Rather, as Toronto’s mayor approaches the half-way point of his mayoralty, he is politically suicidal and dangerously in need of protection — from himself.
Ford, 43, appeared in front of Justice Charles Hackland in a University Ave. court Wednesday morning, charged with conflict of interest in a matter that perfectly sums up the befuddling construct that is the city’s chief magistrate.
Almost any other mayor in Canada would have avoided this potential debacle. If Ford is found guilty, Hackland could toss him from office — the greatest slap in the face to the 393,000 people who voted Ford into office in October 2010.
Any reasonable politician would have availed himself of the many remedies or heeded the caution flags tossed by bureaucrats and politicians, warning of the clear and present danger of using city letterhead and staff to solicit funds for his charitable foundation.
Ford, who confidently told the court he didn’t need to attend the councillors’ orientation session when first elected 12 years ago because he was the son of an MPP and knew how city hall works, should have known a councillor could not, with integrity, solicit funds from lobbyists doing business with the city.
And if he didn’t know that, a councillor would have heeded the advice of the integrity commissioner, Janet Leiper, who advised on numerous occasions that such actions were a violation of council’s code of conduct.
Others would have apologized to the citizens who complained, and desisted. Still others would have responded to Leiper’s pleadings as she patiently worked behind the scenes to get the mayor to bring his actions in line with the city’s code of conduct.
Ford, as only he can, bulldozed ahead — not unmindful of the dangers, but dismissing and ignoring them — rushing headlong toward the legal precipice.
He ignored six letters from the commissioner, forcing her to recommend that city council force the mayor to act. Council, in 2010, agreed with Leiper and voted to make Ford repay the $3,100 he received in donations.
“I provided him with an opportunity to review his response before forwarding it to the complainant. I did this because Councillor Ford had recently received advice from my office that he should not fundraise in this way. This advice was given in December 2009 and again in February 2010, after two prior complaints were made by other people who received Football Foundation letters from the councillor,” Leiper wrote to council in August 2010.
Ford didn’t pay.
But by the time Leiper returned to council asking the body to enforce its ruling, Ford was now the elected mayor. Naturally, his allies on the new council rallied to his side and overturned the decision of the previous council — but not before Ford spoke on the matter and voted with the majority.
Even the most sophomoric politician knows he or she cannot speak on or vote on a matter before council that results in a direct or indirect financial or monetary benefit. Ford clearly violated that principle.
As such, Justice Hackland, charged with providing wise legal judgments, is being cast in the role of Solomon. The dilemma is, how can he rule the mayor’s actions contemptuous and an affront to the integrity of the office without overturning the wishes of the electorate to have Ford as mayor?
Ford’s lawyer, Alan Lenczner, attempting to help the judge, claims Ford’s actions may have violated the city’s code of conduct, but that code does not give council the right to force Ford to repay the donations. As such, the issue of a conflict of interest would be muted.
If the judge disagrees, he should rule the conflict a minor one and the mayor’s actions inadvertent, Lenczner argues.
Such a ruling would leave the wishes of the electorate intact. But it would teach the mayor absolutely nothing.
As such, Toronto waits to see how Hackland might punish the mayor without punishing the voters. It’s Hackland, not Ford, who deserves our pity.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Royson James
No comments:
Post a Comment