|
Is Rob Ford doing a good job? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| smuncky |
two articles to get you started if you don't know alot about the situtation.
| quote: |
The day Rob Ford got himself fired
by Ivor Tossell on Monday, November 26, 2012 7:51pm
At Toronto’s City Hall, surely the most ambiently lunatic building in Canada, a stage was set up to launch the Mayor’s Christmas Toy Drive. Eight small children had been procured to act as “honourary elves,” sitting cross-legged on a carpet at the foot of a Christmas tree, flanked by boxes of mini-trikes and construction cranes. A boxed CFL football sat ominously to one side. The mayor was scheduled to launch the drive at 1 p.m. An enormous crowd of reporters buzzed about. Interest in the mayor’s event had amplified to unusual levels by news that the mayor had just gotten himself fired.
For everyone who’s ever bemoaned the fact that our democracy doesn’t offer a way to recall politicians, witness Rob Ford: the man who couldn’t stay mayor. In a ruling released this morning, a Superior Court justice declared Ford’s seat vacant—a weirdly existential way of putting it—after finding the mayor violated the municipal conflict-of-interest act in a small-stakes, but entirely willful, transgression.
Ford has been in office for two tumultuous years, in which his cost-cutting mandate quickly gave way to a scorched-earth war on the media, a succession of botched policies and a never-ending series of altercations, each more bizarre than the last. Giving the finger to a six-year old; chasing a reporter around a park near his home; helping eject a bus of TTC riders into the rain to get his football team a ride home. Finally, today, the mayor of Toronto was sent back to the voters to ask for his job back. In the end, Rob Ford recalled himself.
Upstairs at City Hall, in the mezzanine above the Toy Drive stage, Ford emerged from his glass-walled office, pushed back the wall of waiting cameras and spoke laconically for a few brief minutes, before staging a breakout in the direction of the kids. He promised to appeal, and run again if there was a by-election.
“The people are going to speak,” he said. “I’m not going to have people saying that I can’t do this, I can’t do that. I’m going to fight for the taxpayers as I always have.”
Downstairs, he delivered a halting speech from the stage, ignoring the morning’s events, then kneeled like a sad Santa to give the elves some gifts—and then he was gone.
Ford’s reluctance to have people—lawmakers, colleagues, well-meaning friends, Superior Court justices—say he can’t do this or can’t do that, has been a recurring problem in Toronto these last couple years. Ford attempted to steer the city with an internalized sense of what’s right and what’s wrong, a sense which unfortunately kept running up against reality, the kind that manifests itself in budget sheets and laws. He tried to push through a subway plan that made no financial sense. He tried to push through a redevelopment scheme that made no planning sense. He wanted to have criminals deported from the city, until a talk-radio host suggested to him that even criminals have basic Charter rights. (This, like so many other things, really happened.)
Ultimately, Toronto’s mayor got sacked for breaking a simple yet unforgiving Ontario law: If you vote on or discuss an issue in which you have a financial interest and you can’t prove that it was a mistake you made in good faith, you get removed from office. The law is too crude an implement and deserves to be revisited. Yet it’s still the law, and Ford ultimately had no excuse for breaking it.
Rob Ford runs a football foundation. He tirelessly fundraises for it from people he meets, including developers and lobbyists, and lately he did it with city resources. This is against the rules. The city’s integrity commissioner entreated him over and over to follow these rules–another person telling him he can’t do this, can’t to that—but to no avail. And after years of breaking rules that merely put him on the hook for financial penalties, Ford finally broke the rule that cost him his job: He got up in council and argued that he shouldn’t have to pay just such a penalty. Then he voted against parting with the money. That’s a conflict of interest, and some of the finest lawyers in town weren’t able to convince the judge otherwise.
This was no technicality that went unnoticed by all but vigilant Ford enemies who were waiting to pounce. It was a small-beans issue Ford willingly escalated into a giant hill of beans, which he proceeded to die on. It could have been defused and de-escalated at any number of junctures. But Ford’s unwillingness to follow anything but his own increasingly erratic lights turned it into a court case. As the judge noted, Ford’s defence relied “essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude” to the rules and those who’d enforce them.
It is an uncomfortable thing, having an elected official removed from office by a judge who–as we’re all about to be reminded–was not elected at all. Even the city’s progressives were queasy at the prospect. Rob Ford’s defeat was dearly hoped for by many Torontonians, but not this way: If a judicial ousting strikes conservatives as a sneaky end-run around voters, it strikes liberals as a hollow victory.
Likewise, it is true that the legal complaint against Ford bore the fingerprints of people who don’t much like him (though I suspect it was launched more out of political principle than for political gain). But just because the complaint was political does not mean the judgment was politicized.
