Welcome to London Civic Watch

"Ever wonder if City Council is as contentious and chaotic as it is sometimes portrayed? Here you can get a progressive perspective on some of the issues from someone who spent four years in the trenches. Totally unbiased, though! Feel free to comment but keep it respectful, just like they do at council."

Friday, November 23, 2012

The presumption of innocence

Watching the press conference unfold yesterday, I was glad I had chosen to do my viewing from the comfort of my own home. Those who crammed into the office of Gord Cudmore where it was being held on Fullarton Street looked pretty steamed even before the mayor spoke.

And no wonder. The room was packed with reporters, some perspiring heavily. The owner of the building must have received a density bonus, so high was the concentration of the fourth estate.

It was, after all, a momentous occasion, the mayor speaking out for the first time since retaining a lawyer and since being charged with three criminal offences: breach of public trust, uttering a forged document, and fraud under $5,000.

I had predicted correctly that Fontana would hold firm and not step aside despite the severity of the charges. But I was surprised to hear him say clearly and several times at that, that he was innocent of all the charges.

It had been a more than a month since the allegations had surfaced and the RCMP investigation undertaken. Not once during that time did he make such an unequivocal statement; the best he had been able to come up with previously was that he believed all transactions would be found to be proper and that his records showed that a payment had been made from his personal account to the Marconi Club during the relevant time frame. Never once did he say “I paid the bill.”

But now, only a day after the RCMP laid the charges, he and his lawyer were adamant that the Fontana family had paid the bill for the wedding reception for his stepson and that Fontana himself was innocent and accordingly would plead not guilty upon his first court appearance in January.

So what had changed? Why innocent now and not a month ago? Did being charged jolt his memory? And just when did the payment for the reception occur? And to whom was the payment made?

These are all questions awaiting answers, which may not come for some time. Noting that matters proceed slowly through the courts, Cudmore, Fontana’s lawyer, estimated that it could take a year or so. In other words, about in time for the next election but not much before. Cudmore also hinted at the argument that the defence might use when the time came. 

It was his understanding, he said, that the RCMP had documentation that the Fontana family had paid the outstanding balance of $20,000 or so. He hadn’t seen the evidence; it was just his understanding. So all that was in dispute was the $1,700 for the “room deposit” and it seems that there had been a number of government-related events at the Marconi Club that year. So maybe, he implied, it was all just a little mix up.

But he wanted these matters dealt with in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. He wanted the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It sounded very noble.

Some people have taken that mantra to defend Fontana. He should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

True enough. But the presumption of innocence is not what guides either police investigations or the holding of public office. As someone facing criminal charges, the mayor was required to step down from his position on the Police Services Board. But not from being the budget chief in charge of a billion dollar budget. 

Any teacher facing assault charges would be removed from her classroom until the allegations were resolved. 

A bank employee charged with fraud would not be left in charge of client accounts. 

A city hall employee alleged to have interfered with a government investigation found herself unceremoniously escorted out the door.

Were these violations of the presumption of innocence?

The presumption of innocence is a guideline for how matters should be dealt with by the courts; it is not a recipe for daily action in public or private life. If your daughter or son were romantically involved with someone facing criminal charges, would you give them your blessing because you presumed innocence?

The presumption of innocence means there are rules for disclosure of evidence and the questioning of witnesses. It governs what evidence is or isn’t admissible according to strict guidelines. It requires that the finding of guilt must be based on more than just likelihood; it should be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The concerns that Londoners have about their mayor is not whether he is guilty of wrongdoing within a narrow definition of criminal offences, but whether he is acting in an ethical manner publicly and privately. Can they trust him to put the needs of the city and its residents ahead of his own and his friends' and family’s interests?

So it’s not just the $1,700 or even $20,000. It’s the millions of dollars that have been taken from taxpayers to give hefty receipts to “donors” to his private charity. It’s working with and for individuals who have engaged in shady business practices. It’s being involved in enterprises that leave investors wondering where their money went. It’s stacking committees and interpreting rules to produce the outcome that favours a few at the expenses of the many. It's giving tax breaks now to be paid by our children later.

How is the public to deal with those concerns and those questions? 

The Municipal Act is ill-equipped to deal with incompetent or unethical representatives and conflict of interest is very narrowly defined. The one tool that municipalities have been given is the right to retain an integrity commissioner, but only a few weeks ago a majority of council, led by the mayor, turned down that option. Had such a person been available to council, s/he would not have been able to force the mayor to step aside, but there could at least have been an investigation and a report for the public and its representatives. Citizens could have had a voice.

The one thing this council has done repeatedly is to overturn previous decisions of council. Even its own decisions. A new council year is about to begin.

Perhaps this next year will be the year that a few more council members begin to appreciate the importance of integrity. Perhaps an integrity commissioner will be welcome.

Integrity looks good on campaign literature.


Anonymous said...

At least now we know why he didn't want an integrity commissioner. He doesn't seem to have any. As for the rest....I think I know how we deal with him next election time.

Joe....you're FIRED.

I'm upset with him because he lied to me. I asked a question DIRECTLY to him before he was elected...and he lied. I don't respect someone who can't keep their word, and who lies to your face. So..no Joe don't bother to run again, because I don't think there are many who want you. But then again I could be wrong, could be everyone who thinks that the City runs on Magic fairy dust instead of actual MONEY might just want to keep you.

This year we lost the library on a sunday...what will us POOR FOLK have to give up for you next????

G. Babbitt said...

The press conference transcripts highlight why Fontana must step down. A question about he will deal with council is not answered because Gord Cudmore tells the Mayor not to. Who elected Gord Cudmore to direct the mayor of London?

Anonymous said...

This post cuts to the chase -

Yes Joe, you're presumed innocent - but stepping down from the mayor's chair won't make you guilty.

Maybe he needs to get a louder message, from the gallery at the next council meeting?

Anonymous said...

I suspect that Fontana and family paid for his son's wedding reception just a few weeks ago when this all broke in the news and somehow it has been made to go away. Hopefully, if this happened it will come to light soon. What a low thing to do if this happened.
I do not trust Fontana to led the City of London nor do I trust him to chair the budget committee when he is up on criminal charges. He is not worthy doing this let alone being mayor. How can we trust what is decided at this budget meeting when Joe has the tie breaking vote?
I also suspect that there is enough anger amongst Londoners that other acts of "screwing" Londoners by Joe will come forward and hopefully he will be forced to step down as Mayor which would be good for the people of London. We need a mayor who is honest and and respected and Joe is neither at this point.

David said...

I like Joe personally. He was a great help when we raised money for disaster relief following the Sri Lanka tsunami. But even if the family paid back all the money spent on the wedding, it is axiomatic that you don't use public funds for personal expenses, not even temporarily. This is a critical breach of trust. Joe is damaged goods

Barry Wells said...

Rest assured if the City Treasurer was charged with three money-related crimes away from city hall, s/he'd be immediately suspended with pay until the case was dispensed with after a fair trial where s/he would be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The same should also apply to the mayor and budget chief.

em said...

Innocent is a concept the Mayor seems unable to understand. I so agree with annon. Do the honourable thing and step aside you and your lawyer have convinced the courts---but that would require integrity, would it not.

Barry Wells said...

The pattern established by the reportedly sham charity purporting to help disadvantaged children, a private wedding reception allegedly paid for by the federal government and the so-called "Romanian affair" (an apparent quid pro quo with a local land developer) is clearly not one of behaviour in the public interest, but entirely self-serving ~ as is his decision to remain as mayor pending the resolution of his criminal charges.

Harriet Brown said...

I heard an interesting interview of Gord Cudmore on the Andy Oudman show. Andy asked Cudmore how he defined "presumption of innocence". Cudmore replied that it means that he (Joe) is innocent, absolutely innocent, of all the charges against him from now until determined differently in a court of law. So no wonder Fontana can say, after talking to his lawyer, "I am innocent" because, according to his lawyer, he is, no matter what actually took place.

Anonymous said...

I've been surprised and dismayed by the dismissive responses some Londoners have had to the negative criticisms of Fontana. Surprised and dismayed because there is absolutely no way to refute any of these criticisms. Whether he's found guilty of the charges laid by the RCMP or not, he has completely bungled his response by not taking the many weeks-I stress weeks- between the receipts becoming public and the RCMP laying charges. And, this bungling occurs under the shadow of his many other activities which manipulate process and people to serve his personal interests.

Fontana's record is crystal clear at this point. And, worst of all, it is equally crystal clear to people in London that the next two years will be full of more cronyism, more self-interest, and more manipulation of process. In my community, an important question regarding development is coming forward shortly- put forward to one of his stacked committees, and by a friend of Fontana's. What hope do we have of having input on that change? The answer is clearly 'none at all'.

Should we just hope for better next time around? By 'next time' it will be too late. Joe's done and is doing damage that can't be turned around.

Anonymous said...

For those of us who told you not to vote for him, we told you so.