Rob Ford has been removed as mayor

[bustaheims]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/26/posted-toronto-political-panel-just-because-rob-fords-removal-was-just-doesnt-mean-the-law-that-turfed-him-is/

The mayor broke a law which there were many reasons and opportunities to not break, and he is subject to the penalty set out therein. More than that, he revealed himself to be unqualified and unfit to hold office: if you neither understand nor care to understand the specific law that you have sworn to uphold, then you don?t belong in that position. When you carelessly break a job contract and refuse to apologize for having done so, you deserve to be fired.

To have a lawmaker who is recklessly negligent of our government?s most fundamental safeguard against corruption is a legitimately dangerous thing. This wasn?t about some political opponent ensnaring Rob Ford in a technicality; this was about Rob Ford?s own determined disregard for one of the laws that lies at the foundation of municipal democracies across Ontario

Regardless of what you feel about his policies, this is a more than fair standard to which all government officials should be held.

 

[Darryl]

Sun "News". One had his day in court, the other hasn't gone to court.

 

[bustaheims]

Sun "News". One had his day in court, the other hasn't gone to court.

You mean, they're willfully ignoring the massive different between being accused of wrong doings and being found guilty of wrong doings? Shocking.

 

[L K]

Sun "News". One had his day in court, the other hasn't gone to court.

You mean, they're willfully ignoring the massive different between being accused of wrong doings and being found guilty of wrong doings? Shocking.

Also comparing one bumbling idiot to another bumbling idiot hardly seems like something to boast.  But I guess it matters that Ford "acted inappropriately" as if quoting it makes it not true.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Not that we're all not aware of their objectivity, but that's from the same paper that a week or so ago actually admitted to treating Ford like a friend in their pages.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It just feels like his lawyer will probably at least be able to get an appeal out of this.

There is apparently no appeal from this sort of decision.

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-appeal-to-court-of-appeal-under.html?spref=tw

 

[bustaheims]

It just feels like his lawyer will probably at least be able to get an appeal out of this.

There is apparently no appeal from this sort of decision.

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-appeal-to-court-of-appeal-under.html?spref=tw

There seems to be some conflicting opinions on that. The Municipal Law specialist on City TV seems to believe Ford can appeal.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I must've been reading from the left-wing pinko side.

 

[Justin]

Yes, disregard everything I said with a sarcastic remark of no substance.

I do my best not to discuss politics on the board. I do, however, enjoy making fun of ridiculous hyperbole.

Then don't make statements if you refuse to back them up.

 

[Justin]

Sun "News". One had his day in court, the other hasn't gone to court.

The point here is to illustrate the relative minuscule offence Ford is dealing with compared to Fontana, or the Montreal guy, or even Kyle Rae's $12,000 taxpayer-funded retirement party. The punishment is unequivocally politically-motivated and wildly outrageous considering the minor mistake Ford made.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

David Miller left the city with a $774 million budget hole that resulted in unpopular service cuts that affected the city's most vulnerable the most. All this after he increased property taxes every year, introduced the vehicle registration tax, and introduced the land transfer tax. He increased city spending by a whopping 43% in only 7 years, largely due to the utterly ridiculous contracts he awarded the unions. Miller was an unforgivably horrible mayor.

Miller had 4 years of budget surpluses.

In fact, the city?s overall fiscal direction in 2012 looks a lot like it did in 2010, prior to the election. City manager Joe Pennachetti, appointed to the post by the previous council, has continued to drive annual efficiencies through internal review processes. The Land Transfer Tax, a Mayor David Miller production, keeps bringing in sizable annual surpluses. Toronto?s credit rating remains high.

Ford has had his fiscal victories, of course. Biggest among them would be the four-year deal his team secured with public sector unions last February. But most of the other savings this mayor has wrangled from the city operating budget have come from a willingness to cut things like transit service ? something Ford guaranteed he wouldn?t do while campaigning for office.

Other victories, like slashing councillor office budgets, resulted in savings so small they?ve had no real impact on Toronto?s overall fiscal position.

A few weeks before Election Day, Ford?s team pushed out a ?Financial Impact Statement?, a spreadsheet detailing their candidate?s budget platform. It called for $525 million in sustainable savings in 2011 and $695 million in 2012.

Actual savings linked to Ford policies amount to barely a fraction of those figures.