Ultimately, the case encapsulated so much of what Toronto has seen in the Ford years. The political conversation in the city is no longer about left or right, or austerity versus investment, nor about the merits and demerits of embarking on any given project. The great question of the Ford years has become, “Can the mayor accomplish anything at all?” And to that an adjunct, “Has anyone seen the mayor lately?” The other week, things got to the point where he got into a scheduling conflict between his high-school football games and his court dates.
But in the end, the citizens will not be denied their say. An appeals process will now run its course, but a by-election for a new mayor seems likely in the near term. Rob Ford has called a referendum on himself. The question will not be whether Toronto wants tax hikes or service cuts, or bike lanes or road tolls, or subways or streetcars, bless them both. The question will simply be whether this is any way to run a city.
|
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/26/...HWZUEV4.twitter
and something a bit more detailed.
| quote: |
“I declare the seat of the respondent, Rob Ford, on Toronto city council, vacant”
BY: Edward Keenan
A Toronto judge has ruled that Rob Ford shall be removed from the office of mayor in 14 days. And you know what? There really wasn’t any other way this could end.
I’m not just referring to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act hearing against Toronto Mayor Rob Ford—although I think I made it pretty clear after sitting through the hearing that the judge appeared to have no option but to kick him out of office—but this whole Rob Ford mayoral story of the past two years. You’ve got football, and with Ford there’s always football: yesterday, the Argos won the Grey Cup; tomorrow, Ford will coach his Don Bosco Eagles in the Metro Bowl. And, in between, you have Ford being removed from office because of a conflict-of-interest violation stemming from his football charity.
But that hearing had more in it than just football—it has every other thing that has defined Ford’s mayoralty: his obsessing over small amounts of money; his steadfast refusal to pay any attention to details; his belligerent insistence that normal rules and procedures governing ethics and integrity do not apply to him; and his unique ability to inspire a citizen revolt against him. This case has all of it.
Let’s deal, first of all, with the already-heard complaint that this decision from the courts is a “slap in the face” to Toronto voters that people are already writing and saying. The argument of National Post writer Marni Soupcoff and others is that an unelected judge has just reversed the results of the last election and somehow disenfranchised voters. This is pure nonsense. A democracy does not operate to elect a dictator every four years—or at least our democracy doesn’t. A democracy works to elect a government, and that government and its members are bound by the Canadian Constitution and—in the case of Toronto City Council—by the City of Toronto Act, which is the city’s version of a constitution, and other provincial legislation governing procedures, jurisdiction, and integrity rules. If a government oversteps its bounds and breaks the law, the courts have not just a right but a responsibility to hold them to account and reverse it. And if a member of the government breaks the law, the courts have not just a right but a responsibility to administer the penalty that the law calls for. In either case, the voters remain enfranchised to express their will in the next available election. And, in this case, there are the other 44 members of Toronto City Council who have obeyed the law, remain in office, elected by the same voters at the same time to govern the city.
In this case, Rob Ford broke the law by speaking and voting on a matter in which he had a financial interest. (Ford joined council in letting himself off the hook from personal payment of a $3,150 penalty.) The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which functions as a supplement to the city’s provincial legislative equivalent to a constitution, says the minimum penalty for such a lapse is removal from office. The judge invoked that penalty, and apparently no more than that. There’s no judicial activism here—the judge read nothing into the law that is not written in plain English. If the man who has been our mayor for two years had ever familiarized himself with the most important laws governing his job description, he’d have known that. But he made it clear during his hearings that he had not read the law, or had anyone read it to him.
And that tells you everything you need to know about who has been shown to have slapped the voters of Toronto in the face in this instance. Ford made it clear during his testimony. And the judge took note. Having been elected to the city’s highest office—having been entrusted with its responsibilities by more than 300,000 voters who believed in him to do the right thing by the city and uphold the responsibilities of that job, how did he react? Justice Charles Hackland writes:
This respondent has served on City Council for 12 years, the last two years as Mayor. He acknowledged, in cross-examination, that prior to this proceeding, he had never read or familiarized himself with the MCIA. Moreover, the respondent admitted that he never sought legal advice as to his entitlement to speak or vote on the Code of Conduct issues before council … he stated that he did not attend briefing sessions offered by the MCIA to newly elected councillors, or read the councillor’s handbook which addresses conflicts of interest.
He has not acted in good faith, the judge ruled, to uphold the law that governs his job. To act in good faith for this city, for those who elected him:
In view of the respondent’s leadership role in ensuring integrity in municipal government, it is difficult to accept an error in judgement defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the Integrity Commissioner and the Code of Conduct. In my opinion, the respondent’s actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to wilful blindness.
[...]
Accordingly, I declare the seat of the respondent, Robert Ford, on Toronto City Council, vacant.
