Ombudsman report criticizes security under Ford’s mayoralty

The city’s ombudsman is calling for changes at city hall after an investigation showed normal practices and procedures were not followed by security when Rob Ford was mayor.

Fiona Crean’s review, which was released on Thursday, addressed security’s handling of a number of incidents and the adequacy of its response to complaints.

The report looked at complaints received by the ombudsman between November and March of 2014 — including several accusing security of giving special treatment to the then mayor.

In the early morning after St. Patrick’s Day, a security guard failed to file a proper security report after the former mayor, who the guard said appeared to be very intoxicated, arrived with two companions and went to his office, said Crean in the report. The guard said he was concerned that other security personnel would see the report if it had been filed.

In November 2013, the mayor’s security staff were asked to screen media by checking their ID before a news conference even though it is not city policy or within security’s duties to do so.

The report also looked at the actions of security personnel after Ford almost knocked Coun. Pam McConnell to the ground during a council session in November 2013. Ford had ran to the aid of his brother after mayhem broke out involving Coun. Ford and a member of the public. The incident happened during the council session where Ford was stripped of most of his mayoral powers. McConnell said she suffered whiplash and had had to visit the chiropractor following the incident. The review found that security staff stood by without intervening as the disturbance escalated.

Several complaints were also filed over Ford being allowed by security to to exit the underground parking lot to avoid media. One such incident reported stated that a guard covered a security camera recording the mayor while he walked, reportedly intoxicated, to his car.

Crean also said that the hiring of the security personnel by the mayor’s office led to the impression that he had his own security detail, which is against city hall policy.

Several recommendations were made by the ombudsman including that security guards take orders from management and not elected officials, and that the city review the skills and resources needed by security on an ongoing basis.

Rob Ford released a statement on Thursday, included below.

The Ombudsman’s report brings to light a number of questions and concerns, and some of them start in her own office.

First and foremost, I would like to know why some staff are referred to in general terms, such as ‘Guard’, or ‘Supervisor’, when others are given titles that directly identify who is being referenced?  Do Directors, the CCO, and myself, as then-Mayor, not have that same right to confidentiality?  The Ombudsman is quite capable at crafting a report in a style that would not identify individuals.  The fact that many people are familiar with the situations which took place should not excuse her from maintaining that level of confidentiality for all employees, and simply describe the instances which took place, without naming people, even if only by title.

Along these same lines, I don’t understand how in the same breath, in interviews, the Ombudsman can say that the report is not about me, and then proceed to mention me by title several times in the following sentences.  This appears to be deliberately confusing matters.

A number of the Ombudsman’s findings are subjective, and are not based in fact.  In her report, she mentions that the climate at City Hall had changed, and I cannot agree more.  However, she seems to find issue with the fact that we were trying to adapt to these ever-changing circumstances – there simply could not be a ‘game plan’.

To say that my office was making unreasonable requests of Security is a perfect example of this subjective nature – of course we made requests of Security.  As we would of any staff member from any division, and as any member of Council does on a day to day basis, be it a matter of Facilities Management, an issue with City services, or needing a briefing note on an issue.  Security only needed to voice their concerns, and when they made requests, such as sharing calendar information in advance, my staff obliged.  Putting this at the feet of myself, my office, and the guards themselves is inaccurate and unfair.

I also do not understand why a Councillor was permitted to make demands of security to alter an incident report they had submitted.  How can this possibly not be identified as an exertion of influence, when security staff had submitted a report of the incident, and it was her displeasure with it – not an issue brought up by supervisory staff – caused the report to be changed?

As the City’s Chief Executive and Chief Magistrate, I had a job to do.  Regardless of what was taking place day to day, I was expected to continue to do that job.  The fact that members of the media were acting in an outright disrespectful and dangerous manner, threatening the safety of myself, my staff, other staff at City Hall, members of the public, and each other, is incomprehensible and unacceptable, and senior members of the administration essentially left both me and the front line guards to fend for ourselves.  Several requests were made to implement a ‘media code of conduct’ of senior management, and it was agreed this would be further examined, and reviewed with members of the press gallery.  Not only has this not yet been done, management has advised they have no plans to do so, as they believe the issue has now passed.

This part of the Ombudsman’s report, I agree with – this is an example of management wanting to simply coast along, and not deal with an issue, or a potential issue, until it is too late.

I also have issue with the claim that the event in my Protocol lounge was a press conference.  This event was always addressed as a private event, to which specific invitations were issued to individual people.  At no time was it an open invitation to the media, as we were mindful of the fire regulations that were prominently posed that had been implemented to the room.  I wished to speak to a select few people, and did so.  I do find it odd that the fire regulation posting has since been removed from where it was posted, and open press conferences are now permitted in this space, with numbers in blatant contravention of this fire regulation.  I would like to know the rationale the Mayor’s Office has used to have security stop implementing this safety regulation.

In closing, I want to take the time to praise the front line staff of City Hall Security for constantly working in a professional manner despite the constant onslaught from the media.  Both I, and my staff, repeatedly brought safety concerns forward to senior members of the City’s administration about the actions of the media, and rather than speak to the members of the media in the interest of everybody’s safety, senior staff chose to only put up rope barriers, even when we requested them removed, which only further aggravated the situation.

————

Read the full ombudsman report below, or click here for a mobile-friendly version.

Top Stories

Top Stories

Most Watched Today