Claims that the city could save $80 million a year by eliminating the fair wage policy haven?t come to fruition. Nor has the suggestion that the city could skim $100 million off the budget through ?transparent and competitive tendering.? And the notion that City Hall could shed 3 per cent of its workforce each year, saving about $300 million, never made any mathematical sense to begin with.

http://metronews.ca/voices/urban-compass-toronto-2/419778/mayor-rob-fords-fiscal-record-gets-a-meh/

One of the first signs that we?d been had came when the Ford administration filled the holes in its inaugural budget using a more-than-$300 million surplus left behind by the previous mayor, David Miller.

Not so fast, folks, Team Ford told us?it wasn?t a surplus, it was a ?one-time savings.? Those are two entirely different things.

Then we had another surplus?errr, one-time savings. And another. And just this past week, another surplus?errr, one-time savings was announced for the first quarter of 2012.

How many one-time savings does it take to make a surplus?

In the real world of municipal government financing here in this province, cities are prohibited from running an operating budget deficit. They tend to overestimate their projected costs and downplay possible revenue as a result. Surpluses are not at all unusual, nor are they one-time. In fact, they are a sign of sound fiscal management.

http://torontoist.com/2012/05/what-do-you-call-one-time-savings-that-happen-again-and-again/

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

Yes, disregard everything I said with a sarcastic remark of no substance.

I do my best not to discuss politics on the board. I do, however, enjoy making fun of ridiculous hyperbole.

Then don't make statements if you refuse to back them up.

are you deliberately missing the point?  he commented because you said: "If this city elects another left-winger like Vaughan or Carroll we will be doomed." which i think most would agree is an exaggeration at the very least.  it wasn't about which way you lean politically. Unless you really do believe that Vaughan or Carroll can bring on some kind of end of days scenario. 

 

[louisstamos]

Sun "News". One had his day in court, the other hasn't gone to court.

The point here is to illustrate the relative minuscule offence Ford is dealing with compared to Fontana, or the Montreal guy, or even Kyle Rae's $12,000 taxpayer-funded retirement party. The punishment is unequivocally politically-motivated and wildly outrageous considering the minor mistake Ford made.

Because this seems to be coming up a lot today, I just want to point this out:

Spending taxpayers money on frivolous, go-nowhere programs is unwise, unethical, and usually a bad idea as far as getting re-elected (unless you're the Ontario Liberals, for some reason), but it isn't illegal.  As long as you're not pocketing taxpayer money, the government(s) can spend money on anything that's work related - not everyone has to agree/approve it.  In that weren't the case, any government that funded hospitals that performed abortions would be kicked out for "illegally spending" by pro-life activists.  And in the end, Rae is allowed to have a retirement party, much like most private corporations would have for their longtime employees. 

What Ford did is illegal...not just unwise/unethical.  Think of it as a court case - can a defendant sit in the jury in their own trial?  Because that's essentially what Rob for did...willingfully, even after being warned that he might be in a conflict of interest.  And that's the sticking point on this.  If he showed some sort of remorse, he would have been found guilty, but at the worst - maybe fined, but he still would be mayor.  But the judge said that it's is his WILLFUL IGNORANCE that led him to make the decision he made.  Rob Ford was warned, he should have known the consequences, but he felt the need to do whatever he wanted, and now he's paying for it.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Sun "News". One had his day in court, the other hasn't gone to court.

The point here is to illustrate the relative minuscule offence Ford is dealing with compared to Fontana, or the Montreal guy, or even Kyle Rae's $12,000 taxpayer-funded retirement party. The punishment is unequivocally politically-motivated and wildly outrageous considering the minor mistake Ford made.

Because this seems to be coming up a lot today, I just want to point this out:

Spending taxpayers money on frivolous, go-nowhere programs is unwise, unethical, and usually a bad idea as far as getting re-elected (unless you're the Ontario Liberals, for some reason), but it isn't illegal.  As long as you're not pocketing taxpayer money, the government(s) can spend money on anything that's work related - not everyone has to agree/approve it.  In that weren't the case, any government that funded hospitals that performed abortions would be kicked out for "illegally spending" by pro-life activists.  And in the end, Rae is allowed to have a retirement party, much like most private corporations would have for their longtime employees. 

