Appearing before an Ontario court in Toronto, Mayor Rob Ford has been testifying in a case that seeks to determine whether he violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA). The facts of the case are not in dispute. Rob Ford runs a charity that provides funds to get underprivileged youths involved in football. Before he was mayor, then-councillor Ford used City of Toronto stationery to solicit donations to his charity. The city’s integrity commissioner ruled in 2010 that it was improper for Ford to blur the lines between his duties as an elected official and his private activities, and ordered Ford to repay $3,150 in improperly solicited donations out of his own pocket.
If he’d done so, this problem would have gone away. But he didn’t. When the integrity commissioner appeared before City Council to ask for proof of payment, Ford made two mistakes. He voiced his disagreement with the ruling, on the record, and then voted with a majority of council to strike down the order requiring him to pay back the money. In so doing, he both spoke to and voted on a matter that he had a direct pecuniary (financial) stake in.
And that’s a big no-no. The MCIA is pretty clear on that point, stating that any government official with a financial stake in a matter “shall not take part in the discussion of, or vote on any question in respect of the matter.” The penalty for violating this rule is automatic removal from office. No wiggle room there. Removal from office is the mandatory minimum punishment for this offence.
There is only one possible escape hatch for someone found to have committed such a breach of the MCIA. In instances where the judge rules that the offence was “committed through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment,” the judge does not need to remove the offender from office. Since Ford’s actions are not up for debate — they are, indeed, literally a matter of public record — that loophole is his only defence.
If only he’d take it.
Ford’s situation isn’t complicated. He screwed up but can escape serious consequences by convincing the judge that it was a mistake made in good faith. He doesn’t even need to prove that it was — just convince the judge. And you’ve got to believe that the judge is extremely eager to be convinced of that, given that his alternative is to remove an elected mayor from office over a dispute involving a few thousand dollars of charity. No one, not even Ford’s critics, seems keen to see that happen.
Except Ford himself, apparently. On the stand on Wednesday, he repeatedly refused to agree that he’d made a mistake. Instead, he insisted over and over that he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong, that he intended to vote the way he did, and that he doesn’t agree that what he did was a conflict of interest. Ford maintains that it’s only a conflict of interest if he personally benefits in some way.
That makes a certain amount of sense on a superficial level, but even if we wanted to debate the merit of that argument, there’s one problem. Ford and the MCIA disagree, and the MCIA wins. Ford’s opinion of what a conflict of interest should be doesn’t matter given what a conflict of interest is.
Under intense questioning about his novel interpretation of what a conflict of interest is, Ford was then forced to make a series of admissions that are far more alarming. He claimed to not know what a conflict of interest was defined as. He said he never looked at the handbook that all Toronto city councillors are given when they take office. He says he skipped orientation day when he was first elected since, as the son of an Ontario MPP, he knew how government worked.
First of all — no, apparently he didn’t know how government worked. Even if he himself had been a former MPP, he’d still need to familiarize himself with the differences in how the Toronto government operates — Toronto City Council isn’t a mirror image of the Ontario legislature. And it’s even more asinine to suggest that his father’s experience at one level of government taught Ford all he knew to function in another.
The entire affair is taking on shades of those hotel commercials that suggest booking at their chain shows you’re an individual of unusual intelligence: “Do you know your responsibilities as a member of Toronto City Council?” “No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” “Oh, OK. Case dismissed.”
Ford was freely elected in a fair election. He should not be removed from office because of a dispute over a few thousand bucks in charitable donations that went to a good cause. But his astonishingly cavalier attitude concerning his responsibilities as a public officer holder go directly to his credibility, and worthiness of winning office again. In short, when on the stand, Toronto’s mayor has pleaded incompetence.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Matt Gurney
No comments:
Post a Comment