 |
| One of these things is not like the other |
Obviously, I disagree with Now Weekly's decision to use a cover image of Rob Ford that brings to mind the famous Time cover from the week Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his Berlin bunker. Hitler analogies are to be used sparing, so great are the sensitives to the monstrous crimes of the "Thousand Year Reich and its erstwhile fuhrer. Such analogies such have some semblance of historical accuracy, which is why sensible people are so offended by the Now cover.
You shouldn't compare Rob Ford to Hitler, mostly because it's unfair .. to Hitler.
Hitler's story remains so terrifying because of how improbable it was. In not quite 15 years, he went from being a Vienna hobo to controlling a major industrial nation and amassing the greatest land army Europe had seen to that point.
Until his dual miscalculations in invading Poland in 1939 and the Soviet Union in 1941, Hitler had been undeniably effective. He had cast aside the yoke of the Versailles treaty, rearmed Germany and began his conquest of Central Europe without a single shot being fired. He was demonic and his ideas contradictory and confusing, but until his hubris overtook his judgement, Hitler accomplished far more than anyone had reason to expect he would.
No fair reading of the record would suggest anything comparable about Rob Ford. He can't even control City Council most of the time.
The only way that Ford and Hitler are similar is in their respective downfalls. Both blamed strange conspiracies that stabbed them in the back, but the truth is that they were both brought low by hubris, grandiose notions and the idea that they would triumph through the sheer force of their will.
And make no mistake, Ford did this to himself. He isn't Hitler so much as he is a half-witted and intellectually pedestrian Richard Nixon. When Mr. Justice Hackland's order removing the Mayor was handed down last Monday, I immediately thought of the former president's rare concession to David Frost in their famous interviews; "I brought myself down," Nixon admitted. "I gave them a sword and they stuck it in and twisted it with relish. And I guess that if I had been in their position, I'd have done the same thing."
In the last week, I've seen any number of assertions, both in my comments section here and elsewhere in the media, that need to be challenged.
The first major assertion is that Ford was disgraced by mysterious progressives playing dirty. Doug Ford has made that argument repeatedly, citing the law firm that represented Paul Magder.
I'll grant you that that's an amusing straw man, but it's little more than that. Mayor Ford wasn't framed, for Christ's sake. As a matter of fact, he was repeatedly warned about the perils of his continuing conduct, first by Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper, then by Council's then-Speaker, Sandra Bussin, who warned that he might be in a conflict of interest. Ford, being Ford, pressed ahead anyway, thinking that he knew better than everyone else and that the rules just didn't apply to him.
Moreover, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act wasn't a secret that was being hidden by the enemies of the Ford family. It was passed in public 22 years ago. It has been the governing law in Ontario for a generation now.
The second flawed assertion is that "This is all about Ford's football charity, which is a good thing, right?"
Actually, no it isn't either all about the charity, nor is it necessarily a good thing.
Royson James (who I should really stop citing as a reference, but has written good stuff on this story) gives a detailed history in Friday's Toronto Star.
Ford announced his candidacy for mayor during one of his frequent appearances on AM 640 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 arms-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. Councillor Ford refused to amend his response.
The two previous complaints give insights into Ford’s thinking.
“On Nov. 11, 2009, a member of the public provided a copy of a mailing received from Councillor Ford which contained the same “Dear Friends” letter requesting donations to the football foundation, along with a copy of the 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 Ford family business.”
Ford agreed it was improper to include the Deco sticker in the mailing. But he added a couple of telling twists that would recur as he plunged deeper into trouble.
For one, city letterhead paper isn’t city property because he paid for it out of his own pocket, Ford argued. Secondly, his fundraising falls within city business because it assists underprivileged residents. And, he maintained, the Toronto Community Foundation, which administers his charitable foundation, had approved the content of his fundraising.
He was wrong on all counts and Leiper told him so, Dec. 10, 2009.
City council had established the position of integrity commissioner to assist politicians with issues not clearly black and white. When in doubt on a code of conduct issue, councillors were 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,” Leiper 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.”
Separate your councillor business from your private fundraising efforts, Ford was told. He 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 that 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 since its inception.
• There was a “lack of rigour to record-keeping by Councillor Ford that included deleting or discarding the source material used to create the mailing lists, and the details of financial reporting.”
• Ford failed to provide records showing his donor list — records Leiper needed to check to see how many were registered as 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.