Stubborn sense of entitlement. Ignorance. Lack of diligence. Wilful blindness. These words neatly sum up not just Rob Ford’s conduct in this matter, but his approach to the entire enterprise of government. Whether the question is the virtues of LRTs versus streetcars, or the relationship between tax revenue and a balanced budget, or the traffic-engineering implications of providing alternatives to automobiles for commuters, Ford has been unaware of the nuances of the argument, uninterested in learning those facts, and willing to pigheadedly proceed to barrel forward with his own gut-instinct-based plan anyway. Entitled? Yeah. He reads at the wheel in traffic, bypasses council committees, calls city council decisions irrelevant, dismisses bureaurats who disagree with him, skips out on meetings to pursue his private charitable work, calls senior bureaucrats to his office to demand city work on behalf of the private company he owns… this case, and the judge’s succinct ruling in it, sums it all up.
There’s a lot of hand-wringing at City Hall about the political implications of this legal decision—what are the optics? Will this make voters more sympathetic to Ford? Will it make his opponents look petty? These are fine political questions—though I am glad the courts wisely ignored political calculus, since a judge’s job is not to intuit the will or mood of voters or position various parties for the next election. The judge’s job is to apply the law. And this is how, in this case, it applies. Clearly.
No one knows what happens next. Ford has said he’ll appeal, and we’ll need to wait to hear from a court on whether this decision will be stayed pending appeal—that is, whether he’ll be able to remain in office for 10 or 12 months waiting for the final decision. But with or without a stay, it’s unclear how city council will proceed. With Ford as a possible lame-duck mayor, council will be even less inclined, one expects, to do his bidding while they wait for the hook to finally drag him offstage. Without Ford, the calculations involved in either appointing a replacement or calling an election are too sophisticated to frame out today.
And while this decision certainly ends a chapter in the Rob Ford story, there will almost just as certainly be others—the appeal, the next election, and whatever else the future holds. He could stage a comeback. Who knows what the hell will happen in politics?
But there is one political point about this case I’d like to observe. And that is this: among Rob Ford’s greatest accomplishments in office is that he’s engaged more people in municipal politics than anyone can remember. On Twitter, in person, and in every coffee shop you walk into, people are arguing passionately about Toronto’s government. They care. That’s been good for me, as a writer. The mayor’s ability to make this stuff interesting has been my meal ticket. And ultimately, no matter where on the political spectrum you find yourself, you find that sense of interest and engagement encouraging. The citizens of the city have woken up, and on the questions of the Waterfront, the budget, and transit, among others, the citizens of Toronto have spoken up and gotten involved in governing the city.
So maybe it’s fitting that it was a private citizen who filed this conflict-of-interest proceeding against him—it was not his council opponents who trapped him. This was a lawsuit brought by Paul Magder, private citizen of Toronto. Rob Ford woke citizens up, and one of them stood up to insist the mayor obey the law, and then succeeded in having him ordered removed from office. It was a citizen activist what done it.
Like I said: there was really no other way this could end. |
http://www.thegridto.com/blog-post/...council-vacant/ |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
|
:stongue:
Jesus , talk about only seeing what you want to see. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
Yes, there is a speaker and she warned him not to vote but he ignored her. Just as he ignored the integrity commissioner every time she asked him to pay back the money. I believe she sent him 6 letters asking him to do so. His refusal is what prompted the vote in the first place. |
what money LOL
who cares, it wasn't even tax payers money LOL.
this stuff is getting more publicity than the mutli million dollar e- health scandal |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: |
Funny how Ford's family business is worth over 100 million and yet he pressured for solicitations that amounted to measely $3000-something dollars. That he refused to pay back despite the order. Greed and ignorance?
|
LOL what greed?
its not like he pocketed the 3k.. it was donated to the football team, and the money was donated from a third party
nothing to do with the taxpayers (ie you and i) |
|
|
| Yohan |
| this is democracy for ya. lol |
|
|
| Special K |
The best is when dumbasses like Smitherman decide to chime in on the situation with remarks like "Touchdown for Accountability"
:haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| nacarter |
I kind of laugh at the right wingers here who are incredulous that Ford is being turfed out of office over $3000. You guys should be pissed that Ford put himself in a position to be turfed over something inconsequential.
The right wing is always complaining that there isn't enough accountability amongst those who control the public purse strings. Of course, now they're pissed off when one of their own gets busted over a conflict of interest that wasn't necessary. Let's face it, council easily had the votes to ensure Ford wasn't going to have to pay back the money. All Ford had to do was abstain. Of course, he couldn't leave it alone, thumbed his nose at the law, and now is getting slapped.
