[adma]

A good citizen or.... a D-Bag with a massive sense of entitlement and friends in high places. See http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...27-year-old-who-triggered-rob-ford-s-downfall

I was a good citizen, thinking that my vote actually mattered, but alas, it doesn't. When one works full time, has a family to feed, a mortgage to pay and a life to live, one just can't live off of welfare and connections and become an "activist"

You know, this being Urban Toronto and all, said "good citizens" could just as well object to the sneering at gawdawful McMansion teardowns and bad EIFS reclads on similar grounds; y'know, those doing the sneering being "D-Bag with a massive sense of entitlement and friends in high places", as opposed to the so-called good, hard working citizens and families who enacted such crimes against architecture, urbanism, and taste. (Few if any of them actually do, in practice. Hmm, wonder why...)

 

[MetroMan]

I'm not sure he can and then be re-instated if he wins his appeal. If he "steps aside" by resigning, then he's quit his office, and he can't legally get it back. And I don't know of any other way for him to step aside that would be legally binding, or ensure that he doesn't stick his nose in things during the waiting period.

Not resigning. He could stay home (or on the football field) and by not being at work, the deputy mayor takes over until Ford comes back (or doesn't).

 

[diminutive]

1.) I doubt Ford would win a by-election at any time and place. It's difficult to see his last win as anything but an anti-incumbency backlash. In the context of things like the garbage strike and Miller's perceived spinelessness and 8 years of left-ish Mayorship, that's not necessarily ridiculous. Ford never really managed to transform himself into a proper incumbent.

2.) It is a little troubling how this event played out. Obviously Ford broke the law and there are legal repercussions for that, but politically I don't see any upside to Ford being kicked out. There's justice for the 3,000$ conflict of interest charge, but the rest of Ford's legacy is more or less off limits now.

3.) It's not a victory for left-wing Toronto. A victory would have been confronting Ford in an election and giving a comprehensive account of why he's a shitty mayor. I'm not trying to minimize the charges involved, but this literally is the politician with the most votes against him in Canada being unseated over a (relatively) small technicality by leftwing lawyers.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Does anyone find Rob Ford's supposedly emotional "I only want to help the kids" mea culpa today (which repeats his interpretation of the law) troubling a scant few hours after the Argos rally (much less just a day after the decision was handed down)?

AoD

 

[cdr108]

Uncharacteristicly, Ford is now sounding apologetic, contrite. Has the reality that he has lost his job finally sunk in? According to Toronto Star, he said:

all scripted and i bet none of those words are his - just the best PR money can buy

 

[BurlOak]

I think it is obvious that Ford was in a conflict of interest in regards to the vote.

I also think, based on Ford's behavior in the past twelve years, that the amount of money involved was minimal and in no way was large enough to influence his vote. This is a man who had covered thousands of dollars (per year) of office expenses from his own pocket for ten years. If the legislation would have had some type of exemption for minimal amounts of money, Ford could (should) have been found not guilty. I wish I knew exactly what "pecuniary" means, but I think it pertains to the amount of money - not the symbol that the money had in terms of his reputation (i.e. paying back, not matter how small, is an admission of guilt). I think there is such an exemption.

Strangely, as quoted in this Post article (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/26/rob-ford-christie-blatchford/), the judge was quoted as saying that Mayor Ford’s case “involved a modest amount of money". If I check the thesaurus for "modest", it returns small, minor, tiny, trivial. Almost identical language to the statute - Section 4 (k).

The quote the judge stated in relation to this issue had nothing to do with the significance of the amount to Mr. Ford

"if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment….â€

This obviously means Ford was referring to pay back the actual "donated money" (not an equivalent amount of money) since that money was gone. It appears that this was interpreted as Mr. Ford admitting that he did not have $3150 in his bank account to pay it back.

Ford's lawyer must have been pretty poor to not have succeeded based on this Clause (4k, a legal exception) to the Conflict of Interest Act.

I wonder if Ford can have different legal representation for the appeal and can he introduce any new evidence, because I think there is ample evidence to show that the amount was insignificant to Ford, but maybe for some reason he did not introduce it at the trial.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm not trying to minimize the charges involved, but this literally is the politician with the most votes against him in Canada being unseated over a (relatively) small technicality by leftwing lawyers

.

But you are minimizing it. High ranking politicians and conflicts of interest are very serious matters. It's not a "small technicality" for a defendant to also sit on the jury that decides whether he is guilty or innocent. There's a reason the legislation has a hefty minimum penalty attached to it.

