View Single Post
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 4:21 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharn View Post
I seriously doubt anything is going to come of this. I'll bet that Ford had his secretary (or some other agent acting on his behalf) type up a letter, and they mistakenly used his council letterhead. He'll probably pull a McCallion and argue that he made an honest mistake, or try to argue that he could not have personally benefitted from this, as it was a third party that ultimately received the donations. He is a bit of an idiot, after all, and idiots screw up.

I'm surprised Clayton Ruby considers $3,150 to be a material amount... because it really isn't. He seems to be mighty certain that he's going to win this, but he also sounds very eager about the whole thing. Leads me to suspect he may have ulterior political motives and isn't just doing this to help a concerned citizen.
No need to speculate... all the information is available from the Integrity Commissioner. He clearly violated the code of conduct for Council after multiple warnings that his actions were inappropriate and was ordered to repay the donations by Council.

http://www.toronto.ca/integrity/integrity-reports.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-44902.pdf
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1124694

But that's not the issue as Council voted to rescind the original resolution....the problem is that he was part of this followup voted, participated in the discussion, and attempted to influence Council with a speech. Every single Council meeting in Ontario has a part where council members have a duty to declare any direct or indirect pecuniary interests and cannot take part in discussion or vote, or attempt to influence voting before, during, or after the meeting. The arguement is that he benefitted financially (however small) and should have declared this interest and recused himself.

The situation in Mississauga with Hazel McCallion was much more serious and clearly a conflict of interest based on the findings inquiry but didn't actually violate the provincial legislation...while this situation is much less serious and was for a good cause, but it sounds like there potentially could be a good case.
Reply With Quote