pud99
Senior Member
IIRC: A councillor is prohibited from hiring a relative.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
IIRC: A councillor is prohibited from hiring a relative.
pud99
Senior Member
A councillor can take leave (e.g., medical leave) but that does not enable anyone to replace him/her.
There is no such thing as 'resigning temporarily' or 'temporary vacancy', even for a day. Either the office of councillor is vacant or it is not. If it is not vacant then the incumbent cannot be replaced, even for a day. The rules for dealing with a vacancy are set out in sections 204 to 208 of The City of Toronto Act. Council does not have the power to amend or ignore them or invent new ones.
If a councillor office becomes vacant more than 90 days before the next general election, Council must decide whether to fill it by a by-election (cost to taxpayers $225,000) or by appointing someone. If the office becomes vacant less than 90 days before the next general election Council can decide to do nothing.
Council's policy has long been that it will only fill a vacancy by appointment when a councillor office becomes vacant less than one year before the next general election, and otherwise it must be filled by a by-election.
Thus, given that the next general election is more than three years away, if Council sticks with its long-standing policy then Robbie would have to resign office so that Dougie could by elected in a by-election in Ward 2, then Dougie would have to resign office so that Robbie could be elected in a by-election in Ward 2. Two by-elections would cost the taxpayers $450,000 in total and, since a by-election seems to take about two months, the office would be vacant for about four months in total anyway.
Ford and Mammo no doubt will argue that the policy is based on the assumption that a replacement will most likely serve out the balance of the term of his/her predecessor and that it is not appropriate to use an appointment to fill an elected position with an unelected person for more than a year, but here all would be temporary: Robbie resigns, Dougie quickly appointed, then Dougie resigns, Robbie quickly appointed - and both are persons who have obtained large majorities from the electorate in Ward 2 to boot - plus, even if Robbie shuffles off this mortal coil the balance of his term could be served by someone who has demonstrated in the recent past that the good burghers of Ward 2 love him almost as blindly as they love Robbie.
There is no such thing as 'resigning temporarily' or 'temporary vacancy', even for a day. Either the office of councillor is vacant or it is not. If it is not vacant then the incumbent cannot be replaced, even for a day. The rules for dealing with a vacancy are set out in sections 204 to 208 of The City of Toronto Act. Council does not have the power to amend or ignore them or invent new ones.
If a councillor office becomes vacant more than 90 days before the next general election, Council must decide whether to fill it by a by-election (cost to taxpayers $225,000) or by appointing someone. If the office becomes vacant less than 90 days before the next general election Council can decide to do nothing.
Council's policy has long been that it will only fill a vacancy by appointment when a councillor office becomes vacant less than one year before the next general election, and otherwise it must be filled by a by-election.
Thus, given that the next general election is more than three years away, if Council sticks with its long-standing policy then Robbie would have to resign office so that Dougie could by elected in a by-election in Ward 2, then Dougie would have to resign office so that Robbie could be elected in a by-election in Ward 2. Two by-elections would cost the taxpayers $450,000 in total and, since a by-election seems to take about two months, the office would be vacant for about four months in total anyway.
Ford and Mammo no doubt will argue that the policy is based on the assumption that a replacement will most likely serve out the balance of the term of his/her predecessor and that it is not appropriate to use an appointment to fill an elected position with an unelected person for more than a year, but here all would be temporary: Robbie resigns, Dougie quickly appointed, then Dougie resigns, Robbie quickly appointed - and both are persons who have obtained large majorities from the electorate in Ward 2 to boot - plus, even if Robbie shuffles off this mortal coil the balance of his term could be served by someone who has demonstrated in the recent past that the good burghers of Ward 2 love him almost as blindly as they love Robbie.
Last edited:
L23
Active Member
The council should say "yes, we agree you should be replaced while you can't work."
Then replace him with Domise.
Then replace him with Domise.
animatronic
Senior Member
Council does have discretion to appoint at any time, so they could appoint Doug and then Rob and skip the elections. But that would be so phenomenally stupid that even they wouldn't go for it.
pud99
Senior Member
Except that , as noted, a large majority of those who have voted in Ward 2 over more than the last ten years would think it a brilliant idea. One can be sure that Council's refusal to play along will become a Ford Nation rallying cry for 2018.
pud99
Senior Member
"How could anyone be so heartless as to leave Ward 2 adrift without a Ford because of cancer?"
EagleEye
Senior Member
Every time Warmington calls Don Peat "pistol" I cringe. I've never seen anyone else refer to Peat that way and I can't imagine he wants to have anything to do with him.
As far as swapping in Doug for Rob, council is so gutless I wouldn't put it past them.
As far as swapping in Doug for Rob, council is so gutless I wouldn't put it past them.
animatronic
Senior Member
Of course they already have a replacement in place - 311
sweetlou
Active Member
nohostages
Active Member
pud99
Senior Member
Fun to imagine, but of course Robbie will not resign unless Council votes that it will appoint Dougie upon Robbie resigning.
If it is all about returning constituents' calls (as he claims), why doesn't Dougie just hand out his telephone number?
pud99
Senior Member
pud99
Senior Member
salsa
Senior Member
As if these two have ever done a thing for the stupid pea-brains that voted for them.
pud99
Senior Member
Excerpt from The Star:
Doug Ford launched a tirade against the premier earlier this year as she prepared to meet with Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly following a vote by city council to strip Mayor Rob Ford of all but ceremonial powers after his admission of smoking crack and off-colour comments about oral sex.
“So I guess it’s going to be a meeting of two unelected officials running the largest city and largest province,” Doug Ford told reporters at the time, calling for provincial and municipal elections to clear the air.
Said the guy who hopes to become the unelected Councillor for Ward 2.
Doug Ford launched a tirade against the premier earlier this year as she prepared to meet with Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly following a vote by city council to strip Mayor Rob Ford of all but ceremonial powers after his admission of smoking crack and off-colour comments about oral sex.
“So I guess it’s going to be a meeting of two unelected officials running the largest city and largest province,” Doug Ford told reporters at the time, calling for provincial and municipal elections to clear the air.
Said the guy who hopes to become the unelected Councillor for Ward 2.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status