http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/30/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-eligible-to-run-in-byelection

Hello again to the desk (bed… ) of SarahD!

On Monday at 10:32am Mayor Robert Bruce– who names their kid Bruce?) Ford got FIRED!! :-)
He intentionally breached the codes of office and a high court judge told him what was what.

The man who fires people at will clearly received the city’s retribution.

I have some questions for you all: do you think that he did what he did intentionally?

Given the dynamics of the Ford family, do you believe that played a part in the manner of Rob’s tenure as Mayor?

I frequently wonder if things would have been different had DOUG not had been sitting there telling him how to function lol.

Would Rob Ford have been a good Mayor of Toronto all by himself without Doug?

I can understand that family is family and they should be by one’s side however, Toronto did not elect a two-person Mayor…

My thoughts request your thoughts so feel free to write back!

Peace, love, and good health to you,
SarahD!

The idea that Ford would easily win a re-election if ousted was making the rounds before the judgement was announced. And, of course, every fool pundit and their dog was claiming that, for sure, he would be re-elected. Hands down. No doubt.

After all, the people of Toronto love Ford and think he’s doing just a great job with everything!

Sites like Canada.com have dedicated more than one column to propping up a man who, by his own admission, can barely tie his own shoelaces. The National Post typically marches in lock-step with the Ford dictatorship, so they’re not shy about showing their own support. And, of course, the Toronto Sun might as well be called The Rob Ford Daily, though that future is uncertain since he recently turned on them.

Yup, it’s pretty much a done deal … if Ford runs again, he’s a shoe-in and his ouster will just be  a huge waste of time! Easy!

Toronto Sun poll (November 26)

Toronto Star poll (October)

Toronto Star poll (November 26)

Metro News poll (November 26)

Globe and Mail poll (November 26)

Global Toronto poll (November 26)

Globe and Mail poll (October)

Hamilton Spectator poll (November 26)

So…yeah…there you go; when it comes to Ford, the bullshit just won’t stop. The media lackeys … erm … pundits, may not have learned that lesson, but at least it looks like the voters have.

No one can say that this was  a “Leftie” conspiracy against Rob Ford — the judge who passed the judgment was in favour of the Harper government in the Guergis case.

And despite the blatantly false, grossly uninformed, and incessantly misleading bleating of ardent Ford supporters like CP24’s Stephen Ledrew (I’m sure Jerry Agar won’t be far behind), Hackland’s judgement was not a mere “technicality” (“highly unlikely” to go anywhere, according to Ledrew, mere moments before the verdict was delivered), or based on “Ford helping the kids”.

And despite CP24’s best attempt to spin the verdict by showing the “range of responses” from Twitter, which included one outraged respondent and a question about how long Ford has to appeal, my own experience both online and off (I’m sitting in a downtown coffee shop as I write this), shows an overwhelming amount of joy and a feeling that justice has finally been done. Not a “he got his” feeling, but a “law prevailed as we knew it must” feeling — something I’m sure, based on all the feedback I’ve seen, Ford supporters just can’t wrap their heads around. And there aren’t many of them around anymore (this is why I’ve mused more than once about the real conspiracy, the one that’s propping Ford up).

I can honestly say that I knew in my heart of hearts that this had to be the verdict. As I’ve stated in numerous previous posts, the judge’s job is to make sure that the law is followed, and in this case the law was very clear. Ultimately, as Ruby, the lawyer who brought the case against Ford, said in a televised conference shortly after the verdict was released, Rob Ford did this to Rob Ford. That was so plainly and painfully obvious to anyone who read the details of the case that any judgment to the contrary would’ve been a shock, not the other way around. Not that it’s stopping Ledrew and the CP24 team from trying to push this lie into the “range of responses” and trying their damnedest to steer the conversation in this direction.

