Today Fri Sat
It is forecast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on July 31, 2014
Chance of Rain
21°/16°
It is forecast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on August 01, 2014
Chance of a Thunderstorm
23°/18°
It is forecast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on August 02, 2014
Chance of a Thunderstorm
24°/18°

43 Comments

news

A History of Formal Complaints Against Mayor Rob Ford

Lawsuits, integrity commissioner investigations, ombudsman reports, and more.

formal complaints 2014 640

Month by month, the history of complaints lodged against the Mayor. Click on the image above for a full-size, detailed version.

Mayor Rob Ford has found himself in so many scrapes that it’s becoming difficult to keep them all straight. Here’s a history of formal complaints that have been lodged against Ford since he first became a mayoral candidate in 2010. We update it periodically—new complaints have so far been filed every few months.

Over the course of his mayoralty, Rob Ford has faced four mayor types of formal complaints, all of which are represented here. There are lawsuits, which are legal proceedings brought under provincial and federal law and argued in court. There was a compliance audit, which is a financial probe brought about under the aegis of the City. There are integrity investigations, which are probes into alleged violations of city council’s code of conduct and carried out by the City’s integrity commissioner, Janet Leiper. There are reports from the City’s ombudsman, Fiona Crean, whose job is to investigate instances of administrative unfairness.

An important caveat: when complaints are investigated by Toronto’s integrity commissioner and there is no finding of wrongdoing, the related report isn’t typically made public. This list isn’t, therefore, entirely comprehensive; there may well be other complaints which were never made public. The cases we do know about are full of minutiae; to keep things manageable we’ve only included the highlights. If you notice anything missing, or any errors in what’s here, let us know.


Boardwalk Pub Libel Suit

boardwalk pubMay 11, 2010: Council approves a 21-year lease extension for Tuggs Incorporated, the company that has operated the Boardwalk Pub in Woodbine Beach Park under contract to the City since 1986. The extension is controversial because it hasn’t been put out to competitive bids, contrary to advice from City staff.

July 29, 2010: During an on-air interview, Newstalk 1010 host Jerry Agar asks then-mayoral-candidate Rob Ford if he thinks someone involved in the Tuggs deal is “getting money under the table,” implying that bribery played a role in council’s decision to sole-source the contract. “I truly believe they are,” says Ford. He can’t articulate his reasons for thinking so, he says, because part of council’s debate was confidential. This is typical of contractual issues, which include sensitive financial details that cannot be made public until agreements are signed.

August 11, 2010: Ford is quoted in the Toronto Sun as saying that confidential debates—like the one at which council decided to award Tuggs its new contract—are characterized by “corruption and skullduggery” and that the Tuggs deal “stinks to high heaven.” The article strongly implies that Ford believes the deal “smacks of civic corruption,” though it doesn’t quote him saying that. It also implies that Tuggs owner George Foulidis’ campaign donations to then-Councillor Sandra Bussin (Ward 32, Beaches-East York) helped him land the lease extension.

September 16, 2010: Fed up with Ford’s insinuations, Foulidis informs the media that he intends to sue the candidate for libel, unless Ford apologizes.

October 12, 2010: Ford is formally served. The statement of claim says Foulidis is seeking $6 million in damages and costs.

November 13, 2012: The case goes to trial. The exact meaning of Ford’s words during his interview with the Sun becomes a key issue. Under questioning by Brian Shiller, the prosecuting attorney, Ford tries to defend his “corruption and skullduggery” comment. Eventually, he all but admits that he was referring to Tuggs when he said those words.

December 27, 2012: Ontario Superior Court Justice John Macdonald dismisses the suit against Ford, reasoning that Ford’s statements fell short of libel. The judge also took issue with the fact that Foulidis was unable to prove, definitively, that he was actually the chief officer of Tuggs (his name wasn’t on the official company profile).


Toronto Star (Integrity Investigation)

toronto starJuly 13, 2010: The Toronto Star publishes an article alleging that then-Councillor Rob Ford had been asked to stop coaching a high school football team in 2001, following a confrontation (a physical one, according to some but not all of the Star’s sources) with a student player. Ford publicly disputes its truthfulness. Through his lawyers, he files a notice of intent to sue the Star for libel, but later allows the suit to lapse before anything can come of it.

August 20, 2010: Ford’s then-press secretary, Adrienne Batra, confirms to the Toronto Sun that Ford’s campaign will no longer be talking to the Star, as a result of the article. Once Ford becomes mayor, he continues this policy, and his office doesn’t send press releases to Toronto Star reporters.

