Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Friday, August 31, 2012

Mayor Rob Ford’s conflict of interest case rooted in donations he solicited from lobbyists

Mayor Rob Ford is putting his job on the line defending the principle that a politician should be free to listen to a lobbyist’s pitch, and then pitch the lobbyist on donating to a private charity.

While some have characterized the conflict of interest case that will see Ford in court Wednesday as being about a few thousand dollars, or politicians being able to have charities, that’s not what originally got him in hot water.

Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper warned Ford informally in 2009, and later officially, to stop using council letterhead and city resources, including his assistant’s time, to solicit funds for his private football foundation.

Her probe revealed that seven lobbyists, or the people paying them, donated to Ford’s foundation between Aug. 31, 2009 and May 7, 2010 while also lobbying him or being registered to do so.

When Leiper raised a particular firm, Ford “denied knowing they were lobbyists, although he did admit he knew two of the individuals at the firm.”

Also, a corporation that gave Ford’s foundation $400 “has been the recipient of multi-million dollar contracts spanning 2009-2011, awarded by the City of Toronto through its competitive bid process,” Leiper wrote in 2010.

She gave Ford the hypothetical example of a lobbyist believing a donation could lead to a “favourable outcome.”

Then-councillor Ford “declared that he cannot be ‘bought’ and that people know that about him, particularly because of his wealth,” she wrote. “Councillor Ford was not able to agree that such a request could be perceived as a use of influence . . .”

Ford “appeared to genuinely find it difficult to understand how others could feel uncomfortable with his (solicitation) letters or how the fact of lobbyists donating to his personal cause, at his request and with his knowledge of the donations, could compromise the councillor-lobbyist relationship.”

When council received Leiper’s recommendations, including forcing Ford to pay back $3,150 in improper donations, Ford voted against them although the then-speaker advised he might have a conflict of interest.

Ford highlighted his foundation work during the 2010 mayoral campaign.

Last February, the issue was back because Ford had ignored Leiper’s six requests for proof that he repaid the donations. Now-mayor Ford gave an impassioned speech about the value of his foundation, and the injustice of being forced to pay the money “out of my own pocket.”

Councillor Paul Ainslie proposed that council rescind its 2010 finding against Ford. It passed 22-12, with Ford again voting to spare himself. That prompted the conflict lawsuit from Toronto resident Paul Magder.

Leiper noted she warned Ford in December 2009 and February 2010 of the “dangers inherent in his fundraising activity.”

“If he had followed this advice, he could have avoided a further complaint, this investigation and the need for Council to become involved.”

Original Article
Source: the star
Author: David Rider

No comments:

Post a Comment