News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

I Stand Corrected, But The Loophole In The MEA Is More Severe

SimonP said:
Not possible. The Municipal Elections Act specifically forbids this:
Click to expand...

My apologies for not looking more closely at the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) -- Mea Culpa.

SimonP is correct and has quoted section 71(2) of the MEA: "If a person is a candidate for more than one office, a contributor’s total contributions to him or her in respect of all the offices shall not exceed $750. 1996, c. 32, Sched., s. 71 (2)." Therefore, certain parts of the "Mammoliti Ruse" theory is not possible (including the fact that election signs can not be placed on lawns etc. until September 30th).

HOWEVER, section 70.1(5) of the MEA states: "Despite subsections 71 (1) and (2), for the purposes of those subsections, the maximum total contribution a contributor may make to a candidate for the office of mayor of the City of Toronto is $2,500. 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 10; 2006, c. 32, Sched. D, s. 11.". THAT is a loophole!

If an incumbent Councillor runs for Mayor of Toronto, takes contributions from supporters of $2,500 and then "changes his mind" and runs for Councillor, the contribution could not possibly be given back (the MEA does not even address this possibility). It is thus a significant loophole in the MEA and its effects EVEN WORSE than my original theory (as the maximum contribution is more than I thought). Instead of two contributions of $750 each (my original theory), the incumbent Councillor could potentially receive up to $2,500 as Mayoral candidate when his intentions were initially to switch campaigns before the deadline.

Many aspects of the theory also remain (ie. putting posters and flyers mainly within the Ward). In addition, the 75% refund from the City of Toronto is allowed.

As I said in my last post, desperate times call for desperate measures and finding loopholes like this may become available to the desperate incumbent.
 
Last edited:
I heard on CBC Radio this afternoon that Joe Pantalone specifically stated that he would not run for council if for whatever reason he dropped out of the mayoral race.
 
Blovertis said:
I heard on CBC Radio this afternoon that Joe Pantalone specifically stated that he would not run for council if for whatever reason he dropped out of the mayoral race.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of Joe Pantalone's statement on CBC Radio but DO know that newspapers have reported that George Mammoliti has not ruled out running for Councillor at a later date. I filed my papers to run for Councillor in Ward 7 last Friday and will assume that George changes his mind later this summer.

I wonder what Adam Giambrone will say after announcing HIS candidacy for Mayor later this month. Denzil Minnan-Wong and Rob Ford are also considering a run for Mayor (while both Shelley Carroll and Karen Stintz have chosen to run in their Wards instead).
 
Last edited:
SimonP said:
Not possible. The Municipal Elections Act specifically forbids this:
Click to expand...

IMO, this might not be the case. Technically, and perhaps legally, he would not be a candidate in more than one riding. That would require concurrency. So long as he dropped out of one before entering another, he would at no time be a candidate for more than one office.
 
He says Miller did nothing to reverse amalgamation, the shotgun wedding in 1998 that merged seven municipalities to form Toronto. Sewell calls amalgamation an "act of evil" perpetrated to "destroy local government in Toronto."

He insists it left the old city of Toronto at the mercy of suburban values that favour everything from urban sprawl to bulky garbage bins.
Click to expand...

Well said. Not sure if he's up for it though. He definitely shouldn't run against Mihevc. Maybe he can run against Jane Pitfield in Case Ootes' ward? Or perhaps against Bill Saundercook in Parkdale-High Park, or in Kyle Rae's ward?
 
junctionist said:
John Sewell should run again. He's still the dynamic thinker on urban issues, and someone who is very much concerned with aesthetics, transit, cleanliness, and development in Toronto. While his position siding with opponents of the St. Clair ROW a few years back was strange, I think he's still quite relevant. If health is an issue, he should find a protege.
Click to expand...

John Sewell was interviewed by the Toronto Star in November 2009 and stated that he would not run again (but never say never). To quote the article, found at www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/725981:

He notes he was "clobbered" in 2006 when he last ran for city council and insists he has no interest in running next time. "On the other hand," he says, "I ran in two other elections where I never thought I would."

I hope he changes his mind. Kyle Rae's Ward looks like the perfect spot for him and he could do no wrong by supporting a number of other candidates for Councillor running throughout Toronto as he did in 2006. Garry Green ran in Ward 8 (the Ward next to mine) under the John Sewell umbrella in 2006 and it was quite an exciting race there (Peter Li Preti was the only incumbent Councillor defeated). I hope Garry runs again, but he is currently doing a fine job working on youth-oriented projects throughout Wards 7 and 8..

By the way, in Ward 7 there are currently six candidates registered to run for Councillor (seven if you include George Mammoliti), and it is still January! I'm sure many more will register as the year goes on.
 
Larry Perlman said:
John Sewell was interviewed by the Toronto Star in November 2009 and stated that he would not run again (but never say never). To quote the article, found at www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/725981:

He notes he was "clobbered" in 2006 when he last ran for city council and insists he has no interest in running next time. "On the other hand," he says, "I ran in two other elections where I never thought I would."
Click to expand...

I read that article as the working link to it in my post suggests. His comment was quite ambiguous. I bet he'd like to be in council again, and there's a variety of wards he could represent.
 
Yeah, John Sewell should indeed make a return to council.......on a side note, I think that there are still a number of wards with no challengers to the incumbents, does anyone know which wards?
 
Has anyone registered to run against Cesar Palacio? He had very close competition from his left when Alejandra Bravo ran a close second in the last two elections.
 
I would like to iterate my support for reducing the size of council. It is a barely historical anachronism that serves no purpose. It can be said that reducing the number of councillors will reduce council's accessibility to residents, however I don't think this is a major issue.

Take Vancouver, for example. They have 10 city councillors, who are elected at large. This prevents the territoriality that creeps into council discussions due to the ward system. It is also a more collectively responsible body. Granted, Vancouver proper only has about 800 000 residents, so 10 is low for Toronto. Half of current council, 44+1, would probably be about right. Twenty-two councillors, one mayor.

I'm sure there are other examples throughout the planet. I would consider voting for a mayor who advocates for studying how other municipalities elect representatives and proceeding with proper changes. The status quo won't do.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top