Ford Desecration Pt IV - the march to Detroit continues

861 posts / 0 new
Last post
edmundoconnor
Ford Desecration Pt IV - the march to Detroit continues

*

edmundoconnor

Re: the talk about KWT - I don't think Kristyn's going anywhere other than councillor for a long, long time. She's made herself very visible on a number of issues, including (but not only) Pride, and if/when she reoffers in 2014, it won't even be close. She'll be posting Kyle Rae-like majorities, and it would take dynamite to lever her out. She might be willing to hunker down in her ward for a few terms, build up her reputation, and so forth, before she ventures on to other political office. She has a sure thing in Ward 27. Why risk it?

Shelley Carroll, on the other hand …

KenS

I havent been looking at this threads.

It was the cover that got my attention.

Is that 'march to Detroit' a commonly used phrase?

No one, nobody, can match Detroit. Not even get in its league.

Maysie Maysie's picture

I agree KenS.

In other news....

Fees proposed for swimming, Riverdale Farm, library DVDs

Quote:

Right-leaning Toronto councillors want residents to start paying to swim in the city's outdoor pools, visit Riverdale Farm, and borrow feature films from the public library.

All three activities are currently free, and charging for library borrowing is illegal under Ontario law.

.....

Councillor Adam Vaughan argued that the proposals would hurt poor families. Del Grande, a staunch fiscal conservative, responded that council's left-leaning faction refuses to endorse necessary fiscal fixes because of an excessive focus on the city's "most vulnerable."

"If every argument always boils down to the most vulnerable - if every single argument, because everything you can do, the argument goes down to the most vulnerable - then we might as well not do absolutely anything," Del Grande said after a budget committee meeting.

The city already charges for indoor swimming.

.....

The provincial government would have to amend the Public Libraries Act before Toronto could impose fees on circulating materials. The library board, not council, would make the final decision.

Del Grande has a point.

edmundoconnor

KenS wrote:

I havent been looking at this threads.

It was the cover that got my attention.

Is that 'march to Detroit' a commonly used phrase?

No one, nobody, can match Detroit. Not even get in its league.

It's not a commonly-used phrase. I used it in the sense that Ford and company see Detroit as not what to avoid, but more of a goal.

edmundoconnor

Maysie wrote:

Del Grande has a point.

But not quite in the way he (probably) meant it.

Heavens to Betsy, if the government is going to start taking care of vulnerable people, then we might as well quit now! /sarcasm

Lachine Scot

Sadly, there are already user fees in lots of places in Canada. I'm glad people in Toronto think it's beyond the pale (as it should be), but some library users already have to pay to borrow DVDs or request books, to go to swimming pools ,etc.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/ford-desecration-pt-iii]Link to previous thread-chunk[/url] (See? It's not rocket science!)

 

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjC7PaUyGmk#!]CUPE National: Move Your War Room To Toronto Now![/url] (YouTube)

Maysie Maysie's picture
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhallpolitics/article/1106678--treat-audi...

Quote:

Ford, who initially said he welcomed an audit because he has “nothing to hide,” is appealing the decision.

In documents filed Friday, his lawyers asked the court to treat the residents’ compliance audit request as an entirely new case rather than dealing with the matter as a regular appeal. In an appeal, Ford’s lawyers would have to convince the court that the compliance audit committee had made an error.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Ya, sorry if I find fault in the media:

Quote:

For Councillor Adam Vaughan, a former police board member, there is a sensitive balancing act between personal privacy and possible conflicts.

“What’s changed since the last time events made the headlines is that he has a designate on the police service board and he is involved directly with negotiations around the budget . . . the mayor can’t handle this the same way he handled it before.

“He has a higher burden of responsibility here. If he’s involved with the police, either with calling them or having them called against him. . . he’s got to be much more clear how he’s exercising this authority and whether or not there is any potential conflict.”

That probably would mean making a public declaration about what’s going on, he said.

“That being said, clearly he is dealing with some significant private issues. . . he needs the time and the space to deal with that.”

How the fuck is this guy mayor? People of Toronto need to grow up.

Doug
Doug

TTC chair Karen Stinz experiences a sudden burst of rationality. It's also the only way to save the misguided Sheppard subway proposal which is not - surprise! - going to be built for free by the private sector.

 

Karen Stintz argues it makes more sense to put the LRT underground only along the most congested part of the route, in midtown, while building it on the surface in the spacious suburbs.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Ford compares Councillors to Stalin:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1120634--mayor-rob-ford-compares-riv...

Quote:

“I consider him a left-wing NDPer. I’m not surprised. It’s just like saying Adam Vaughan or (Gord) Perks or (Janet) Davis or (Paula) Fletcher is not voting with me,” he said. “These people are all two steps left of Joe Stalin. So I’m not discouraged by that and I don’t expect it. They don’t care about the taxpayers. But I know one person who does and that’s me.”

adma

Ah, Godwin goes dyslexic.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

adma wrote:

Ah, Godwin goes dyslexic.

Shouldn't go there, much as my first implication was to laugh...

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Ya, that's not cool. I'm laughing at dyslexia. That's not cool. How do we unprogram ourselves?

One of the first things, is getting over my hate. I'm going to adopt a Conservative friend?

Onward!

edmundoconnor

If Matlow is a "left-wing NDPer", does that make me the secretary of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada?

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture
Sineed

Initial thoughts: ironic that Miller couldn't avoid a strike while Ford could. The workers knew they'd get locked out, and the public largely wasn't on their side.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

When has the public ever been largely on the side of the civic workers?

Polunatic2

Can't offer too many thoughts until we hear about the details of the deal. Will the parties be able to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s? Is it a deal the members will accept?

The City negotiators definitely played hardball with their "final offer" - threatening to stop remitting dues to the union among other cutbacks to the benefits and working conditions. It was a divisive offer pitting parts of the bargaining unit against each other while making the union itself pay a very high price (that I'm not even sure was "legal"). 

Unionist

Why not legal, Pol2? Mind you, I don't know the Ontario legislation. Are you referring to the refusal to apply the Rand formula once the parties acquire the right to strike/lockout?

 

Polunatic2

No, I was referring to the idea that the employer would impose a new 4-year "agreement" which did not include application of the Rand formula at all. I was questioning whether an employer can opt out of dues check-off without the unions permission? 

In a strike or lock-out situation, there is an essential services regime. Those employees who are working are still paying dues I think. In my bargaining unit, dues rose to 30% for those who are working uring our two strikes against the Harris Cons. I don't know the mechanics of it but those dues were remitted by the employer when we were on strike. (The union also paid the employer 100% of the premiums for a bare-bones medical plan in both our strikes if I'm not mistaken but there was no requirement to do so). 

Unionist

Well Pol2, the OLRA seems to say the following:

Quote:
47.  (1) Except in the construction industry and subject to section 52, where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union, forthwith.

That would mean that the Rand formula is a mandatory clause of the collective agreement - so, when the statutory freeze period is over (as it must be before there can be strikes or lockouts), there's no requirement to apply the Rand formula, even for those employees who remain at work.

Unless I'm wrong. But this has happened to one of our units before, under a different jurisdiction with a similar provision to Section 47(1).

 

Sineed

M. Spector wrote:

When has the public ever been largely on the side of the civic workers?

Generally speaking, support for unionized workers declines as fewer people enjoy the benefits of union membership. I'm referring specifically to CUPE's militant stance during the last round of contract negotiations, when they were dealing with Miller, who negotiated in good faith. 

The impression we have (talking about this in a bar with some friends), without knowing the details of the deal as yet, is that a deal was struck because Ford is willing to say "Fuck you!" to the workers. While a protracted strike was possible last time because Miller would put up with it, and continued to negotiate as garbage piled up in parks. not going to the province to get back to work legislation passed, for instance.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Sineed wrote:

The impression we have (talking about this in a bar with some friends), without knowing the details of the deal as yet, is that a deal was struck because Ford is willing to say "Fuck you!" to the workers. While a protracted strike was possible last time because Miller would put up with it, and continued to negotiate as garbage piled up in parks. not going to the province to get back to work legislation passed, for instance.

Are you saying you prefer Ford's approach to Miller's?

Polunatic2

Thanks for digging that up Unionist. It shows that their proposal to scrap the Rand formula in any new collective agreement was hot air. 

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

Sineed wrote:

The impression we have (talking about this in a bar with some friends), without knowing the details of the deal as yet, is that a deal was struck because Ford is willing to say "Fuck you!" to the workers. While a protracted strike was possible last time because Miller would put up with it, and continued to negotiate as garbage piled up in parks. not going to the province to get back to work legislation passed, for instance.

Are you saying you prefer Ford's approach to Miller's?

God, Spector, that was gratuitous.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I'm honestly trying to understand her point of comparison between Miller and Ford.

Unionist

Now you've got me wondering and re-reading Sineed's post. I could have sworn she was praising Miller by saying he negotiated in good faith, and was willing to pay the heavy price of free collective bargaining. But maybe I'll let her comment herself rather than continuing with my Talmudic exegesis...