“I asked him if he had been lobbied after he had received a donation from them. He responded that it was ‘ridiculous to say something like that.’ Neither he, nor his assistant, responded to requests to confirm whether they had met with the lobbying firm.”
• 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 11 were registered to lobby Ford. The lobbyists donated $3,150 to Ford’s charity.
• One donor ($400 in 2009) received “multi-million-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 on both sides exist to ensure city hall lobbying is transparent and conducted with integrity. She quoted directly from Justice Denise Bellamy, who headed up the Toronto Leasing Inquiry into one of the city’s biggest scandals:
“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:
“In this case, Councillor Ford solicited and received donations from lobbyists to his named private foundation, on City of Toronto official letterhead from his office at city hall where he conducts his councillor business.
“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.”
Ford usually called all donors to personally thank them. Sometimes, more money was requested.
“This was not an “arm’s-length” arrangement,” Leiper wrote, as Ford “combined the roles of public office holder and private citizen. It would be understandable if those who made donations concluded that they were ‘doing the councillor a favour’ by making a donation to his foundation.”
Leiper then addressed head-on 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.”
(I apologize in advance for blockquoting so much of Mr. James' article, but this is the clearest, most concise reading available on the intricacies of this case)
Not only were city resources being expended on Ford's private fundraising, the results of said resources were being used on his campaign website and other political materials. That has a truly awful ethical appearance.
And as I've now said repeatedly, it is the solicitation of donations from lobbyists and other entities with business before the city that I find most troubling. That alone is enough for me to support his removal and disqualification from ever returning. Using official letterhead could suggest to the recipient that the solicitation is approved by the city itself and add pressure to give. Those donations would then be touted by the Ford campaign for political gain.
Unlike some, I'm not going to paint that as outright corruption, but that's only because I don't think that Rob Ford is bright enough to devise a corrupt motive.
Ford Nation's definition of a conflict of interest is also laughable. There needn't be a direct financial conflict between the city and a given councillor, contrary to borderline retarded arguments made both in court and in other public venues. Ford could be in conflict in his roles as a representative of his foundation and his duties as councillor and mayor.
The fact remains that he was warned over and over and over again. Pretty much everyone around him knew that this wasn't going to end well. Being either arrogant or stupid is bad enough, being both is one of the most combustible combinations known in politics.
Of course, I'm not going to pretend that this wasn't compounded by other aspects of Ford's personality. He made a name for himself by embarrassing other councillors on their office expenditures and making a huge show of paying for his office budget himself.
If you're going to make that kind of a spectacle of yourself in politics, you had damn well better be as pure as the driven snow. If you're not, there's going come a time when you need the political support of your colleagues, and it isn't going to be there.
Anthony Weiner didn't disintegrate as quickly as he did just because he liked tweeting pictures of his wang. Other politicians survived worse things than that. Weiner was forced to resign because other Democrats had long and thorough experience with what an unbearable prick he was. When he needed friends the most. he found that he had created a situation where he didn't have any.
You know how many conservative councillors are cooperating with Ford's game plan since last Monday? One. His brother.
If there's one thing that everything in the goddamned city knows, it's that Rob Ford would be showing no mercy to anyone else in the position he's put himself in. As a matter of fact, within seconds, he'd be holding a stupid press conference denouncing the person and uttering moronic bumper sticker slogans about gravy trains and corruption.
This is the quandary that the Mayor has put himself in. He built a career pissing on his colleagues, thinking that he could win by appealing to the people. But the people are so exhausted by the endless string of embarrassments that he's brought upon himself that they aren't supporting him, either.
I was shocked by the Angus Reid poll on Friday. I knew that his numbers would be bad, but I had no idea that they'd be that bad. To one degree or another, almost three-quarters of the city supports his ouster. And his personal favourability numbers are almost as bad.
Remember when the Tea Party romped to power in Congress two years ago and Barack Obama was declared finished? Obama's polling was nearly twice as good as Ford's is. And he's so delusional that he's agitating for a campaign that he could win, at least in theory, but would require so many different things to go exactly right that it's almost hopeless.And how you run on a message of "respect the taxpayer" while forcing an incredibly expensive and totally unnecessary election is beyond me.
I've compared Rob Ford to Richard Nixon a few times in the last eight days. It's a good analogy, but far from a great one. There's one incredibly important difference between Ford and Nixon.
Richard Nixon was smart enough to know when he was beaten once and for all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment