Wetcoaster Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 The fact that he even became mayor says enough about how flawed our system is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 And much hilarity ensued at the council meeting today when Ford lost it... again. The City Council session concerned a provision that allows the city to provide height for developers in exchange for money to ensure the demands of the city by increased tenancy is taken care of. Adam Vaughan had negotiated a million dollar settlement from developers instead of letting it go to the Ontario Municipal Board. At the OMB, the outcome is much less certain, and it could lead to a taller building with no extra support for the city. Rob Ford bumbled around and was called out for his lack of knowledge. At one point, Councillor Doug Ford yelled “I’ll whoop both your *****,” — apparently at councillors Adam Vaughan and Gord Perks — during the final hours of what could be his brother Rob Ford’s final council meeting as mayor. Tensions started to boil when Rob Ford attacked Vaughan over his proposal that council approve a zoning amendment for a new building at 219 Queen St. W. in exchange for the developer donating $1 million for so-called Section 37 community benefits. City staff recommended council not approve Vaughan’s motion, saying they would prefer a small building on the site, but conceded he negotiated the agreement with their input and that, without it, the developer would take the project to the Ontario Municipal Board where it might be approved without any community benefits. “All I’m saying is that looks like a shakedown,” said the mayor, who has recently railed against Section 37 funds although they do not personally benefit a councillor and, as Ward 2 councillor, he himself used them to get a new dressing room for the school where he coaches football. “You cannot go up to a developer and say I want $1 million when staff say they don’t want it.” Vaughan fired back: “What is wrong with this building?” and repeated it as Ford acknowledged he knew nothing about the project itself, but that he disagreed with the process. Ford, who has been reprimanded in the past by the city’s integrity commissioner for such statements, later relented: “If I offended the local councillors saying it was a shakedown, I withdraw that.” But tensions heated up over another issue, prompting Ford to call Vaughan “an outright liar.” “You just cool your jets, Mr. Mayor,” Deputy Speaker John Parker told him at one point. During another exchange, Doug Ford yelled, “Why don’t you shut up and sit down?” The summary: The clip begins with councillor Adam Vaughan asking Mayor Rob Ford what exactly his objection is to the proposed zoning change. The Mayor responds that the deal with the developer to pay an additional $1 million sounds like a shakedown. 4.30: Councillor Gord Perks asks Ford whether the mayor had attended any of the meetings about the zoning issue in question. Perks and Ford then have a heated exchange. 7.50: The Mayor says he will withdraw the term 'shakedown'. 8.45: Perks continues with the questions to the mayor, asking whether Ford's objections are ameliorated by the fact that the community was part of the negotiations with the developer. 11.00: Councillor Nunziata questions the mayor to clarify his objection to the zoning issue. 13.15: Councillor Shelley Carroll asks the mayor whether he was listening when city staff agreed with councillor Vaughan about the dangers of letting the zoning issue get settled with he Ontario Municipal Board. 16.20: Councillor Doug Ford blasts council for working directly with developers. 18.30: Councillor Perks wonders whether council has hit rock bottom. A couple of reports on the latest fractious council meeting. Rob Ford accuses Adam Vaughan of a ‘shake down,’ calls him a ‘liar’ in heated Toronto City Council session http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/30/rob-ford-accuses-adam-vaughan-of-a-shake-down-calls-him-a-liar-in-heated-toronto-city-council-session/ Rob Ford involved in shouting match at council http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/30/toronto-rob-found-council.html?autoplay=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 An interesting column going through the entire history of the events in depth that led to Ford being ordered removed from office highlighting how Rob Ford simply ignored advice, warnings and help so that in the end Justice Hackland had no option left under the law as written. Toronto’s political system is equipped with numerous fail-safe mechanisms to keep a mayor out of legal trouble. Mayor Rob Ford managed to crash through every one and land in a heap, steps from being tossed out of office. How it happened is an unprecedented tale of arrogance, hubris, incompetence, stubbornness and, in the words of Justice Charles Hackland, “willful blindness.” It’s been reported that Ford ignored as many as six letters from city council’s integrity commissioner to comply with the rules that now threaten to abort his mayoralty, midterm. What many may not know is the extent to which Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper, Ford’s council allies and opponents, staff, advisers — Justice Hackland, even — tried to avert the pending disaster. This is the story of how Ford burned through all the firewalls erected to protect him from himself. The saga began when Ford was a penny-pinching Ward 2 councillor, constantly attacking the way councillors spent taxpayers’ money. To underscore how colleagues used their office budgets as a slush fund — all legal, mind you — Ford used his own family wealth to finance his city hall office. He provided his own stationery and postage. While the average