Rob Ford Turfed ?

[guyser]

Ford may not be taking anything for himself, but he's taking city resources and peddling his influence to solicit money.

That's corruption.

No matter what I know about Ford, corrupt is not on the table ....so far.

The actual meaning of corrupt is a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. So yeahm he sort of gains by not paying the money back, but thats a tad shady of an interpretation.

The City supplied phones on everyones desk is used by the emplyee to call home, check on kids, do all sorts of stuff, as is the computer, but lets not get too picky with some hours of employees used to slay the guy. Enough of his own actions do that.

[jacee]

Ford used city staff and resources to solicit money from lobbyists.

You think they won't expect to get city contracts?

He uses a city vehicle for his football team.

One of his staff works full time organizing and administering the football team in season.

The man is corrupt.

If Rob Ford is so well-intentioned, why doesn't he use his own personal wealth to pay people to organize and fundraise for the football team, supply cars and buses, etc.?

He uses OUR TAX MONEY to save his own money, thus financially benefiting himself through his position as councillor.

That's corruption.

However, a person doesn't have to benefit financially to be corrupt: They might gain favour, consideration, introductions, political support, or any other kind of consideration. It doesn't have to be monetary gain.

Edited November 29, 2012 by jacee

[Boges]

He uses OUR TAX MONEY to save his own money, thus financially benefiting himself through his position as councillor.

That's corruption.

And you have proof of that where?

Sandra Bussin accepted campaign donations from the Boardwalk Pub owner that got a 20 year lease. By your same logic that could be considered corrupt, correct?

Edited November 29, 2012 by Boges

[Merlin]

Let us pray that we find some person to take over who is reasonable and who won't bankrupt us like Miller nearly did.

[guyser]

Let us pray that we find some person to take over who is reasonable and who won't bankrupt us like Miller nearly did.

Bankrupt...surplus....meh, who cares for accuracy.

[Boges]

He uses OUR TAX MONEY to save his own money, thus financially benefiting himself through his position as councillor.

That's corruption.

Other members have gone to great length to say that the money and the donations aren't the reason Ford lost his job. Had he simply not voted on a conflict of interest motion he would have been fine. He also wouldn't have lost his job if he had simply admitted wrong doing before the trial. He was stubborn and ignorant but not corrupt.

[cybercoma]

you have no proof he forced the people to donate or they wouldn't get a contract from the city. Was he even the mayor when these events happened?

She didn't say force. She said he was peddling his influence, which could lead donators to believe the city owes them a favour.

Look, he was in conflict of interest. That goes without saying.

[jacee]

And you have proof of that where?

Sandra Bussin accepted campaign donations from the Boardwalk Pub owner that got a 20 year lease. By your same logic that could be considered corrupt, correct?

If she used her influence to approve the contract, yes.

She lost her seat.

He's still in his.

Despite the tough sounding judgement, Ford will likely stay on until the appeal.

Unless he capitulates to pressure and steps aside ... with pay no doubt.

[scribblet]

And you have proof of that where?

Sandra Bussin accepted campaign donations from the Boardwalk Pub owner that got a 20 year lease. By your same logic that could be considered corrupt, correct?

Isn't she the one who also used public money to sponsor sports teams wearing T-shirts with her name on them; advertising for herself

Don't forget the one who spent $12,000 of taxpayer’s money on a party for himself.

Judge Charles Hackland wrote in a decision released Monday

There was "absolutely no issue of corruption or pecuniary gain" on Ford's part, and , "involved a modest amount of money which he endeavoured to raise for a legitimate charity , which is administered at arm's length through the Community Foundation of Toronto."

[jacee]

Other members have gone to great length to say that the money and the donations aren't the reason Ford lost his job. Had he simply not voted on a conflict of interest motion he would have been fine. He also wouldn't have lost his job if he had simply admitted wrong doing before the trial. He was stubborn and ignorant but not corrupt.

Not for court purposes, no.

But in the actions that landed him there, yes.

The days of staff time and city resources used for private purposes can't be dismissed.It's thousands, tens of thousands of dollars. He has a staff member working full time on the football team/season. (Posted earlier)

Is it ok for ALL councillors to do that?

