Rob Ford has been removed as mayor

[TimKerr]

It's a good thing Justin doesn't care about this or doesn't want to continue talking about.  Honestly, if you can't see how biased you are in this discussion, perhaps it's best to end it.

Can't we just go back to re-hashing awesome Simpson's episodes?

I'll start:

"I am so smart, I am so smart, s-m-r-t, i mean S-M-A-R-T"

( in background house begins to burn down)

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This paragraph proves that people who work in government with the same line of thinking as yourself are part the reason we're in debt. The government has a responsibility to put tax dollars to good use, and if you think Kyle Rae's display of his shocking sense of entitlement with his ego-driven goodbye party for himself is good use of our hard-earned money, then I feel sorry for you.

Right, but being caught in a clear, illegal conflict of interest, as well as prioritizing city services for you and your friends, is okay to you?

Ford didn't get rid of the gravy, blind loyalty followers are just lapping it up.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

This paragraph proves that people who work in government with the same line of thinking as yourself are part the reason we're in debt. The government has a responsibility to put tax dollars to good use, and if you think Kyle Rae's display of his shocking sense of entitlement with his ego-driven goodbye party for himself is good use of our hard-earned money, then I feel sorry for you.

Right, but being caught in a clear, illegal conflict of interest, as well as prioritizing city services for you and your friends, is okay to you?

Ford didn't get rid of the gravy, blind loyalty followers are just lapping it up.

Not only did he not get rid of the gravy train..he was building a stop at his house

 

[Justin]

This paragraph proves that people who work in government with the same line of thinking as yourself are part the reason we're in debt. The government has a responsibility to put tax dollars to good use, and if you think Kyle Rae's display of his shocking sense of entitlement with his ego-driven goodbye party for himself is good use of our hard-earned money, then I feel sorry for you.

Right, but being caught in a clear, illegal conflict of interest, as well as prioritizing city services for you and your friends, is okay to you?

Ford didn't get rid of the gravy, blind loyalty followers are just lapping it up.

You couldn't be more wrong.

-$64 Million returned to taxpayers: abolished $60 Car registration tax.
-$899,000 saved: reduced Councillors' annual expense accounts from $50,445 to $30,000.
-$700,000 saved: reduced Mayor's Office budget from $2.7 to $2.0 Million.
-$170,000 saved: eliminated paper news clippings, switched to electronic.
-$48,000 saved: eliminated snacks at Council meetings.
-$17,000 saved: Mayor turned down recommended pay raise.
-$11.1 million saved: Contracted out garbage collection to residential neighbourhoods west of Yonge Street and in all City parks which saves 30% annually
-Forced changes to the leadership at Toronto Community Housing Corporation, a City agency, after an Auditor General's Report found wasteful spending cost taxpayers an estimated $4-6 million.
-$25 million in savings through the Core Service Review by rationalization of service delivery in a manner which does not affect front line services.
-Ensuring the process for all social service (welfare) debit cards by electronic means at a savings of $5 million.

Also, being caught in a conflict of interest doesn't bother me because Ford had nothing to gain from this. He wasn't voting on something that would have given money to a family member on a land deal (ahem, Hazel Mccallion). Out of good faith was raising money for a childrens charity, and mistakenly voted on an issue regarding his foundation. His mistake didn't change the outcome of the vote, no one suffered as a result of it (unlike Kyle Rae's party), and his flub was ultimately harmless. So that's why it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the waste and fiscal irresponsibility that the left insist on.

 

[louisstamos]

TimKerr, I've just a few more things to pick apart.  I promise I'll at least end with something Simpsons related

I understand that. If you read my previous comment, I stated that Ford made a "minor mistake" regarding a voting technicality. I also acknowledged that what he did was illegal, there is no disputing that. My point is the punishment is wildly outrageous considering the minor flub

While I do agree that the punishment is a tad excessive, it's structured that way for a reason - discourage anyone from ever doing it.  If tomorrow they decided the punishment for jaywalking was 20 years in prison, you better believe I would never jaywalk again (or at least make absolutely sure no one is watching. ).  Plus, I would not characterize conflict of interest as minor at all. Like I said, it's as major as being found in contempt of court by not declaring a conflict of interest.

and this whole thing wouldn't have even happened if Ford wasn't a conservative. You think Clayton Ruby and his gang would pursue this if Adam Vaughan made the same mistake? Give me a break. This was completely politically motivated because people don't like Ford's politics, THAT'S why they want him out of office.

While you're right that Clayton Ruby probably wouldn't go after Vaughn pro-bono, you honestly can't believe that there is no conservative lawyer in the city (and there are a lot of them) that wouldn't go after Vaughn if they had an opportunity and reason to.  Oh no, the Conservatives are so sweet and innocent and would never resort to dirty politics!  Yeah right.

To be fair, though, I'm sure Vaughn has read his handbook and attended the Councillor orientations, so I'm assuming he wouldn't make that mistake in the first place.

(Full disclosure, though: I'm not really that fond of Vaughn either.  I'm a centrist.  Josh Matlow is my guy)

people who work in government with the same line of thinking as yourself are part the reason we're in debt.

Granted, I've been out of school for a while now, so many my sense of numbers isn't that great - but how does spending $12,000 of $50,000 that has been budgeted for Councillors put you further in debt?  Sure, if that party put him over his budget he would be incurring the city debt.  But EVERY Councillor does similar stuff to this: left, right and centre.  I get an invitation to Norm Kelly's (a conservative) barbeque every summer for his constitutients - which is fine because we paid essentially paid for it and we can go.  The only person who never did this is Ford, because a) he is already wealthy and can afford to pay for it out of pocket (yet wouldn't pay an essentially $3000 fine?) and more importantly b) he was positioning himself from day 1 to run for Mayor, and that was going to be his platform.  I know because he let EVERYBODY know that.  "I'm going to be the penny-pinching mayor!  Look at my record from when I was a Councillor!"

I will say this, though - Rob's motion to reduce the budgets to $30,000 is one I agree with and is one of his better moves.

The government has a responsibility to put tax dollars to good use, and if you think Kyle Rae's display of his shocking sense of entitlement with his ego-driven goodbye party for himself is good use of our hard-earned money, then I feel sorry for you.

This is why I brought up Bev Oda.  If the people knew that Kyle Rae was such a loose cannon with his expenses, why was he continually elected?  He was a Councillor for 19 years.  Bev Oda, even AFTER the scandal, was re-elected to parliament by her constituents.  Now, in the latter case, you can make the argument that the vote was more so for Steven Harper than for Oda because of the structure of federal politics, but in municipal elections - the vote for the mayor is separate than the vote for a Councillor.  So if they were both such bad candidates are terrible with money, why did they both win?

Because the people who voted for them are all idiots, right?  Or is it much for complex than that.

I don't want to get into the Political Theory on the perks of politics and bureaucracy - and how we have to make the job appealing enough so the best possible people will want the job (although that seldom ever seems to come to fruition).  But here's the nuts and bolts of it.  Each Councillor that is elected is told "this is your salary, this is your budget, these are the rules.  Represent your riding and stay within your paramaters."  You may not agree with someone spending money on a retirement party, but I may also disagree with putting a cross-walk in a place where few people even cross the street at all.  That's politics.  No one ever agrees.  The main difference is, Rae stayed within the paramaters of his job - however debated.  They gave him a certain amount of money to spend and he spent it.  Whether is was rightfully spent or not is the debate for the constituents.  If they don't like the way he's spending - they can vote him out.  That's politics.

Even if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, considering the consequence, Ford should have at least KNOWN what the rule was, and not to break it (glad to see "ignorance of the law is not a defense" applies to politicians as well) considering what the repercussions were.

I'll put it in context - every year, we send students on an exchange course to Israel.  Many of them will travel through the middle east afterwards, and when they do the travel safety orientation, they warn the women that if they travel in a traditional/orthodox/religious area, they HAVE to cover up, or they risk being arrested, executed, or even worse.  And here in Canada, a woman showing her arms and face is such a common thing, you think "why would they kill people over such a minor thing?"  But it doesn't matter - when you're over there, you don't do it, because you don't want to die.

Ford was warned he would be found in conflict on interest, and he should have known the repercussions.  But he said screw the rules, I do what I want.  And now he's dead (mayorally speaking).

And as promised, after the whole "Monorail on the waterfront" fiasco, I'd say the Fords remind me more of this guy:

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This paragraph proves that people who work in government with the same line of thinking as yourself are part the reason we're in debt. The government has a responsibility to put tax dollars to good use, and if you think Kyle Rae's display of his shocking sense of entitlement with his ego-driven goodbye party for himself is good use of our hard-earned money, then I feel sorry for you.

Right, but being caught in a clear, illegal conflict of interest, as well as prioritizing city services for you and your friends, is okay to you?

Ford didn't get rid of the gravy, blind loyalty followers are just lapping it up.

You couldn't be more wrong.

-$64 Million returned to taxpayers: abolished $60 Car registration tax.
-$899,000 saved: reduced Councillors' annual expense accounts from $50,445 to $30,000.
-$700,000 saved: reduced Mayor's Office budget from $2.7 to $2.0 Million.
-$170,000 saved: eliminated paper news clippings, switched to electronic.
-$48,000 saved: eliminated snacks at Council meetings.
-$17,000 saved: Mayor turned down recommended pay raise.
-$11.1 million saved: Contracted out garbage collection to residential neighbourhoods west of Yonge Street and in all City parks which saves 30% annually
-Forced changes to the leadership at Toronto Community Housing Corporation, a City agency, after an Auditor General's Report found wasteful spending cost taxpayers an estimated $4-6 million.
-$25 million in savings through the Core Service Review by rationalization of service delivery in a manner which does not affect front line services.
-Ensuring the process for all social service (welfare) debit cards by electronic means at a savings of $5 million.