councillor filed annual expenses of $40,000, Ford filed a ridiculous $2. By presenting himself as Mr. Clean, the spending police, Ford attracted attention even as his fame grew on talk radio and among his anti-government, anti-taxes, anti-union constituency. Ford announced his candidacy for mayor on radio on March 25, 2010. Six weeks later, Leiper received a complaint from a citizen. The complainant, not a ward constituent, had received a donation request from Ford on his councillor letterhead, postmarked March 19. The money was for Ford’s football foundation, a charity set up in 2008 to buy football equipment for struggling high school teams. The complainant wrote that the letter “left me uncomfortable. While it was not stated in words, there was a clear sense of an implied suggestion that a donation to his charity might serve me well should he be elected mayor.” It wasn’t the first such complaint. In December 2009 and February 2010, Leiper had warned Ford to separate his private fundraising efforts from his public councillor’s job and not use city hall letterhead to raise money. Now, she advised Ford again — twice in person and twice by telephone — to no avail. Ford responded: “I do not understand why it would be inappropriate to solicit funds for an arms-length charitable cause using my regular employment letterhead.” The complaint had no basis in policy or law, he wrote. Besides, a “worthy cause would be undermined by an inconsequential complaint about the use of letterhead.” Leiper asked him to reconsider. Councillor Ford refused to amend his response. The two previous complaints give insights into Ford’s thinking. “On Nov. 11, 2009, a member of the public provided a copy of a mailing received from Councillor Ford which contained the same “Dear Friends” letter requesting donations to the football foundation, along with a copy of the news article, a business card from Rob Ford, Councillor, a fridge magnet for Rob Ford Etobicoke North Councillor and a promotional sticker for Deco Labels and Tags, the Ford family business.” Ford agreed it was improper to include the Deco sticker in the mailing. But he added a couple of telling twists that would recur as he plunged deeper into trouble. For one, city letterhead paper isn’t city property because he paid for it out of his own pocket, Ford argued. Secondly, his fundraising falls within city business because it assists underprivileged residents. And, he maintained, the Toronto Community Foundation (TCF), which administers his charitable foundation, had approved the content of his fundraising. He was wrong on all counts and Leiper told him so, Dec. 10, 2009. City council had established the position of integrity commissioner to assist politicians with issues not clearly black and white. When in doubt on a code of conduct issue, councillors were to check with the commissioner and go with her advice or risk a complaint and a finding of violation. Leiper was clear that Ford’s actions were improper. By “asking citizens for money for a personal cause on councillor letterhead, there is a risk that you could be seen to be using your influence as a councillor to raise money for your private foundation,” Leiper wrote to Ford. She reported that “Councillor Ford was advised that lobbyists or developers who might want to seek his support in his role as councillor might feel that they could do that by making donations to his named foundation. “Finally, I identified the City of Toronto logo as being property of the City of Toronto that is subject to the Use of Corporate Logo, Donations and Sponsorships policy to be used only for officially sanctioned City of Toronto business.” Separate your councillor business from your private fundraising efforts, Ford was told. He apologized to the complainant, but would continue to violate the code of conduct. Leiper’s probe uncovered other troubling facets of Ford’s fundraising efforts, later reported to council. • Ford’s Ward 2 website improperly featured links for donations to his private charity. • Ford frequently used office staff and city resources to solicit funds and manage the foundation on city time. • Ford’s mayoral campaign website boasted that his foundation had donated $100,000 to eight schools. Leiper’s investigation uncovered records showing the foundation had raised only $37,294.68 and assisted four schools since its inception. • There was a “lack of rigour to record-keeping by Councillor Ford that included deleting or discarding the source material used to create the mailing lists, and the details of financial reporting.” • Ford failed to provide records showing his donor list — records Leiper needed to check to see how many were registered as lobbyists. Leiper asked Ford if he was aware he was soliciting from lobbyists. He first denied knowing, then acknowledged that he knew two of them. “I asked him if he had been lobbied after he had received a donation from them. He responded that it was ‘ridiculous to say something like that.’ Neither he, nor his assistant, responded to requests to confirm whether they had met with the lobbying firm.” • Leiper found 26 businesses who donated to Ford’s charity between August 2009 and May 7, 2010. Eleven had been lobbying city hall for business during this time. Seven of the 11 were registered to lobby Ford. The lobbyists donated $3,150 to Ford’s charity. • One donor ($400 in 2009) received “multi-million-dollar contracts spanning 2009-2011,” awarded by the city through competitive bidding. If there were any doubts as to Leiper’s concerns, her Aug. 10, 2010, report to council erased them. Strict rules on both sides exist to ensure city hall lobbying is transparent and conducted with integrity. She quoted directly from Justice Denise Bellamy, who headed up the Toronto Leasing Inquiry into one of the city’s biggest scandals: “When public office holders, elected or not, accept meals, gifts, entertainment and other favours from those attempting to influence them, they corrode public trust.” Bellamy’s “list of problematic corporate benefits” included donations to charitable events sponsored by public office holders, Leiper said. She detailed the improper nature of Ford’s actions: “In this case, Councillor Ford solicited and received donations from lobbyists to his named private foundation, on City of Toronto official letterhead from his office at city hall where he conducts his councillor business. “In return for these donations from lobbyists, Councillor Ford received the benefit of additional funding to his foundation, which he used to enhance his reputation both as a councillor via his website and as a candidate by including this information in his campaign materials.” Ford usually called all donors to personally thank them. Sometimes, more money was requested. “This was not an “arm’s-length” arrangement,” Leiper wrote, as Ford “combined the roles of public office holder and private citizen. It would be understandable if those who made donations concluded that they were ‘doing the councillor a favour’ by making a donation to his foundation.” Leiper then addressed head-on the argument that the donations were for a good cause. “The validity of the charitable cause is not the point. The more attractive the cause or charity, the greater the danger that other important questions will be overlooked, including who is being asked to donate, how are they being asked, who is doing the asking, and is it reasonable to conclude that a person being asked for money will take into account the position of the person asking for the donation. “Where there is an element of personal advantage (in this case, the publication of the councillor’s good works, even beyond what they had actually achieved), it is important not to let the fact that it is “all for a good cause” justify using improper methods for financing that cause. “People who are in positions of power and influence must make sure their private fundraising does not rely on the metaphorical ‘muscle’ of perceived or actual influence in obtaining donations.” More than two years later, Justice Hackland was to lift those three last paragraphs, word for word, in his judgment. He said Leiper’s was “an excellent report” which he did “respectfully endorse.” It had a similar effect on council, led by former mayor David Miller. On Aug. 25, 2010, council approved Leiper’s recommendations that Ford must reimburse the lobbyists’ $3,150. In opposing the move, Ford made a critical error. When Speaker Sandra Bussin called for the vote she specifically reminded Ford he had a conflict of interest in that the matter involved a financial benefit to him. Ford ignored her and voted. “Having ignored my warning, there was nothing more I could do,” Bussin said in an affidavit filed in the conflict of interest case. Ford wasn’t done. He refused to reimburse the lobbyists, and ignored six letters from Leiper urging him to comply. Ford won the mayoralty in October 2010. Fifteen months later, Leiper reported his noncompliance and asked council to enforce its order, effective March 2012. Leiper noted one final defiance on Ford’s part: Instead of repaying the $3,150, Ford wrote to the donors and then told Leiper they did not want to be reimbursed. Unimpressed, Leiper reported that to ask the donors to forgive the repayment was piling impropriety on top of impropriety. But this was now a new council, led by Ford himself. And some of the normal barriers to impropriety had been removed, thanks to new political alliances. While Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, Ford’s attack dog, publicly excoriated the report, some councillors were working behind the scenes to resolve the matter. Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a left-winger not on Ford’s team, says he approached Ford’s staff on the night of the council vote last February with a face-saving motion. Perruzza would move that Ford be forgiven the repayment if he conceded he’d done wrong and not debate the issue. Meanwhile, Councillor Michael Thompson, a Ford ally, was in the mayor’s ear. “I told him, ‘Don’t speak on the matter,’” Thompson recalled Wednesday. “And just before the vote, I said, ‘Just step outside for a minute, don’t vote.’” But Ford did speak, influencing his colleagues. Before the Perruzza motion was crafted the debate was cut short, and Ford voted with the majority in a 22-12 decision to rescind the previous council decision and free him from repaying the $3,150. “People now say, ‘Why didn’t you guys warn him?’ Well, we did,” said Thompson. Citizen Paul Magder took Ford to court, where the mayor argued his vote was inadvertent, an error; that council didn’t have the right to order the repayment; and that the amount was so small as to make the violation insignificant. Justice Hackland searched for every crack in the law to avoid using the sledgehammer on the mayor of just two years. But Ford bulldozed ahead, destroying himself with his own testimony. Ford protested strongly against paying the $3,150 — so “his pecuniary interest in the recommended repayment of $3,150 was of significance to him,” Hackland had to conclude. Following the dictate of the law, he found Ford guilty and ordered his removal from office by Dec. 10. On Wednesday, Ford will seek to suspend that decision, pending an appeal to be heard Jan. 7. Stating the obvious, as kindly as he could put it, Hackland wrote in his decision: “It is difficult to accept an error in judgment 