And what's with the "leftwing lawyers" comment? What relevance does the political leanings of those who brought the charges against him have? Should only your friends be allowed to take you to court? I find that whole line of thought by the pro Fordites bizarre about how his enemies are out to get him. Of course they are....what do you think either side in any court case is...friends? They are opponents. DUH

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

BurlOak:

Can we actually quote the full text of the actual decision instead of cut pieces of it from Blatchford's commentary - it's far more illuminating:

[42] The respondent argues that the amount of money involved ($3,150.00) is very modest considering his salary as Mayor. It is stated at para. 59 of the Respondent’s Factum that, “No objectively reasonable person could conclude that the Respondent, a City Councillor for ten years and Mayor for two years would jeopardize his position for $3,150 ...â€

[43] The issue posed by s. 4(k) of the MCIA is whether the respondent’s pecuniary interest in the matter before Council – whether he should be required to furnish proof of repayment of $3,150.00 to donors – involved such an insignificant amount that it was unlikely to influence him in his consideration of that matter. While s. 4(k) appears to provide for an objective standard of reasonableness, I am respectfully of the view that the respondent has taken himself outside of the potential application of the exemption by asserting in his remarks to City Council that personal repayment of $3,150.00 is precisely the issue that he objects to and delivering this message was his clear reason for speaking and voting as he did at the Council meeting. The respondent stated, in his remarks at the Council meeting, “[A]nd if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment….â€

[44] In view of the respondent’s remarks to City Council, I find that his pecuniary interest in the recommended repayment of $3,150.00 was of significance to him. Therefore the exemption in s. 4(k) of the MCIA does not apply.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...293227--rob-ford-out-text-of-judge-s-decision

In other words, you can't claim that the small amount doesn't matter when the act itself was argument that one shouldn't be paying for it, because it clearly does matter.

AoD

 

[cdr108]

Calls are mounting within city council for Ford to step aside while be pursues his appeal. He clearly has lost all legitimacy to rule and everybody just wants to move on.

The earliest the appeal verdict will come through if it is granted will be mid January but most likely February or March. Council can't focus on business for 3 months without the Mayor legitimacy hanging over them. There seems to be enough support to install Doug Holyday as caretaker Mayor until after Ford's appeal is resolved after which an election would be called or a permanent appointment made.

i hope that's the case ... i would support something like that.

it'd be a waste of $7MM for the city and the various candidates for an election where a new mayor would only hold the position for 2 years,

 

[diminutive]

.But you are minimizing it. High ranking politicians and conflicts of interest are very serious matters. It's not a "small technicality" for a defendant to also sit on the jury that decides whether he is guilty or innocent. There's a reason the legislation has a hefty minimum penalty attached to it.

No, obviously Ford was in violation of the law. Legally, this couldn't have gone any other way. It's still a very, very modest amount of money. Politically, it is a technicality. Ford isn't gone because he's a shitty mayor who got voted out of office by a disaffected public. He's gone because a group of activists didn't like him and found a way to screw him, not because his policies were democratically discredited.

P.S. To be clear, I'm distinguishing between the legal and political aspects of this. Legally, the judge followed the law and Rob Ford is an idiot. No doubt. But politically there is a convention that removal from office should be reserved for individuals who are so horribly corrupt that letting them continue would do grievous harm to a society. Ford, while obviously incompetent, doesn't seem to fall into that category.

And what's with the "leftwing lawyers" comment? What relevance does the political leanings of those who brought the charges against him have? Should only your friends be allowed to take you to court? I find that whole line of thought by the pro Fordites bizarre about how his enemies are out to get him. Of course they are....what do you think either side in any court case is...friends? They are opponents. DUH

No, of course not. My point was that politically Toronto will never have a kind of democratic catharsis with Ford. A few activists have found a *very* small item which disqualified him. Fine, it's legally sound, I'm not challenging that.

It is circumventing the democratic process though. It would have been far better for progressives to simply wait till 2014 and sweep Ford out of office.

Paradoxically, while the odds of Ford winning 2014 prior to this seemed pretty low (to me), I can't see this as doing anything but helping a Ford electoral campaign in the same way that Mackenzie King used his ousting by the Governor General to sock it to Meighen. Him and his supporters are going to frame any campaign on a kind of populist 'Ford-nation-fighting-back-against-donothing-activists.' I don't think it will work, but if the normal democratic process had been followed and a decent left(or non-yahoo) candidate thoroughly showed why Ford was a failure (and, really, there are SOOO many bigger examples than this conflict of interest charge) Ford, and more importantly his policies, would have been more thoroughly debunked.

