freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Paul Daly, associate law professor at the University of Montreal, says the MCIA is clearly not aimed at a Ford situation. The act, he said in an interview, is there to “prevent politicians from awarding contracts to their buddies, or making secret profits off the backs of taxpayers. That’s what you’re really worried about.”
Financial gain may be the most obvious motive for conflict of interest, but it is certainly not the only one. To suggest that the spirit of the law is there purely for financial gain is an outright lie if it's coming from someone in the legal profession (which Mr. Daly is).
This has to do with ethics...not money. Mr Ford has a duty to uphold the ethics of his political office. Conflict of interest rules are intended to prevent officials from making decisions in circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as violating this duty of office. Public officials are expected to put service to the public and their constituents ahead of their personal interests. Mr Ford put his personal interest of coaching a football team ahead of his political duties. And that is ethically wrong. And all the blubbering about "underprivileged kids" isn't going to change that.
Rob Ford obviously has no concept of what "conflict of interest" is, and being a complete narcissist, not surprising. If he did, his Deco Labels company would have severed ties with the city as soon as he was elected mayor (if not 10 years earlier when he was elected councillor). Even a half-wit would have made that prudent move.
The act is clearly aimed at corporate corruption. A councillor should not vote on such matters if he has an interest indirectly as a “shareholder in” or “director of” a corporation. Nor should he vote if he is a “controlling shareholder” of a corporation or “is a partner of a person or is in the employment of a person or body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.”
The act, by the biggest of stretches, has no reasonable application to the Ford situation.
ha ha Nice try. But this is not a case of an indirect involvement of Mr Ford. This is a case of direct involvement of Mr Ford...he IS the accused.
Mr. Daly adds, in a post on his Administrative Law Matters blog, that “objectively speaking, Ford simply did not have a ‘pecuniary interest’ which would justify depriving him of his right to speak and vote.”
While he is entitled to speak, he is certainly not entitled to vote. The accused is never allowed to sit on the jury that decides his guilt or innocence. This is the conflict of interest. And quite frankly, I'm surprised Council doesn't have a mechanism that prevents this (being told repeatedly by councillors obviously didn't stop Ford from doing it).