Sineed

Just to clarify: I think the recent events set an unfortunate precedent in labour relations. Miller negotiated in good faith, and was almost universally vilified for it. Ford was a bully, and got a quick deal.

Unionist

I knew it! Thanks, Sineed. And I agree.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I don't know if Miller was responsible for the City's refusal to put a wage offer on the table until the union agreed to give up its banked sick leave, but I recall that tactic was roundly and correctly denounced at the time as bad faith bargaining. That may be one of the reasons Miller was vilified.

Sineed

I don't know either, M. Spector. Miller wasn't always the most effective communicator. At the time, getting rid of the banked sick time was pretty contentious, even though it's not a progressive benefit, and most unions have got rid of it (mine did in the 1980s).

I'm hoping for a better resolution on Wednesday, when TTC chair Karen Stintz will hold a special meeting that may see a partial resumption of the Transit City plan. Ford has been insisting that the entire Eglinton LRT line be buried, including under the Don Valley, and Stintz, after losing a vote at the last TTC board meeting on the topic, then successfully collected enough signatures from other counsellors to bring the issue before counsel. And the Premier says he'll listen to what counsel decides...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

 

TTC chief Gary Webster fired

Quote:

TTC chief general manager Gary Webster has been relieved of his duties, following a vote during a special meeting of transit commissioners Tuesday.

In a motion describing termination "without just cause," the transit commission voted 5-4 to fire Webster, who has worked at the service for 35 years, just two weeks after he expressed open defiance to a subway plan championed by Mayor Rob Ford. His ouster comes a year before he was set to retire.

"This was not how I expected this to end — certainly not how I wanted it to end," Webster told reporters shortly after his termination. "But clearly the choice has been made to replace me as chief general manager and I accept that."...

 

Calling Webster a "consummate professional," Coun. Maria Augimeri's voice broke with emotion as she faced the commission members who wanted to dump the TTC veteran.

"You're kicking success out the door. You're throwing away success with both hands. What are you thinking?" she said, moments before the vote came down.

At one point, Augimeri raised her voice to a yell, accusing those loyal to Ford of "abuse of power" for getting rid of a dissenting voice.

Also: The Torontoist's liveblog of today's hearing.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/1140311--mayor-rob-ford-s-save-ou..."Call it the unthinking trying to sell the uninformed on the unaffordable."[/url]

An editorial in the Toronto Star published on Saturday gives a good summary of the Sheppard subway expansion issue.

Maysie Maysie's picture

This is what happens when no-brain fuckwad bullies run the city.

Councillor Doug Ford tangles with verbally abusive bike courier

Quote:

Doug Ford then said that last week he was accosted downtown by a bike courier, who said "some real nasty, nasty words" into the councillor's SUV and then circled back to give him another earful.

The councillor, trying to drive into underground parking, got out because the courier was blocking him from pushing a button, he said.

"I told him if I wasn't an elected official I'd kick his ass in about 10 seconds," Doug Ford said. But the courier was still cursing him when he walked up from the garage, he said.

"All these construction guys are watching and he's going at me full tilt and I'm thinking ‘Is this all part of the job, Rob never told me. . . ," he said.

Mayor Rob Ford interjected: "There'd be one less courier because, trust me, Doug has been a kick boxer 10 years . . . I guarantee you that guy would have been history in about two seconds."

So, joking about violence is funny? Bragging about it on the air is just a story to tell?

Awwww, the construction guys were watching him! Awwww poor Dougie. Waah waah!!

And "that guy would have been history"?? Who the fuck talks like this? I say, that's a death threat.

See, Fords, here's the thing. When you fuck up the city, and destroy services, it actually affects real people's lives. And you know what else? People are going to get fucking pissed off about it. You clearly don't care when we're polite. And now you get some of your macho bullshit served back at you, verbally, for a few minutes. Cry me a fucking river.

Maysie Maysie's picture

OMG breaking news.

Clayton Ruby filing application to remove Rob Ford from office

There's a briefing at City Hall at 11am (in 15 minutes). Stay tuned.

But in the meantime: WOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Maysie Maysie's picture

Update from the Torontoist:

Quote:

Prominent Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby has filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court on behalf of Toronto resident Paul Magder, alleging that Rob Ford has violated the Province of Ontario's Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

That act sets out rules that govern how municipal politicians must conduct themselves while in office; one of those rules is that members of a council cannot take part in a debate if it involves their own private financial concerns. Ruby alleges that Ford did this last month, when the mayor gave a speech and cast a vote during a debate on whether he should have to repay certain donors to the Rob Ford Football Foundation. When he did so, according to Ruby, he breached the rules that are supposed to keep municipal government free from personal interests.

The penalty set out in the Conflict of Interest Act for violations of this kind: removal from office.