P.S. There's also the worst case scenario that Ford gets a stay (which seems on balance plausible) and wins on appeal. That would REALLY be awful.

Just to be super clear, I'm not saying the case was wrong. I'm saying the best way to deal with politicians you don't like is through elections.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

diminutive:

I have my doubts about the ability of his core supporters (of what, about 30+%) to see that he is a failure. If the balance of evidence from the past 2 years haven't sunk in by now (and that's not even counting that from the previous 10 years), I highly question whether one would actually see the light in 2 years time, as long as the jingo comes humming along. This is just like the Teabaggers south of the border.

AoD

 

[BurlOak]

BurlOak:

Can we actually quote the full text of the actual decision instead of cut pieces of it from Blatchford's commentary - it's far more illuminating:

[42] The respondent argues that the amount of money involved ($3,150.00) is very modest considering his salary as Mayor. It is stated at para. 59 of the Respondent’s Factum that, “No objectively reasonable person could conclude that the Respondent, a City Councillor for ten years and Mayor for two years would jeopardize his position for $3,150 ...â€

[43] The issue posed by s. 4(k) of the MCIA is whether the respondent’s pecuniary interest in the matter before Council – whether he should be required to furnish proof of repayment of $3,150.00 to donors – involved such an insignificant amount that it was unlikely to influence him in his consideration of that matter. While s. 4(k) appears to provide for an objective standard of reasonableness, I am respectfully of the view that the respondent has taken himself outside of the potential application of the exemption by asserting in his remarks to City Council that personal repayment of $3,150.00 is precisely the issue that he objects to and delivering this message was his clear reason for speaking and voting as he did at the Council meeting. The respondent stated, in his remarks at the Council meeting, “[A]nd if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment….â€

[44] In view of the respondent’s remarks to City Council, I find that his pecuniary interest in the recommended repayment of $3,150.00 was of significance to him. Therefore the exemption in s. 4(k) of the MCIA does not apply.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...293227--rob-ford-out-text-of-judge-s-decision

In other words, you can't claim that the small amount doesn't matter when the act itself was argument that one shouldn't be paying for it, because it clearly does matter.

AoD

The statement by Mr. Ford in no way shows that the monetary amounts of the repayment were of significance to him. Repayment was a symbol of guilt and it is reasonable to assume Ford would have acted the same if the amount was $1. The legislation clearly says "pecuniary". He did have a conflict because he was voting to clear his name - but from a monetary point of view, it was insignificant.

Did the judge think that "the money is gone" mean that Ford did not have $3150 in his account? It should be obvious that at the time Ford was considering the actual donated money and not his own.

 

[cdr108]

diminutive:

I have my doubts about the ability of his core supporters (of what, about 30+%) to see that he is a failure. If the balance of evidence from the past 2 years haven't sunk in by now (and that's not even counting that from the previous 10 years), I highly question whether one would actually see the light in 2 years time, as long as the jingo comes humming along. This is just like the Teabaggers south of the border.

AoD

ROTFL - perfect term for them

 

[diminutive]

The teabaggers lost, Obama won. All is right in the universe.

I can't predict what would have happened in 2014, obviously. The latest, pre-Hackland polls seemed to put him at about 35%. That's competitive, but barring a perfect left-wing split wouldn't have been nearly enough. Also, that's 12% drop in support from 2010, so I'd question why you think the evidence hasn't "sunk in" by now. Presumably two more years of Ford being Ford wouldn't help that.

If Ford runs again and manages to get a modest boost from this ruling, it could actually make him viable. And it's an easy campaign to frame for Ford in a sense: "Toronto, you voted for me to stop the gravy train, but donothing-activists said your vote doesn't matter!"

I suspect most Toronto voters will want to move on from the spectre of Ford regardless, but there won't be a public thumping of Ford and (MORE IMPORTANTLY) his policies now.

 

[MetroMan]

diminutive:

I have my doubts about the ability of his core supporters (of what, about 30+%) to see that he is a failure. If the balance of evidence from the past 2 years haven't sunk in by now (and that's not even counting that from the previous 10 years), I highly question whether one would actually see the light in 2 years time, as long as the jingo comes humming along. This is just like the Teabaggers south of the border.

AoD

I really am dumbfounded how anybody -- anybody -- can still support Ford after all of this. What would it take? Murder? I'm disappointed in human kind.