Also, being caught in a conflict of interest doesn't bother me because Ford had nothing to gain from this. He wasn't voting on something that would have given money to a family member on a land deal (ahem, Hazel Mccallion). Out of good faith was raising money for a childrens charity, and mistakenly voted on an issue regarding his foundation. His mistake didn't change the outcome of the vote, no one suffered as a result of it (unlike Kyle Rae's party), and his flub was ultimately harmless. So that's why it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the waste and fiscal irresponsibility that the left insist on.

You literally just copied and pasted Rob Ford's release touting his own record from the 1-year anniversary of his election.

Again, I posted this before, but it apparently needs repeating:

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.

And property taxes continue to increase slowly, at a rate that ensures Toronto homeowners pay a significantly lower percentage than their suburban neighbours.

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/

You must have fundamentally misunderstood what is meant by "gravy," or what Ford's platform for winning was, to believe that he has come in and made big, significant cuts to city hall in Toronto.

And again, the conflict of interest isn't about how many people Rob Ford hurt.  He, as an elected official, put himself in a position of conflict and in a position to be taken advantage of by lobbyists.  It doesn't matter if anything else happened.  We're lucky he was caught before anything potentially worse happened.

But the fact remains - he insulted the people who voted for him and those who didn't by putting himself in a position of conflict as an elected official.  No, the punishment does not fit the crime, but it is the punishment and he should have known that going in.

 

[Justin]

While I do agree that the punishment is a tad excessive, it's structured that way for a reason - discourage anyone from ever doing it.  If tomorrow they decided the punishment for jaywalking was 20 years in prison, you better believe I would never jaywalk again (or at least make absolutely sure no one is watching. ).  Plus, I would not characterize conflict of interest as minor at all. Like I said, it's as major as being found in contempt of court by not declaring a conflict of interest.

Let me get this straight. You compared Ford's punishment to 20 years in prison for jaywalking. Now, 20 years for jaywalking we can all agree is extremely unreasonable...so aren't you insinuating that Ford's punishment is also extremely unreasonable? Furthermore, the judge had other options. He could have given Ford a reprimand (a slap on the wrist), or he could have had Ford finish his mandate but prevent him from running in future elections. Removing the Mayor from office was merely the maximum penalty, but the judge could have found that Ford acted through "inadvertence" or performed an "error in judgment" which would negate the removal penalty. Judge Hackland, clearly willing to play ball with Ruby's gang, chose not to.

While you're right that Clayton Ruby probably wouldn't go after Vaughn pro-bono, you honestly can't believe that there is no conservative lawyer in the city (and there are a lot of them) that wouldn't go after Vaughn if they had an opportunity and reason to.  Oh no, the Conservatives are so sweet and innocent and would never resort to dirty politics!  Yeah right.

To be fair, though, I'm sure Vaughn has read his handbook and attended the Councillor orientations, so I'm assuming he wouldn't make that mistake in the first place.

(Full disclosure, though: I'm not really that fond of Vaughn either.  I'm a centrist.  Josh Matlow is my guy)

I would say that most people, whatever their political affiliation, would wait until the next election to vote out the Mayor. Most lawyers, left or right, wouldn't pursue something like this. This was a case of a bunch of left wing idealists desperately trying to find a way to get Ford out of office through any means possible. Ruby and his gang got together, found an out, and took it. It doesn't get any more politically motivated than what took place this week.

Also, I can't believe you like Josh Matlow. Yuck! He's honestly one of the worst councilors in the city despite not being as left as many of them. The guy came into City Hall preaching his willingness to work with both sides and be a centrist view on council but his voting record is consistently left wing. He always talks of how the left and the right must come together and not be as divided and yada yada yada, which is essentially meaningless drivel which sounds good but amounts to nothing. He's an egotistical media and publicity hound, with his ridiculous e-mail that was sent to constituents when the Ford decision came down proving that. I had high hopes for Josh Matlow after the election but he's really let me down. Too bad.

Granted, I've been out of school for a while now, so many my sense of numbers isn't that great - but how does spending $12,000 of $50,000 that has been budgeted for Councillors put you further in debt?  Sure, if that party put him over his budget he would be incurring the city debt.  But EVERY Councillor does similar stuff to this: left, right and centre.  I get an invitation to Norm Kelly's (a conservative) barbeque every summer for his constitutients - which is fine because we paid essentially paid for it and we can go.  The only person who never did this is Ford, because a) he is already wealthy and can afford to pay for it out of pocket (yet wouldn't pay an essentially $3000 fine?) and more importantly b) he was positioning himself from day 1 to run for Mayor, and that was going to be his platform.  I know because he let EVERYBODY know that.  "I'm going to be the penny-pinching mayor!  Look at my record from when I was a Councillor!"

I will say this, though - Rob's motion to reduce the budgets to $30,000 is one I agree with and is one of his better moves.

First of all, Norm Kelly's barbecue is a public event while Rae's party was a private gathering to celebrate his retirement. There's a huge difference there my friend. I still can't believe you are trying to justify this though. If you recall, people on all sides of the political spectrum were upset with Rae for spending $12,000 of the taxpayer's money on a friging party, not just the Conservatives. I'm starting to think that you are defending this not because you are "centrist," but because you are just a stupid person.

---

You literally just copied and pasted Rob Ford's release touting his own record from the 1-year anniversary of his election.

So what? The source the information comes from has NOTHING to do with the plain hard facts listed. If the Toronto Star published this list, it would still have the same meaning as if the Toronto Sun published the list. The list is of nothing but true and objectively stated facts and you are choosing to ignore them.

You must have fundamentally misunderstood what is meant by "gravy," or what Ford's platform for winning was, to believe that he has come in and made big, significant cuts to city hall in Toronto.

And again, the conflict of interest isn't about how many people Rob Ford hurt.  He, as an elected official, put himself in a position of conflict and in a position to be taken advantage of by lobbyists.  It doesn't matter if anything else happened.  We're lucky he was caught before anything potentially worse happened.

But the fact remains - he insulted the people who voted for him and those who didn't by putting himself in a position of conflict as an elected official.  No, the punishment does not fit the crime, but it is the punishment and he should have known that going in.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that article is written by Matt Elliott, a feverishly left-wing blogger who I've been reading for a long time. But that doesn't really matter. Ford has in fact made big cuts to city hall, as evidenced by the fact that Toronto spent less on its budget in 2012 than it did in 2011 which is the first time that's ever happened. This was after years of Miller growing the budget substantially at a shocking rate of 43% over 7 years.

 

[louisstamos]

I like how simply because we disagree on how public money is spent, that apparently makes me a stupid person.  Not my intelligence or anything, just my opinions, and you resort to name calling.  Real mature.  But I'm a Christian, so I have my beliefs called as "stupid" all the time...but fine, I'll roll with it and show you a bit more respect than you've shown me.

Firstly, Rob Ford's campaign manager, Nick Kouvalis, was on AM640 yesterday on Arlene Bynon's show.  And he said himself that, although he also agreed that the punishment is over excessive, the judge made the right call and "the only call he could possibly make under the rules."  And that's because of the willingful blindness on Rob Ford's part.  If no one attempted to warn him about the conflict of interest, then he would have received the reprimand.  But he was warned, and still went through with it, and the judge laid down the only sentence that he could under the circumstances.

I work in Political Studies, and we have people who follow municipal politics very closely (our phone was ringing off the hook on Monday looking for comments/quotes) and the consensus around here before was, even though removing him from office was the right decision, most people thought he would simply be reprimanded because the judge simply "didn't have the guts."  But in the end, by the letter of the law, the judge did what he was supposed to do.

Now, if it makes you feel better, the consensus now is that Rob Ford will receive a stay and his appeal, and in the appeals court where there is more discretion and leeway in administering punishment will still find him guilty, but he will only be reprimanded and will serve his full term.  Lord knows what happens at the next election.

So, in the end - yes, the punishment is excessive and needs to be reformed/changed.  I have no problem admitting that, and in the end, I don't think he will lose his seat over this.  My problem is his blatant disregard for rules and procedures.  If he is breaking all these rules in the public eye, how can I trust him behind closed doors?  Especially since he's taking money from lobbyists, under the guise of the City of Toronto, for his charity.  The fact is, no matter what the punishment is lenient or harsh, you can't just go "Oh c'mon!  I'm the f'n mayor! I do what I want!"  The mayor can't pick and choose which rules apply to him and which don't.  He can't dictate what the punishment will be.  You don't follow the rules, you get whatever the current punishment is - Ford is finding that right now.

And if you really believe that if someone on the right wouldn't be doing the EXACT same thing if the Mayor was on the left, well...I wish I had your optimism.  Politics isn't about morality, right and wrong.  It's about power and control.  That's it.  If you don't believe a player in politics wouldn't seize an opportunity to gain whatever leverage they have, then they won't succeed in Politics.  I remember when Fantino was "pressured" into stepping down, there was a strong call to "pressure" Miller to step down - one Councillor (Mammoliti, I believe) even asked Miller to step down while in session.  Here's the difference - Miller was a spendthrift, and our taxes expanded a lot, but never did anything against the rules.  THE EXACT SAME RULES apply to our current mayor.  And he broke one, and a very big one.  If Miller did something that warranted taking him down, someone who would have wanted him out would have taken him down.  But he didn't.

