City of Toronto Integrity Commissioner, Janet Leiper
Citation: Ford (Re), 2010 ONMIC 1 Date: 2010-04-30
REPORT ON VIOLATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT BY COUNCILLOR FORD
Notice: Municipal Integrity Commissioners provide investigation reports to their respective municipal council and, in most cases, make recommendations for imposition of penalty or other remedial action to the municipal Council. Therefore, reference should be made to the minutes of each particular municipal council to obtain information about the particular council's consideration of each report. When possible, a link to the relevant municipal council minutes is provided.
Please find below the link to the corresponding council decision. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2010.CC49.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS.. 3 FINANCIAL IMPACT. 3 DECISION HISTORY. 3 ISSUE BACKGROUND.. 3 COMMENTS.. 4 Investigation. 4 Findings. 4 Analysis and Findings. 5 Appropriate Sanction. 6 CONTACT. 7 SIGNATURE.. 8 ATTACHMENTS.. 8 APPENDICES.. 9 Appendix 1. 9 Appendix 2. 10
SUMMARY
During a radio broadcast and at a City Council meeting, Councillor Rob Ford disclosed confidential information about the cost of a real estate transaction involving the City. These are breaches of Article V of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council. (“The Code of Conduct”) I recommend that Council impose a reprimand.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Integrity Commissioner recommends that:
City Council adopts the finding that Councillor Rob Ford has violated Article V of the Code of Conduct.
City Council adopts the recommendation that Councillor Rob Ford be reprimanded.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This report will have no financial impact.
DECISION HISTORY
City Council asked the Integrity Commissioner to investigate whether Councillor Rob Ford violated the Code of Conduct after an exchange at City Council on August 6, 2009. Under s. 160 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, City Council may request the Integrity Commissioner to conduct an inquiry about whether a member of council has contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council.
An investigation was conducted and I concluded that Councillor Ford violated the Code of Conduct. As a result, a public report to Council is required by the Code of Conduct Complaint Protocol and section 162(3) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.
ISSUE BACKGROUND
In 2009, Councillor Rob Ford had a regular “spot” on a Thursday morning AM radio program. On August 6, 2009, the morning of a council meeting, Councillor Ford discussed the issue of an agenda item for that meeting concerning a real estate transaction proposed by the City for Council’s approval. Councillor Ford broadcast the proposed purchase price, a figure which he had been provided in a confidential attachment to his Council documents.
Later on the same day, at the Council meeting, Councillor Ford spoke to the item in open session and said, “I think it’s absolutely ridiculous to be spending $750,000.00 on buying a house. This is the last thing we have to do and this is what we’re being asked to approve right now.”
The Deputy Speaker pointed out that the cost of the transaction was not to be given out. Councillor Ford immediately apologized to Council and explained that the order paper had a break in it between the item (which fell on the bottom of one page) and the fact that it was confidential (which continued on the top of the next page). Councillor Thompson objected to the explanation. He told Council that he had heard Councillor Ford broadcast the same confidential information on his radio show that morning.
The Deputy Speaker reminded Council that “purple paper is confidential, not to be released on a radio program, or in this Council, or anywhere.”
Councillor/Deputy Mayor Pantalone pointed out that the same item had appeared on the order paper on August 5 (the day before) in a complete format that showed it was a confidential item.
Councillor Ford admitted to Council that he knew the information was confidential “yesterday” and that although he made notes for his radio show and he “did say the cost,” he didn’t say on air that he was giving out confidential information. A motion was moved to refer the matter to the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and report back to Council on whether there had been a violation of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Ford.
COMMENTS
Investigation
I reviewed the tape of the proceedings at City Council on August 6, 2009, met with staff about the distribution of the confidential material to Councillors, met with Councillor Thompson, with Councillor Ford, and interviewed staff on the outcome of the real estate transaction. I reviewed a press clipping from the Toronto Star dated August 8, 2009 which was headlined, “The not-so-secret $750,000 deal” which contained a report of the release of the information in Council. This report was finalized after the transaction closed on March 29, 2010 in order to avoid any prejudice to the transaction.
Findings
A Council meeting was called for August 5 and 6, 2009. One of the agenda items was for Council to approve the purchase of a residential property in North York as part of the “Strategy for the Implementation of the North York Centre Plan Service Road-North York Centre.” A report and a confidential attachment concerning the real estate transaction were circulated to the Councillors because it was on the Council agenda. Councillor Ford did not read the report, but instead he focussed on the recommendation that Council approve the sale of a house, and the costs associated with the proposed deal. He objected to both because he said he didn’t think a recession was the right time for the City to “buy a house.”
Councillor Ford said that he knew he couldn’t defeat the motion, but that he wanted to bring the matter to the attention of his colleagues and he asked the matter be held for debate.
During this investigation, Councillor Ford said that he decided to reveal the confidential information on the radio show on the morning of August 6, because he thought that Council had already dealt with the item on the 5th of August which would mean the figures could be made public. Councillor Ford admitted that he did not actually check to see if the item had been debated in his absence. He also knew that he hadn’t spoken to it on the 5th of August, but he said that sometimes items are dealt with in his absence. Accordingly, he took the data from his purple sheet, made notes on his agenda for the radio program and made the confidential information public during the broadcast on the morning of August 6, 2009.
Councillor Ford acknowledged that he did not read the report to Council about the transaction. If he had, he would have seen that Council was being asked to “authorize the release of the confidential information and recommendations in Attachment 1, once the transaction has closed.”(Emphasis added) In other words, Councillor Ford’s justification for releasing the information did not apply, even if Council had debated the item.
After the radio broadcast and later in the day on August 6, 2009, Councillor Ford disclosed the confidential information again in Council. When it was pointed out to him that he was not supposed to reveal the figure, Councillor Ford said that it was because the order paper did not have “confidential” printed on it. During the investigation, he characterized his response as a “mistake.”
The Offer to purchase was approved by Council on August 6, 2009. Although the transaction was to close in the fall of 2009, it was delayed on three occasions, ultimately closing on March 29, 2010. One of the reasons given for the delay was that the vendors said that they weren’t certain if the deal would proceed because of the publicity around the transaction. However, City staff confirm that the release of the confidential information did not have any direct financial impact upon the transaction.
In discussing the matter, Councillor Ford confirmed that he understands and accepts the need for maintaining confidentiality of information.
Analysis and Findings
Councillor Ford acknowledged that he improperly released confidential information on a radio broadcast and a second time in Council. His reasons for broadcasting the information on the morning of August 6, 2009 were based on an assumption (that the matter had been debated and was no longer confidential) that he did not confirm