Taxpayer Money for Alleged Councillor Defamation and Election Contributions

The actions of those holding elected office_ public and otherwise can be important to taxpayers. Opinions by citizens expressed in public about such actions can range from totally supportive to the extremely negative or contrary with interpretations on motive and cause. City council has been showing two faces when a public expression could be considered "legally" defamatory. (See the city clerk blog - go to sidebar) The current case of Councillor Sandra Bussin (East York-Toronto) against opinions expressed and accessible on the "Ward 32 News" blog has the face of councillor's supporting a member with a potential cost of the city coffers of more than $30,000 (outside legal fees_ one to give council an opinion; one to support Bussin's legal team). Newspapers such as The Star (see Aug 8 editorial) contrarily suggest councillors thicken their skin and dig into their own pockets and their office allowance.

Although the lawyer submitting a report to council refrained from providing a reference to the material you can view on line the alleged "defamatory" position: http://ward32news.wordpress.com/

You will see some strong language and some poor English. You need to dig backwards in the blog to understand the context. The words "bribe" and "developers" appear.

But the most interesting aspect is probably the reported timing and method of some contributions to election campaigns to exceed the $750 contribution limit from any individual. Apparently Bossin has been supportive in council of motions to the benefit related to property re-development and public contracts for a constituent who has made significant campaign contributions. Allegedly, there was a contribution "conspiracy"_ many with close relationships to the constituent made the max. contribution. For the last election, the amounts totalled over $8,000.

If you peruse the online councillors' election financial documents you find many instances where a "family unit" passes the max. by making contributions for each individual (for example, spouses and children, or employer and employees). You might view this allowance as a "loophole".

If Bussin pursuits a defamatory suit she might be opening up a smelly case of squirming worms. City councillors might be protecting turf and their own contributors. The "Ward 32 News" people have not stepped back under threat. A day or so in court opening campaign contributions to scrutiny might not be what those supporting Bussin wanted.

It is illegal to take someone's money to make a contribution for a candidate. It is illegal to make a contribution on your own using another's name.

But how to police this?

And how should a councillor be expected to behave when motions relevant to the benefit of an election contributor are before council?

We saw examples of good ethics when NY Councillors Moscoe and Shiner abstained from participation in the council vote on the city workers' labour agreements. How far should the "conflict of interest" extend?

What do you think?

City Councillor Vote on New City Workers Agreement

As you know the city council vote (21-17) to accept the negotiated agreement with Locals 79 & 416 was close. A majority of the North York & Scarborough councillors voted NO as did one member of the Executive Committee (Norm Kelly, Scarborough - See D. Nickle, The NY Mirror, Aug 7).

Councillor Carroll and some members of the W33AC have used email to express differences of opinion. This "forum" allows us to engage in an open and civil dialogue.

Here is an email rebuttal from one W33AC member to Councillor Carroll's email on why she voted YES:

I recognize a blatant attempt to spin and this is an indication of someone who has made a bad decision and now wants to justify the actions.

1) The Strike Would Continue Indefinitely: Tell me how you, the mayor or the city bargaining committee know that? Sure CUPE said that they would walk out of talks. This is a standard bargaining ploy and Miller and the majority of Council caved into this cheap threat! Let them stay out a bit longer. Workers were coming back - not many but an embarrassing number. The public was also coping well and learned how to be very prudent with their garbage! Miller could have sought more injunctions to harass the picket lines. But no, he caved!

2) The Premier would have intervened: There was no indication that Queen's Park was in an hurry to get involved. For one thing the city would have had to ask. Unilateral action would have led to a howl on the city's part. Mr. McGuinty did not intervene in Windsor for three months and all indications were that he was not interested in getting involved in the Toronto strike. Shame on Miller and the Council for using this as a crutch!

3) Economic damage: Toronto has been fading as a tourist draw for the past number of years. The recession, expensive Canadian dollar, tight border restrictions don't help matters either. It's a stretch to blame the strike for "our downturn". Leadership, sadly lacking, could have got many building permits out.

4) Eighteen day accumulated Sick Leave: All indications from our "great leader" was that the eighteen days would be replaced with the new plan. New hires have to take the new plan but those already enrolled keep the old plan. What if they don't opt in great numbers for a buy-out? The City's rosy forecast is predicated on a good to great opting for buy-out of the old plan. Typical spin!

Shelley, I have worked for many years in the Fiscal Planning Department for the Ontario Government. I knew too well what goes on I am quite a aware of all the spins which use even if the Media reports the correct facts.

Therefore, we feel that your yes`` vote was a cave in and not the "responsible action of a city steward"!

Regards Mark and Gisela