The righties are pissed that Ford is being made an example of. Fine, if you're so concerned about what other politicians are doing, find a relevant law and file a complaint against them. Otherwise, shut up.
If you think that the punishment, which for this law is encoded directly in the legislation, is harsh; maybe you want to take a second look at your position on mandatory minimum sentences. This is what happens when you take that approach.
Time for the Ford Nation to man up and take their punishment with a little dignity. |
|
|
| Tordan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
what money LOL
who cares, it wasn't even tax payers money LOL.
this stuff is getting more publicity than the mutli million dollar e- health scandal |
Sure it wasn't tax payers money. But he chose to solicit donations as Councillor Rob Ford because he used council stationery and not Coach Rob Ford, private citizen. |
|
|
| nacarter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Honestly it's ridiculous.
it's not like he used tax payers money (well maybe 0.01 cent for the letterhead) to get the donation. why should he pay it back? who cares?
|
NRG, you need to go and learn about lobbying and ethics. This issue isn't about the $3000, and it really isn't about him paying it back. It's a matter of using his influence as Mayor of Toronto to solicit donations for a personal, private cause with city resources.
It's the same as generals retiring from the military, becoming a lobbyist for a contractor, and using their influence and contacts to create an unfair advantage for the company they work for. It's clearly spelled out as an ethics violation, and in this case, there's a specific law that deals with this at the municipal level.
It's pretty tough to claim ignorance when the same rules apply to pretty much every board, committee and working group that may have access to financial resources or make decisions on the distribution of cash. Ford has been a councillor for 10 years - he knew the rules. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
I kind of laugh at the right wingers here who are incredulous that Ford is being turfed out of office over $3000. You guys should be pissed that Ford put himself in a position to be turfed over something inconsequential.
The right wing is always complaining that there isn't enough accountability amongst those who control the public purse strings. Of course, now they're pissed off when one of their own gets busted over a conflict of interest that wasn't necessary. Let's face it, council easily had the votes to ensure Ford wasn't going to have to pay back the money. All Ford had to do was abstain. Of course, he couldn't leave it alone, thumbed his nose at the law, and now is getting slapped.
The righties are pissed that Ford is being made an example of. Fine, if you're so concerned about what other politicians are doing, find a relevant law and file a complaint against them. Otherwise, shut up.
If you think that the punishment, which for this law is encoded directly in the legislation, is harsh; maybe you want to take a second look at your position on mandatory minimum sentences. This is what happens when you take that approach.
Time for the Ford Nation to man up and take their punishment with a little dignity. |
Yup!! Case closed. Lets move on. |
|
|
| FunkyCrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
Yes, there is a speaker and she warned him not to vote but he ignored her. Just as he ignored the integrity commissioner every time she asked him to pay back the money. I believe she sent him 6 letters asking him to do so. His refusal is what prompted the vote in the first place. |
that's right - 6 letters & he ignored every one of them
and ironically enough, he recently wanted to get rid of the integrity commissioner position completely - wasn't this literally a month ago?
| quote: | | The mayor suggested that the oversight officials were pursuing frivolous complaints. |
quite funny to read his madman's rants about left wing this, left wing that |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
NRG, you need to go and learn about lobbying and ethics. This issue isn't about the $3000, and it really isn't about him paying it back. It's a matter of using his influence as Mayor of Toronto to solicit donations for a personal, private cause with city resources.
It's the same as generals retiring from the military, becoming a lobbyist for a contractor, and using their influence and contacts to create an unfair advantage for the company they work for. It's clearly spelled out as an ethics violation, and in this case, there's a specific law that deals with this at the municipal level.
It's pretty tough to claim ignorance when the same rules apply to pretty much every board, committee and working group that may have access to financial resources or make decisions on the distribution of cash. Ford has been a councillor for 10 years - he knew the rules. |
Understood, he did something wrong, but what is the net harm here to the general public?
is soliciting for donations in his position worth losing his job? Apparently not, because it really was about paying back the 3000$ hence exactly why he was given the boot; not for the fact that he used his mayoral influence to solicit donations from a willing third party.
Soliciting happens all the time in government. Hasn't an MP ever come to your house to try and solicit your vote? They are using their position to coax you into re-voting for them.
Again, my issue here is the fact that this was taken as far as it was. (which i think was done to make an example of him). On the other hand you have MPs actually USING tax payers money.. that's money out of our pockets in order to pay for their frivolous expenses
one example:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...article4529267/
and she has the "liberty" to graciously step down.
Laughable that we pin point on the minute issues here and overlook the major ones that actually hit our pockets.
I honestly think this is all about the mayor trying to cut corners through burocracy to get things done, in a perhaps drastic matter sometimes. Why not just call a spade a spade instead of dancing around the issue.
Just my thoughts here. |
|
|
|
|