February 8, 2011: The City Hall press gallery collectively sends a letter to Mayor Ford’s office, stating that they oppose “any attempts by politicians or staff to boycott, spurn or sideline any media outlet or journalist by restricting the flow of official information.” The Star isn’t mentioned by name, but the implication is clear.

November 1, 2011: Ford’s executive committee votes down a motion by Councillor Adam Vaughan (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina) that would have prohibited City officials from excluding particular journalists or news outlets from media events and press releases.

December, 2011: The Star files a complaint with the integrity commissioner, asking for a probe into the appropriateness of the mayor’s continued snubs. In an article for the paper, Torstar chair John Honderich writes that, “Quite simply, the mayor must be held to account for this.”

April 3, 2013: City council considers the integrity commissioner’s report on the Star‘s complaint. The report concludes that Ford didn’t breach council’s code of conduct by keeping the newspaper at arm’s length. The report also says it’s unclear whether the City’s rules permit corporations like the Star to bring integrity complaints against Toronto’s municipal politicians.


Soliciting Donations Improperly (Integrity Investigation)

football donationsAugust 20, 2010: The integrity commissioner releases a report in response to a complaint about then-councillor Ford’s methods of raising money for his private charity, the Rob Ford Football Foundation. The commissioner finds that by using his office letterhead to solicit donations for the foundation, Ford had violated City rules that prevent politicians from using office resources and political influence for personal ends. Also in violation of the code of conduct, he had accepted donations from lobbyists, their clients, and a corporation that does business with the City.

August 25, 2010: City council approves the integrity commissioner’s recommended sanction: that Ford be required to pay back the improper corporate and lobbyist donations, at a cost of $3,150.


Office Expense Reporting (Integrity Investigation)

office expense reportingJuly 7, 2011: Jude MacDonald, a freelance writer and former editor-in-chief of Rabble.ca, files a complaint with the integrity commissioner about the suspiciously low totals on Rob Ford’s office-expense disclosure reports. The mayor, like all members of council, is required to report all office spending (including out-of-pocket spending). Ford’s office expenses in the first quarter of 2011, according to his disclosure records, were just $1,718.46.

February 9, 2012: The integrity commissioner determined that Ford didn’t actually breach the council’s code of conduct in this case.


Election Finance Compliance Audit

campaign auditApril 6, 2011: The Globe and Mail points out an interesting feature of Ford’s mayor campaign financial disclosure filing: they appear to show that the campaign effectively borrowed $69,722.31 from Doug Ford Holdings, a corporation whose directors include Rob Ford and his brother, Doug. Accepting that loan may have violated campaign finance laws by counting as a corporate donation.

May 4, 2011: Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler (an activist) and Max Reed (a lawyer) file for a compliance audit of Ford’s campaign finances. Their brief in support of the audit takes inspiration from Lorinc’s work, but also builds on it in many significant ways. They point out that the campaign may have exceeded its legal spending limits, and that it may have illegally borrowed $77,722 from Doug Ford Holdings, among other alleged violations of the Municipal Elections Act.

May 13, 2011: The City’s Compliance Audit Committee unanimously agrees with Chaleff-Freudenthaler and Reed that Ford’s election expenses should be audited.

May 30, 2011: Ford’s lawyers file an appeal with the Ontario Court of Justice seeking a reversal of the committee’s decision to push ahead with the audit. The following day, Chaleff-Freudenthaler and Reed announce that they have found some lawyers of their own: two partners from the firm of Paliare Roland, who have agreed to work pro bono.

December 23, 2011: Ford’s lawyers file a motion with the court seeking to have the committee’s authorization of the audit thrown out, so Ford can introduce new evidence.

April 5, 2012: A few court dates later, Ford announces, through his press secretary, that he has instructed his lawyers to put a stop to the appeal. In the press release, Ford is quoted as saying that he will “co-operate fully with any auditor appointed by the City.”

February 1, 2013: Froese Forensic Partners releases a report that details a number of apparent financial violations committed by Ford’s campaign. Among other things, the auditors say Ford appears to have spent $40,168 more than his legally mandated campaign spending limit (which was about $1.3 million).

February 25, 2013: The City’s compliance audit committee decides not to call in a special prosecutor to press charges against Ford, effectively letting him off the hook.