But if you still don’t believe how un-shocked I am at this verdict, just scroll back through a few past Ford conflict of interest posts on TCL and compare the language I used to that used by the judge himself (be sure to read the whole judgement while you’re at it):

Hackland: “In view of the respondent’s leadership role in ensuring integrity in municipal government, it is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the Integrity Commissioner and the Code of Conduct. In my opinion, the respondent’s actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to wilful blindness. As such, I find his actions are incompatible with an error in judgment.”

TCL: “The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.”

Hackland: “For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the respondent contravened s. 5 of the MCIA when he spoke and voted on a matter in which he had a pecuniary interest at the meeting of Toronto City Council on February 7, 2012, and that his actions were not done by reason of inadvertence or a good faith error in judgment.”

TCL: “This can easily be seen as vote buying — you donate to Rob’s foundation, he gets you tax receipts and special favours when he gets into the Mayor’s seat. Even if that never happens (though with Ford, it most likely would), the chance of it happening is eliminated by having things like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (in fact, that’s the sole reason for this law to exist in the first place!) Maybe Robbie didn’t know that it could be perceived this way? Not a fucking chance.”

Hackland: “In assessing errors in judgment, just as it may be relevant to consider the position of a novice elected councillor with limited experience with conflict of interest issues, it is also appropriate to consider the responsibilities of the respondent as a long-serving councillor and Mayor. In my opinion, a high standard must be expected from an elected official in a position of leadership and responsibility. Toronto’s current Code of Conduct is modelled on the recommendations of The Honourable Denise Bellamy, who conducted the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, in 2005, when the respondent was a member of City Council.

TCL: “Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.”

I could go on but it’s kind of beating a dead horse. And I have to be upfront and say that I’m definitely not the only person to point out these “discrepancies” in Ford’s thinking and statements.

But no matter what I think or say, it’s very satisfying at the end of all of this to know that common sense, as reflected in law, has prevailed. On occasion, the law actually works!

Ford is now busily figuring out how to spend the next two weeks before he has to give up his seat. Apparently there’s an appeal in the works and we can be pretty sure the Supreme Court is going to be hearing of this outrage. In the meantime, though, City Council is thinking about if they should appoint an interim mayor or if there should be a by-election. Ford won’t be barred from this so presumably he could run (and win), once again. Considering the amount of bad blood he’s racked up so far though, even if he throws his name into the ring, I can’t see him winning again. Sorry, Ledrew, but you’re wrong on that one too.

I know — I didn’t follow up much on Rob Ford’s conflict of interest case of a few months ago, although I’ve been eagerly awaiting a verdict.

I actually went down to the court house on the first day of the trial to hear him give testimony, and it was pretty much what I’d expected. There was a lot of side-stepping and claiming that during his decade or so at City Hall, he’d never really read the rules, barely talked to any legal aid, had most of his decisions made for him, and ignored the advice of fellow Councillors — what more could you expect from a mayor?

I tweeted from the court room so I’m sure Twitter will have some record of exactly how things went down that day, but there was really nothing new learned on that occasion except the amount of derision in the court that morning. Justice Hackland warned against “outbursts” when someone produced a quiet snicker at one of Ford’s remarks. It may have been the one where he said, “You read it to me, but I haven’t read it,” (referring to a previous conversation that he’d had with Clayton Ruby about reading the rules and which, apparently, failed to make any impression), but really there were so many that I could easily be mistaken.

In any event, it just smacked of one giant insult against common sense to hear the man speak and try to wriggle his way out of responsibility for his own actions.

The reason I mention this is because, at long last, the court is supposed to be delivering its verdict on this coming Monday (at 10 a.m.) In practical terms, Ford may not be mayor come Tuesday morning. That would mean not only a possible by-election, but also Ford’s absence from any municipal politics for a number of years (so presumably Harper would immediately take him on in some cabinet position).

Let justice, law, and the truth prevail!

Every once in a while I get to talking to random people on the streets about Rob Ford, and invariably the comment, “that’s some mayor you guys elected”, gets tossed out.