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, (Ford’s) actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to willful blindness.” Only now, you know Mayor Ford could not have been ignorant of the law after so many warnings; neither did he lack professional advice. He simply defied logic once too often, with no council allies or integrity commissioner present to save his skin. http://www.thestar.c...lf-from-himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Ford played by the rules governing the election of the mayor in Toronto and when he failed to play by the rules governing his conduct once in office he was ordered removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 Justice Gladys Pardu of the Ontario Divisional Court granted Ford's application to stay last week's ruling that he vacate his seat. Pardu's ruling means Ford can keep his job until the appeal process concludes. The application was not opposed by Paul Magder - the plaintiff in the originating suit. Here is the ruling: http://www.canlii.ca...12onsc6929.html Ford's appeal of the removal order issued by Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles T. Hackland will be heard in Ontario Divisional Court on Jan. 7, with a decision expected soon after. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...oval-order.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudeone Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Are two heads better than none? Ideas on replacing Toronto Mayor Rob Ford By Matthew Coutts | Daily Brew – Fri, 14 Dec, 2012 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/two-heads-better-none-ideas-replacing-toronto-mayor-171615245.html If Rob Ford loses his appeal to remain mayor of Toronto, what would you think of two co-mayors holding the spot until the 2014 election? That is one of the latest solutions raised at city hall, where rumblings continue about how the city would proceed should Ford be ousted from office sometime in thee new year. You will recall that Ford won his bid to stay on as mayor until he has appealed a court ruling that he broke conflict of interest laws by participating in a debate over whether he should be forced to pay back questionable donations. Ford slipped out of town earlier this week to take a much-needed vacation before his appeal process begins on Jan. 7. But that hasn't stopped the city from buzzing. Although most attention has turned from his crumbling career to the city's crumbling Gardiner Expressway. [ Related: Rob Ford 'very glad' to keep Toronto mayoralty for now ] The Toronto Star reports that Ford's office was left in the dark over the full extent to the concern surrounding the elevated expressway. And, as the National Post reports, there is talk of privatizing the highway or possibly imposing tolls. Ford has been outspokenly opposed to tolls on other Toronto highways, so one would easily infer his response to such suggestions. Of course, if he loses his appeal, that opinion would be moot. The Toronto Star's Daniel Dale has a handy breakdown on the four points Ford's lawyer will argue at his appeal. On most points, Alan Lenczner's argument is that Justice Charles Hackland erred in the way he made various conclusions that led to the decision. Should the three-judge Divisional Court panel reject the appeal, council will be tasked with finding a replacement for Ford until the 2014 municipal election. [ Related: Rob Ford apparently very happy about keeping his job ] The Toronto Sun's Don Peat has been taking the temperature of various Toronto councillors and drummed up a number of interesting possibilities:TTC chairman Karen Stintz says Ford should be given a chance to reclaim his seat in a byelection.Coun. Josh Matlow also supports a byelection unless an appropriate caretaker mayor comes forward. He floated the names of former Ontario PC leader John Tory and former mayor David Crombie as examples.Coun. Giorgio Mammoliti doesn't want a byelection and says Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday should lead.Coun. Paula Fletcher raised the idea of appointing co-mayors as a way to appease both sides of the split council. Fletcher says the idea of co-mayors could be the outside-the-box idea necessary to succeed, but it is also likely to cause as much trouble as it avoids. On one hand, two heads are better than one. On the other, we haven't been doing any worse without a mayor at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 24, 2012 Author Share Posted December 24, 2012 The Plaintiff in the lawsuit Paul Magder is asking Justice Hackland's decision to oust Hizzoner Rob Ford from office be upheld as his actions were deliberate and he demonstrates no remorse. ‘Nothing less than the integrity of government is at stake’: Rob Ford must be ousted says man who brought him to trial The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act must be “interpreted harshly” to ensure the maintenance of public trust in elected officials, argues the man seeking Mayor Rob Ford’s ouster. “Nothing less than the integrity of government is at stake,” Paul Magder contends in a factum filed two weeks before the mayor goes to court to fight his removal order. Mr. Magder, backed by high-profile lawyer Clayton Ruby, categorically rejects each of the mayor’s grounds for appeal, maintaining the November decision of Justice Charles Hackland — to boot Mr. Ford from office for contravening the Act by voting on a motion in which he had a pecuniary interest — should stand. “The appellant admitted to speaking on and voting on the motion deliberately. On cross-examination, he said he would ‘absolutely’ do it again,” notes the factum, filed in divisional court Monday. “Even as he went to trial on this issue, he has absolutely no regrets.” The case centres