Also, for quite a number of the "victories" you listed earlier for Rob Ford, Matlow was a deciding vote.  He was one of the Councillors whose vote Ford coveted for that first year.  He didn't really turn coat until the whole "subways, subways, subways" mess.  But then again, so did a number of Councillors.  It wasn't just Karen Stintz (who I'm not a fan of either).

And so I like the guy because I think he's a level-headed, intelligent guy who makes decent decisions.  That makes me stupid apparently?  I also like the colour purple.  Oh, I'm a moron?  Did I mention I like to eat Gyros on the Danforth.  Ah, full blown dimwit?  Gotchya.

 

[Kin]

Furthermore, the judge had other options. He could have given Ford a reprimand (a slap on the wrist), or he could have had Ford finish his mandate but prevent him from running in future elections.

As mentioned by others, this is factually inaccurate. The MCIA is very specific in limited in what it allows a judge to do. If he finds that Ford contravened the act and not inadvertently or through an error in judgment he has no power to reprimand the guilty party and removal from office is not discretionary.

Removing the Mayor from office was merely the maximum penalty,

This too is factually inaccurate. The maximum penalty would be removal from office as well as disqualifying him for seven years.

but the judge could have found that Ford acted through "inadvertence" or performed an "error in judgment" which would negate the removal penalty. Judge Hackland, clearly willing to play ball with Ruby's gang, chose not to.

That's because he couldn't have possibly done so reasonably given Ford's testimony. Here's what Ford said on the subject of it being inadvertent

Ruby: You deliberately chose to make the speech you did and vote the way you did?

Ford: Absolutely.

Something cannot be inadvertent if it is deliberate. This is followed by:

Ruby: And you don?t regret for a moment having done that?

Ford: Absolutely not.

It's impossible to argue that you made an error in judgement and then didn't regret it.

 

[TimKerr]

You know what Justin?
I think you're lucky that you got into this debate with louisstamos. Because if you called most of the other people on this site stupid, and condescended to them by telling them to get off their high-horse they probably wouldn't respond as nicely.

Pro tip: if you want people to believe what you are saying perhaps insulting them isn't the best way for that to happen.

Finally, kudos to you louisstamos, not only for your awesome monorail reference, but your class in dealing with this discussion.

Ps I like gyros too

 

[WalterSobchak]

Amazing debate over $3100..guy gets tossed for breaking the rules.

I wonder what would they say if he threw away about $700 million just to move a power plant and save 2 seats in an election? 

Since Ford is a hard working mayor, who does exactly what he says he will do, we can't have that! At the end of the day, living in Mississauga, I don't care for Ford either way, but, I just laugh when I see the comments, and not just here about how it was okay to prorogue parliament since it was okay that Harper did it twice.

Close to a billion taxpayers dollars were wasted. I am shocked their has been no RCMP inquiry into the misuse of these funds. Sounds clearly like fraud to me.

 

[Justin]

I like how simply because we disagree on how public money is spent, that apparently makes me a stupid person.  Not my intelligence or anything, just my opinions, and you resort to name calling.  Real mature.  But I'm a Christian, so I have my beliefs called as "stupid" all the time...but fine, I'll roll with it and show you a bit more respect than you've shown me.

Firstly, Rob Ford's campaign manager, Nick Kouvalis, was on AM640 yesterday on Arlene Bynon's show.  And he said himself that, although he also agreed that the punishment is over excessive, the judge made the right call and "the only call he could possibly make under the rules."  And that's because of the willingful blindness on Rob Ford's part.  If no one attempted to warn him about the conflict of interest, then he would have received the reprimand.  But he was warned, and still went through with it, and the judge laid down the only sentence that he could under the circumstances.

I work in Political Studies, and we have people who follow municipal politics very closely (our phone was ringing off the hook on Monday looking for comments/quotes) and the consensus around here before was, even though removing him from office was the right decision, most people thought he would simply be reprimanded because the judge simply "didn't have the guts."  But in the end, by the letter of the law, the judge did what he was supposed to do.

Now, if it makes you feel better, the consensus now is that Rob Ford will receive a stay and his appeal, and in the appeals court where there is more discretion and leeway in administering punishment will still find him guilty, but he will only be reprimanded and will serve his full term.  Lord knows what happens at the next election.

