Left seeks candidate who can beat Ford
Judge rules mayor can run in byelection, as council opponents seek united front
With both sides declaring war now that Rob Ford is eligible to run, a byelection is all but inevitable should the mayor lose his appeal to remain in office.
That much was clear Friday after Justice Charles Hackland clarified that his conflict-of-interest decision does not prevent Ford from running in a byelection. The amendment also frees up council to reappoint Ford.
Selecting a “caretaker” mayor until the end of term rather than spend $7 million on a byelection is what much of council appeared to favour earlier this week, when Ford’s potential candidacy was in debate. But now that Ford’s name will be on the ballot, neither side is interested in appeasement — especially following Thursday’s riotous council meeting, which devolved into a screaming brawl between the Ford brothers and the opposition.
At one point, Councillor Doug Ford appeared to yell, “I’ll whup both your asses,” to councillors Adam Vaughan and Gord Perks.
“Only a byelection can clear these guys out of town. The gloves are off.” SHELLEY CARROLL CITY COUNCILLOR
With city hall more polarized than ever, both sides feel they need to go to the voters. And both sides think they can win.
“Only a byelection can clear these guys out of town. . . . The gloves are off,” declared Councillor Shelley Carroll shortly after news of Hackland’s decision made it to city hall.
Carroll is one of three high-profile progressive candidates mulling a mayoral bid.
“Let’s take this to the public and let’s show him for his true colours. Let’s have him run for mayor again only now people have seen him for what he really is.”
With concerns about vote-splitting, Carroll said “very serious discussions” are going to start over the weekend about who is best positioned to take Ford on in an election.
Meanwhile, Ford Nation is already in re-election mode.
On Thursday night, even before Hackland amended his judgment, an election-style campaign ad titled Respect Democracy was posted on YouTube.
The video begins with soft piano music and footage of Ford’s victory rally after winning the election.
“In 2010, almost 400,000 Torontonians sent Mayor Rob Ford to clean up city hall. Now, that election has been thrown out because of a politically motivated technical objection over how he raised money for underprivileged kids,” a woman says over images of Toronto, City Hall and a billowing Canadian flag.
“It’s not about the personal ambition that any of us have, it’s about moving the city forward.” COUNCILLOR ADAM VAUGHAN
It then links to a website, respectdemocracy.ca It’s unclear who is behind the site. Both the mayor’s office and the architect of Ford’s 2010 “Gravy Train” campaign, Nick Kouvalis, have denied any involvement.
Vaughan, another left-wing councillor considering a run, said this pre-campaigning is just another example of Ford Nation trying to get around the rules.
The Trinity-Spadina councillor, who has been one of Ford’s most fervent critics, said he isn’t worried about vote splitting, although the progressive candidates are keeping an eye on it.
News that Ford could be a contender doesn’t seem to have scared off any of the other potential candidates. In fact, upon hearing the news, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti — who earlier this week quit the mayor’s executive committee, but said he wasn’t interested in the top job — announced that he was considering it.
Mammoliti says that while he’d favour the appointment process rather than spending millions on a byelection, “that will never happen now.” The left, he says, won’t pass up a chance to seize power and the administration knows they won’t be appointed.
Former mayoral candidate, Progressive Conservative leader and current talk radio host John Tory quipped: “What, and give up show business?” when asked — not entirely ruling out the possibility.
Right-wing councillors Karen Stintz and Denzil Minnan-Wong both avoided a reporter’s call Friday, as did MP Olivia Chow. All are still weighing their odds in a byelection.
“I’ve had conversations with Oli- via about making sure that the next mayor is better, smarter and stronger than the one we’ve got now,” Vaughan said. “It’s not about the personal ambition that any of us have, it’s about moving the city for- ward. . . . I love this city and I’m tired of it being abused by incompetence.” It’s been less than a week since Hackland sent shock waves through the city, concluding he had no choice but to order Ford from office for violating municipal conflict of interest legislation. Hackland found that the mayor had in fact broken the law when he spoke to and then voted on an item at council that financially benefitted him. The city’s integrity commissioner had earlier ordered Ford to personally repay $3,150 in donations to his football charity, which he had solicited from lobbyists. Council, along with the mayor, later voted to remove that sanction. Hackland said that while the amount is small, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is black and white. The Ottawa judge could have barred Ford from running again until 2019, but Hackland said that given the minor nature of the infraction, he wanted to impose no further ramifications “beyond the current term.” The legal community was split on what that meant. Ford’s legal team believed the term ends when Ford leaves office. City solicitor Anna Kinastowski concluded that a “term” is four years. On Friday, Hackland agreed to amend his ruling and take out the “term” reference.
Kinastowski explained in a private email to councillors: “The current amended wording of the decision indicates that the court decision does not disqualify Mayor Ford from appointment to fill the vacancy or from running in a byelection to fill the vacancy.”
Next week, Ford’s lawyer, Alan Lenczner, asks for a stay of Hackland’s ruling until the appeal is settled. Lenczner is expected to face an appeal court in early January. A decision will likely take about a month.
