![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldOn the subject of the possible expulsion of Rob Ford from the Toronto mayor's office for violating conflict of interest legislation, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fsandow's comment at James Nicoll's blog describes the most plausible outcome of the scenario for me.
I have to agree. On reflection, I think this would be much the most preferable option. I'm enough of a Max Weber fan to appreciate the concept of rational-legal authority, of forms of government which derive their legitimacy from the adoption of rules-based systems which enjoy very broad support from the populations governed by them, rules-based systems which therefore are seen as legitimate. For me, this includes having political and legal institutions which are seen not as partisan tool but rather as universally relevant and are so not prone to being manipulated. That's why I was upset when Gary Webster was fired from his position as head of the Toronto Transit Commission for producing analyses which went against Ford's plans for subways: impartial bureaucracies which aren't the playthings of the administration of the day are nice.
Can anyone imagine how Torontonians would react if the elected mayor was kicked out of politics altogether by a court ruling, especially over an issue that--to be fair--is rather marginal? Avoiding American-style partisanship is a must for Canada.
fsandow's comment at James Nicoll's blog describes the most plausible outcome of the scenario for me.This won't go anywhere. While a literal reading of the MCIA might seem to cover the situation, the Act is clearly aimed at outside conflicts of interest, such as speaking/voting on a zoning application that affects a business or property that the councillor owns or has an interest in. To read it in the way that Ruby suggests would mean that Ford couldn't address Council on a disciplinary matter affecting him. I doubt any court would accept that interpretation, and regardless, it's a sufficiently ambiguous situation that the court will treat his conduct as an error in judgment under section 10(2) of the Act.
Or to put it another way, the courts are going to resolve any ambiguity in favour of not reversing the results of an election.
I have to agree. On reflection, I think this would be much the most preferable option. I'm enough of a Max Weber fan to appreciate the concept of rational-legal authority, of forms of government which derive their legitimacy from the adoption of rules-based systems which enjoy very broad support from the populations governed by them, rules-based systems which therefore are seen as legitimate. For me, this includes having political and legal institutions which are seen not as partisan tool but rather as universally relevant and are so not prone to being manipulated. That's why I was upset when Gary Webster was fired from his position as head of the Toronto Transit Commission for producing analyses which went against Ford's plans for subways: impartial bureaucracies which aren't the playthings of the administration of the day are nice.
Can anyone imagine how Torontonians would react if the elected mayor was kicked out of politics altogether by a court ruling, especially over an issue that--to be fair--is rather marginal? Avoiding American-style partisanship is a must for Canada.
