Rob Ford Turfed ?

[Black Dog]

But as a Liberal you also have to see the irony in applauding a heavy-handed ruling because the judge had no choice to use discretion.

Discretion is needed, absolutely.

When I started a thread about this I think most members agreed that Ford was in the wrong but didn't deserve to lose his job over this.

This I'm not sure about. just because the judge should have options for punishment doesn't mean the punishment Ford got was inappropriate. Certainly the ruling itself highlights the extent to which this case shows Ford's unfitness to govern.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Black Dog

[Sleipnir]

Don't worry, Peeves. Harper will just make Rob Ford a senator.

Sadly enough, that'll probably happen.

[guyser]

When I started a thread about this I think most members agreed that Ford was in the wrong but didn't deserve to lose his job over this.

He shouldnt have lost his job over it, but he did because of himself, not the law nor the rules. The judge did what he had to do because of Fords own sense of entitlement and his words in court.

Ford practically begged the judge to do this.

[Black Dog]

I'm still wondering why, exactly, Ford "didn't deserve" to lose his job over this. What would an appropriate punishment have been?

[guyser]

I'm still wondering why, exactly, Ford "didn't deserve" to lose his job over this. What would an appropriate punishment have been?

If that is asked to me, note I said 'shouldnt have' not didnt deserve"

He shouldnt have let it get this far, he should have known what to say in court (he probably was told) he should have been up on the details of CoI rules et al.

Once he threw all that out the window, he then got what he deserved.

Edited November 26, 2012 by guyser

[The_Squid]

I'm still wondering why, exactly, Ford "didn't deserve" to lose his job over this. What would an appropriate punishment have been?

I'd say 200 hours of community service, but he would just have gotten city staffers to do it....

[Black Dog]

If that is asked to me, note I said 'shouldnt have' not didnt deserve"

He shouldnt have let it get this far, he should have known what to say in court (he probably was told) he should have been up on the details of CoI rules et al.

Once he threw all that out the window, he then got what he deserved.

It was a broad question as there's a sense the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I'm not sure I buy that, for reasons you touch on here. It was a gong show every step of the way, from influence-peddling to get donations to his inability to grasp basic concepts of governance.

Let's face it, though: if he didn't get ousted over this, he would have got caught doing something else down the line you can bet.

[guyser]

Let's face it, though: if he didn't get ousted over this, he would have got caught doing something else down the line you can bet.

He still has the lawsuit going with the restaurant guy. I grant you that will not cost him his job (w/o todays snafu) but it may cost him horribly in the pocketbook.

Methinks Mayor Ford wishes he never signed up for Mayor, and if so, I agree.

ETA; I havent seen nor looked at Ruby's press conference. Were you able to watch and if so, what transpired?

Edited November 26, 2012 by guyser

[Black Dog]

He still has the lawsuit going with the restaurant guy. I grant you that will not cost him his job (w/o todays snafu) but it may cost him horribly in the pocketbook.

Methinks Mayor Ford wishes he never signed up for Mayor, and if so, I agree.

ETA; I havent seen nor looked at Ruby's press conference. Were you able to watch and if so, what transpired?

Didn't watch, followed a bit on twitter. just seemed fairly standard, sad day for Toronto, "It is tragic that the elected mayor of a great city should bring himself to this" and of course "Rob Ford did this to Rob Ford."

Edited November 26, 2012 by Black Dog

[Merlin]

Do we have no one moderate to run this city? We need someone who won't spend us into bankruptcy yet will be compassionate enough to care about the real people of this city that make up the majority. We do not need another Mayor Miller, Toronto needs someone moderate and reasonable.

[Argus]

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...on-release.html

Looks like he has been relieved of duties as mayor. It's a black mark on the city to have had such a disorganized and careless mayor. I guess this means we have to have a new election.

Quite unexpected.

It wasn't a black mark on your city to have the moronic mayors of the past like Miller and Sewal?

Removing an elected official over a technicality is a black mark, imo. If the people are angry at what he did they can vote him out next time around.

[Black Dog]

It wasn't a black mark on your city to have the moronic mayors of the past like Miller and Sewal?

