Today Sat Sun
It is forecast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on July 25, 2014
Mostly Cloudy
26°/17°
It is forecast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on July 26, 2014
Thunderstorm
27°/20°
It is forecast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on July 27, 2014
Chance of a Thunderstorm
24°/18°

8 Comments

news

Why, Yes, There Was a List After All

Last month the mayor's allies swore there was no list of preferred candidates for public appointments. And yet it seems that there was.

Photo by {a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/skateboy075/7570724212/"}allanparke{/a} from the {a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/torontoist"}Torontoist Flickr Pool{/a}.

City council convened at 9:30 a.m. today, to discuss a report [PDF] from Toronto ombudsman Fiona Crean, who has come under fire from several Rob Ford allies lately for “politicizing” her role, after she released a report critical of the mayor’s office. Her report concerned interference from the mayor’s office in the public-appointments process, which oversees the selection of citizens to sit on the boards of directors of many of the City’s key agencies, boards, and commissions (ranging from the police to the library system). Those boards collectively manage about half the City’s budget and one third of its staff. And the mayor’s office, the ombudsman found, interfered in the process in a number of ways. One of those ways, apparently: circulating a list of preferred candidates for those public appointments.

Last month, when Crean first released her report, she noted that several people involved in the process had told her about the list, but since there was some conflicting evidence and no actual list had been discovered, she couldn’t say one way or another whether such a list existed. She was lambasted by several councillors for writing a report based on “hearsay” and falling prey to those who were politically motivated to undermine the mayor; several councillors vehemently denied that any such list existed.

At the same time they were berating her, we know now, someone in an office in City Hall discovered what seems to be the list in question. It was the subject of an addendum to the ombudsman’s report [PDF], which is why councillors were debating this all again today. Again, the debate got heated. And again, after several hours of debate, they unanimously accepted the ombudsman’s findings—critics included.

Why does any of this matter so much? Why should we care if there was a list or not?

From the City’s public-appointments policy [PDF]:

[A] Member of Council shall not provide a reference in support of an applicant for an appointment to a City Agency, Board or Commission, or any other position or office with the City of Toronto, unless that Member of Council has had an employment or other relevant relationship (such as that of teacher or volunteer group supervisor) with the person requesting the reference… [F]or the purposes of these rules, providing a reference includes both written and verbal references and any other form of intervention on behalf of the person in question.

The public-appointments process is meant to ensure that the most qualified and suitable candidates are selected in an “open, competitive, and equitable” way. The goal of the above passage is to prevent councillors from interfering in that process to favour people on irrelevant grounds. If you, as a councillor or mayor, worked with a candidate and can speak to their qualifications as their employer, that’s relevant. If they are your constituent, or dentist, or second cousin once removed—or, most critically, campaign donor—that doesn’t preclude them from getting the job, but you as a member of council certainly shouldn’t try to use your influence to advance their chances on those irrelevant grounds.

The ombudsman has made several recommendations to improve the appointments process, all of which have already been endorsed by council.

Comments

  • kidk

    What is the punishment for violating the City’s public-appointments policy?

    • Anonymous

      That’s beyond the Ombudsman’s purview. Someone at council could have moved a motion (they decided instead – and this includes the mayor’s staunchest opponents – to focus on moving forward and implementing her recommendations so this can be avoided in future), or someone could file a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner, who would investigate whether any member of council may have violated the code of conduct. (The Ombudsman’s purview is the civil service, not politicians.)

    • Anonymous

      What’s the punishment for a councilor knowing there was a list, using the list, and then denying there was a list, then after the list is proven to exist saying of course there was a list and there’s nothing wrong with having a list? Ford’s patholigical lying seems to be rubbing off on his allies in council.

      • Anonymous

        Nothing right now. Someone would have to file a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner to trigger an investigation.

  • Brian Young

    A lot of politics seems to involve closing the barn door after the smelly old cayuse has left the building. Sometimes it seems we haven’t come all that far since “L’état, c’est moi!” was first uttered.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=784750116 Bruce MacLean

    The names need to be made public. Billboards across the GTA (a 125 GRP would be sufficient).

    • Anonymous

      As with all matters that have to do with individual hiring and contracts, the list is confidential. (I.e. not a political decision not to release it – they’re not allowed to.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/lawson.ben Ben Lawson

    More evidence that “ending the gravy train” was really just about redirecting the gravy train.