Are opponents trying to unseat Mayor Rob Ford from office by citing nitpicky rules? Or has he brought this week’s conflict-of-interest lawsuit upon himself?
Reports from the city’s integrity commissioner, as non-partisan an arbiter as one can find, show the conflict dates back to 2005:
• A citizen complained in 2007 that Councillor Rob Ford violated two clauses in the councillors’ code of conduct when he enclosed a decal promoting his printing company in an invitation to a summer barbecue. The invitation was in an envelope bearing Ford’s City Hall address and City of Toronto logo. As Ford appeared “contrite,” the integrity commissioner pardoned him, though it was a repeat of a 2005 violation.
• A November 2009 complaint had similar concerns. Ford agreed his family business stickers should not have been included. But he argued he could use the city logo and letterhead because he pays office supplies and postage out of his own pocket. The integrity commissioner disagreed.
A councillor complained in February 2010 about similar donation letters and integrity commissioner Janet Leiper gave Ford written advice to stop using his councillor status for private fundraising.
• Leiper’s investigation uncovered numerous violations which she reported to council. Ford’s “Rob Ford for Mayor 2010” website had links to his foundation and claimed Ford had raised more than $100,000 for football equipment, but records showed only $40,000.
Leiper discovered that 11 of 26 corporations and trade associations which made donations in 2009 and 2010 were directly lobbying city councillors. Asked if they’d lobbied him, Ford said it was “ridiculous to say something like that.” Leiper found that seven of the 11 did, in fact, lobby Ford. In total, they donated $3,150 to Ford’s foundation.
She concluded this was a violation of the clause that prohibits lobbyists from providing “favours of any kind” to a councillor. And she cited the findings of the Bellamy Inquiry which identified “donations to charitable events sponsored by public office holders” as “problematic corporate benefits” because “they erode public trust.”
She found out that Ford’s staff used city time and resources in servicing the donors; that Ford himself sought out the names of donors and followed up with calls of thanks, on city time. As such he was improperly combining his role as councillor and private citizen.
• A Toronto resident complained in May 2010 after receiving a donor letter from Ford. The complainant had just heard Ford was running for mayor, and wrote:
“This 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.”
When the integrity commissioner sought Ford’s response, he dismissed the complaint as having “no basis in policy or law” and would undermine a worthy cause, namely, helping underprivileged kids.
Leiper asked Ford to reconsider because she’d advised him his behaviour was violating council rules. Ford stood firm, so Leiper wrote to council, recommending Ford return the $3,150. Council agreed in August 2010.
But Ford refused to comply. He ignored six letters from Leiper, finally telling her the donors didn’t want the money returned. So she returned to council last month, asking the politicians to back up their decision.
Instead of excusing himself from the debate, Ford actively participated, and voted against his paying back the $3,150 from his pocket. Council voted 22-12 to back him and rescind the 2010 council decision.
This week, lawyer Clayton Ruby announced he was, on behalf of citizen Paul Magder, filing court action against the mayor for conflict of interest.