Removing an elected official over a technicality is a black mark, imo. If the people are angry at what he did they can vote him out next time around.

It's not a "technicality."

[Argus]

Adam Vaughan had been saying this morning, not a fan of the mayor at all, that these kind of distractions are bad for the city. The idea that they now have to contemplate who they'll replace the mayor with or will they have another election, will take away from the city's business.

This was a motion done by a private citizen and not Ford's enemies on council. I doubt they are taking pleasure in this ruling.

I'm guessing not only are they taking pleasure, they're ecstatic. Nor do I believe this was done by a 'private citizen'. This was done by Clayton Ruby at the behest of his Left wing political friends. He's highly involved in leftist activism.

[Argus]

I liked what I heard when Ford was running for mayor but he has done nothing of what he said he was going to do once he was elected. Miller spent way too much, Ford seems to be incompetent.

I haven't followed For a lot, but what I have heard sounds very much like what happened in Ottawa with Mayor O'brien. The people wanted a newcomer in the job, but then elected the same old mostly left wing council. The result was council did what it wanted, not what the mayor wanted. In TO they elected a reformist mayor but a leftist council completely uninterested in reform. The result was things pretty much as usual, unsurprisingly. But in both cases I blame the electorate, not the mayors.

[Black Dog]

I'm guessing not only are they taking pleasure, they're ecstatic. Nor do I believe this was done by a 'private citizen'. This was done by Clayton Ruby at the behest of his Left wing political friends. He's highly involved in leftist activism.

So Clayton Ruby made Rob Ford violate the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? Powerful stuff indeed.

[Argus]

I'm still wondering why, exactly, Ford "didn't deserve" to lose his job over this. What would an appropriate punishment have been?

Why do you believe he should have been punished at all? He seems to have violated a technical rule he was unaware of, but he didn't profit by it nor did he intend to.

[Black Dog]

I haven't followed For a lot, but what I have heard sounds very much like what happened in Ottawa with Mayor O'brien. The people wanted a newcomer in the job, but then elected the same old mostly left wing council. The result was council did what it wanted, not what the mayor wanted. In TO they elected a reformist mayor but a leftist council completely uninterested in reform. The result was things pretty much as usual, unsurprisingly. But in both cases I blame the electorate, not the mayors.

Nope. Council here is pretty split between two roughly equal left and right wings and a large mushy middle. Ford had a ton of momentum after the election and the left wing was pretty cowed. He pissed his advantage away pretty quickly with all the knucklehead stuff.

[Argus]

Nope. Council here is pretty split between two roughly equal left and right wings and a large mushy middle. Ford had a ton of momentum after the election and the left wing was pretty cowed. He pissed his advantage away pretty quickly with all the knucklehead stuff.

Same thing in Ottawa, except that 'mushy middle' tends to lean left in both cities. In Ottawa, O'brien is now gone and we have a very professional, and very sleazy professional lifelong political hack in his place. I don't regard that as an improvement. No doubt you'll get the same sort of sleazeball there, and the media and nose-in-the-air lefties will all be delighted.

[Argus]

So Clayton Ruby made Rob Ford violate the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? Powerful stuff indeed.

I'm guessing Ruby knows the law a lot better than Ford, and saw what he'd done and knew it could be used against him. He's probably been on the watch for something similar for some time now. Remember that this vote wasn't even a legal one. A city council can't compel anyone to pay money back to a third party who gave it to a charity.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Argus

[Black Dog]

Why do you believe he should have been punished at all? He seems to have violated a technical rule he was unaware of, but he didn't profit by it nor did he intend to.

Ford had excused himself from votes where there was a potential conflict before, so I call bullshit on him not knowing that was the case this time.

This is basic stuff, not some arcane bit of legalese. Stuff anyone in government as long as Ford was should have known when and how a conflict can arise, but he proudly admitted that he's never read the rules.

As for not profiting from it: he saved $3,000 of his own money. I'd call that a financial benefit.

[Argus]

Ford had excused himself from votes where there was a potential conflict before, so I call bullshit on him not knowing that was the case this time.