Medical Officer of Health (Integrity Investigation)

medical officer of healthApril 29, 2012: It’s the day before Dr. David McKeown, Toronto’s medical officer of health, is set to recommend to the City’s Board of Health that councillors consider lowering speed limits across Toronto in order to improve road safety. Rob and Doug Ford, on their Sunday radio talk show, take the opportunity to lash out at the proposal. The mayor calls the idea “nuts, nuts, nuts,” and McKeown’s $290,000 salary “ridiculous.” Doug Ford wonders aloud, “Why does he [that is, McKeown] even have a job?”

May 3, 2012: Councillor John Filion (Ward 23, Willowdale), chair of the Toronto Board of Health, tells reporters he will file a complaint with the integrity commissioner if both Fords don’t apologize for their comments. They do not.

October 28, 2012: The integrity commissioner’s reports on the incident are release, in advance of the upcoming city council meeting. She finds that Rob Ford did, in fact, violate council’s code of conduct by “demeaning the professional reputation” of the medical officer of health, and that Doug Ford has also violated the code of conduct. She recommends that council issue a formal reprimand. The next day, while being interviewed on AM640, Doug Ford apologizes; the integrity commissioner says this is a satisfactory resolution. Rob, meanwhile, offers no acceptable apology.

February 14, 2013 After numerous procedural delays (council deferred debate on the issue) the integrity commissioner issues a new report saying that Rob Ford had apologized to McKeown a few days prior, and the matter is now closed.


Conflict of Interest Suit

February 1, 2012: The integrity commissioner releases a follow-up to her earlier report on improper donations to the Rob Ford Football Foundation. To date, she writes, Ford has not paid back any of the money donated by lobbyists and corporations.

February 7, 2012: Council votes on the matter again. This time, they decide to reverse their earlier decision. Ford is officially absolved of all financial responsibility for his breach of conduct. Ford initially recuses himself from the debate, but subsequently reverses course, speaking and voting on the item.

March 12, 2012: Seizing on Ford’s apparent conflict of interest—by voting, he gave the appearance of using his political power to sway a matter in which he had a financial interest, which is prohibited—Toronto resident Paul Magder brings a lawsuit against the mayor, accusing him of violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. At a press conference, Magder is overshadowed by his lawyer, Clayton Ruby, who is well known for his involvement in constitutional and civil liberties cases. The pair say they are seeking to remove Ford from office.

September 5, 2012: Ford takes the witness stand and is cross examined by Ruby. The mayor repeatedly claims not to be familiar with the basics of conflict-of-interest law. Instead, he espouses a strange, incorrect view of what actually constitutes a conflict of interest. His belief, he says, is that a conflict can only exist when both a councillor and the City stand to benefit from a transaction.

November 26, 2012: Justice Charles Hackland releases his verdict, which condemns Ford for his “willful blindness” and orders him removed from office. The decision is stayed for 14 days.

December 5, 2012: Divisonal Court Justice Gladys Pardu extends Ford’s stay, allowing him remain mayor until he has finished appealing Hackland’s verdict.

January 25, 2013: The Divisional Court releases its decision, overturning Hackland and restoring Ford to the mayoralty permanently. Many legal experts had predicted that Ford would lose his appeal, so this outcome is considered surprising.

March 15, 2013: Clayton Ruby’s office files for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court accepts only a small minority of cases, so this is considered a long shot.

June 20, 2013: The Supreme Court denies Ruby leave to appeal, ending the matter for good.


Use of City Resources (Integrity Investigation)

city resourcesSeptember 12, 2012: The Globe outlines how some of Ford’s junior staff members appear to help the mayor with his volunteer duties as a high-school football coach. Because the staff members are on the City payroll, this raises suspicions that Ford has, yet again, violated City rules against misuse of resources.

September 13, 2013: Jude MacDonald, the former Rabble.ca editor who complained about Ford’s office spending disclosure in 2011, registers a second complaint with the integrity commissioner. This time, she wants an investigation into Ford’s use of his staff for non-City business.

November 20, 2013: The integrity commissioner finds that no breach took place. Because her report uncovered no wrongdoing, it is not made public. (Typically reports are only published when breaches are found.)


Civic Appointments Process (Ombudsman’s Report)

civic appointmentsSeptember 27, 2012: Toronto ombudsman Fiona Crean details how, in 2011, the mayor’s office interfered in the process of appointing citizen members to the boards of City agencies. The report says the mayor’s staff first delayed the appointments process, then demanded that it be accelerated. Also in the report is evidence that the mayor’s staff tried to get preferred candidates onto certain boards, including the Police Services Board and the Toronto Public Library Board. Crean concluded that Ford’s meddling “compromised” the appointments process by putting City staff under such strict time constraints that they couldn’t follow the City’s own appointments policy.

October 4, 2012: City council considers Crean’s report. Some councillors grill her about weak points in her investigation, notably the absence of written evidence that the mayor’s office had favourite candidates for certain board spots. Ultimately, council decides to take the ombudsman’s advice and direct City staff to change the way Toronto administers its civic-appointments process. The hope is that this will prevent similar problems in the future.

October 25, 2012: Crean publishes a follow-up report, including a new piece of evidence that came the City Manager’s office: the mayor’s office’s written list of preferred candidates for certain board spots. Crean stands by the conclusions in her previous report.


Soliciting Donations Improperly (Round Two)

football donationsFebruary 28, 2013: The Toronto Star reports that, despite nearly losing his office in court, Rob Ford has once again sent fundraising letters to registered lobbyists, asking them to donate to his football foundation. (One lobbyist received a letter just three days after the appeal decision ensured Ford would retain the mayoralty.) Ford says the mailing was “inadvertent” and promises that he’ll return any donations that result from it.

March 5, 2013: Toronto resident Frank Trotz files a complaint with the integrity commissioner over the fundraising letters.

November 5, 2013: The integrity commissioner releases her report on the matter [PDF]. She finds that Rob Ford did improperly solicit the donations, both because City resources were used in the preparation of the mailing and because some lobbyists were recipients. However, in the course of her investigation the commissioner met with the mayor, who took concrete steps to ensure that these breaches would not happen again. Further, the mailing in question was the last to fall afoul of the rules. For these reasons, the commissioner recommends that no penalties be imposed.


Targeting Councillor Paul Ainslie (Integrity Investigation)

ainslie robocallsOctober 11, 2013: Paul Ainslie (Ward 43, Scarborough East), having broken with Rob Ford and voted against the Scarborough subway, also quits city council’s cabinet-like executive committee. That night Rob Ford commissions a series of robocalls, attacking the councillor. Two days later, on his weekly radio show, Ford has more harsh words for his colleague.

October 15, 2013: Ainslie convenes a press conference, announcing that he’s filing a complaint with the integrity commissioner about the calls, which he describes as “political thuggery.”

January 6, 2014: Ainslie tells reporters that the integrity commissioner has asked Rob Ford for information pertaining to the incident several times, and has received no reply. If she continues to be met with silence her investigation will proceed without him.


Crack Use (Integrity Investigation Request)

November 13, 2013: At a special meeting convened to respond to Rob Ford’s admission that he had smoked crack, driven drunk, and lied to the pubic for months, city councillors vote to ask the integrity commissioner to launch an investigation into the mayor’s conduct, and to report back to them as soon as possible on whether he has violated council’s code of conduct.

December 5, 2013: The integrity commissioner publishes a report summarizing her initial exploration of the issues [PDF]. She finds that due to a number of procedural issues with the way the motion was framed, and because Ford had responded as requested to some elements of council’s motion (such as apologizing during the meeting for his behaviour) there is no further action available for her to take.


CORRECTIONS: We originally misspelled Paul Magder’s surname, misidentified the park in which the Boardwalk Pub is located, and misstated the length of the lease (21 years less a day, not 20 years). We also originally wrote that Mayor Rob Ford was quoted in a Toronto Sun article saying that a deal between the City and Tuggs, Inc. was characterized by “corruption and skullduggery.” This did not actually become apparent until later—at the time it was unclear whether he was referring to that deal in particular or confidential council debates in general.

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/DarksydeCAD William

    What is Janet Leiper so busy with that she cannot tie up all these outstanding investigstions?

    • Anonymous

      It’s possible that some of them were resolved informally. She wouldn’t say.

      • http://twitter.com/StellsBells StellsBells

        does the Integrity Commissioner have some trouble with integrity, or is she just afraid of losing her job?

        • Anonymous

          The only two that seem to have fallen off the radar with no explanation are the Medical Officer of Health one and the office expenses one. I’ll follow up with the people involved in those one more time and see if there have been any developments.

          • Anonymous

            The refusal of the Ford brothers to properly account for their office budgets to me is the biggest issue and should’ve been before a judge by now. I don’t know if the anti-corruption policy is a set of rules or laws though, either way violating any anti-corruption rule/law is very serious as far as I’m concerned.

            If they were paying for their own office expenses why wouldn’t they just say so and follow the rules reporting that? Their refusal to file, in Doug’s case no office expense report at all and in Rob’s case one that’s so obviously fictitious it defles belief he thought anyone would think it was legitimate, are both very serious. If they have nothing to hide, like say developers, lobbyists, or their daddy’s company paying for their office expenses then why are they hiding?

    • Anonymous

      Perhaps more to the point, why didn’t the crown attorney(s) take up the cudgel over Ford’s blatant, and very public violations of provincial statutes?

    • Don Rhodes

      I was thinking the same thing – Time to make some noise.

  • Anonymous

    what a nightmare this clown is.

    • Jamierson2k

      Oh no! He used his office phone improperly, spent too little and called out council on their integrity! Take a look at all the good he’s done before you side with the Toronto Star etc. Being Mayor is no easy job, all things considering he’s doing fantastic.

      • Anonymous

        Yawn. Doing good things does not give him a free pass to break the rules. NEXT!

      • Don Rhodes

        You think he’s doing a fantastic job? I’d hate to see your definition of a bad mayor….

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Neville-Ross/100002343524258 Neville Ross

        I guess being a zombie supporter of Ford really helps to make one be blind, huh?

      • Anonymous

        Fantastic job? He missed the single most important conference of the year with other mayors trying to solve the fiscal issues that effect cities. Oh thats right one would have to believe there is a revenue problem, as all other mayors do, to deem the conference important. Ford thinks it is a spending problem. Funny, I guess we would have billions for subways if Ford has solved the “spending problem”.

      • Bigdawg123

        It’s amazing how many people just go down with the ship simply because they voted for him. You need to wake up and understand that this man is a disaster. I won’t hold it against you anymore for voting for him, but you don’t need to make a fool of yourself any further.

        Also, I’m glad you posted all of those “good” things he’s done to prove us all wrong.

      • bobloblawbloblawblah

        Please list all the good things he’s done. Mostly it’s been a circus since day one with this guy.

  • http://twitter.com/MarkJull Mark Jull

    Of the 5 complaints that involve the the integrity commissioner only in 1 has she done anything and failed at that, and the other 4 apparently not doing anything at all.

    • Anonymous

      It could be all in the phrasing here, but it seems the ICO is more opaque than one would expect of an office devoted, more or less, to transparency and accountability.

  • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

    Paul “Madger”?

    • http://www.bookclubinabox.com Laura Godfrey

      Thanks for noticing the misspelling, Joe! It’s been corrected now.

  • Owen

    So which Courthouse is this all happening, in case one wants to go and gawk.

    • Anonymous

      361 University

  • Don Rhodes

    I think there will be a pretty big celebration if he is tossed out of office (he darn well should be IMO), the buffoon has ZERO credibility and has nothing but disdain for those who challenge him.

  • http://www.torontocorporatephotos.com/ Toronto corporate Photos

    The judge will decide ….and the ruling will be done :)

  • http://circusesnotbread.wordpress.com/ Joe Blow VI

    … why don’t I find this surprising? … this is a man who has faced criminal allegations dating back to the late 90s … his list includes drug possession and allegations of spousal abuse … drunk driving, public intoxication, allegations he beat up teenagers that he coached, distracted driving, failing to stop for the TTC … the law and order mayor applies law and order to everyone but himself … he is above the law

  • director

    He’s a buffoon! Throw him out on his ass! I’m embarrassed to say that he’s the Mayor of the City I call home!

  • Buttcon

    and those are the ones in during this nightmarish term as lardship of Toronto….if you include the assault on his wife, the drunk driving in the US, the drug use – I’m sure the diagram would be even more elaborate. The man is not only a criminal, functions with diminished intellectual capacity, a national embarassment and aninsult to C(c)onservatives everywhere.

  • Anonymous

    Damn, Toronto has a lot of hippies! I mean, look at all the Rob Ford haters.

    • Anonymous

      Wow thats deep. In case you havent noticed the business centered Globe and the populist Sun also are complaining about Ford. One could say that Ford has built an interesting coalition of people who will vote him out (if he lasts that long).

    • http://twitter.com/wklis W. K. Lis

      Those “hippies” from the 1960′s and 1970′s lost their hair are now wearing suits & ties, and sit on corporate boardrooms.

