THE COOKS AND THE BROTH

Yesterday I removed "the hate mail" Blog. I was never quite sure I should post it.I think it's a vitriolic diatribe. A person can't engage stuff like that without descending to its level.The Town's business deserves better. There are unwritten rules in politics. Mostly quided by a personal sense of self-respect.

Heather Sisman did the work to post the "hate mail" blog. That gives her a proprietary interest. When she read the anonymous comment asking where it had gone,she thought it had disappeared by accident. So, she put it back .The beauty of the Blog is that we can do stuff like that. All we're doing is communicating. We don't have to worry about offending advertisers or meeting a payroll . We can tell it like we see it.Then we can even let our enemies take pot shots at us and reveal their true nature.

Anyway, for better or worse, the vile thing is back .


The Right to Privacy????

The Code of Conduct came up again in a report to Council last night. On a motion by Councillor MacEachern,staff had been directed to provide names of all those who had not signed the Code and were therefore "non-compliant" In effect, the "outlaws."

Several citizen members were named. Councillor Collins-Marakas expressed her concern about that and also about the phrase " non-compliant" members should be "given another chance."

They are volunteers" she pointed out in some exasperation."This suggests punitive action".

Ditrector of Corporate Affairs ,Bob Panizza pointed out "the information is provided because council asked for it". And so they did.

Councillor Wilson claimed the councillor who was not in compliance was the real concern. He may have inferred "scandal" but he mentioned no name.

Councillor Granger huffed and puffed and stated he "can't wait for the Integrity Commissioner"

It was decided the Director should write to the recalcitrant volunteers and the councillor and "give them another chance". The threat of consequence was left hanging.

LEGAL FEES INCURRED BY COUNCIL.

At the meeting's end Mayor Morris asked staff to place on the overhead a graph she had prepared to compare spending on legal services between this term and the last several . The purpose, she stated, was to correct misinformation .


I took advantage of the opening to inform the Mayor that questions being asked in the community were about legal services retained by herself, their purpose, the cost and what the community received in return..

The Mayor responded the records would show lawyers retained were by resolution of Council and I needed to produce a list of names to support my contention.

I reminded the Mayor that this year , the Director of Finance had shown a new item in council's budget for legal services. She and Councillor MacEachern had argued it should not be there. It should be included in the the legal services department budget. I made so bold last night as to suggest the reason was to hide legal bills incurred by council.That was another resolution supported by the majority.

I reminded the Mayor she had retained George Rust D'Eye at a public meeting and refused to provide a reason for that action. The purpose was never clarified. The eventual cost was $16,200. Mr. Rust D'Eye's report to Council was never made public save and except for his ideas of how to deal with a wayward councillor.

A Code of Conduct with consequences for non-compliance was one of George Rust D'Eye's ideas.The other was council could create an executive committee which could include every member save one. Thereby effectively excluding a wayward councillor from the business of the municipality . And incidentally, expunge the results of the previous municipal election.

I left the council chamber again at ten-thirty-five p.m. I no longer call points of order to the lack thereoff which lead to regular over-runs and the town's business agenda never being completed within the time allotted Leaving at the hour of adjournment is the only way to express my objection to the dismal lack of control exercised by the presiding member.