What Ford did is illegal...not just unwise/unethical.  Think of it as a court case - can a defendant sit in the jury in their own trial?  Because that's essentially what Rob for did...willingfully, even after being warned that he might be in a conflict of interest.  And that's the sticking point on this.  If he showed some sort of remorse, he would have been found guilty, but at the worst - maybe fined, but he still would be mayor.  But the judge said that it's is his WILLFUL IGNORANCE that led him to make the decision he made.  Rob Ford was warned, he should have known the consequences, but he felt the need to do whatever he wanted, and now he's paying for it.

I too read that he had previously been warned about this potential conflict of interest and he apparently chose to ignore the warning (at his own discretion).


This whole scenario makes Ford look like a buffoon at worst and a person of willful ignorance at best.  Those are pretty harsh descriptions for a Mayor who supposedly has been the target of some sections of the media,  and even loathed by several opposing councilors.  There were times when Ford deserved all of these descriptions & innuendos in his time as Mayor, no apologies there.


Perhaps he should have retained his council seat as councillor instead of having run for Mayor, in hindsight, afterall, his deeds helping people as the former councillor are legendary. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It just feels like his lawyer will probably at least be able to get an appeal out of this.

There is apparently no appeal from this sort of decision.

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-appeal-to-court-of-appeal-under.html?spref=tw

There seems to be some conflicting opinions on that. The Municipal Law specialist on City TV seems to believe Ford can appeal.

I read the tweet I got that from wrong - there is appeal to the Divisional Court, but no further.

 

[dappleganger]

Sun "News". One had his day in court, the other hasn't gone to court.

The point here is to illustrate the relative minuscule offence Ford is dealing with compared to Fontana, or the Montreal guy, or even Kyle Rae's $12,000 taxpayer-funded retirement party. The punishment is unequivocally politically-motivated and wildly outrageous considering the minor mistake Ford made.

Because this seems to be coming up a lot today, I just want to point this out:

Spending taxpayers money on frivolous, go-nowhere programs is unwise, unethical, and usually a bad idea as far as getting re-elected (unless you're the Ontario Liberals, for some reason), but it isn't illegal.  As long as you're not pocketing taxpayer money, the government(s) can spend money on anything that's work related - not everyone has to agree/approve it.  In that weren't the case, any government that funded hospitals that performed abortions would be kicked out for "illegally spending" by pro-life activists.  And in the end, Rae is allowed to have a retirement party, much like most private corporations would have for their longtime employees. 

What Ford did is illegal...not just unwise/unethical.  Think of it as a court case - can a defendant sit in the jury in their own trial?  Because that's essentially what Rob for did...willingfully, even after being warned that he might be in a conflict of interest.  And that's the sticking point on this.  If he showed some sort of remorse, he would have been found guilty, but at the worst - maybe fined, but he still would be mayor.  But the judge said that it's is his WILLFUL IGNORANCE that led him to make the decision he made.  Rob Ford was warned, he should have known the consequences, but he felt the need to do whatever he wanted, and now he's paying for it.

Let's take a breath. Ford was found in violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that councillors must adhere to. He didn't commit a crime.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

How is that not still illegal like he said?  He acted contrary to the law.

 

[armche123]

Sun "News". One had his day in court, the other hasn't gone to court.

The point here is to illustrate the relative minuscule offence Ford is dealing with compared to Fontana, or the Montreal guy, or even Kyle Rae's $12,000 taxpayer-funded retirement party. The punishment is unequivocally politically-motivated and wildly outrageous considering the minor mistake Ford made.

Because this seems to be coming up a lot today, I just want to point this out:

Spending taxpayers money on frivolous, go-nowhere programs is unwise, unethical, and usually a bad idea as far as getting re-elected (unless you're the Ontario Liberals, for some reason), but it isn't illegal.  As long as you're not pocketing taxpayer money, the government(s) can spend money on anything that's work related - not everyone has to agree/approve it.  In that weren't the case, any government that funded hospitals that performed abortions would be kicked out for "illegally spending" by pro-life activists.  And in the end, Rae is allowed to have a retirement party, much like most private corporations would have for their longtime employees. 

