Obfuscation

The following link will take you to a Media Release dated Tuesday, November 20th, 2007.

Media Release

My response, submitted as an email to the Mayor and all Councillors:

Madam Mayor

With respect,

I have read the Media release and letter to the editor you presented to council as a fait accompli on November 20^th which you signed as Mayor and Councillors. Since councillors were not apprised of the letter, the press conference or the media release, until after the fact, it is difficult to comprehend why you felt you had that authority.

I wish not to be associated with either of the documents for the following reasons; the documents state what was not illegal by council and what did not take place at in-camera meetings. While they do not deny there were meetings, they make no reference to what actually did take place. Combined, they are a masterpiece of obfuscation.

I have been attempting to understand the purpose for which Mr. Rust-D'eye has been retained by yourself and council. On November13th you declined to respond to my request to specify the reasons for your precipitate action. I have requested by email, Mr. Panizza to forward terms of reference and parameters of the contract with Mr. Rust-D'Eye and the section of the Municipal Act which provides authority for council to expend public resources on this project.

The information has not been forthcoming even three weeks after you presented your plan without apparent notice to anyone but certainly without prior consultation with myself. In fact, things are less clear today.

Mr. Rust-D'Eye informed me on November 20th, he had been provided with numerous documents; blogs, emails and letters to the editor written by myself and read by himself. Since my original purpose in writing the various missives was to share my thoughts on town matters with as many people as wished to read them, I have no concerns about the solicitor becoming familiar with how I think and communicate with the people I am committed to serve. However it throws no light on why Mr. Rust-D'Eye has been retained at substantial cost to the public treasury. The question looms large in the minds of many in Aurora.

Council was informed after the fact, on November 20^th Mr. Rust-D'Eye was on hand at the press conference. He was quoted in the Media Release as making statements on what was and what was not. Rules of evidence, Madam Mayor, dictate that unless a witness is present, the evidence is hearsay and therefore not valid. The press conference was in response to a column in The Auroran to which you took exception. It therefore appears Mr. Rust-D'Eye's services were being used to support your political agenda. The Corporation's interest was not affected.

The question derived from this is, who will pay for this service provided by Mr. Rust-D'Eye. I believe it is incumbent on yourself and those councillors who agreed to retain the gentleman's service to indicate how they intend fees to be paid. If not at personal expense, then how is the public expenditure to be justified.

You indicated, Madam Mayor, all in-camera meetings will be suspended. It is not clear why or how you propose to suspend dealing with essential items of town business and what part of the Municipal Act provides the authority to make this unilateral decision.

I note we have an in-camera agenda for November 27th. How does that reconcile with your dictum there will be no such meeting until an undetermined date?

As you can see, a number of significant questions are posed. We hold office to deal with the public agenda. Personal and political matters are not part of our function as members of council. I take no comfort or assurance from your concept of how public business should be conducted. That is regrettable. I cannot however allow it to interfere with my own responsibility to keep my commitment to the people who gave me their trust.