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?
Public, Open, ...
- Advocacy, Democracy - Action, Resolution - Issue, Concern, Opinion - Decision, Challenge, Opportunity - Help, Listening, Developing, Caring - For, Against - Searching, Evaluating - Hoping, Giving - Maturing, Growing - Thinking, Reacting - Critical, Conditional - Responsibility, Involvement, Engagement - Agree, Disagree - Inclusive, Isolated - Engagement, Disinterest - Commentary, Silence - Constructive, Insightful - Systemic, Narrow - Contemplation, Execution - Delay
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Regarding Defamation Suits:
ReplyDeleteDear Bloggers, I voted against creating an ongoing policy and fund. I did however support the legal suit against Ward 32 News. The outside legal opinion delivered to council by the reputable firm of Borden/Ladner/Gervais is conclusive. It remains confidential because it contains a great deal of detail and legal strategy. This is unfortunate for the previous blogger. If he could see the confidential paper he would realize he has missed the point. Ward 32 News didn't just insult the councillor. Major papers do this everyday, twisting and spinning as they go and we accept and endure. In the case of Ward 32 News, the writier actually says Councillor Bussin voted for items that she vehemently opposed by recorded vote. Further to this, Council supported her and also opposed.
This is a serious breech and when the writer was given a chance to retract, he not only refused but continued to publish and misrepresent.
With respect to campaign finances, I again invite citizens to discuss with me at any time the most important reform that could ever take place, Election finance reform. Citizens have taken a simplistic approach, asking for a ban on corporate and union donations. Now the same donations can happen but under personal names, take funding you may not approve of 'underground'. It is for this reason that I did not support the voluntary ban last time. You should know what is going on. This time it will be mandatory but the problem will persist.
I continue to advocate for a New York City style program where candidates are audited four times throughout the election year to receive their campaign rebates. Then their donors are posted on the City's website BEFORE ELECTION DAY. This is the ultimate in disclosure and it has greatly improved municipal campaign practices over the last four elections in New York City.
City politicians who took campaign contributions from landlords, developers and other businesses in 2006.
ReplyDeleteTHOSE WHO TAKE LITTLE MONEY
Ward Candidate Landlords/Dev Other Businesses
Mayor David Miller 0.0% 0.0%
1 Suzan Hall 7.8 20.6
4 Gloria Lindsay Luby 12.3 10.5
8 Anthony Perruzza 10.3 5.8
9 Maria Augimeri 13.5 11.4
14 Gord Perks 0.6 0.0
15 Howard Moscoe 6.5 13.9
18 Adam Giambrone 7.8 1.6
19 Joe Pantalone 0.0 0.0
20 Adam Vaughan 0.0 0.0
21 Joe Mihevc 0.0 0.0
22 Michael Walker 0.0 0.0
23 John Filion 6.5 7.0
25 Cliff Jenkins 0.0 0.0
27 Kyle Rae 0.0 0.0
28 Pam McConnell 0.0 0.0
30 Paula Fletcher 0.9 0.0
31 Janet Davis 0.0 0.5
32 Sandra Bussin 0.0 11.1
33 Shelly Carroll 11.1 12.0
35 Adrian Heaps 0.6 2.8
38 Glenn De Baeremaeker 10.4 8.3
40 Norm Kelly 6.2 14.7
41 Chin Lee 1.6 9.8
42 Raymond Cho 0.0 3.2
44 Ron Moeser 0.0 1.4
THOSE WHO TAKE LOTS OF MONEY
2 Rob Ford 32.5 24.2
3 Doug Holiday 24.0 28.3
5 Peter Milczyn 41.7 26.4
6 Mark Grimes 22.6 18.8
7 Giorgio Mammoliti 41.4 26.0
10 Michael Feldman 29.6 16.1
11 Frances Nunziata 39.1 32.9
12 Frank Di Giorgio 39.5 27.5
13 Bill Saundercook 17.5 31.4
16 Karen Stintz 47.0 2.0
17 Cesar Palacio 37.4 2.1
24 David Shiner 25.5 21.3
26 John Parker 25.4 17.4
29 Case Ootes 28.1 30.2
34 Denzil Minnan-Wong 32.5 30.0
36 Brian Ashton 30.4 15.6
37 Michael Thompson 20.0 28.9
39 Mike Del Grande 37.5 10.7
43 Paul Ainslie 27.3 24.0
"the writer actually says Councillor Bussin voted for items that she vehemently opposed by recorded vote" So she not stupid enough to publicly support it---- but $3,000 got the developer a permit
ReplyDelete