So just so everyone’s clear on this: NO WE FUCKING DIDN’T!

In fact, the record clearly shows that almost no one in the city proper voted for Ford. Just because he happens to have gotten elected by light thinkers living on the periphery of the vast region that comprises the city doesn’t mean that the city majority actually voted for him. In fact, in the final tally, only 25% of the Toronto borders, from Scarborough to Etobicoke, actually voted for Ford (about 50% of Toronto voted, and about 50% of those people voted for Ford). He didn’t get a majority by any means, he simply got the most votes in a race where votes were split between a number of people.

Ford Nation doesn’t seem to get this simple fact — adding 1 and 1 seems to be a feat for these people so that’s not surprising — and they maintain (usually on heady sounding boards like the Toronto Sun’s article response threads, brilliant groups like “I Hate The War on Rob Ford“, or brainiac power circles like the “Toronto Taxpayers Coalition“), that because he was elected by a “majority” (sorry, not even close), he should have dictatorial powers. And how dare the city practice representative democracy by allowing 43 other democratically elected Councillors to contradict His Highness on HIS  MANDATE! (doesn’t matter how many votes those Councillors got or how many people they represent).

This is why the remaining 75% of Toronto (probably much more at this point), are pissed off with Ford and his hand-up-the-ass puppet master / brother Doug.

They don’t represent us.

None of their efforts are benefiting downtown residents, which is seen by their supporters as a sort of “yeah, fuck you downtown!” response to those of us “elites” who live here (in neighbourhoods like Regent Park). And I get that the suburbs haven’t exactly gotten the infrastructure that they need, but that doesn’t mean that downtown residents are living some sort of glamorous lifestyle on the backs of taxpayers (oh, and we also pay taxes … shocker!) And they should know that — they use the same fucking transit lines and roads that they themselves congest, that we do. Or would, if only they weren’t such selfish fucks about it.

But that’s my own generalization and it’s unfair, in exactly the same way as putting all the focus on the suburbs and completely neglecting to take care of downtown is. Difference is that I can both see and admit to it. And that, along with a complete inability to see issues for what they are, are Rob-Doug’s abject failures.

Yeah, that’s right — removing the Jarvis Street bike lane based on a lie and at the taxpayers’ expense, isn’t going to ease any of the congestion issues anywhere else in the city, and barely on Jarvis at that (all the idiots that applauded this move are still sitting in traffic on the DVP, Gardiner, 401, etc.)

And cutting the vehicle registration tax saves drivers (again, mostly outside of the city), mere pennies a day amounting to a pittance in the pocket of fools who continue to rage at the real problems that are being ignored (you mean Ford hasn’t fixed traffic or parking or the price of gas?! Those damn Leftards!).

Oh, and that failure of the removal of the Land Transfer Tax (“guaranteed!” over and over again), would’ve saved people the same amount of money that Ford claimed the city was suddenly in the red for. In other words, he knew it would leave the city in a financial hole, lied about it, tried to blame it on his predecessor, and all openly under the noses of the same rubes that received Ford’s scorn because he didn’t get his way on the plastic bag tax. Yeah, he’ll turn on you faster than a rabid dog if he senses any trouble — and thanks for your support!

But at least we know that Fordo’s taking plentiful time out of his “busy” schedule (which no one’s allowed to see, but which doesn’t qualify as behind-closed-doors “skullduggery”), to coach football for his old grade school (abusing his position and city resources — and staff — while he’s at it, and telling everyone that his “commitment”  is on the field and not at City Hall), and helping out those poor, disadvantaged black kids.

An oldie but still a goodie. Hard to believe that things have actually gotten worse since then, huh?

The terror is culpable:

http://www.nowtoronto.com/mobile/story.cfm?c=189746

Ford’s conflict of interest case certainly seems to be getting lots of attention, including much on this little blog too. For that, loathe as I am to do so, I really should be thanking Robbie.

