Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The World
Spins":
I don't think this is a matter of money, it's a matter of
principle and law. He broke the rules, was ordered to make restitution, he then
chose to ignore those orders and brought the issue back to council and didn't
excuse himself. Totally and completely out of line - I can't see how you can
argue in his favour and be so against Morris. Both she and Ford believed
themselves to be above the rules, they were both "willfully ignorant" of the
rules and both should pay the price.
How do you reconcile your position?
*****************************
Rob Ford has coached the football team for years. Some of the team couldn't afford to buy equipment. He raised a little money to help them out. When he became a Councillor he used Councillor stationery provided by the city. Why does Toronto provide Councillors with an office and staff and a budget and stationery and all that stuff.
At one point, Rob Ford had a Code of Conduct complaint filed against him because he made no claim against his budget.allowance.
The Integrity Commissioner's decision was an order to file a claim because he did have expenses.
That was all about how he and Councillor Doug Holyday made two other Councillors look bad because they spent their entire $75,000
budget allowance.
What's that about?
The former Mayor of Aurora , on the other hand , sued residents she was sworn to serve. With their own tax dollars. For six million dollars. Twice she failed to sign an undertaking to re-imburse the municipality for funds expended on behalf of the lawsuit.
What was that you asked me ? To reconcile my position?
Where is the principle? Where is the law? Where is there a comparison.?
We will see what the court decides. .
The rules are the rules and the consequences of breaking the rules are what they are.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that Ford and Morris are none too bright and had no insight so they certainly have that in common. They were both also councillors for 12 years before assuming the position of mayor. Both had plenty of time to fully understand what might constitute a pecuniary interest.
What I find most interesting are the comments by Paul Magder who launched the conflict of interest case against Ford. He was so smug when he pointed out that the rules are in place and shouldn't be broken and that nobody is above the law. Hmmm, wasn't he the owner of a furrier shop who persistently broke the law by opening his store on Sundays before there was such a thing as Sunday shopping? I guess he ignored the rules then. I wonder why he is so self-righteous now.
Super reply.
ReplyDeleteAnd to 3:31 PM I am not positive but I believe that this is a different Magder from a different family. So easy there until we are both sure. OK?
Believe it or not this is a different Paul Magder and they are not related.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this is worth mentioning? TheStar seems to have employed a John Mascarin [ my spelling might be off ] to advise them on the Ford case. Says he's with Aird Berlis. Could this be that one of Morris' starter lawyers who carried her handbag so she could shake hands?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that municipal politics in this country are going to the dogs. They are in big need of disinfection.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to conflict of interest, PERCEIVED conflict is as or even more important than real conflict but nobody seems to get that, including Rob Ford, Morris and the councillors who supported (and still do support) her.
CBC News
ReplyDelete" Ontario Law that ousted Rob Ford now under scrutiny "
At some point I would like someone to explain two things about the Morris defamation lawsuit and the council’s actions. Council’s Code of Conduct states that public office should not be used for personal gain. Is the town’s funding of a private lawsuit brought by Morris against her political opponents during an election, seeking $6 million for Morris, while she refused to sign an indemnity agreement with the town, not seen as some form of “personal gain”? Secondly, the Charter of Rights apparently stops governments from being able to sue for defamation. How can council so easily circumvent the intent of the Chart in its efforts to protect political free speech, by council agreeing to fund a third party defamation lawsuit “fronted” by the Mayor. At the end of the day the full weight of government was used in order to silence political commentary that was intended to hold the government accountable. This same travesty also occurred in Georgina as well and yet there has not been a word concerning how apparently easy it is for our local governments to circumvent the intent of the Charter. In fact, as far as i can tell, no one seems to care. It would be refreshing if someone in a position of authority spoke up up in an effort to protect our basic and fundamentally important democratic rights.
ReplyDelete9:22.... what are you, new???
ReplyDelete