If Ford is unsuccessful, council will have 60 days from that point to choose a caretaker mayor or order a byelection. From there, a deadline for nominations must be set within two months. Torontonians will head to the polls 45 days after the nomination deadline.
This could push a byelection into the fall, which most councillors are opposed to. If Ford is unsuccessful in his appeal, council would likely react quickly, seeing voters heading to the polls as early as April.
More Ford news, GT1
Toronto’s political system is equipped with numerous failsafe mechanisms to keep a mayor out of legal trouble. Mayor Rob Ford managed to crash through every one and land in a heap, steps from being tossed out of office.
How it happened is an unprecedented tale of arrogance, hubris, incompetence, stubbornness and, in the words of Justice Charles Hackland, “willful blindness.”
Ford ignored as many as six letters from city council’s integrity commissioner to comply with the rules that now threaten to abort his mayoralty, midterm.
What many may not know is the extent to which integrity commissioner Janet Leiper, Ford’s council allies and opponents, staff, advisers — Justice Hackland, even — tried to avert the pending disaster.
This is the story of how Ford burned through all the firewalls erected to protect him from himself.
The saga began when Ford was a penny-pinching Ward 2 councillor, constantly attacking the way councillors spent taxpayers’ money.
“I told (Rob Ford), ‘Don’t speak on the matter.’ ” COUNCILLOR MICHAEL THOMPSON BEFORE VOTE ON FORD’S SOLICITING
To underscore how colleagues used their office budgets as a slush fund — legally — Ford used his family wealth to finance his city hall office. He provided his own stationery and postage. While the average councillor filed annual expenses of $40,000, Ford filed a ridiculous $2. By presenting himself as the spending police, Ford drew attention.
His fame grew on talk radio and among his anti-government, anti-taxes, antiunion constituency.
Ford announced his candidacy for mayor on radio on March 25, 2010. Six weeks later, Leiper received a complaint from a citizen.
The complainant, not a ward constituent, had received a donation request from Ford on his councillor letterhead, postmarked March 19. The money was for Ford’s football foundation, a charity set up in 2008 to buy football equipment for struggling high school teams.
The complainant wrote that the letter “left me uncomfortable. While it was not stated in words, there was a clear sense of an implied suggestion that a donation to his charity might serve me well should he be elected mayor.”
It wasn’t the first such complaint. In December 2009 and February 2010, Leiper had warned Ford to separate his private fundraising efforts from his public councillor’s job and not use city hall letterhead to raise money.
Now, she advised Ford again — twice in person and twice by telephone — to no avail. Ford responded: “I do not understand why it would be inappropriate to solicit funds for an arm’s-length charitable cause using my regular employment letterhead.” The complaint had no basis in policy or law, he wrote. Besides, a “worthy cause would be undermined by an inconsequential complaint about the use of letterhead.”
Leiper asked him to reconsider. Ford refused to amend his response.
The two previous complaints give insights into Ford’s thinking. “On Nov. 11, 2009, a citizen provided a mailing received from Councillor Ford that contained the same ‘Dear Friends’ letter seeking donations to the foundation, along with a news article, a business card from Rob Ford, Councillor, a fridge magnet for Rob Ford Etobicoke North Councillor and a promotional sticker for Deco Labels and Tags, the family business.”
Ford agreed it was improper to include the Deco sticker. But he added a couple of telling twists that would recur as he plunged deeper into trouble.
For one, Ford argued, city letterhead paper isn’t city property because he paid for it himself. Secondly, his fundraising falls within city business because it assists underprivileged residents. And, he maintained, the Toronto Community Foundation, which administers his foundation, had approved the content.
He was wrong on all counts and Leiper told him so, Dec. 10, 2009.
The position of integrity commissioner was created to assist politicians with grey-area issues. When in doubt on a code of conduct issue, councillors are to check with the commissioner and go with her advice, or risk a complaint and a finding of violation.
Leiper was clear that Ford’s actions were improper. By “asking citizens for money for a personal cause on councillor letterhead, there is a risk that you could be seen to be using your influence as a councillor to raise money for your private foundation,” she wrote to Ford.
She reported that “Councillor Ford was advised that lobbyists or developers who might want to seek his support in his role as councillor might feel that they could do that by making donations to his named foundation.
“Finally, I identified the City of Toronto logo as being property of the City of Toronto that is subject to the Use of Corporate Logo, Donations and Sponsorships policy to be used only for officially sanctioned City of Toronto business.”
Ford apologized to the complainant, but would continue to violate the code of conduct. Leiper’s probe uncovered other troubling facets of Ford’s fundraising efforts, later reported to council:
Ford’s Ward 2 website improperly featured links for donations to his private charity.
Ford frequently used office staff and city resources to solicit funds and manage the foundation on city time.
Ford’s mayoral campaign website boasted his foundation had donated $100,000 to eight schools. Leiper’s investigation uncovered records showing the foundation had raised only $37,294.68 and assisted four schools.
Ford failed to provide records showing his donor list — records Leiper needed to check to see how many were registered lobbyists. Leiper asked Ford if he was aware he was soliciting from lobbyists. He first denied knowing, then acknowledged that he knew two of them.
