Rob Ford faces new conflict of interest allegations over vote on wastewater program
One of the companies in the wastewater program is the Ford-owned Deco Adhesive Products. Both Rob Ford and Doug Ford are Deco directors.

TheStar.com
Aug. 20, 2014
Daniel Dale

Mayor Rob Ford faces new conflict of interest allegations for voting on a wastewater treatment program in which his family’s company was enrolled.

Ford cast his vote on the program in November 2012 — at the council meeting that started the day after a judge found he had violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with an earlier vote related to his football foundation.

At the three-day meeting that week, the mayor and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford, voted against a policy change that would have raised fees on many of the companies that have agreed to pay the municipal government to treat their wastewater.

One of the companies in that wastewater program is the Ford-owned Deco Adhesive Products. Both Rob Ford and Doug Ford are Deco directors.

The general manager of Toronto Water, Lou Di Gironimo, told the Star on Tuesday that Deco has been part of the program since July 20, 2012. Di Gironimo said the other Ford brother, fellow director Randy Ford, signed Deco up.

Deco’s participation in the program was not publicly known until it appeared on a 305-company list issued by Toronto Water last week. The disclosure has offered another example of the overlap between the Fords’ public roles and private business — and prompted more questions about their judgment.
Doug Ford, the company’s president, called the criticism “comical,” “ridiculous,” and evidence of a “witch hunt.” He said neither he nor the mayor had any idea Deco was part of the program at the time of the vote.

The vote was on a proposal put forward by Di Gironimo and promoted by Councillor Mike Layton.

Companies in the program paid the government only for the one “parameter” for which their discharges most exceeded the limits — for example, phosphorus — even if they also exceeded limits on other parameters. Di Gironimo and Layton wanted the companies to pay for each and every one.

But the Fords won the vote: Layton’s motion was rejected 22-18. Council’s decision saved some companies thousands of dollars.

Deco was not one of the immediate beneficiaries. Because Deco’s watervolumes are low, Di Gironimo said, it pays the minimum fee, $500. Its fee, in other words, would not have changed right away if council had adopted the new fee structure.

But the vote to keep the old fee structure could conceivably help Deco in the future if the volume of its water use increases. And simply enrolling in the program, the city says, often saves companies money: they would otherwise have to treat the water themselves.

Layton said the Fords should have declared conflicts and abstained from voting on both this program and the general water budget. “They benefit from a program the city offers, and every year the city renews that program, they should be declaring it. It’s pretty simple,” Layton said.

“And they’ve been through it before. It’s not like the mayor hasn’t had to take a look at the Conflict of Interest Act in the recent past.”

Under the act, members of council must declare a conflict on matters in which they have a “direct or indirect” financial interest. The Fords appear to have had an interest in the Layton motion, said Ron Kanter, municipal lawyer at the firm Macdonald Sager Manis.

“The question which one should ask is, ‘Does the matter that they are voting on have the potential to affect the pecuniary interest of the councillor in terms of enrichment or cost?’ And from the sound of the situation, as I understand it, it sounds like it likely would. There was a potential effect on their pecuniary interest,’” said Kanter, a former councillor and Liberal MPP.

The law says members of council who vote on an issue despite a pecuniary interest must be removed from office. Violations committed out of “inadvertence,” however, are not subject to removal. Doug Ford said he and the mayor were entirely unaware that Deco was enrolled in the program.

He said he has been barely involved in Deco operations while serving in office — “it’s 99 per cent politics, 1 per cent business” — and the mayor not involved at all.

“I’m being blunt: the mayor doesn’t have a clue what goes on at Deco. That’s the bottom line. And he hasn’t for 14 years,” he said in an interview.

Doug Ford said they shouldn’t have had to recuse themselves even if they had known about the program: everybody, he said, has an interest in water.

“To say ‘a conflict’ — that’s like saying every councillor should get out of their seat because they pay water bills at their house,” he said.

John Mascarin, municipal lawyer at Aird and Berlis,said the matter might indeed be covered by an exemption in the law that allows councillors to vote on issues where they have “an interest in common with electors generally.” That provision, he said, could possibly be interpreted to mean interests in common with a particular “community,” like a large group of companies.

“Someone may say ‘nuh-uh, no way, that doesn’t get you within this definition,’ ” Mascarin said, but he would still advise clients against pursuing a case.

The mayor won the conflict case connected to his football foundation on appeal in early 2013.