    • Jing Li

      Tell me what he’s done. Tell me why he’s a great mayor using facts and not opinion. I’m not joking, not trying to call you out… I’ve been looking and looking and … well, I guess I need some help.

  • Anonymous

    I think the Torontoist needs to explicitly label this sort of story as “updated”, or rather post a simple update story, that links to the original. Otherwise it just looks lame.

    • Anonymous

      You’re definitely right that it could be clearer. I’ve added a note to the intro explaining that the post was originally published in September.

      We’ve never done a continually updated feature like this one, and we’re still experimenting with ways of keeping it presentable.

      • Anonymous

        Well there really is no easy way to keep track of all of Ford’s misdeeds and present them in a clear manner. You just never know what he’ll do next.

  • CaligulaJones

    Yep, just look at the headlines: Incompetence, mismanagement, buffoonery and outright corruption has left Toronto in shambles. City hall throws money away. No one wants to work for the city. Unions have too much clout. The planning department is powerless.

    What a mess.

    Oh, and this is from a Toronto Life dated January 2008. Some of you have damn short memories, or your cognitive dissonance is set to “max”.

    • Anonymous

      Will you appoint your horse to the Senate, now that OLG has put it out to pasture?

      • CaligulaJones

        Would anyone notice if there was a horse in the Canadian Senate?

  • Anonymous

    I’m having a hard time resolving the correction issued on November 15th with the Boardwalk Pub update on November 13th. The Star article linked in the update makes it pretty clear Ford was speaking broadly of in-camera “corruption” and specified the deal with Tuggs Inc. as an example, but the update and correction each say he was doing one (speaking broadly or singling out Tuggs) and not the other, but disagree on which. Am I misreading something?

    • Anonymous

      The correction addresses the quotes in the Sun article, which, when closely read, don’t explicitly single Tuggs out as an example of corruption.

      The November 13th update is based on testimony Rob Ford gave in court, in which he admitted (or came pretty close to admitting) that he DID mean Tuggs was an example of corruption.

      So, until Rob Ford elaborated on what he meant, there was no way to know for certain that he was talking about Tuggs. The correction was issued just before he testified. (The trial started on the 13th, but Ford didn’t take the stand until the 16th.)

      It’s confusing, for sure, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Next time we republish this I’ll do something to make the post less convoluted.

      As I said, we’re experimenting.

  • Michelle

    oh, it’s so easy to “follow” the crowd and bash OUR Mayor (and others in
    general), but does it make you feel better about YOURSELF?

    • Jing Li

      Yes, it is very very easy. What’s more difficult is to find any accomplishments.

      • bobloblawbloblawblah

        I’d list getting a deal with unions(although Holyday was more responsible) and although I disagree, getting rid of the VRT and declaring the TTC an essential service. After that it falls off into petty things like reducing councillors budgets and getting rid of the 5 cent bag fee. So much for the “vision” thing…..

  • Michelle

    oh, it’s so easy to “follow” the crowd and bash OUR Mayor (and others in
    general), but does it make you feel better about YOURSELF?

  • Jing Li

    He’s privatized garbage. I’ve been searching and searching for Rob Ford accomplishments. I’ve found privatized garbage and keeping plastic bags. I can’t find anything else. I guess the trip to Chicago could count.

    I don’t want to bash the mayor of my city, and no, it doesn’t make me feel good. But I’m trying to find out what he’s done that deserves my respect.

    2013 – 10.8 billion
    2012 – 9.4 billion
    2011 – 9.3 billion
    2010 – 9.2 billion
    2009 – 8.7 billion
    2008 – 8.2 billion
    2007 – 7.8 billion

    There’s the last 7 budgets. Under David Miller’s rule, the budget increased a total of 1.4 billion over his last 4 budgets. In his first three years, Rob Ford’s budget has increased 1.5 billion in 3 budgets.

    Rob originally campaigned saying there was at least $500 million of “gravy” that would be removed. But we’ve seen MORE increases and not less.

    Do I feel good bashing Rob Ford? No. But what makes me feel worse is that there are people (it seems like A LOT OF PEOPLE) who are ignorant to the fact that he’s done little to nothing for the city and yet still blindly follow and defend him, blaming all his problems on the pinko media.

    Please, someone enlighten me. I need to know what I’ve missed. What amazing thing has Rob Ford done for the city that makes up for all the F-ups?