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.
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 ? .