I spent the morning in quiet contemplation of everything I saw and heard last night. I am moving in uncharted territory and need to choose my steps carefully.
Council had a full agenda. Items had been deferred from the previous meeting. The Mayor's Emergency Meeting to deal with an unspecified Emergency had taken precedence over town business.
The scenario was repeated last night. At the beginning of the meeting .two thirds of council voted to go into closed session. It was necessary, the mayor indicated, because George Rust D'Eye had been requested to attend and “Lawyer's don't come cheap."
I voted against the motions to recess, suspend the rules and proceed behind closed doors. I was considering whether I should boycott the session when the Mayor approached with Mr. Rust D'Eye who wanted a word with me before going into the meeting.
In hockey, there's a play where the guy with the puck gets sandwiched by opposing team players and shoved to the side. I've watched the game and my political instincts are finely tuned.
“Grab a chair, Mr. Rust D'Eye.”, I said. “You want to talk to me , we will do it here.” We were in full view of the public and the television cameras.
He asked whether I had retained legal counsel. Why did he think I needed to do that, I asked. He said he had been retained to carry out an investigation and he had raed numerous documents - blogs, letters to the editor and e-mails, written by me. He assured me he was not taking sides in the issue. I asked him which section of the Municipal Act gave council the authority to retain his services to carry out such an investigation. He introduced the term Conflict of Interest, having a pecuniary interest and finally the word “Litigation” was floated.
It was at that point I decided to attend the closed session. “I am a member of council", said I. “I have a right to attend this meeting and that is my intention.”
Now the dilemna becomes apparent. It is clear from Mr. Rust D'Eye's comments to me prior to the meeting I am the subject of the investigation. Also clear, solicitor-client privilege was the reason for the in-camera session. While I am one (a client, that is) and at the same time, the object of the investigation, that represents a problem. The law they say is adversarial.
In a budget meeting last Saturday, a figure of $25,000. appeared as a line item for councillors. In response to questions from the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern, the treasurer stated it was because of Tuesday's decision to retain outside legal counsel. He has no idea what the amount should be or where it should appear. He had done some research among other municipalities and found nothing like it anywhere.
Council had a full agenda. Items had been deferred from the previous meeting. The Mayor's Emergency Meeting to deal with an unspecified Emergency had taken precedence over town business.
The scenario was repeated last night. At the beginning of the meeting .two thirds of council voted to go into closed session. It was necessary, the mayor indicated, because George Rust D'Eye had been requested to attend and “Lawyer's don't come cheap."
I voted against the motions to recess, suspend the rules and proceed behind closed doors. I was considering whether I should boycott the session when the Mayor approached with Mr. Rust D'Eye who wanted a word with me before going into the meeting.
In hockey, there's a play where the guy with the puck gets sandwiched by opposing team players and shoved to the side. I've watched the game and my political instincts are finely tuned.
“Grab a chair, Mr. Rust D'Eye.”, I said. “You want to talk to me , we will do it here.” We were in full view of the public and the television cameras.
He asked whether I had retained legal counsel. Why did he think I needed to do that, I asked. He said he had been retained to carry out an investigation and he had raed numerous documents - blogs, letters to the editor and e-mails, written by me. He assured me he was not taking sides in the issue. I asked him which section of the Municipal Act gave council the authority to retain his services to carry out such an investigation. He introduced the term Conflict of Interest, having a pecuniary interest and finally the word “Litigation” was floated.
It was at that point I decided to attend the closed session. “I am a member of council", said I. “I have a right to attend this meeting and that is my intention.”
Now the dilemna becomes apparent. It is clear from Mr. Rust D'Eye's comments to me prior to the meeting I am the subject of the investigation. Also clear, solicitor-client privilege was the reason for the in-camera session. While I am one (a client, that is) and at the same time, the object of the investigation, that represents a problem. The law they say is adversarial.
In a budget meeting last Saturday, a figure of $25,000. appeared as a line item for councillors. In response to questions from the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern, the treasurer stated it was because of Tuesday's decision to retain outside legal counsel. He has no idea what the amount should be or where it should appear. He had done some research among other municipalities and found nothing like it anywhere.
The treasurer was directed to include it with the legal services budget.
Stay tuned!
I am sorry that it has come to this. My thoughts are with you as you face this most difficult time.
ReplyDelete