Good Morning Grace

Grace Marsh has left a new comment on your post "Pish Tosh And Poppycock": 
Alison and i were chatting about Ford's comments as well. When we were newly elected Mr. Panizza advised us that it was very important that we take the AMO courses and understand the legislation we were subject to. 
We spend 3 or 4 snowy Saturdays (along with Bob McRoberts, driving to Peterborough and back to take the courses as recommended. 
I'm pretty sure Ford would have received similar advice from staff in Toronto, but alas it's hard to convince someone who thinks they know it all that there may be something to learn. 
Ford is his own worst enemy.
*********
Thanks for the comment Grace. It's nice to hear from you.
I remember the workshops and your references  to them.  
They are still offered and some of this term's Councillor have availed themselves. They also attend conferences and choose  workshops carefully. 
They too  are conscientious and eager to do things right.
I don't know why I'm having  a hard time explaining  my position on  Rob Ford's  dilemma. 
I imagine you  recall  other stuff  you  learned  as Councillor apart  from  workshops. 
The first in-camera meeting that Council  improperly  authorised  legal counsel  to be retained , by the Mayor,  to "investigate" the former Mayor, whom the new Mayor  claimed  had invaded her privacy; an illegal act.
The investigation continued for two years with successive lawyers, at public expense, before  finally it was accepted, with  assistance of staff,  there was no evidence of illegality, and  even if there was, a suit for damages would be a civil matter.
They were the first lawyers to hit the dust. All done in the secrecy and under the protection of closed door meetings on the pretext of protecting privacy.which is one of the permitted reasons to justify closed door meetings. 
There was  a succession of  bizarre events before and after you left Council.   
Behind closed doors, three senior staff members were cross-examined like felons  in a mock tribunal. Nothing in the municipal Act ever envisioned such an event.
The lawyer at the Mayor's side claimed a decision contravened a certain policy. He conveniently disregarded a  policy that  provided authority for the decision they  made.  He didn't hit the dust.
While the Mayor had legal counselto do her bidding, thoose being cross-examined had no such opportunity.  
My point is Grace. you didn't learn everything  at workshops you needed to to know that  remotely covered the reality of  politics. .
Nobody explained your first resource must be your own sensibilty   of what is right and what is not.
You  accepted guidance. That's  not  a criticism.. It  was offered. As  you mentioned, it was recommended by the Clerk. The town  paid for it. In many different ways. 
I think those workshops actually hinder learning in other ways.
When I started in politics, there were no workshops. 
I learned by doing, making mistakes, making a fool of myself  and kindly advice from other Councillors and staff.
Laws change  and new ones are introduced. One continues to learn. 
The point I make about Rob Ford, and all  who stick their heads above the crowd , ask to be elected and   judged by their peers, the Mayor of Toronto did nothing corrupt.  He did nothing that was harmful to the city or any person therein.
What kind of a law is it that finds a man guilty of a good deed?
Why does Toronto  provide stationary if they do not expect it to be used by the Councillor whose name is on it ?
How can  it be used without promoting the incumbent's  work?
What law specifies a Councillor's  responsibilities ? 
Why  provide funds  to Councillors to spend in  service to their   constituents?  
What did Rob Ford do that was different, Except  he did not use city funds to help the kids ?  He raised it from donations.
How can that be identified as corruption? 
Chargeable under a Provincial  Act.
What kind of a law is that?
Come on people...what are you thinking?
Rob Ford is everyman,chosen by Toronto voters to be their Mayor. The voters choice was  negated by a Judge?
On a complaint filed by an individual. With a lawyer.
No-one  argues Rob Ford is  smooth or  clever  with words.
Not like David, The Dud, Miller, a former Mayor,  who publicly regretted withdrawal of  Gambrioni, the boy-wonder, he appointed Chair of the TTC  who had to withdraw from the Mayoralty contest  under disgraceful circumstances.
Because of the disclosure that   he was in the habit of  using  the couch in  the chairman's office for an entirely inappropriate purpose. 
Records showed he was also high maintenance..
But not a Conflict of Interest mind you !
The current Mayor of Toronto,  unlike former US President, Richard Nixon,  is "not a crook".
I think he, and every other Councillor , should be able to  rely on his own honest  judgement about what represents abuse of  public office  and what does not.
Regardless of the  letter of the law. 
It is a defence. 
I think there are ample samples of corruption far more relevant than anything Rob Ford has done.  
In  one  example, the complaint  was heard months before Rob  Ford 's  and a decision is  yet to be made while Hazel continues to enjoy exalted status.
How can justice be based on whether a person is well-liked ?  
How is that fair?
How is it sensible? 
How is it legal ?  
And how can it be allowed to stand ?  
It can not. It is already teetering.