This is basic stuff, not some arcane bit of legalese. Stuff anyone in government as long as Ford was should have known when and how a conflict can arise, but he proudly admitted that he's never read the rules.

As for not profiting from it: he saved $3,000 of his own money. I'd call that a financial benefit.

Show me where city council can order anyone to pay back a third party who gave money to another third party. This sounds more like one of those 'resolutions' that councils hold from time to time, like the no nukes one Toronto did a while back, with no legal effect.

[Black Dog]

I'm guessing Ruby knows the law a lot better than Ford, and saw what he'd done and knew it could be used against him. He's probably been on the watch for something similar for some time now.

Point is, this is ultimately on Ford. He had ample opportunities along the way to not end up where he did, starting from not using city resources to solicit donations for his pet cause right down to excusing himself when the question of whether he should pay back the money came up in council. As always, he's his own worst enemy.

[Black Dog]

Show me where city council can order anyone to pay back a third party who gave money to another third party. This sounds more like one of those 'resolutions' that councils hold from time to time, like the no nukes one Toronto did a while back, with no legal effect.

Here's the background from today's ruling:

On August 12, 2010, the City of Toronto Integrity Commissioner issued a report to Toronto City Council (“Council”), concluding that the respondent, Robert Ford (then a member of Council), breached Articles IV (Gifts and Benefits), VI (Use of City Property, Services and Other Resources), and VIII (Improper Use of Influence) of the Code of Conduct.

[4] The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent used the City of Toronto logo, his status as a City Councillor, and City of Toronto resources to solicit funds for a private football foundation he created in his name. The Integrity Commissioner recommended that Council take steps to require that Councillor Ford reimburse $3,150.00 in donations made by lobbyist and corporate donors, and provide confirmation of such reimbursement to the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner’s report, including her recommendations, were adopted by Council on August 25, 2010.

[5] I quote from the Resolution before Council on August 25, 2010:

Councillor Rob Ford used the City of Toronto logo, his status as a City Councillor, and City of Toronto resources to solicit funds for a private football foundation he created in his name. Donors to the Councillor’s foundation included lobbyists, clients of lobbyists and a corporation which does business with the City of Toronto. I concluded that there had been a breach of Articles IV (Gifts and Benefits), VI (Use of City Property, Services and Other Resources) and VIII (Improper Use of Influence) of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council (“The Code of Conduct”).

I recommend that Council impose a sanction that will appropriately address the breaches of the Code of Conduct.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Integrity Commissioner recommends that:

1. City Council adopt the finding that Councillor Rob Ford violated Articles IV, VI and VIII of the Code of Conduct.

2. City Council adopt the recommendation that the following sanction permitted by Article XVIII of the Code of Conduct be imposed:

1. Councillor Ford will reimburse the lobbyist and corporate donors in the amounts listed in the attachment to this report and provide confirmation of such reimbursement to the Integrity Commissioner.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Black Dog

[Argus]

I've now looked up the code of conduct referred to above. I see nothing in there which allows for a demand that a councillor or mayor repay a third party money that councillor/mayor never received. Here are the allowable punishments:

1. A reprimand; or

2. Suspension of the remuneration paid to the member in respect of his or her

services as a member of Council or a local board, as the case may be, for a period

of up to 90 days.

Other Actions

The Integrity Commissioner may also recommend that Council or a local board

(restricted definition) take the following actions:

1. Removal from membership of a Committee or local board (restricted definition).

2. Removal as Chair of a Committee or local board (restricted definition).

3. Repayment or reimbursement of moneys received.

4. Return of property or reimbursement of its value.

5. A request for an apology to Council, the complainant, or both.

http://www.toronto.ca/city_council/pdf/members_code_conduct.pdf

Edited November 26, 2012 by Argus

[Black Dog]

You didn't answer the question, though. Of what legal effect would council's demand that the mayor repay a third party have?

No city funds were involved, correct? So how does council tell someone to repay a third party for money that was given to a charity?

It's the Code of Conduct, which itself draws its powers from the City of Toronto Act.