Does Rob Ford deserve to stay in office? If not, who decides? Chris Selley, Jonathan Goldsbie and Matt Gurney debate the future of Torontos mayor.
Selley: Rob Ford, the folksy politician who invites anyone and everyone even Toronto Star reporters over for a big barbecue. Rob Ford, the lone wolf mayor who doesnt understand what a conflict of interest is. I suppose this week showed us the best and the worst of the fellow. He really likes people; he wants people to like him; and he wants to help them out when they get in a jam, whether its a TCHC tenant with bed bugs or a football team that needs money for equipment. But anyone who doesnt understand why its problematic to solicit funds on city letterhead well,cripes. Regardless of how easily he could have avoided this situation, I agree that the potential penalty i.e., removal from office outweighs the alleged offence. The voters should decide. The question is, will this incident discredit him among voters who perhaps overestimated his intelligence; or will it just further embolden those who see him as an anti-elite icon?
Goldsbie: In a democracy, the bar for being qualified to hold public office is necessarily very low. To run for councillor or mayor in Toronto, you must be someone who is eligible to vote here (18 years of age, a Canadian citizen, etc.) and pay a filing fee of $100 or $200, depending on the position being sought. This is as it should be. This does not, however, mean that every person is equally deserving of an elected position, nor that every person who obtains one is equally qualified to hold it. There are only a handful of extreme circumstances in which the will of the electorate might fairly be overturned by a judge. And I will put to you that a person who lacks the capacity to understand let alone obey our systems basic safeguards against corruption is someone who is legitimately unfit to hold public office.
Until recently, I shared the popular opinion that the prescribed penalty for Rob Fords apparent infraction was wildly disproportionate. And while I still believe that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act should be amended to eliminate this mandatory minimum and afford more discretion to judges, my take on this particular set of circumstances has evolved. After reading all 148 pages of the transcript of Fords closed-door cross-examination, and then sitting through both days of his hearing in open court, I firmly believe that Ford may very well have limboed underneath the bona fide requirements that are necessary to hold office. Will this conflict case embolden his supporters? Undoubtedly. As an anti-Ford strategy, it is terrible. But the principle at stake is a key one that is worth defending in its own right: if a person cares to grasp neither the specific contents nor the broad gist of a particular document, then any oath taken to abide by it is therefore meaningless.
Gurney: And Id put to you, J.G., that your thoughts on Fords offence being too small to warrant removal from office hasnt actually evolved at all. Rather, it seems more like that Ford, while testifying regarding said offence, so appalled you through his willful ignorance that you justwant him out of office. The facts of his alleged conflict of interest havent changed. Its just that the mayors attempted explanation of that offence was so disgraceful that its easy to just say, Throw him out. But youve correctly noted that its a terrible anti-Ford strategy. I entirely agree with you that Fords answers on the stand were horrifying, but thats something the voters should remember the next time they go into the ballot box. What youre really saying, J.G., basically boils down to, People who are stupid, apathetic or both should be removed from office if a judge has a possible pretext to do so while pretending its actually about a conflict of interest. Sorry. I cant get behind that. I personally dont see how anyone could vote for Ford after last weeks developments, but democracy is what it is. And as Chris noted, theres plenty of things Ford is good at. I suspect that mobilizing enough voters to get re-elected in 2014 by barbecue and victim-playing may still be one of them. Thats depressing. But I just cant countenance a judge making this problem go away for us.
Selley: Precisely. Jonathan says Ford may have reached the point of justifiable removal by revealing himself as a person who lacks the capacity to understand let alone obey our systems basic safeguards against corruption. But there is no sweeping, qualitative judgment to be rendered here. Its a matter of law. If Ford actually didnt understand those basic safeguards and I believe that he did not, and likely still does not; and if he does he doesnt care then the law provides the judge an out: He broke it inadvertently. Frankly, to believe otherwise is to believe he was willing to run this risk which is crazy, because there is no payoff. Changing letterhead and business cards is a subtle but important difference, but it would not impact Fords fundraising prowess whatsoever. This mortifying, almost literally unbelievable debacle should inform the next election, not overturn the last one.
Goldsbie: No. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, and inadvertence in this context refers to whether Fords actions at Februarys Council meeting were deliberate. Ford has stated that they were, and the judge has therefore ruled out the defence of inadvertence. (He may still find that Fords actions were an error in judgment, but that would broadly require the judge to determine that a reasonable person with the same degree of experience as Ford might come to the same incorrect conclusion about the meaning of the law.) And to Matt: what has changed is that it has become clear that Fords misstep was rooted in a misunderstanding of what a conflict is, a misunderstanding so unshakeable that even when the actual definition is read aloud to him, he is unable to process it. The same thing that prevents him from comprehending why it was inappropriate to exercise the influence of his office to convince Council to put money in his pocket, is the same thing that prevents him from comprehending why it is inappropriate to solicit cash favours from lobbyists. If you dont get that, you dont get to be a politician.
Gurney: Says you. And maybe eventually a judge. But if just you sorry. Your say-so doesnt cut it. Im dismayed that someone who feels that way can be elected to office, but I respect the system enough to not think that its invalid should my thoughts evolve to the point where I decide any particular elected official doesnt deserve to be there.
National Post
Here is the original post:
Posted Toronto Political Panel: Does Rob Ford deserve to stay in office?
Residence 
Location 
