Bad Precedent or a Good Thing?

[Mister K]

I truly believe that Rob Ford is now done all but in name only. I have only one main concern – doesn’t the actions taken by Toronto councillors set a bad precedent when dealing with an elected position that was chosen by the voters of the city at large?

It can be argued that Rob Ford cooked his own goose by willingly making statements that he has used crack, smoked marijuana and drunk alcohol and driven. However it should be noted that although there is also evidence to this behaviour he has not been arrested, charged, tried, convicted or sentenced.

Like many of you, I am puzzled why Ford was never stopped after drinking and driving, picking up suspicious packages and other activities that according to the evidence so far revealed, indicated that he was under police surveillance for long period of time. Someone in the Toronto Police Service made the decision not to take action, even while placing the public at risk. Why?

So – returning to my primary concern, what happens the next time that Toronto has a mayor that the “left” do not agree with? If they can muster the support, can they just “depose” the elected mayor and pass on his duties, budget, staff, et cetra to the deputy mayor?

Ford’s record as mayor, while not stellar, was reasonably good. Many of his policies met with the approval of the majority of voting Torontonians. Many of his policies have been watered down, but he did begin to institute a culture of fiscal responsibility within the city. His policies were not something he came up with just to get himself elected, he has been going on for years about fiscal responsibility. Many of his opponents on city council resented that he made them look bad when as a councillor, his under a $100 office budgets when others were spending $40,000 or more on everything from photocopies to “fact-finding” trips.

Policies such as reducing the number of city councillors by half make sense. Does Toronto need 44 councillors? By reducing that number by half, the costs to the city in councillor salaries alone would run almost $10 million dollars over a four year term. The reduction in staff costs would be almost $20 million over four years. Is this ever going to happen? Not if it is left to city council to make the decision. I suspect that the reduction will only take place if it were to be imposed by the province.

So I am left wondering, are we just seeing a bizarre chapter in municipal politics? Or the hint of things to come?

 

[JamesDouglas]

Don't worry, the left could care less about Rob Ford and his problems, all they want is power. Nothing will piss them off more than a right wing candidate getting voted in as mayor next October, whether it's Rob Ford or not.

 

[Art Mann]

So – returning to my primary concern, what happens the next time that Toronto has a mayor that the “sane” do not agree with? If they can muster the support, can they just “depose” the elected mayor and pass on his duties, budget, staff, et cetra to the deputy mayor?

Fixed your post.

This isn't a left vs right issue. This is about dealing with an idiot who managed to get himself elected to a the highest municipal office and then self-detonated.

He's a public disgrace, not only to the office of mayor, to the council in general, to the city of Toronto but also in the eyes of the world now.

 

[SirWanker]

Rick Mercer pretty much summarizes JD's opinion:

 

[TeasePlease]

I truly believe that Rob Ford is now done all but in name only. I have only one main concern – doesn’t the actions taken by Toronto councillors set a bad precedent when dealing with an elected position that was chosen by the voters of the city at large?

This has been discussed and deliberated at council. It was the main concern of Gord Perks who is a super lefty and Ford nemesis.

I suspect (hope?) it was also the motivation for the other councillors besides the Fords who voted against the motions.

I think that it is a very dangerous precedent. The only comfort I take is that the votes to carry the motions were nearly all supermajorities.

 

[Mister K]

This has been discussed and deliberated at council. It was the main concern of Gord Perks who is a super lefty and Ford nemesis.

I suspect (hope?) it was also the motivation for the other councillors besides the Fords who voted against the motions.

I think that it is a very dangerous precedent. The only comfort I take is that the votes to carry the motions were nearly all supermajorities.

I agree and perhaps that is what should be needed in order for something like removing/stripping a duly elected mayor of his "power". At least a 75% majority or in Toronto's case 33 councillors in favour or more.

 

[oldjones]

At every level of democratic government, there is a requirement to get the votes. Rob managed one from him and one from his brother, forty-one against, over and over*. That's it.

This coming fall he can try to repeat his success of 2010, when many voters ignored his record and gave him a majority. If he succeeds, he'll be back where he was after the lastr election: Having to get at least twenty or so Councillors to agree with his thinking. Back in 2011, he actually had that support, but he soon showed he had no idea how to keep it, no ability to re-build it, and no power to persuade anyone that his ideas deserved it. After the tawdry, shameful circus of lies, evasions and spectacular misbehaviour he's put us through, without the slightest evidence of taking personal responsibility or changing, it's a sure bet he'd have an even tougher job after 2014.

Like the PM, the Mayor has just one vote. Success or failure is determined by how many others he can attract. What Rob just went through was a whole series of non-confidence votes. It's up to him the earn that confidence back. Step One is getting the people's votes, but that's only the first, smallest step. Every other vote he needs after that has to come from someone whose own electoral mandate is just as solid and valid as his. He'll have to campaign for each of their votes, and unlike the electorate, they know him, know his record and they'll still be paying full-time attention after the election.

This absolutely was a good thing. It would only be better if it triggered an immediate election, as it would have at either the Provincial or Federal levels. If everyone wasn't so sick and fed-up with the sorry spectacle the two narcissistic Neanderthals have made when there's a huge amount of actual work to be done, I'd expect Council to ask the Preem for just such an improvement to the Municipal Act.

If Mr. Democracy believed in himself or had any principles he'd be begging for it too.
---------------------
*Those were Friday's numbers, which gave the Mayor's work to the Deputy, leaving Rob with only the Office and nothing to do. Monday, they voted by lesser margins to give the Deputy the funds to do the job, taking them from Rob, and also to remove some Mayoral perks, like speaking last, and assigning priorities to motions and debate. Various Councillors said they thought various bits of that were too extreme, vindictive or petty, but Rob never managed even a ⅓ vote in support at best (which I think was the speaking order). Rob didn't vote, having learned his lesson after the judge ruled he should not be Mayor, and one of the votes he got was Doug's. Two Councillors had chosen not to attend or participate.

 

[JamesDouglas]

Rick Mercer pretty much summarizes JD's opinion:

That was an excellent video, everyone should watch it since it sums up the whole situation quite nicely.

 

[oldjones]

Don't worry, the left could care less about Rob Ford and his problems, all they want is power. Nothing will piss them off more than a right wing candidate getting voted in as mayor next October, whether it's Rob Ford or not.

And the right has no interest in power, is that what you're trying to put over on every one? All the right's interested in is poor widdle Wobbies tewwible dwug pwoblems, and seeing he gets help ASAP?

Of course it took a court case, search warrants and a huge police operation before they even noticed he had a problem, but hey, they were still exulting about getting their free plastic bags, and other such big policy issues of Rob's.

 

[fuji]

Council is elected. I don't get this claim that it is undemocratic. Ford is out because the motions to get rid of him were supported by a majority of the elected representatives of the people. The law never gave any of those powers to Ford. The law gave those powers to our elected council, and our elected council has decided to use them differently.

I think council is a far more democratic organization than the mayor. Council represents a variety of different views, and works by forming broad consensus.

Also "the left" did not do this. Minnan Wong, a rightie, introduced the motion and it was widely supported by an overwhelming majority including many right wing councillors.

 

[TeasePlease]

Council is elected. I don't get this claim that it is undemocratic. Ford is out because the motions to get rid of him were supported by a majority of the elected representatives of the people. The law never gave any of those powers to Ford. The law gave those powers to our elected council, and our elected council has decided to use them differently.

I think council is a far more democratic organization than the mayor. Council represents a variety of different views, and works by forming broad consensus.

Also "the left" did not do this. Minnan Wong, a rightie, introduced the motion and it was widely supported by an overwhelming majority including many right wing councillors.

Well, to be fair, the Mayor is himself elected directly by the citizenry. It is a murky morass to say that one elected official can remove another.

The argument about statutory powers is equally tenuous, IMO. We elect the major to be the mayor. Stripping him of the means to carry out the duties of office may be within the legal powers of council, but surely not within the spirit of democracy.

 

[fuji]

Council did not strip the mayor of any of the powers given to him by the City of Toronto act. Nor has council removed the mayor, he is STILL mayor.

The Act gives most powers to Council, and at a previous time council decided to delegate things like hiring staff, chairing meetings, to the mayor. It seemed efficient.

But those powers are given to the elected council not the mayor, and he only ever had them because the elected council decided to delegate those powers.

Now the elected council has decided to delegate those powers to someone else.

It has actually not taken away the mayor's own powers, which are very few. It has taken back it's own powers.

Things like declaring an emergency, powers given to the mayor in the act, have not been taken away.

 

[TeasePlease]

Council did not strip the mayor of any of the powers given to him by the City of Toronto act. Nor has council removed the mayor, he is STILL mayor.

The Act gives most powers to Council, and at a previous time council decided to delegate things like hiring staff, chairing meetings, to the mayor. It seemed efficient.

But those powers are given to the elected council not the mayor, and he only ever had them because the elected council decided to delegate those powers.

Now the elected council has decided to delegate those powers to someone else.

It has actually not taken away the mayor's own powers, which are very few. It has taken back it's own powers.

Things like declaring an emergency, powers given to the mayor in the act, have not been taken away.

Yes, thanks for succinctly summarizing the rationale for the various motions. I'm sure that's how the other councillors are able to sleep at night.

But that's just that - a rationalization of the motions designed to achieve in fact what they could not do in law​. (Which is to remove him from office)

I am not disagreeing with the need to remove the Mayor. The discussion was, as a matter of social policy, whether this was a wise course of action.

The irony is that this moral grappling would not have been required if Ford behaved rationally and responsibly himself. The right thing to do was to have stepped down.

 

[Aardvark154]

I truly believe that Rob Ford is now done all but in name only. I have only one main concern – doesn’t the actions taken by Toronto councillors set a bad precedent when dealing with an elected position that was chosen by the voters of the city at large?

It is a political example of "tough cases make bad law." Toronto has a "weak mayor" system of government, and the city council has now made even that into a "by the sufferance of the city council" system of government.

 

[Dartman]

I bet he still gets all of his salary

 

[TeasePlease]

I bet he still gets all of his salary

Why wouldn't he? His pension remains intact, too.

 

[JamesDouglas]

I bet he still gets all of his salary

His family is worth over $100 million, I don't think his $150k pay cheque means much to him.

 

[LuxeLadyAmber]

I don't think this has anything to do with the "left." Being a shady, abusive, dishonest and unethical buffoon is not something condoned by any political camp. If the "left" are at fault, perhaps its because far too much time was spent on process and niceties, "respectfully" asking Mayor McCrackenstern to take a leave of absence. Even the misunderestimated Dubya wouldn't stand for this, nor would pretty much any other country. Some perspective: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-confrontation-with-toronto-city-council.html

 

[doggee_01]

not that i think it is remotely likely BUT what happens if ford wins the next election for mayor???
does council undo the will of the people?

and again what if the majority of council do not like whoever is elected? not to keen on the way this has gone down maybe there should have been an early election and get it over with

 

[fuji]

We should eliminate the election for mayor and allow council to select one of their own
That works well at the federal and provincial levels.

If we want city wide representation, have perhaps three city wide seats and take the three candidates who win the most votes.