It’s interesting to note that some of the comments on my earlier post echo, pretty much verbatim, what Rob’s brother Doug is now bringing out to distract from the upcoming court case; the very same anger-laced diatribes that Rob himself brought out during the election, like Kyle Rae’s $12,000 going-away party — which you either abhor and therefore must love Ford, or love and therefore are critical of Ford (and clearly there’s nothing in between). It’s the kind of logic that only the Fords can pull up — like Doug’s, “Should Rob Ford be in front of a judge for helping kids? No, he shouldn’t be”

No, he’s not in front of a judge for helping kids from “disadvantaged” neighbourhoods like Forest Hill or schools like his own Catholic Don Bosco to play football, he’s there because he broke the law and engaged in what looks an awful lot like influence peddling.

Ultimately, it leads one to wonder if the same people dredging up these comparisons and urging everyone to look every which way but forward are not on the Ford payroll, or somehow part of the same team that got him into power. I’m willing to bet that if you visit The Sun or The Star and read the comments on earlier articles related to Ford’s trial, you’ll find the same commentary and use of distraction tactics.

Coincidence?

But that’s a bit beside the point, because in this post I wanted to talk a bit about what Rob Ford said when he sat with Clayton Ruby and his own lawyer. It’s kind of a long and tedious document owing mostly to Ford’s refusal to own up to anything and arguing over pretty much every definition of every other word Ruby would put to him.

The first four or five pages, for example, are filled with back-and-forths like:

(regarding signing the Declaration of Office when Ford was elected)

Ruby: The declaration is a serious promise?

Ford: I can’t remember what exactly the declaration says.

Ruby: But you understand it to be a serious promise?

Ford: I don’t recall what is says.

Ruby: I’m not asking you to recall what it says … were you making a serious public promise?

Ford: I don’t remember exactly what the wording said on the document…The clerk asks you to sign it, but I can’t remember exactly what it said.

Ruby: Was it a formal occassion?

Ford: How do you define “formal”?

This goes on for an excruciatingly long time with Ford insisting that signing such documents “happens at City Hall”, reiterating that he wasn’t sure what “formal” meant, was unsure of the definition of the word “serious”, and didn’t really get what “important” means. Basically, Rob has never seen a dictionary and doesn’t quite seem to have a good grasp on conversational English either.

Eventually, after huge lapses in memory, Rob reluctantly agreed that he might’ve signed some sort of document where he might’ve agreed to follow some rules, or something like that, maybe.

On page 17 it starts to get a bit more interesting when Ford is asked what his understanding of “conflict of interest” with regard to pecuniary (financial), interest means. “If the City if benefiting from it”, he replies. In other words, if the city of Toronto makes money from the result of his vote, it’s a conflict of interest. (How many Councillors are guilty of that?!) Later this changes to, “if something comes up with the printing”, an allusion to the Fords’ printing company which supplies City Hall with printing services. Either way, both responses display a gaping ignorance of what “conflict of interest” means. Or a put-on ignorance.

Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.

Ruby then questions Ford about his previous conflicts of interest; you know, to try to wrap his head around how Ford would’ve recused himself at previous meetings but for some strange reason completely failed to do so when this glaringly obvious one came by. One of these sections questions Ford’s previous statements about how he deems conflicts of interest to arise:

Ruby: On March 8th, 2011…That’s involving your brother, Councillor Ford. That matter was the appointment of your brother, Doug Ford, to a particular entity, Region Conversation Authority [sic] in project green…I have trouble seeing how you have a pecuniary interest in Doug Ford’s appointment.

Ford: Again, whatever the staff tells me to do, I do.

Ruby: You don’t get or give money to your brother? You each earn your own incomes?

…

Ford: We have our own incomes, but if he needs five bucks for lunch, I give him 20 bucks or 10 bucks for lunch.