Leiper found 26 businesses who donated to Ford’s charity between August 2009 and May 7, 2010. Eleven had been lobbying city hall for business during this time. Seven of the 11were registered to lobby Ford. The lobbyists donated $3,150 to Ford’s charity.
One donor ($400 in 2009) received “multimillion-dollar contracts spanning 2009-2011,” awarded by the city through competitive bidding.
If there were any doubts as to Leiper’s concerns, her Aug. 10, 2010, report to council erased them.
Strict rules exist to ensure city hall lobbying is transparent and conducted with integrity. She quoted directly from Justice Denise Bellamy, who headed up the Toronto MFP Inquiry: “When public office holders, elected or not, accept meals, gifts, entertainment and other favours from those attempting to influence them, they corrode public trust.”
Bellamy’s “list of problematic corporate benefits” included donations to charitable events sponsored by public office holders, Leiper said.
She detailed the improper nature of Ford’s actions: “Councillor Ford solicited and received donations from lobbyists to his named private foundation, on City of Toronto official letterhead . . . .
“In return for these donations from lobbyists, Councillor Ford received the benefit of additional funding to his foundation, which he used to enhance his reputation both as a councillor via his website and as a candidate by including this information in his campaign materials.”
Leiper then tackled the argument that the donations were for a good cause.
“The validity of the charitable cause is not the point. The more attractive the cause or charity, the greater the danger that other important questions will be overlooked, including who is being asked to donate, how are they being asked, who is doing the asking, and is it reasonable to conclude that a person being asked for money will take into account the position of the person asking for the donation.
“Where there is an element of personal advantage (in this case, the publication of the councillor’s good works, even beyond what they had actually achieved), it is important not to let the fact that it is ‘all for a good cause’ justify using improper methods for financing that cause.
“People who are in positions of power and influence must make sure their private fundraising does not rely on the metaphorical ‘muscle’ of perceived or actual influence in obtaining donations.”
More than two years later, Justice Hackland was to lift those three last paragraphs, word for word, in his judgment, saying Leiper’s was “an excellent report” that he “respectfully” endorsed. It had a similar effect on council, then led by David Miller. On Aug. 25, 2010, council approved Leiper’s recommendation that Ford must reimburse the lobbyists’ $3,150.
In opposing the move, Ford made a critical error. When Speaker Sandra Bussin called for the vote she specifically reminded Ford he had a conflict of interest in that the matter involved a financial benefit to him. Ford ignored her and voted. “Having ignored my warning, there was nothing more I could do,” Bussin said in an affidavit filed to the court.
Ford wasn’t done. He refused to reimburse the lobbyists, and ignored six letters from Leiper urging him to comply.
Ford won the mayoralty in October 2010. Fifteen months later, Leiper reported his noncompliance and asked council to enforce its order, effective March 2012.
She noted one final defiance on Ford’s part: Instead of repaying the $3,150, Ford wrote to the donors and then told Leiper they did not want to be reimbursed. Unimpressed, Leiper reported that to ask the donors to forgive the repayment was piling impropriety on top of impropriety. But this was now a new council, led by Ford himself.
Ford’s political lieutenants attacked Leiper’s report, Leiper herself, and the previous council decision. While Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti publicly excoriated the report, others worked behind the scenes to resolve the matter.
Councillor Anthony Perruzza says he approached Ford’s staff on the night of the vote with a face-saving motion. Perruzza would move that Ford be forgiven the repayment if he conceded he’d done wrong and not debate the issue.
Councillor Michael Thompson, a Ford ally, was in the mayor’s ear. “I told him, ‘Don’t speak on the matter,’ ” Thompson recalled Wednesday. “And just before the vote, I said, ‘Just step outside for a minute, don’t vote.’ ”
But Ford did speak. Before the Perruzza motion was crafted the debate was cut short, and Ford voted with the majority, 22-12, to free him from repaying the $3,150. “People now say, ‘Why didn’t you guys warn him?’ Well, we did,” said Thompson.
Citizen Paul Magder took Ford to court, where the mayor argued his vote was inadvertent, an error; that council didn’t have the right to order the repayment; and that the sum was so small as to make the violation insignificant.
Hackland searched for every crack in the law to avoid using the sledgehammer. But Ford bulldozed ahead, destroying himself with his own testimony. He protested strongly against paying the $3,150 — so “his pecuniary interest in the recommended repayment of $3,150 was of significance to him,” Hackland had to conclude.
Following the dictate of the law, he found Ford guilty and ordered his removal from office by Dec. 10.
Stating the obvious, Hackland wrote: “It is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the integrity commissioner and the code of conduct. In my opinion, (Ford’s) actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to willful blindness.”
Only now, you know Mayor Ford could not have been ignorant of the law after so many warnings; neither did he lack professional advice. He simply defied logic once too often, with no council allies or integrity commissioner present to save his skin.
“The validity of the charitable cause is not the point. The more attractive the cause or charity, the greater the danger that other important questions will be overlooked.” JANET LEIPER INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER