As the law is written the bench didn't have a choice. Would you rather the bench make decisions based on harsh laws, or overrule the laws made by a democratically elected legislature?

Ford let it get to that point and gave the judge no other choice. He convinced them he knew what he was doing and that it wasn't a trivial dollar amount. It was probably one of the easiest rulings the judge has had to make, all the while wondering how the leader of the biggest city in the country could have let it get to that point.

I think Ford's arguement that given his Salary as mayor relative to the 3000 dollars is valid. The amount is inconsequential. For example this trial probaly lasted a day so you had 2 lawyers, a judge, a clerk minimum billing 8hrs to the case. So minimum this case cost $7500 to the taxpayer. So a conflict of interest over 3000 dollars is insignificant relative to the costs of pursuing justice.

To say the judge did not have a choice is not true. He ruled specifically that 3000 was not an insignificant amount. I argue that this is incorrect

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think Ford's arguement that given his Salary as mayor relative to the 3000 dollars is valid.

Then why did he say:

“[A]nd if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this..."?

If the kids 'didn't have a chance' without the money then the amount is, according to the charity's founder, significant, is it not?

The amount is inconsequential. For example this trial probaly lasted a day so you had 2 lawyers, a judge, a clerk minimum billing 8hrs to the case. So minimum this case cost $7500 to the taxpayer. So a conflict of interest over 3000 dollars is insignificant relative to the costs of pursuing justice.

That isn't what they determine the significance of the $3150 to.

To say the judge did not have a choice is not true. He ruled specifically that 3000 was not an insignificant amount. I argue that this is incorrect

And so did Ford's lawyer, and he lost.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Then why did he say:

“[A]nd if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this..."?

If the kids 'didn't have a chance' without the money then the amount is, according to the charity's founder, significant, is it not?



That isn't what they determine the significance of the $3150 to.



And so did Ford's lawyer, and he lost.

Yours or others argument (i am not sure which) in this was that judge was forced by law to make this decision because Ford voted on it and it clearly wasn't an error in judgement this completely ignores that the judge had a opportunity to not punish him. The judge made a judgement that 3000 was significant rather than saying this wasn't a significant amount.

The $3000 is significant for the kids who needed the money or to the foundation but that in my opinion isnt the standard being asked. Its was this a significant amount of money to Rob Ford. In my opinion Ford isn't repaying the money because he believes he did nothing wrong not because it would be a significant amount of money to pay back.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by GGG

To say the judge did not have a choice is not true. He ruled specifically that 3000 was not an insignificant amount. I argue that this is incorrect

And therefore you think that the decision will be overturned on appeal on this basis? Because it seems to me that a determination that the 3000 was significant to Ford is a finding of fact. An appeal judge can't just re-determine the facts on appeal.

[First Lady]

Looks like he has been cleared to run in byelection.

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

[The Yen Man]

Did Ford piss off the media / union people in Toronto? Because every article I read is pretty much an attack ad on the guy. I don't follow Toronto politics so I have no idea if he's doing a good or bad job, but for awhile there, every day Yahoo had a different article up pretty much making fun of the guy. Is he really doing that bad a job, or is there some kind of vendetta against him?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Did Ford piss off the media / union people in Toronto? Because every article I read is pretty much an attack ad on the guy. I don't follow Toronto politics so I have no idea if he's doing a good or bad job, but for awhile there, every day Yahoo had a different article up pretty much making fun of the guy. Is he really doing that bad a job, or is there some kind of vendetta against him?

He is making a lot of difficult decisions. The city is bleeding red and so he has privatized things which has increased unemployment. Most of the knocks against him are mainly about optics. Using city buses to transport his football team (and kicking off people). He is a non-stop excuse maker - nothing is ever his fault. He says some really stupid and offensive things (he thought Lake Manitoba was in Ontario). He couldn't kick off pride day, as traditionally the mayor does, because he was going out to his cabin and wanted to beat traffic (it was literally a block from his office)..

He has also gotten rid of a lot of bike paths (13km so far) and it seems like weekly, we are hearing about cyclists in Toronto being killed. Then there is his refusal to pay back the 3000 dollars. Ford is a very wealthy man and grew up with a silver spoon, so while some of his fiscal decisions might be necessary, he comes off as uncaring and very arrogant.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Did Ford piss off the media / union people in Toronto? Because every article I read is pretty much an attack ad on the guy. I don't follow Toronto politics so I have no idea if he's doing a good or bad job, but for awhile there, every day Yahoo had a different article up pretty much making fun of the guy. Is he really doing that bad a job, or is there some kind of vendetta against him?

I think it's more to do with his big mouth not having a filter. He's very good at communicating with his constituents but whenever the media is near he has the tendency to sound stupid. His brother Doug is probably worse for that though.