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.
Saturday 8 December 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Evelyn:
You should publish all this stuff into a lecture series for future elected municipal officials.
As to anyone being everyone I totally disagree with that statement. Some people can be no-one and still act like someone.
Your blog archive numbers are very impressive.
Is your computer capable of keeping a running count of the number of words that you write, per article, per month, per year?
That might get you into the Guinness Book of World Records. What an achievement that would be.
Keep them coming.
I am not defending the speed at which Mayor Ford's case was heard - it was astonishingly quick. But the difference from Hazel's could lie in the fact that the lawyer selected by her complainant was semi-retired or something and was residing in St. Catherines. There had to be some court shifting before she ended up in Brampton. No one except Hazel wanted it in Mississauga.
Reading Geoffrey Simpson's article, it struck me. Aurora has the equivalent to the stealth fighter jet contract. Has the council, the majority of whom I helped to elect, truly signed up on a soft-ware contract for an item that no one has ever seen work? An item which none of them understand? Which is not needed in the first place? Is this sucker already poured in concrete or is there a chance sanity might prevail?
Sorry - it has been an irritant.
Marcus Gee Globe & Mail
You refer to what Rob Ford did as not being classified as corruption. On the Agenda last week, where 4 experts discussed the no-nos when holding a political office, they did not support that a conflict of interest breach is synonymous with corruption. In fact they were quite clear that he was not deemed guilty of corruption. However, they all agreed that he did in fact breach the conflict of interest clause(s) in the Municipal Act.
Are you defending him against a corruption charge or a conflict of interest breach? He DID commit one but does not fit the profile of the other. I hope you are not excusing the conflict of interest charge.
Post a Comment