So, in the end - yes, the punishment is excessive and needs to be reformed/changed.  I have no problem admitting that, and in the end, I don't think he will lose his seat over this.  My problem is his blatant disregard for rules and procedures.  If he is breaking all these rules in the public eye, how can I trust him behind closed doors?  Especially since he's taking money from lobbyists, under the guise of the City of Toronto, for his charity.  The fact is, no matter what the punishment is lenient or harsh, you can't just go "Oh c'mon!  I'm the f'n mayor! I do what I want!"  The mayor can't pick and choose which rules apply to him and which don't.  He can't dictate what the punishment will be.  You don't follow the rules, you get whatever the current punishment is - Ford is finding that right now.

And if you really believe that if someone on the right wouldn't be doing the EXACT same thing if the Mayor was on the left, well...I wish I had your optimism.  Politics isn't about morality, right and wrong.  It's about power and control.  That's it.  If you don't believe a player in politics wouldn't seize an opportunity to gain whatever leverage they have, then they won't succeed in Politics.  I remember when Fantino was "pressured" into stepping down, there was a strong call to "pressure" Miller to step down - one Councillor (Mammoliti, I believe) even asked Miller to step down while in session.  Here's the difference - Miller was a spendthrift, and our taxes expanded a lot, but never did anything against the rules.  THE EXACT SAME RULES apply to our current mayor.  And he broke one, and a very big one.  If Miller did something that warranted taking him down, someone who would have wanted him out would have taken him down.  But he didn't.

Also, for quite a number of the "victories" you listed earlier for Rob Ford, Matlow was a deciding vote.  He was one of the Councillors whose vote Ford coveted for that first year.  He didn't really turn coat until the whole "subways, subways, subways" mess.  But then again, so did a number of Councillors.  It wasn't just Karen Stintz (who I'm not a fan of either).

And so I like the guy because I think he's a level-headed, intelligent guy who makes decent decisions.  That makes me stupid apparently?  I also like the colour purple.  Oh, I'm a moron?  Did I mention I like to eat Gyros on the Danforth.  Ah, full blown dimwit?  Gotchya.

Sorry, but defending a man who threw a private friging party for himself on the taxpayer's dime is very stupid. Kyle Rae took that $12,000 from his office budget, which is for the following purposes as described in City of Toronto Constituency Services and Office Budget Policy:

-Communicate with their constituents about the meetings and activities of City Council and its committees.
-Communicate with their constituents about the business and services of the City and its agencies.
-Enhance and promote a harmonious community in their wards.
-Administer their offices in City Hall and in their communities.
-Represent the City at functions or events.

Does throwing a private party for family and friends fall under any of these categories? Of course it doesn't. Kyle Rae milked the taxpayers of $12,000 on his way out the door and gave the finger to Toronto in the process. He's a scumbag.

Anyways, speculating on whether a person on the right would have done the same thing if the Mayor was on the left is a useless exercise of no merit. The point here is the person on the left, in this case Clayton Ruby, shouldn't have done what he did in the first place. Left wingers like to advocate for democracy, rights, equality, and the rest, yet Ruby's gang and supporters of the court's decision have no problem with completely disrespecting the democratic process and booting out the mayor without letting the people decide. Ugh.

As for Matlow, in the past year he voted against subways and virtually all of the cost-cutting measures in the 2012 budget. Really, the only issue he didn't side with the left on in 2012 is the bag ban. In 2011 he voted against freezing property taxes, restructuring the TCHC amid corruption, and selling off city-owned theaters. Though, he did vote for some cost-cutting measures and contracting out garbage. According to Metro Newspaper blogger Matt Elliott's city council scorecard, Matlow voted with Ford 36% of the time in 2011 and 30% of the time in 2012. That is pretty low, the lowest percentage of anyone considered part of the "middle" at City Hall, and a disappointing number for someone I was impressed with when they got elected.

 

[TimKerr]

B-Man, I don't think you are following along here. Things are only bad when someone on the left does something.
Seriously, get with the program.

 

[Justin]

Furthermore, the judge had other options. He could have given Ford a reprimand (a slap on the wrist), or he could have had Ford finish his mandate but prevent him from running in future elections.

As mentioned by others, this is factually inaccurate. The MCIA is very specific in limited in what it allows a judge to do. If he finds that Ford contravened the act and not inadvertently or through an error in judgment he has no power to reprimand the guilty party and removal from office is not discretionary.

Removing the Mayor from office was merely the maximum penalty,

This too is factually inaccurate. The maximum penalty would be removal from office as well as disqualifying him for seven years.

but the judge could have found that Ford acted through "inadvertence" or performed an "error in judgment" which would negate the removal penalty. Judge Hackland, clearly willing to play ball with Ruby's gang, chose not to.

That's because he couldn't have possibly done so reasonably given Ford's testimony. Here's what Ford said on the subject of it being inadvertent

Ruby: You deliberately chose to make the speech you did and vote the way you did?

Ford: Absolutely.

Something cannot be inadvertent if it is deliberate. This is followed by:

Ruby: And you don?t regret for a moment having done that?

Ford: Absolutely not.

