A Rethink

Let me rephrase that…

A couple days ago, I wrote a post saying, law be damned, I didn’t want to see the mayor thrown out of office due to this conflict of interest claim. It would martyr him and prove to all his supporters what they’ve believed all along. Nefarious forces – left wingers, union types, downtown elitists – were out to get Mayor Ford. They never accepted the results of the 2010 election and were bound and determined to overturn them at the earliest possible opportunity.

It’s not paranoia if it’s true.

Now, I received a little pushback from many folks I normally agree with at a political level. The law is the law. If a judge in a courtroom decided the mayor broke that law, well, the mayor was just going to have to face the consequences. Just like anybody else might expect to if they found themselves in a similar position.

I don’t disagree with that but as I responded to someone, it’s the political fallout I’m concerned with. An already politicized electorate might simply retreat to their respective corners, any sort of compromise now out of the question, and begin training, sharpening the knives in preparation of 2014. An already ugly partisan environment would get a whole lot uglier.

Can’t we all just try and get along?

But I’ll tell you what. I don’t think those still in Mayor Ford’s corner want to get along. I think most of them are digging what’s happening right now. It feeds in mightily to their persecution complex and, truthfully, that’s all that’s really keeping them politically engaged, isn’t it? The drive to stick it to anyone they think has stuck it to them in the past. Left wingers, union types, downtown elitists. The usual suspects.

Let’s not lose sight of the facts of this matter.

This isn’t about where the donated money went. It isn’t about the mayor, then a city councillor, using his official capacity to raise funds for private purposes. That matter was settled a couple years ago.

It didn’t pass the city’s Integrity Commissioner’s smell test who ordered the mayor to pay back the money out of his own pocket, all $3150 of it. Council voted on it. A done deal.

Once in power and carrying a little more sway at council, Mayor Ford managed to bring the item back for reconsideration. One of his most ardent defenders, Councillor Paul Ainslie, brought forward the motion to overturn the previous council’s decision and therefore saving the mayor $3150. Ethically, a little sketchy but hey, to the victors go the spoils.

That Mayor Ford opted to stay in council chambers and participate in the debate on the item and even vote on it is what’s at the heart of this matter. Nothing else. That the outcome would determine whether or not he’d have to pay $3150 out of his own pocket is the very fucking definition of a pecuniary interest. Not recusing himself is the very fucking definition of a conflict of interest.

Even his most slavish scribbler over at the Toronto Sun, Sue-Ann Levy, admits as much. “He [Mayor Ford] should have declared a conflict when the donations were discussed at the Feb. 7 council meeting and not voted on whether to approve Ms. Manners’ [Integrity Commissioner and Birkenstock wearer Janet Leiper] report,” she writes in her article a couple days ago. Thank you, Sue-Ann.

But instead of making that the first sentence and exploring what seems to be Mayor Ford’s deep mistrust of good and sound judgement, she buries it deep within the usual drivel. A plot, aided by a publicity seeking lawyer and cheered on by left wingers, union types, downtown elitists and, what’s a new one to me, the “AHTS” crowd. The “AHTS” crowd? Yeah, apparently you use your best Boston/Cambridge/hoity-toity accent.

What’s especially galling to Ms. Levy, however, is that the mayor’s being singled out when everybody else on council is up to their eyeballs in conflict of interest as well. Take her word for it as there’s not much more to her allegations. Remember Councillor Pam McConnell buying that condo in the new Regent’s Park development at market rate? Yeah well, Sue-Ann assures us there’s a lot more of that going on. So why just pick on the mayor?

What kind of defence is that? Even if there was a shred of evidence to back up any of her assertions (or those made by other supporters), that’s the take away lesson? I may’ve goofed up but so did everybody else. Oh. OK. That’s alright then.

Got that, kids?

So to summarize (and quoting Sue-Ann Levy): “Mayor Ford should have declared a conflict.” But demanding he accept the consequences of his actions as determined in a court of law, well, that’s just a witch hunt and nothing more than cheap politics. “It’s sickening how people want to politicize the process,” Councillor Doug Ford said.

You know, the law’s the law, politics is politics and all that. Apparently, the two should never overlap.

That’s not owning up to a mistake. It’s an attempt to shift the blame. The real witch hunt in this little drama.

And it’s making it difficult to simply shrug your shoulders and say, oh well, just 2 more years.

impatiently submitted by Cityslikr

30 thoughts on “A Rethink

  1. The difficulty with both of your arguments is that Mayor Ford continually breaks the law, lies about it, and gets away with it…this is just yet another instance, but because it was a donation to a charity, has allowed him to ‘look good’ while still denying knowledge of his conflict of interest…he has been a City Councillor for 12 years, so no excuses can be made of his ignorance of City Hall procedure in this case. Mayor Ford deserves to lose his position; he has not earned the trust of his Office.

  2. Nobody likes Rob Ford, so he broke the law and must be thrown out of office. Everybody loves Hazel Mccallion, but her $25 million conflict of interest just needed a sorry and a million dollar inquiry.

  3. ps. Not recusing himself is the very fucking definition of a conflict of interest…Hazel did the same thing…she’s still in office.

