Tag Archives: Conflict of Interest

In Flux

Posted on by
6

In the end, it was just another day at the office for Mayor Rob Ford. If you tuned into yesterday’s council meeting looking for fireworks, hoping for the mayor and his closest (albeit dwindling) supporters to be breathing fire, scorching the earth around them in defiance of his judicial ouster from office, yeah, that didn’t happen. It was all pretty much routine.

Council gathered, worked through the usual procedural matters. The mayor moved his two key items – one being the plastic bag ban implementation… yes, that… yet again his key item… *sigh* — over to today. The city’s legal staff then made a presentation as to its take on how the mayor’s battle to keep his job would play out. Interesting nugget. It is their view he could not run in a by-election if one was called, stating that ‘the term’ as presented in Judge Hackland’s decision meant the 2010-2014 term not simply Mayor Ford’s term in office. Of course, there were legal recourses he could take to challenge that opinion if he wanted.

And with that, council moved on to the business at hand.

Word soon came that the mayor’s team would be in court next week to seek a stay of Monday’s ruling pending an appeal which, if granted, would keep Mayor Ford in office until his appeal. That was scheduled for early in the new year, January 7th. All things considered, a quick turn around.

Later in the afternoon, after he’d partied it up in Nathan Phillips Square with the Grey Cup champion Toronto Argonauts, the mayor issued a sincere sounding if not worded apology. “Looking back, maybe I could have expressed myself in a different way,” he said at a grim press conference. “To everyone who believes I should have done this differently, I sincerely apologize.”

Yeah. So if you thought I should have done this different, I’m sorry. I’m not really sorry for doing things the way I did.

With that, Mayor Ford disappeared, off to coach his Don Bosco team to defeat at the Metro Bowl and a pledge, word has it, to be on the sidelines again next year. If so, it’ll be a much less controversial season since it may well not be competing with his official duties as mayor.

In his absence, council carried on, sorting out committee appointments for the second half of this term, all of which could be rendered irrelevant if a new mayor comes to pass sometime in the winter months. There was hours and hours of elephant talk, the fate of the Toronto Zoo 3 finally decided and hopefully, fingers crossed, prayers to heaven, never, ever talked about in council chambers again.

All very dry and technical but with a provisional air about it. A council in limbo, patching together an agenda, lacking in a firm direction of leadership. That isn’t new. Arguably, it’s been the situation for over a year now. But the stakes are different.

It’s not about a mayor in absentia. It’s about a mayor under siege, facing the very, very real possibility of removal and a complete changing of the guard. Proceed lightly, folks. The political sand under your feet is shifting sharply.

— ifilly submitted by Cityslikr

Remember, Remember The 26th Of November

Posted on by
1

The head is still a-buzz. I cannot say with any certainty if yesterday was the singularly most crazy-assed day in Toronto political history but it has to be a contender. Yes, Mel Lastman once called out the army to help with a snowstorm but… Seriously?

(The day’s events are compiled in our Trilogy of Terror. Part 1, The Ill-Reckoning. Part 2, Is That Phone Call Coming From Upstairs? Part 3, Karen Black’s Crazy Aztec Doll.)

Suffice to say, we’re in fairly uncharted waters here. If anyone claims to know exactly how all this is going to play out, they are full-fledged liars with their bullshitting pants on fire. We’re through the looking-glass’s looking-glass.

As Edward Keenan wrote, none of this should come as any surprise to anyone. “…his [Mayor Ford] 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.” Everything is as it was predestined to be. Only our shock at it is what’s really surprising.

If the mayor really cared about the welfare of the city he was elected to lead, he’d call it a day. Throw in the towel, admit he wasn’t all that interested in how things turned out and head off to coach football full time(r) than he already he has been doing. That’s just not the Fordian way.

But now, even the Prince of No Principles, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, has jumped ship, resigning from the mayor’s Executive Committee, citing constituent calls and his gut feeling as reasons to maintain his distance from an administration he’s so rabidly defended for over two years. His love for Team Ford was purely conditional. We all knew that. Still, it signals a council free-for-all. The Thumb has become something more of a middle finger.

So today council convenes for its monthly meeting. Owing to the 14 day suspension of Judge Hackard’s decision in order for the city to get its ducks in a row and the mayor time to launch an appeal, there will be an air of uncertainty. Let’s get through all this quickly and quietly. See you again in the new year when 2013 budgets have to be finalized. When we might have some better idea about the whole mayoral situation.

And about noon or so, a parade will arrive outside City Hall at Nathan Phillips Square to celebrate the Toronto Argonauts’ Grey Cup victory. A parade. For football. At City Hall.

Back in the day, I dabbled in the dark arts of screenwriting. If I had ever delivered up such a script, full of such glaringly obvious analogies and ironies, the critic in my head who sounded a lot like Robert Evans would look at it and say to me, These are the pictures, kid, not a fucking freak show. Go back and write me something believable.

Such is the state of politics in Toronto, late November, in the year of our Lord, 2012. (Give or take).

— still head scratchingly submitted by Cityslikr

The Verdict Three

Posted on by
1

OK, wait.

So apparently reaction to the verdict to Mayor Ford’s conflict of interest case isn’t as cut and dry as I thought it should be. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, Tony Baretta kind of thing.

Perhaps not at all surprisingly, the mayor has stated he’s going to appeal the decision. Fair dinkum, I think is what our Australian friends might say in response. Good on ya, mate. Have at it. It’s a free country. Exercise your legal rights.

But no, the mayor couldn’t just stop there. A simple, I don’t agree with Judge Hackland’s decision. I’m going to appeal it. Next question.

Nope. Can’t… not… wave… the… flag… of… division.

“This comes down to left-wing politics,” the mayor said of the decision. “The left wing wants me out of here and they’ll doing anything in their power to.”

That’s right, kids. If ever you’re found yourself having broken a law or a rule, never, ever forget to deflect responsibility for it at the first opportunity you get. Adults do it all the time. It’s how the system works.

But if you want to really tap into the swirling, surly mind of an indignant, unrepentant member of Ford Nation, check out Marni Soupcoff’s disingenuous screed over at the National Post.

Take a little segment of the judge’s decision that dealt favourably with the mayor’s situation — “I recognize that the circumstances of this case demonstrate that there was absolutely no issue of corruption or pecuniary gain…” – mix in a little false equivalency – The Mayor of London, Ontario has been charged with fraud and he’s still in office!! – use a pinch of misunderstanding about the actual law, attributing it to some nameless immigrant bystander — “This makes no sense. What laws did Ford break?” – and a healthy dollop of completely ignoring the damning evidence presented against the mayor – et voila!

An innocent man, trying to do a good deed, mauled by an indifferent and unjust legal system! Democracy denied! An insult to voters whose decisions cannot, will not, shall not be overturned by the preening, intrusive rule of law.

“And when it comes down to it,” Ms. Soupcoff writes, “what the statute [Municipal Conflict of Interest Act] says is terribly anti-democratic… that despite receiving the votes of 380,201 people, a mayor can be tossed on the complaint of one citizen and the conclusion of one judge about a minor and harmless contravention of overly broad conduct rules.”

Minor and harmless the mayor’s contraventions may have been and the conduct rules might be overly broad. But in Judge Hackland’s decision, contravene them the mayor did, and the act left the judge no option but to remove the mayor from office. It has nothing to do with defying democracy or ignoring the voters’ wishes. It has everything to do with upholding the law.

“It seems, shall we say,” Soupcoff scribbles, building to her crescendo of outrage, “incommensurate that Toronto’s mayor should meanwhile be given the boot for insisting on speaking and voting on whether he should have to pay out a few thousand dollars for being overzealous in his charity work.”

… for being overzealous in his charity work.

Overzealous in his charity work?! No, Marni Soupcoff. Despite numerous warnings from the Integrity Commissioner not to use his official letterhead to solicit donations for his football foundation, then Councillor Rob Ford ignored her. When ordered to pay back the donations from his own pocket if need be, he refused. As mayor, he chose to speak and vote on the item brought before council to overturn that order.

In Judge Hackland’s opinion:

It would appear that the respondent’s actions at the February 7, 2012 Council Meeting, in speaking and voting on resolutions concerning the Integrity Commissioner’s factual findings in her report and her recommended sanction, was one last protest against the Integrity Commissioner’s position that he profoundly disagreed with.

Mayor Ford stamped his feet, ignored the will of council, rolled the dice to reverse the sanction and was found to have contravened the conflict of interest act in the process.

There’s no overturning of democracy. The voters’ will has not been subverted. One judge ruled that one man violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. That one man now has to deal with the fallout from that. Claiming anything otherwise is simply fanning the flames of petty divisiveness.

— treyly submitted by Cityslikr