A similar line of questioning follows in which Ruby asks Ford about development along Lakeshore Boulevard; Ford also made himself scarce for that Council meeting because of a court proceeding against him (probably the Boardwalk Pub one). “Okay. It doesn’t seem to me to be involving any economic interest,” says Ruby.

After one additional example, Ruby comes to the point:

Ruby: So in all these conflicts of interest, they’re all very different, yes?

…

Ford: It all depends how you define “different”.

Eventually we get to the meat and potatoes where Clayton Ruby asks why Rob Ford thought that a vote which was solely and exclusively about a punishment against him wouldn’t be considered a conflict of interest:

Ruby: In your affidavit at paragraph 16 you say: “…There is no financial consequence to any of the recommendations put forward by the integrity commissioner…” Can you explain what you mean by that?

Ford: I don’t see how the City benefits from this under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Ruby: And therefore there is no need for you to worry about a conflict, correct?

Ford: I wasn’t given…I wasn’t told by legal to declare a conflict.

Ruby: I know that, but I’m trying to figure out what was going on in your head.

Ford: I don’t remember what was going on in my head. I have thousands of thoughts that go through my head every day.

Although earlier in the deposition Ford barely understood what the words Municipal Conflict of Interest Act meant, he now appears to be referring to it. At least he’s sticking to his “all of Council is guilty” logic that the City must somehow benefit financially from this.

Ruby: When you say now: “…There was no financial consequence to any of the recommendations put forward by the integrity commissioner…” Didn’t the integrity commissioner recommend earlier that you pay back, council adopted that, and now they were asking for a time limit on proof that that had happened? In your mind…

Ford: I don’t recall exactly what it was, but yes, the integrity commissioner said I should pay this back.

Ruby: And in your mind, that is not a financial consequence?

Ford: It has nothing to do with the City under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I don’t see how the City benefits from from this.

Perhaps the most telling and laughable section appears on pages 72 to 73 where, after all of this has been established, Ruby asks Ford about his speech (available on my previous post), during that fateful Council meeting:

Ruby: Okay. After your speech, Councillor Ainslie brought a motion to rescind the previous council order requiring you to reimburse the $3,150. Is that correct? … I take it that [the speech] wasn’t an accident? It was deliberate?

Ford: No, I speak when I want to speak.

Ruby: It had nothing to do with a deliberate choice?

Ford: You’re only allowed to speak once at council on every item…You can speak to a deferral for two minutes after that, but if someone amends the item, no, you’re not allowed to speak to it. You’re allowed to speak once for five minutes, plus a two-minute extension.

Ruby: All right. So there was no significance in terms of whether you spoke or whether you voted for the fact that Councillor Aisnlie brought that motion. Am I correct?

Ford: I couldn’t speak to it. It’s against the law…It’s against procedural bylaws. You cannot speak once you have spoke on the item once, and I spoke on the item.

That’s right, Ford wouldn’t want to break procedural bylaws (by order of Council) by talking too much, but having to repay money (by order of Council) can be completely ignored, and the more serious provincial law governing conflicts of interest doesn’t need to be taken seriously at all. If he were up on federal charges like murder, I wonder how absolutely insignificant they’d be to him.

The questioning goes on and on about how Ford dealt with the repayment order, how he understood the Integrity Commissioner’s reports and so on, but it’s really this last exchange that defines what a joke any of Ford’s defense is.

Ford and his brother typify this as “politics”. In fact, they typify anything and anyone who disagrees with them as “politics”, their ignorance of laws and common sense as “misunderstandings”, and anything that smacks of benefiting the common good as pinko Communism.

The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.

It’s not that I believe that politicians, as a group, are necessarily much better, but at least that push-and-pull of public perception keeps most of them in check. For Ford, that’s obviously not the case, and if we allow it, he’s going to redefine the office of the Mayor to something ugly, decadent, and genuinely offensive, if not outright criminal.