  4. Dear Simon Say says; Ford is in a conflict of interest which means he should be removed and not allowed to run again for 7 years. See his preemptive Media blitz with compliant shills…

    • In the end, who really gives a crap? Only navel gazing politico-types. It is a stupid endeavor because it will only galvanize support around the right and will not do what the progressives want it to accomplish.

      • In the end, he was asked to pay the $3150.00 and didn’t… Rather had council vote on to get rid of it and voted in a matter that he had a financial interest. Right is Wrong!

      • Look up the definition of charitable organizations and how they operate. Money went to the charity regardless of who is an officer of said charity do not benefit financially from it. So there was no wrong.

  5. Janet Leiper gave Rob Ford SEVERAL chances to correct the problem by paying back those specific donations to the Ford Football Foundation; which he tooted during the Mayoral race as community service and recently as working vs hug a thug(side topic)
    Rob and a list of 21 councillors VOTED where 12 councillors opposed! so Rob did not have to join in the F You to the Integrity Commissioner.
    P.S. the lobbyists benefitted from their “charitable contribution” with one lobbyist scoring a multi million dollar contract…

    • Ford did not financially benefit directly, so no conflict of interest regardless what the “Integrity Commissioner” stated.

  6. oh my god, simon you innumerate goat fucker, if he doesn’t have to pay the money back, then of course he benefits financially. moron.

    • Thank you for your intelligent name calling, shows your true colors. Plus you are wrong, According to the the TCA, to have a conflict of interest, there is a needs to be elector interest in common, where is the elector interest in the charity? If there was a conflict of interest and Ford benefited directly from the solicited funds, it would also be a tax matter for the CRA to audit said charity.

      • Dear Simon Says says; there is a record of Rob Ford’s VOTE in a matter… he is going down that is why he hired Lenczner!
        Ford benefitted by having not paid the $3150.00 plus he used the Ford Foundation in his credentials where his salary went from $99K to $167K

    • And why would a nobody hire Clayton Ruby? High powered lawyer against high powered lawyer. How is his salary as mayor have anything do so with his case? His salary is to go to $167 and so is every other council members salary. You don’t benefit from not paying something back.

      Money went into charity, not his pocket. There is no elector interest in common as defined by the TCA and the guidelines of the conflict of interest in the TCA.

      Please go read the TCA, the conflict of interest guidelines. The integrity commissionaire has nothing to do with the TCA.

      • Paul Magder is not a nobody, he is a resident and citizen. What family name is in that charity? How long would it take for YOU to make $3150.00 after income tax? They’re in court, we’ll see what happens…

      • Paul Madger can’t be an average citizen to afford Clayton Ruby. So you should ask Paul and Clayton how long it takes to make the $3150 after taxes? Also, if you read how the charity is set up, the charity only uses the funds for purchase of football equipment. There are no salaries or other disbursements made to individuals. Please look up the Ford Football Foundation mandate and guidelines.

        What does my salary have to do with this? It might be a lot to someone who navel gazes over politics.

        As a resident and citizen, I think this is big waste of time and money. Money that everyone could be using to contract out more garbage or find more efficiencies.

        Have you read the TCA act? What Ford did by the TCA and City Governing guidelines is a code of conduct violation not conflict of interest.

      • apparently you’ve never heard of pro bono, latin for “for the public good”. ruby isn’t billing him. do try to keep up, yo.

      • GLENN!!!!!! Thank you for not calling a name! So nice to see “for the public good” from you!

  7. Magder is a businessman like Ford; except one has integrity! The case is before the Courts. Ford lied about not knowing about conflict of interest because Ruby showed May 2010 video of him declaring a conflict of interest…
    I know it would take you some time to make $3150.00 because you are not a millionaire mayor but just a troll for him…

    • Great name calling, Sonny. But, not knowing the conflict of interest law is actually a viable defense according to the TCA.

      • Dear Simon Says says; okay I’ll bite! Since Rob Ford testified under oath that he never read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
        Question: How do you KNOW that he did not break the rules? gotcha!

  8. He may or may not have broken the rules, do you know for sure? If you read the TCA and the conflict of interest law under the municipal code, ignorance of the law is a viable answer. Also, there are several points in the TCA that allow for unintentionally voting.

    Question: How do you KNOW that he did break the rules?

    Question: Did you break any laws today?

    • Yeah, on February 7, 2012. Rob Ford spoke to AND voted on a motion that he had a pecuniary interest of $3,150.00

      Maybe, I’ll say “your honour like Ford; ignorance of the law should be a reason to let me off”

      • You can’t use that excuse, but in the conflict of interest guidelines in the TCA you CAN!!

      • Yeah, in the May 12, 2012 video and SEVERAL other times Rob Ford declared a conflict of interest. check mate!

        P.S. Are YOU going to Ford Fest?

      • Sure, Sonny! I will go with you hand in hand to Ford Fest! Where can we meet up before we go in?

      • Sorry about missing you. I hppe you’re still not kissing it. At least I am willing to apologize.(wink) I went the other way to see a movie called the “The Age of Stupid.”

        Read about the Fest in today’s Star; apparently Rosie DiManno wasted $50.00 to go there by cab though she could expense it.
        So how many of Toronto’s 2.73 million people show up?

        P.S. did it taste like gravy OR bacon?

Leave a Reply