on a February council meeting, during which Mr. Ford voted to rescind a previous council resolution requiring him to repay $3,150 in donations to his football foundation, after the integrity commissioner found he improperly used city resources to solicit funds. By participating in that vote and debate, Mr. Ford violated conflict-of-interest legislation, Judge Hackland found. He consequently imposed the mandatory penalty, which is removal from office. The mayor later received a stay of that order, pending the outcome of his Jan. 7 appeal. In his appeal filings, Mr. Ford’s lawyer says city council had no jurisdiction to require the mayor to repay the $3,150 in the first place — deeming the resolution “ultra vires,” or beyond their powers — and notes the city “neither stood to benefit or lose” by any vote on the matter. He also argues the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act had “no application to the circumstances of this case,” which was initially investigated as a complaint under the City of Toronto Act, legislation that serves a different purpose and contains different penalty provisions. Mr. Magder, who rejects the appeal grounds one by one, says city council did not exceed its authority by requiring Mr. Ford to repay the $3,150. However, “even if the appellant’s ultra vires argument is correct, it cannot be a valid ground for appeal… The debate and vote that are challenged in these proceedings occurred some two years [after the original resolution],” Mr. Magder’s legal team argues in the written factum. The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the City of Toronto Act “do not exist as distinct silos, [but as] complementary pieces of legislation with common purposes,” the factum adds. Mr. Magder also disputes the mayor’s suggestion that Judge Hackland erred in discounting Mr. Ford’s defence that he made a genuine error in judgment when voting on the repayment motion. “To the contrary,” Mr. Magder’s lawyers argue, “there was an abundance of evidence that the appellant’s contravention of the [Municipal Conflict of Interest Act] was wanton, reckless and completely lacking bona fides… The appellant’s history of violating the code of conduct as well as his complete failure to make himself aware of his responsibilities as a member of council (despite his long tenure on council) demonstrate an attitude that the rules do not apply to him.” http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/24/nothing-less-than-the-integrity-of-government-is-at-stake-rob-ford-must-be-ousted-says-man-who-brought-him-to-trial/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 The lower court decision to oust Mayor Rob Ford was before a three judge appeal panel today and a quick decision has been promised. And in true Rob Ford style he seems to have done it yet again in what may be his final day as Mayor - Hizzonner voted against his own budget and that left even a number of his supports shaking their collective heads and even the Toronto Sun which acts as his unofficial PR firm dubbing him "Sideshow Rob" for his latest antics. Mayor Rob Ford’s political future is now in the hands of three judges. The mayor of Canada’s largest city vowed Monday to keep “fighting for the taxpayers” as he awaits the ruling in his appeal of a judge’s decision to toss him from office for violating the municipal conflict of interest act during a Feb. 2012 council meeting. Last November, a judge ordered Ford removed from office for taking part in a vote that he repay $3,150 raised for his football charity. The ruling was stayed, pending the outcome of the appeal. The panel of justices which heard Ford’s appeal did not provide a date for the release of their judgement. However, after hearing arguments from Ford’s lawyer, Alan Lenczner, and Toronto resident Paul Magder’s lawyer, Clayton Ruby, the panel’s senior judge Justice Edward Then promised a “prompt decision.” If Ford wins the appeal, he’ll be able to stay in office for the rest of his term. If the appeal fails, Ford will lose his seat and City Hall will go into a political tailspin ahead of council’s decision on whether to appoint a replacement or hold a mayoral byelection. Ford — who was accompanied by his brother, Councillor Doug Ford, and several of his staff — sat quietly through the legal arguments in the packed Toronto courtroom Monday. Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday and Councillor Frances Nunziata also sat with the mayor for some of the court proceedings. As he left Osgoode Hall Monday night, Ford said he plans to keep working despite the looming decision. “I can’t say anything about today’s court proceedings. All I know is I’m going to continue fighting for the taxpayers like I always have,” he said. Ford promised he would be at executive committee “first thing (Tuesday) morning” and said he looked forward to getting the city’s 2013 budget finalized and passed by council this month. “Just keep fighting for the taxpayers. It’s all about customer service. There is a lot of good infrastructure money in this budget - that’s what people want and that’s exactly what I’m going to do,” he said. The mayor refused to say if he’s worried he’s going to lose his job. “I’m going to continue fighting for the taxpayers. I’ve got a lot of phone calls I’ve got to go home to make right now. I’ve got a lot of emails I’ve got to respond to,” he said. “I just want to thank everyone for the outpouring of support that I got. Lenczner argued Ford’s violation of the municipal conflict of interest act at the February council meeting was an error in judgement. He showed the court video of the mayor’s speech at the council meeting in question, citing it as proof he had a “demeanor of an honest man. “Do