It's Curtains for Rob Ford?

[oldjones]

In all these threads about Rob Ford, I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that the Current Mayor , someone who won the election by almost 100000 votes over his closest rival (equivalent to just under 12 % of the popular vote) will no longer (potentially) be Mayor and the voters have no say in it.

Using a football analogy: Suppose the popular choice as mayor is a star player, and is piling up yards and points for his team. But after a scrimmage he is clearly seen to slap an opposing player. The ref throws him out for fighting. His team loses.

Same deal at City Hall. Even if his actual action was trivial, it broke one of the most serious rules, and that puts him outta the game. Period. No do-overs. In politics, that means we citizens will have to cope without him, and for practical reasons Council actually gets to think through whether an expensive by-election is really sensible if only a short time remains before the next election. Rob actually got a break and he can run then. He coulda been barred for longer.

He shoulda thought of all that while he was ignoring all the advice, and fighting the rulings that could have saved him. And if the $3,100 really was trivial, why didn't the rich guy (with an unspent expenses budget) just pay it, like he'd been ordered to? On principle? Well, if you insist on living by principle, you gotta be prepared to die by them. Or at least be convicted under the municipal code.

 

[fuji]

Even if his actual action was trivial, it broke one of the most serious rules, and that puts him outta the game. Period. No do-overs.

Actually in this case Ford had LOTS of opportunities for a do-over. When it was first brought up by others on council he could have quietly changed his practice and it would have stopped right there. When he got a formal reprimand from the integrity commissioner he could have issued a formal apology and it would have been finished. When he got a demand from council to repay the money, he could have just repaid it. When it came up to a vote, and he was told not to participate in the vote, he could have listened.

It's not just one mistake, it was one initial mistake compounded by a repeated refusal to comply with the rules, to take advice from others, to take the integrity commissioner seriously, etc.

 

[Aardvark154]

Using a football analogy: Suppose the popular choice as mayor is a star player, and is piling up yards and points for his team. But after a scrimmage he is clearly seen to slap an opposing player. The ref throws him out for fighting. His team loses.

Sorry OldJones but that's a terrible analogy to use.

What this really exposes is a) a Mayor whose greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. and b) a byelaw that is very poorly written, such that raising a few thousand dollars for Kids Football, is treated the same as if the Mayor had been taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and kickbacks.

Democracy was not served, although the rule of law was.

 

[Polaris]

It's not just one mistake, it was one initial mistake compounded by a repeated refusal to comply with the rules, to take advice from others, to take the integrity commissioner seriously, etc.

That's exactly what I read in a trading book about financial markets, and in practice absolutely true.

The first mistake one can survive. It is the the second mistake that kills.

 

[groggy]

This was a mayor who is currently being sued, results of case pending, for slander and also being investigated for improper fundraising (also punishable with loss of title).
Clean?
Ha.

 

[oldjones]

Sorry OldJones but that's a terrible analogy to use.

What this really exposes is a) a Mayor whose greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. and b) a byelaw that is very poorly written, such that raising a few thousand dollars for Kids Football, is treated the same as if the Mayor had been taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and kickbacks.


Democracy was not served, although the rule of law was.

You're the lawyer, butr I belive it's a provincial staute, not a bylaw, and the issue addressed is conflict of interest, not bribery or kickbacks. Conflict of interest need not involve any money at all. As an example, it would be an issue if a relative of the Mayor was involved in dealings with the City, and the law attempts to state what every politician should know: In conflict of interest cases, appearance is everything. His sin would have been only slightly less, had he written to those City Hall lobbyists on Rob Ford Football Foundation letterhead. That's why the Foundation is supposed to be arms-length from Councillor/Mayor Ford. The inference that doing the favour he asked for might one day be returned for the lobbyist's profit is inescapable.

Here's the irony that reveals the stupidity of his stubborn refusal to accept what everyone was telling him. The man's famous for spending almost none of the $30,000 Councillor's expense money at his disposal. Pays for all his office stuff himself. So when he argued the injustice of demanding Rob personally return the $3200, it would have been simple to have restored his personal funds by doing what Councillors are supposed to do, and legitimately submitting office expense receipts in that amount.

"I'm right, and everyone else is wrong, including the law they all talk about." is no way for an elected official to think.

 

[slowpoke]

In all these threads about Rob Ford, I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that the Current Mayor , someone who won the election by almost 100000 votes over his closest rival (equivalent to just under 12 % of the popular vote) will no longer (potentially) be Mayor and the voters have no say in it.

What is so significant about that particular factoid? Ford got elected by promising stuff like eliminating the gravy train, fighting the unions and building more subways etc. He did not get elected by promising that he'd somehow become immune to the normal rules of conduct that apply to all elected City of Toronto employees. Ford broke one of those rules. The potential consequences for breaking that particular rule were then clearly spelled out for him by other counsellors and the ethics commissioner. He was given several opportunities to rectify his original violation but he steadfastly refused. There are good reasons for those conflict of interest rules but Ford foolishly felt they didn't apply to him. So he took his chances and he got busted. Contrary to the opinions of many on this board, getting more votes than the one's opponents does not automatically boost one's intelligence or grant one immunity from the conditions of elected office. Children know this.