What Ford did is illegal...not just unwise/unethical.  Think of it as a court case - can a defendant sit in the jury in their own trial?  Because that's essentially what Rob for did...willingfully, even after being warned that he might be in a conflict of interest.  And that's the sticking point on this.  If he showed some sort of remorse, he would have been found guilty, but at the worst - maybe fined, but he still would be mayor.  But the judge said that it's is his WILLFUL IGNORANCE that led him to make the decision he made.  Rob Ford was warned, he should have known the consequences, but he felt the need to do whatever he wanted, and now he's paying for it.

Let's take a breath. Ford was found in violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that councillors must adhere to. He didn't commit a crime.

I'm STILL telling! 

 

[#1PilarFan]

Apparently Ford wouldn't be able to run in a potential by-election. Here's hoping we don't spend $7m bucks on a by-election.

Rob Ford out: Mayor can?t run in by-election, city?s top lawyer says

The City of Toronto Act suggests a term is four years.

?It is my opinion that the word ?term? means 2010-2014,? city solicitor Anna Kinastowski told council Tuesday morning.

 

[Justin]

Miller had 4 years of budget surpluses.

Miller left the city in debt despite raising taxes at an incredible rate. He taxed, and taxed, and taxed. But the city was still in bad financial shape when he left. But hey, if you enjoy the green roofs...

Because this seems to be coming up a lot today, I just want to point this out:

Spending taxpayers money on frivolous, go-nowhere programs is unwise, unethical, and usually a bad idea as far as getting re-elected (unless you're the Ontario Liberals, for some reason), but it isn't illegal.  As long as you're not pocketing taxpayer money, the government(s) can spend money on anything that's work related - not everyone has to agree/approve it.  In that weren't the case, any government that funded hospitals that performed abortions would be kicked out for "illegally spending" by pro-life activists.  And in the end, Rae is allowed to have a retirement party, much like most private corporations would have for their longtime employees. 

What Ford did is illegal...not just unwise/unethical.  Think of it as a court case - can a defendant sit in the jury in their own trial?  Because that's essentially what Rob for did...willingfully, even after being warned that he might be in a conflict of interest.  And that's the sticking point on this.  If he showed some sort of remorse, he would have been found guilty, but at the worst - maybe fined, but he still would be mayor.  But the judge said that it's is his WILLFUL IGNORANCE that led him to make the decision he made.  Rob Ford was warned, he should have known the consequences, but he felt the need to do whatever he wanted, and now he's paying for it.

Get off your high horse. Ford had nothing but good intentions trying raise money for a children's charity and made a minor mistake regarding a voting technicality. Illegal? Yes. But what he did harmed no one and nothing, it was a minor mistake, and the magnitude of the punishment considering the minuscule nature of the mistake he made is a farce.

As for your defense of Kyle Rae...that is seriously the dumbest thing I've read on the internet in a long time. And that says something. Governments have an obligation to spend the taxpayers' money wisely with accountability. If you want to throw yourself a retirement party, why should I have to pay for it? It's ridiculous. If someone working in the private sector has a retirement party with company money it's usually because of the goodwill of his superiors. Kyle Rae on the other hand gave the finger to the taxpayers and decided to indulge in people's hard-earned money so he can sip champagne and eat caviar. You are seriously okay with this? It's disgusting.

---

Anyways, I'd just like to say that we shouldn't really be speaking about this on a hockey forum. Although I don't agree with Nik refusing to back up his remark, he is right in that we should do our best not to talk politics on this board. I just can't help myself with this Rob Ford thing. Not only does it enrage me as a conservative and a supporter of the mayor, it enrages me on a personal level.

I am heavily active in municipal politics, whether it be getting involved with municipal advocacy organizations or rushing home to watch council meetings. I keep a normal level of interest in federal and provincial politics, but it's the municipal level that gets me. I can largely attribute that to Rob Ford, who I have been a fan of long before he became mayor. He was my favourite city councilor, and now policy-wise I think he's a great mayor. I remember flipping through the channels on a lazy Sunday and somehow stumbling across a Rogers TV documentary on city councilor Rob Ford. I had almost no serious interest in politics at that point but decided to watch. I remember thinking "wow, he'd make a great mayor one day" while watching the documentary. It was 2006. I can attribute my interest in politics solely to that day. In the same way that the 2002 gold medal game got me interested in hockey, that Rob Ford interview got me interested in politics. From that point on Rob Ford was my guy, he still is my guy, and I will defend him to the death.