we want to throw out a mayor who served the city? Who was elected by these people because he voted on one occasion? There is no pecuniary detriment to the city and no benefit,” Lenczner said. Lawyer Nader Hasan, Ruby’s colleague, argued the municipal conflict of interest act must apply in Ford’s case and the original court decision ousting the mayor must stand. “The municipal conflict of interest act belongs to the people. It is a way for the people to police government and it is a way for people to hold government to account when government behaves unethically,” Hasan told court. He submitted that “reading down” the conflict of interest act would carve out a “whole swath of misconduct” for municipal officials. http://www.torontosu...t#disqus_thread And the "Sideshow Rob" article from the Toronto Sun: We have a new nickname for Mayor Rob Ford. It’s Sideshow Rob, in tribute to the famous Simpsons character Sideshow Bob. Sideshow Bob spends most of his time in Springfield, plotting to kill Bart. Sideshow Rob spends most of his time in Toronto, plotting to kill his own credibility. Ford’s latest handiwork occurred at Tuesday’s council meeting — which may be his last as mayor. If so, Ford will have gone out in style — defending his proposed 2013 budget, including a 2% property tax increase, at a morning press conference, before entering the council chamber and voting against it and in support of a 0% tax increase. Never mind that the tax freeze was proposed in a pie-in-the sky motion by Coun. Giorgio Mammoliti, whose bright idea for paying for it was a floating casino that he apparently pulled out of his ... hat. Never mind that the publicity-happy Mammoliti’s silly proposal lost by a vote of 40-4, with Ford then switching sides and voting with the majority in favour of his own 2% tax hike, 36-8. The problem is Ford still doesn’t understand you can’t pull stunts like this when you’re the mayor. We say this as firm supporters of Ford’s fiscal agenda, which we have backed from his first day as mayor. You can’t suddenly pull out the rug from your political allies — who are backing you on a 2% tax increase — just so you can engage in some meaningless, last-minute grandstanding in order to claim you were against your own tax hike. No wonder Ford supporters like Coun. Denzil Minnan-Wong were ticked off by his antics. For Coun. Doug Ford to then accuse Minnan-Wong of playing politics was absurd, since his brother was the one playing games. Sadly, if Rob Ford loses his appeal and is booted from office for violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, it’s nonsense like this that will define his administration. Ford is right on the big issues — controlling city spending, contracting out, eliminating waste. The problem is he repeatedly shoots himself in the foot, whether voting against his own budget, or voting on an issue in which he had a conflict of interest, while even his own council allies shouted at him not to do it. http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/15/sideshow-rob-does-it-again#disqus_thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Dam it, Wet .. do you REALLY consider TO to be the "big show"? .. I am gonna start a fund raising group to raise enough cash to buy you a round trip ticket to next weeks Council meeting .. includes room, $200.00 cash and a voucher for Young street .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 Hizzonner will learn Friday if he keeps his second job as Mayor of TO. if he loses he can devote more time to his beloved high school football team. Toronto Mayor Rob Ford will learn Friday whether he can keep his job. A three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court will release its decision at 10:30 a.m. on Friday. Ford is appealing a judicial order to remove him from office, after an Ontario Superior Court justice ruled in November that he had violated conflict-of-interest rules during a council vote last year. His appeal went before the court earlier this month. The decision will be made available online. Ford's lawyer, Alan Lenczner, argued during the appeal that forcing Ford to relinquish the Toronto mayoralty is a "draconian" punishment for an honest error in judgment in his interpretation of conflict-of-interest rules. Lenczner argued that the mayor misinterpreted the law when he voted in favour of a council motion that would have absolved him from an earlier council directive to repay $3,150 in donations made by lobbyists to his football charity. In November, Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles T. Hackland found Ford violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and ordered the mayor to vacate his seat. The act does say that violation of conflict of interest rules would result in automatic expulsion from office, save for an error in judgment or if the money involved was too small to be classified a pecuniary amount. Lenczner cited both provisions in his arguments to the three-judge panel hearing the appeal. He also argued that city council did not have the power to order Ford to pay back the donations, and that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act only applies when the city or a council member gains money, which he says did not apply in Ford's case. Moreover, the penalty for violating the act — removal from office — is "draconian" and punishes not only Ford, but the electorate that sent him to office by a margin of 100,000 votes, Lenczner said. The legal proceedings stem from a complaint filed 10 months ago by Toronto resident Paul Magder, who alleged Ford had violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by speaking and voting on a matter in which he had a financial interest. After Hackland ruled Ford had broken conflict-of-interest rules and should be removed from office, the mayor successfully sought a stay of the decision which has allowed him to keep his job while the appeal process takes place. If the mayor loses his appeal, city council will have to decide whether to hold a multimillion-dollar byelection, or simply appoint someone to take over for the remaining two years of Ford's term. Council could also appoint Ford himself to serve out the rest of his term. Ford has said he would run again for mayor at the earliest opportunity if his appeal fails and he is ousted from office. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...d-decision.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 And tomorrow at 7:30am PST the decision comes down from the three judge panel - here are five possible outcomes: Tomorrow is judgment day for Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. After a tumultuous two years in office and a court challenge to his leadership that began 10 months ago, Ford and the rest of the city will find out at 10:30 a.m. ET Friday whether he can keep his job. Here are five possible outcomes for Canada's most well known mayor: Outcome 1: Ford keeps his job Ford is appealing a judicial order to remove him from office after Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles T. Hackland ruled in November that he had violated conflict-of-interest rules during a council vote last year. A three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court heard the appeal, during which Ford's lawyer, Alan Lenczner, argued that forcing Ford to relinquish the Toronto mayoralty is a "draconian" punishment for an honest error in judgment in his interpretation of conflict-of-interest rules. Lenczner argued that the mayor misinterpreted the law when he voted in favour of a council motion that would have absolved him from an earlier council directive to repay $3,150 in donations made by lobbyists to his football charity. The panel could side with Lenczner, overturn the decision, and secure Ford's job until the next election in the fall of 2014. Outcome 2: The case is sent back for a new trial A little-discussed outcome, but possible according the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, is that the court could send the case back for a new trial, resetting the process to square one. Outcome 3: Ford loses his job, council appoints a replacement If the appeal panel upholds Hackland's decision, Ford will be forced to vacate his seat and city councillors will have three ways forward: appoint a new mayor, re-appoint Ford, or call a byelection. Their next scheduled meeting is Feb. 20, though a special meeting could be convened sooner. Coun. Adam Vaughan, a frequent critic of the mayor, has said that the public may need to look to someone new to take the lead at city hall. "While the mayor has been eager to sort of play out his political career in the court chamber, we actually need him in the council chamber," he said. "And if we can’t get him, it's probably time for Toronto to look towards stronger leadership from somebody else." The replacement could be a councillor or a citizen of the city, needing a 23-vote majority of council. However, CBC reporter Jamie Strashin said this option does not seem likely, based on his discussions with councillors at City Hall, including Coun. Janet Davis. "I have concern about an appointment process," she said. "I think that the back hall arm-twisting and deal making will start, because any councillor who wants to be an interim mayor through appointment will be looking for 23 votes." Option 4: Ford loses his job, council re-appoints him Council could decide to simply put Ford back in the mayor's chair. Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday is a Ford ally who is considered a prime candidate to be voted to the chair through appointment, but he'd prefer council give it back to Ford. "I think it's a matter of justice and fairness and if councillors will set politics aside for a moment, I think that they will see what I’m talking about it," Holyday has said. "The fact is the judge said that the law is a blunt instrument in this case, which means that the penalty doesn’t fit what’s happened. It’s far too severe." Holyday said two weeks ago that he thinks 12 to 15 councillors would vote to a reappoint Ford, but he would have to round up 23 votes in order to secure a majority that would allow for Ford to be reappointed. Option 5: The city goes to the polls Council could also decide to hold a byelection. The mayor's brother and political ally, Coun. Doug Ford, said at the time of the appeal that a byelection should be called to let voters decide the issue — a contest that would cost the city millions of dollars. "What price do you put on democracy?" Doug Ford has said. The mayor has said he would run in any byelection. Potential opponents bandied about by the media and other political watchers have included councillors Adam Vaughan, Shelley Carroll, Denzil Minnan-Wong and Karen Stintz, as well as Trinity-Spadina MP Olivia Chow. "We believe in democracy, that the people elect our leaders," Doug Ford said in early January. "Judges do not elect our leaders and we’re going to bring it to the people if this appeal doesn’t go through and that's it, folks." http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/5-possible-outcomes-for-rob-ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 And the decision is in... Hizzonner Rob Ford lives... verdict overturned on appeal. http://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/decisions/2013ONSC0263.