It's impossible to argue that you made an error in judgement and then didn't regret it.

Rob Ford said what he did on the stand because saying otherwise would have been lying under oath. He deliberately made that speech because he felt he had to defend himself and his foundation that is very dear to him, and was unaware that this was considered a conflict of interest. Foolish, I know. He doesn't regret doing this because still, after being made aware of the conflict of interest rules, he doesn't consider what happened to be a conflict of interest because he personally had nothing to gain or lose in it, this was about money for a charity. Foolish yet again.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that the judge could have easily declared an "error in judgment" and refused to outrageously and undemocratically banish the mayor of Canada's largest city from office due to a minor procedural technicality. The judge didn't have to declare Ford must leave office. He chose to because he was clearly willing to play ball with Ruby's gang. As I said before, there is nothing more blatantly politically motivated than what took place this week.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Ford has in fact made big cuts to city hall, as evidenced by the fact that Toronto spent less on its budget in 2012 than it did in 2011 which is the first time that's ever happened.

Having a modestly smaller budget just satiates Ford's need to cut.  There's no evidence he did so out of necessity.  He cut for the sake of cutting.

Or, put another way, what is it about the 1 or 2% lower budget that excites you other than the fact it is lower?  Is there any study or evidence that for some reason this modest drop in the budget is better for Toronto?

Otherwise it just seems like throwing a bone.

 

[Justin]

Ford has in fact made big cuts to city hall, as evidenced by the fact that Toronto spent less on its budget in 2012 than it did in 2011 which is the first time that's ever happened.

Having a modestly smaller budget just satiates Ford's need to cut.  There's no evidence he did so out of necessity.  He cut for the sake of cutting.

Or, put another way, what is it about the 1 or 2% lower budget that excites you other than the fact it is lower?  Is there any study or evidence that for some reason this modest drop in the budget is better for Toronto?

Otherwise it just seems like throwing a bone.

First of all, there's no evidence he did so out of necessity? A $700 million dollar budget hole isn't considered necessity? Ok...

Secondly, a lower budget is better for Toronto because a lower budget means the city needs less revenue which means the city either a) doesn't need to raise taxes or b) can even reduce taxes. Ultimately, the single most important issue people care about his how much money government is letting them leave in their pocket at the end of the day, and Ford leaving more money in people's pockets a very good thing for Toronto.

 

[Kin]

Still, that doesn't change the fact that the judge could have easily declared an "error in judgment"

Again, that is simply not true. If the defendant is claiming that he doesn't regret his actions how can he claim he also made an error in judgment? A judge's job is to look at the facts in front of him and there was no credible argument being made about an error in judgment.

and refused to outrageously and undemocratically banish the mayor of Canada's largest city from office due to a minor procedural technicality.

There's nothing undemocratic about this. The MCIA is a piece of legislation that was passed by democratically elected representatives. It clearly states the penalties for violating it and leaves very little to the discretion of the judge. . The judge correctly interpreted the law and the facts of the matter. To do anything but would have been a clear cut case of judicial activism.

The judge didn't have to declare Ford must leave office. He chose to because he was clearly willing to play ball with Ruby's gang.

Again, this is just flat out wrong. Even the most basic, cursory reading of the law says that the judge was fundamentally correct in his ruling. This is the relevant text of the MCIA:

Power of judge to declare seat vacant, disqualify member and require restitution:

10.  (1)  Subject to subsection (2), where the judge determines that a member or a former member while he or she was a member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), the judge,

(a) shall, in the case of a member, declare the seat of the member vacant; and
(b) may disqualify the member or former member from being a member during a period thereafter of not more than seven years; and
(c) may, where the contravention has resulted in personal financial gain, require the member or former member to make restitution to the party suffering the loss, or, where such party is not readily ascertainable, to the municipality or local board of which he or she is a member or former member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 10 (1).

Shall. Not may, shall. Ruling that this was an "error in judgment" or "inadvertent" would have directly contradicted Ford's own testimony. At that point the judge does not have discretion as to whether or not he removes Ford from office. Your beef is with the law, not the judge.

 

[louisstamos]

Honestly, mods, I'm actually quite flabbergasted that he keeps calling me stupid.  I thought personal attacks against other members were against the rules (although if he knows the rules, he's showing a willful blindness towards it ).

Does throwing a private party for family and friends fall under any of these categories?

Yes

-Enhance and promote a harmonious community in their wards.

The thing is, by saying "family and friends," you're implying that 30 people showed up.  Yes, it wasn't open to the public as in anyone can show up - it's an enclosed space.  But he had his supporters and volunteers from his riding there.  I can't remember exactly, but I think about 300 people attended...about the size of a large wedding...hmm...which typically costs around anywhere from $15,000 - $30,000 (although someone let me know if it's more...I'm planning on getting married soon. )  Although the event was his "retirement party," it was about him thanking his community and his supporters for making him Councillor for 19 years.  Let's say he only spent $5000 or $6000.  Would you be okay with it then?

And again, I don't think this makes me "stupid."  It just means I have different priorities.  Honestly, although he would never do it, if Rob Ford at the end of his term decided to throw himself a retirement party after being Councillor for 10 years and mayor for 4 or 8 or whatever (although, I think 15 years is the threshold for a "retirement party," but that's just me), I would be okay with it.  I can see why people on both sides of the political spectrum would disagree with it.  And that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.  I believe someone who has served me and my riding for a long time has the right to celebrate their career, much like most people do in the private sector.

Anyways, speculating on whether a person on the right would have done the same thing if the Mayor was on the left is a useless exercise of no merit.

No it's not - you're painting an entire portion of the population as scheming con-artists based on their political beliefs, when there are scheming con-artists on every side of the Political spectrum.  Don't act like one of them is devoid and would never do anything wrong (Bev Oda says hi again).

Matlow voted with Ford 36% of the time in 2011 and 30% of the time in 2012. That is pretty low, the lowest percentage of anyone considered part of the "middle" at City Hall, and a disappointing number for someone I was impressed with when they got elected.

So just to clarify, when Matlow votes WITH Ford = he's right.
When he votes AGAINST Ford = he's wrong, dissapointing, stupid too maybe?

How about what his constituents in his riding?  Did you stop to think that's he's voting based on what THEY want?  They might agree with Ford in some areas, they might disagree in others.  In fact, I'd say he's doing the right thing by not following the Mayor all the time and voting based on what his constituents think.

 

[Justin]

Again, that is simply not true. If the defendant is claiming that he doesn't regret his actions how can he claim he also made an error in judgment? A judge's job is to look at the facts in front of him and there was no credible argument being made about an error in judgment.

I get that what Ford said was stubborn, pig-headed, and foolish. Having said that, the judge can proclaim an "error in judgement" as a way of working around an archaic law that would have unprecedented and unwarranted consequences on Ford, the municipal government, and the people of Toronto. He chose not to.

There's nothing undemocratic about this. The MCIA is a piece of legislation that was passed by democratically elected representatives. It clearly states the penalties for violating it and leaves very little to the discretion of the judge. . The judge correctly interpreted the law and the facts of the matter. To do anything but would have been a clear cut case of judicial activism.

So there's nothing undemocratic about one man removing a Mayor from office instead of letting the citizens of Toronto decide? Really Nik? If Ford deserved to go, say for example he was convicted of criminal charges with the RCMP, then I'd agree that he should be removed from office. But removing Ford due to a minor infraction of a procedural voting technicality instead of letting the voters decide whether to remove him or not in the next election is very undemocratic. We decide who is Mayor and who isn't, not Judge HACKland. 

Again, this is just flat out wrong. Even the most basic, cursory reading of the law says that the judge was fundamentally correct in his ruling. This is the relevant text of the MCIA:

Power of judge to declare seat vacant, disqualify member and require restitution:

10.  (1)  Subject to subsection (2), where the judge determines that a member or a former member while he or she was a member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), the judge,

(a) shall, in the case of a member, declare the seat of the member vacant; and
(b) may disqualify the member or former member from being a member during a period thereafter of not more than seven years; and
(c) may, where the contravention has resulted in personal financial gain, require the member or former member to make restitution to the party suffering the loss, or, where such party is not readily ascertainable, to the municipality or local board of which he or she is a member or former member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 10 (1).

Shall. Not may, shall. Ruling that this was an "error in judgment" or "inadvertent" would have directly contradicted Ford's own testimony. At that point the judge does not have discretion as to whether or not he removes Ford from office. Your beef is with the law, not the judge.

Refer to what I said in the first paragraph of this post.

 

[Kin]

I get that what Ford said was stubborn, pig-headed, and foolish. Having said that, the judge can proclaim an "error in judgement" as a way of working around an archaic law that would have unprecedented and unwarranted consequences on Ford, the municipal government, and the people of Toronto. He chose not to.

Again, you are pure, unvarnished wrong. The Judge cannot make that ruling when it directly contradicts what the defendant says.

Also, for what it's worth, it's a law passed in 1990 and last amended in 2009. It is not archaic.

So there's nothing undemocratic about one man removing a Mayor from office instead of letting the citizens of Toronto decide? Really Nik?

No. Not when the "one man" is a judge and he removes a mayor from office on the basis that he clearly and admittedly violated provincial law that specifically says the judge has to vacate his seat if found guilty. It's a representative democracy, we get to vote in elections, we do not get to vote on court cases.

We decide who is Mayor and who isn't, not Judge HACKland.

Your opinion contradicts the law. I'll stick with the law.