That gets pretty expensive for taxpayers, and only councillors' pet projects get benefit - favouritism. There will then be demand for equal funding for all charities ... etc etc ...

And that's why it's not allowed.

Municipalities have approved programs for providing some (eg partner) funding for charities and nonprofits and businesses.

Councillors can direct their pet projects to apply to the correct program.

They can't fund them under the table from taxpayer funds not approved for that purpose.

[guyser]

Isn't she the one who also used public money to sponsor sports teams wearing T-shirts with her name on them; advertising for herself

Don't forget the one who spent $12,000 of taxpayer’s money on a party for himself.

What relevance does this have ?

[Argus]

She didn't say force. She said he was peddling his influence, which could lead donators to believe the city owes them a favour.

Riiiiight. Because all those developers who donate money to most city councilors and mayors don't expect any special consideration for their money.... or get it...

[cybercoma]

Riiiiight. Because all those developers who donate money to most city councilors and mayors don't expect any special consideration for their money.... or get it...

Are you saying Ford wasn't in conflict of interest? The Conservative judge was wrong, was he?

[jacee]

Riiiiight. Because all those developers who donate money to most city councilors and mayors don't expect any special consideration for their money.... or get it...

Not supposed to, by the rules in place to prevent that.

If you can prove any do, you can report them.

People break speed limits all the time. Does that mean the speeder who gets caught isn't guilty because not all speeders were caught?

No. You don't avoid consequences because others haven't yet been caught the breaking rules.

Edited November 30, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

True true true....except for the corrupt part.

I dont think Ford is taking anything under the table. Although that may surface with respect to the Chicago trip the Mayor took.

I agree, as far as directly taking money for himself is concerned. But I think that's the only kind of corruption Ford understands.

Personal benefit may not be monetary. It may be political support, community standing, etc.

EG, Rob Ford probably gets some ego strokes, community support and status, probably political support, work for the family company, etc, from his work for the football team. That's all fine if he's earning those kudos by his own efforts, on his own time. Unfortunately, he's (inappropriately) using taxpayer paid staff and resources to gain those benefits for himself.

Theft of resources is theft.

Theft of public resources for personal gain is corruption.

And about the 'own time' thing ... the Star reported that through the entire football season, Ford has nothing on his agenda after 1pm any workday.

Edited November 30, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

On the topic of Rob Ford's "gravy train" ...

Controversial 'Section 37' funds are collected from developers who want increased density, and are used for community improvement. Ford has been vocally opposed to Section 37 "shakedowns".

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2012/10/10/rob-ford-says-he-always-opposed-section-37-funds

"Even when I first got elected 12 years ago, I called it extortion,” Ford said. “I don’t like shaking down developers for money and then, I just think some councillors take advantage of it."

He blew up at Council tonight, calling a proposal in Adam Vaughan's ward a "shakedown", then later retracted that.

And guess whose football team got new dressing rooms via Section 37 funds?

http://m.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1262903--ford-s-office-asked-province-about-money-for-football-field

In 2010,when Ford was running for mayor, he negotiated a Section 37 agreement to approve a nearby Lowe’s development in exchange for a $75,000 company contribution to the change room improvements,which Jakovcic said cost $100,000 to $120,000. The arrangement was publicly disclosed and council as a whole voted in favour of it,three months into Ford’s campaign.

It appears that Ford likes to ride the gravy train ... while throwing others off.

Edited November 30, 2012 by jacee

[WWWTT]

Is this kind of "democracy process" ultimate goal? If it is, why? can it be eaten like food, can it be wear like dress, can it be live in like house? or can it be driven like a car?

If it is not the ultimate goal, is it a means, a method for something else? is it for reflecting most people's want and will? If this is true, can current system meet this requirement? If a law that most people object can be passed, if there are many laws passed every year that most people did not know and possibly against most people's interest, can such a system meet its requirement? can such a system work as designed? in such case, what is the difference between this system and dictator system?

And what if a majority of Canadians said that they do not want people from Chinese descent in Canada to have the same rights as Canadians enjoy?

Or Gays and Lesbians to have the right to marriage and have children?

Are you saying that a "majority" of Canadians have a complete understanding of how our legal system works and our Charter?

If you are,then I disagree with you.

When we vote,we are giving someone the opportunity to make decisions on our behalf.It is imperative, that if such an individual exhibits signs that he/she is incapable of performing the task that was entrusted upon them,that they are removed from being in a position that may bring harm to those who had voted for them.

Are you saying that Rob Ford should be allowed to be left in a position to cause the citizens of Toronto harm?

WWWTT

[Argus]

And he has $3100 in his pocket that he should have paid back so the lobbyists who donated wouldn't expect 'special consideration' for city contracts.

The city of Toronto did not have the authority to order him to pay money to lobbyists that he did not receive.

[Argus]

She didn't say force. She said he was peddling his influence, which could lead donators to believe the city owes them a favour.

The mayor of Ottawa does the same thing for various charities. Mind you, I wouldn't mind if he got the boot since he is, in my opinion, a crook, but you don't see the lefty lawyers volunteering to charge him for it.

[Argus]

Are you saying Ford wasn't in conflict of interest? The Conservative judge was wrong, was he?

On this particular issue I think that the city council was acting beyond its authority in trying to order him to pay money back to those who donated to his charity, something they had no right to do. Should a politician recuse themselves on any vote they have an interest in? Sure. Do they? Almost never. Almost every city councilor in this province takes money from developers, and then does their best to grease the wheels of city hall to get the developers' projects approved, then votes in favor of zoning changes, etc. when necessary. Hell, a developer just got permission here in Ottawa to put up a twenty story building in an area which is zoned for low rises. You think that wasn't because of influence through donations? Of course it was.

So the problem I have, really, is Ford is being punished for doing what almost every politician does. Except his, at least, wasn't for any personal gain. Meanwhile, all those councilors and mayors who dance to the tune the dvelopers are paying for look sober, shake their heads sadly at Ford, and carry on.

You think Clayton Ruby has any interest bringing any of them up on charges?

Edited November 30, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Legal opinion on the goings on surrounding Ford's case, and legal errors.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/28/christie-blatchford-controversy-grows-over-why-judge-took-nuclear-option-in-rob-ford-ruling/

[jacee]

The city of Toronto did not have the authority to order him to pay money to lobbyists that he did not receive.

In your (incorrect) opinion.

The City of Toronto has a responsibility to make sure that money is returned if solicited from lobbyists looking for city contracts, using city resources.

Question:

Why did Ford choose to solicit money from the list of LOBBYISTS seeking city contracts?

Why didn't he use a list of his political supporters, his friends, the phone book ... ANYTHING BUT a list of lobbyists seeking favours from him?

Edited November 30, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

On this particular issue I think that the city council was acting beyond its authority in trying to order him to pay money back to those who donated to his charity, something they had no right to do. Should a politician recuse themselves on any vote they have an interest in? Sure. Do they? Almost never. Almost every city councilor in this province takes money from developers, and then does their best to grease the wheels of city hall to get the developers' projects approved, then votes in favor of zoning changes, etc. when necessary. Hell, a developer just got permission here in Ottawa to put up a twenty story building in an area which is zoned for low rises. You think that wasn't because of influence through donations? Of course it was.

If you have evidence of that, you should report it.

It'll end when WE step up and end it.

So the problem I have, really, is Ford is being punished for doing what almost every politician does. Except his, at least, wasn't for any personal gain. Meanwhile, all those councilors and mayors who dance to the tune the dvelopers are paying for look sober, shake their heads sadly at Ford, and carry on.

You think Clayton Ruby has any interest bringing any of them up on charges?

Any citizen can, with evidence.

Any citizen has the responsibility to do so, with evidence.

You're a perfect example of the cynicism and 'learned helplessness' that infests Canadians because systemic corruption infests our governments.

Time for a change.

Time for US to step up and call it what it is.

Edited November 30, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

The mayor of Ottawa does the same thing for various charities. Mind you, I wouldn't mind if he got the boot since he is, in my opinion, a crook, but you don't see the lefty lawyers volunteering to charge him for it.

A citizen brought the charges.

Any citizen can.

YOU can.

Edited November 30, 2012 by jacee

[Fletch 27]

I find it ammusing that Adam iambrone can bone a girl in the taxpayer funded office, during work hours, on a taxpayer funded couch, and still be allowed to remain IN city hall. I think Rob has more respect for Toronto than the left leaning councilors