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 Hizzonner is not out of the woods yet. A forensic audit of his campaign financial practices is expected to be released next week. If the audit finds violations of elections law, Ford faces possible penalties that include fines and, once more, removal from office. Even if Mayor Rob Ford wins his conflict of interest appeal this winter, he may still face serious legal trouble: the long-awaited audit of his campaign financial practices will be released in January, the lead auditor said Friday. The auditor, Bruce Armstrong of Froese Forensic Partners, would not reveal anything about his conclusions. If Armstrong finds that Ford violated the Municipal Elections Act, the city’s compliance audit committee, composed of three experts in elections law, could either do nothing or pursue the possibility of non-criminal charges. Ford would face potential penalties including a fine of up to $25,000, removal from office, and — highly unlikely — prison time. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1302673--more-trouble-for-rob-ford-audit-results-coming-in-january The long-running soap opera "As the Ford Turns" continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 Here is an image burned into my mind that is going to drive me to drink copious amounts of alcohol according to what Hizzonner's brother Councillor Doug Ford said happened when the news of the appeal win came down. The moment they received the decision, “we jumped up and I gave him a big hug. Handshakes all around,” Councillor Ford said. Truly scary,eh? And in related news Earthquakes Canada (a division of Natural Resources Canada) reported a strong tremor with an epicentre near Toronto City Hall at approximately 1030 hours (ET) detected by the Canadian National Seismograph Network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 THE BEST OF ROB FORD: Rob Ford on... ...public health: "If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn't get AIDS probably, that's bottom line... those are the facts." ...urban planning: "What I compare bike lanes to is swimming with the sharks. Sooner or later you're going to get bitten... Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks, not for people on bikes. My heart bleeds for them when I hear someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day." ...immigration: "Those Oriental people work like dogs. They work their hearts out. They are workers non-stop. They sleep beside their machines. That's why they're successful in life. I went to Seoul, South Korea, I went to Taipei, Taiwan. I went to Tokyo, Japan. That's why these people are so hard workers [sic]. I'm telling you, the Oriental people, they're slowly taking over." ...diversity: "I don't understand. Number one, I don't understand a transgender. I don't understand. Is it a guy dressed up like a girl, or a girl dressed up like a guy? And we're funding this for -– I don't know, what does it say here –- we're giving them $3,210?" ...procuring Oxycontin: "I'll try, buddy, I'll try. I don't know this crap [Oxycontin], but I'll ???? try to find it. Why don't you go on the street and score it? frack, you know, I don't know any drug dealers at all." ...being asked to be quiet at a Maple Leafs game: "Are you some kind of right-wing commie bastard?... Do you want your little wife to go over to Iran and get raped and shot?... Green party ???? rules." http://gawker.com/59...dium=socialflow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 THE BEST OF ROB FORD: Rob Ford on... ...public health: "If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn't get AIDS probably, that's bottom line... those are the facts." ...urban planning: "What I compare bike lanes to is swimming with the sharks. Sooner or later you're going to get bitten... Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks, not for people on bikes. My heart bleeds for them when I hear someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day." ...immigration: "Those Oriental people work like dogs. They work their hearts out. They are workers non-stop. They sleep beside their machines. That's why they're successful in life. I went to Seoul, South Korea, I went to Taipei, Taiwan. I went to Tokyo, Japan. That's why these people are so hard workers [sic]. I'm telling you, the Oriental people, they're slowly taking over." ...diversity: "I don't understand. Number one, I don't understand a transgender. I don't understand. Is it a guy dressed up like a girl, or a girl dressed up like a guy? And we're funding this for -– I don't know, what does it say here –- we're giving them $3,210?" ...procuring Oxycontin: "I'll try, buddy, I'll try. I don't know this crap [Oxycontin], but I'll ???? try to find it. Why don't you go on the street and score it? frack, you know, I don't know any drug dealers at all." ...being asked to be quiet at a Maple Leafs game: "Are you some kind of right-wing commie bastard?... Do you want your little wife to go over to Iran and get raped and shot?... Green party ???? rules." http://gawker.com/59...dium=socialflow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 ...being asked to be quiet at a Maple Leafs game: "Are you some kind of right-wing commie bastard?... Do you want your little wife to go over to Iran and get raped and shot?... Green party ???? rules." http://gawker.com/59...dium=socialflow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 "After I read it, I brought it home. I discussed it with my family and the right thing to do is to admit it. Be a man about it, and go down and face the music. I'm not one to run and hide. I'm here facing the music today." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 What a dirtbag ..they say you get the elected officials you deserve .. oh Toronto, you poor suffering bustards .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.