Aurora Council recently accepted a staff recommendation to appoint an Interim Director of a new half-million dollar tax-funded program in Arts and Culture. The appointee was a member of the committee which recommended the position. At the time, there was negative reaction in the community to news of the appointment. It was noted the new appointee was the Mayor's friend and had participated in her election campaign.
The last reference on the issue was a quote from the Mayor that the individual had not yet decided to accept the position.
At Tuesday's Council meeting I asked if the position had been accepted . If so, had the new Director submitted his resignation from the committee. Councillors normally receive copies of resignations and appointments.
The answer was not immediately forthcoming. Instead, I was accused of making accusations of something improper. My conduct was again deemed shameful , inappropriate and damaging to the individual in question. The mayor professed her long-time friendship and gave a strong defence of his honorable reputation and competence.
Eventually it was acknowledged the appointment had been accepted and the individual had not since attended meetings of the Leisure Services Advisory Committee . Councillor MacEachern Chairman of that committee ,volunteered that he was taking temporary leave of absence..
I indicated a legal opinion was needed to clarify that a temporary leave of absence from a committee while holding a paid position with the town was sufficient to avoid a conflict of interest.
The Mayor professed further outrage. Legal advice on the question is a waste of taxpayers' money She ruled the issue must be handled through Notice of Motion.
In my judgement, a person cannot accept payment for services from the municipality while holding an appointment on the committee to which he is accountable.
I asked the question to inform myself and the community. I believe the answer defies logic and bespeaks culpable ignorance of the meaning of Conflict of Interest.
Thursday 30 October 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Once again petty and destructive, pretending higher motives.
You make no effort to examine why he was chosen, and instead seem motivated primarily to continue your Mayor-bashing. In that alone you are consistent. And it is that that renders you so lacking in credibility, that even if you have a point you lack currency. You refuse to benefit from experience I am sad to observe, having once been your defender.
Yet another example of Mayor Morris' bizarre interpretation of accountability. She really doesn't get that rules, policies and procedures actually apply to her as well, and that she can't pick and choose them to suit her agenda.
She is frightening.
how is it "mayor bashing" to point out the facts?
So let's recap the facts:
1. a position was recommended by and advisory committee
2. there was an appointment of an advisory committee member - the mayor's campaign manager as it turns out - to the very job recommended by the committe which he sat on.
3. It was recognized that this might be considered a conflict of interest.
4. Thus, the appointment was contingent upon a resignation - oops, sorry a "leave of absence" - from the committee.
5. Madam Buck simply asked for clarification or confirmation that a) the appointee had accepted the job and b) a resignation/leave was on file with the clerk.
6. Unfortunately, for the Mayor and her cohorts - the clerk confirmed that there was NONE. nothing in writing. No resignation. No "leave of absence"
shock horror dismay calamity...
the mayor's well thought out plan has gone awry!
so it seems to me - and many, many, many others - that the mayor and her cronies are simply making as much noise as possible to redirect the public away from the obvious - their outrageous actions have been found out!
This has absolutely nothing to do with the poor fellow appointed - from all accounts he is quite capable and dedicated to the position - and absolutely EVERYTHING to do with the morally bankrupt and politically calculating persons who put him there!
Ms Buck, I think you should roll this attack into your other attack on an esteemed local business - why not claim the Church Street School is going to be a bawdy house? You're such a joke.
"You're such a joke" Wow are you ever tough!! You need to see the big picture here. Just look to the north. Newmarket, it seems is not above a House of Hankie Pankie. Imagine a Spa being the front for such a place! Come on Mr. Joker!
What functional problem does this appointment make? What damage can this man do?
Please explain so I can understand why it's such a big deal.
Post a Comment