What a great day this has turned out to be.

Freedom 55

Crossing my fingers that this bid is more successful for Toronto folks than Larry O'Brien's legal saga was for Ottawans.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thank you Toronto for furnishing me with this melodrama of endless political comedy. With the CBC's assualt on political satire through its travesties (and not in a good way) Air Farce and 22 Minutes, I am grateful to still have reason to chuckle.

Rabble_Incognito

Maysie wrote:

Update from the Torontoist:

Quote:

Prominent Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby has filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court on behalf of Toronto resident Paul Magder, alleging that Rob Ford has violated the Province of Ontario's Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

That act sets out rules that govern how municipal politicians must conduct themselves while in office; one of those rules is that members of a council cannot take part in a debate if it involves their own private financial concerns. Ruby alleges that Ford did this last month, when the mayor gave a speech and cast a vote during a debate on whether he should have to repay certain donors to the Rob Ford Football Foundation. When he did so, according to Ruby, he breached the rules that are supposed to keep municipal government free from personal interests.

The penalty set out in the Conflict of Interest Act for violations of this kind: removal from office.

What a great day this has turned out to be.

True 'dat.

janfromthebruce

yes, Happy spring break week!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Clayton Ruby was interviewed on P&P. I am not a lawyer (IANAL) but it sounds to me that he has an extremely weak case, and I'm surprised a lawyer of his reputation would take it on. Nevertheless, I hope Ford is thrown out of office - he's a world class prick.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Paul Magder, his client, has plenty of money to fund the litigation, even if it's a longshot. For Ruby it's a chance for more self-promotion. Think of it as a strategic lawsuit.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Can't be very strategic if it's almost a sure thing that Ruby will lose, and not much good for his reputation.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Before he loses he will get much attention from the media, and many opportunities to denounce Rob Ford. He will further his reputation as a crusader against the powerful and corrupt. 

The reason certain lawsuits are called "strategic" is that their importance doesn't depend on whether you ultimately win or lose. By the time you get a verdict, the lawsuit has already served its purpose.

If you lose, you can say it was an uphill fight, but worth undertaking. If you win, you look like a hero.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Oh - okay - understood. Thanks!

Maysie Maysie's picture

Rob Ford in fight to save mayoralty

Ha ha.

Quote:
Rob Ford is facing a legal challenge to his mayoralty.

On Friday he was slapped with an unprecedented legal application that seeks to remove him from office.

The action, filed by prominent lawyer Clayton Ruby on behalf of Toronto resident Paul Magder, stems from allegations Ford acted improperly when, as a city councillor, he solicited donations from lobbyists and others doing business with the city to his football foundation using city letterhead. In 2010 the integrity commissioner directed him to repay the money, but at a council meeting last month councillors voted to waive that penalty.

Ford however spoke and voted on the issue at that February 7 meeting, and Ruby says doing so was a clear violation of the Municipal conflict of Interest Act.

"It's a very serious breach of statute," said Ruby at a press conference at City Hall Monday morning. "It's not a minor political poke. It's something we take very seriously in a democracy."

.....

Rob Ford is facing a legal challenge to his mayoralty.

On Friday he was slapped with an unprecedented legal application that seeks to remove him from office.

The action, filed by prominent lawyer Clayton Ruby on behalf of Toronto resident Paul Magder, stems from allegations Ford acted improperly when, as a city councillor, he solicited donations from lobbyists and others doing business with the city to his football foundation using city letterhead. In 2010 the integrity commissioner directed him to repay the money, but at a council meeting last month councillors voted to waive that penalty.

Ford however spoke and voted on the issue at that February 7 meeting, and Ruby says doing so was a clear violation of the Municipal conflict of Interest Act.

"It's a very serious breach of statute," said Ruby at a press conference at City Hall Monday morning. "It's not a minor political poke. It's something we take very seriously in a democracy."

janfromthebruce

actually BB, it isn't a weak case at all. Conflict of interest is not considered weak and is pretty cut and dry. Ford put a motion forward to rescind a sanction below:

Legal experts weigh in on application to remove Mayor Rob Ford from office

 

Some key statements: violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for financial gain.

Lawyer Clayton Ruby alleges Ford breached the act in February when he asked council to remove a year and a half old sanction placed upon him by the city’s integrity commissioner. Ford had been ordered to repay $3,150 worth of donations to his football foundation he solicited using councillor letterhead. Ford then voted on the issue, which passed.

So he not only put a motion forward but voted on it - it was a clear conflict of interest. Ruby won't lose.  Oh, and there has been previous municipal and school trustees dinged for the same thing.

Pages