Always With The Questions

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Who's Up To Bat?":

On Saturday, John Lorinc had an article in the Globe on Ford's appeal. It appears that his lawyer will argue, among other things, that the entire thing went wrong because the Integrity person made an incorrect call in ordering Ford to repay that small sum of money. There is nothing in the law that allows her to do such a thing.
***********
 I've never been  certain  permissive legislation governing Code of Conduct. penalties and appointment of Integrity Commissioner is  the same for Toronto as  the rest of the Province. 
I believe  it was passed  in response to  findings of the Bellamy 
Inquiry, to provide  a penalty of withholding a  recalcitrant councillor's remuneration for a period of three months for not being ethical.
I understand the Integrity Commissioner may recommend but not impose the penalty. 
Authority for the decision rests with  Council.
Toronto's first Integrity Commissioner, David Mullan , was asked by the media once  what  he would  do if Council  contued to ignore his recommendations. His said he would be out of there.
Mr. Mullan retired after four years as Integrity Commissioner. 
I 'd say Mr. Lorinc's article is correct.
Integrity Commissioners do not have authority to impose  penalties. 
Ii's also  understood an elected official cannot be charged with an offence under the Code of Conduct .
It's about ethics.
It's not about law.
Or morality.
Requiring a Councillor to repay funds derived from a breach of trust  is I believe,  part of Conflict of Interest legislation.
In any case, the  argument may be taking place in the courts at this very moment. 
It will be interesting to see what  transpires. 
How easy can it be  to second-guess the electorate and upend an election in the largest city in Ontario ?
I read somewhere the entire action against Ford was masterminded by a person who lurks around the perimeter of Toronto City Council. Not elected by any. But used by many.
We had a person like that in Aurora for a while. More than one actually.
Clayton Ruby was persuaded  by this individual to undertake the litigation at no cost.to the client.
Who. in turn, was persuaded to file the action at no cost to himself.. 
How can that be seen to be an exercise in ethics? 
I heard from somebody. who heard  straight  from  the horse's mouth,  that Rob Ford was advised by several, of  conflict of interest, if he spoke to the issue of  penalty of  being required to return funds given for a charitable purpose to donors after the funds  had been spent for the purpose  solicited. Albeit  with  the use of stationery provided  by the city  for the purpose  of  Councillors communicating with  constituents..
Oh Dear! It does get complicated doesn't it? 
So many have different  ideas of  ethics. . 
I understand no person other than the Councillor, can decide for the Councillor, whether or not he/she has a Conflict of Interest. Particularly no person employed by the City. 
If a Councillor firmly believes he does not, and the intention was not financial gain and  he exercises his right to debate the issue,  is that a  reasonable defence?
That's the question. 
Sometimes answers are clearer  than  questions.. 
We may ask another , although Ford may not, why is there  no decision  as yet in Mayor Hazel  McCallion's  case which was heard many months before Ford's?
It's Provincial legislation, heard in a Provincial court, by a Provincially  appointed  Judge.  
Is Justice uneven in the Province of Ontario? It may seem to be.
Is that ethical? 
Would a permissive Code of Conduct  legislation  for provincial authority help to correct the situation. 
What say you, everyman ?   .