Anonymous asks for my thoughts on Town Hall phone logs being monitored .It concerns me not. I never used Town Hall phones. I was never engaged in any covert activity that needed to be kept a deep and deadly secret. If I had, I believe I would have used my own home phone.
Councillors' phones at the Town Hall were in an unsecured room. There was potential for abuse. When it was explained there had been overseas long distance calls made and traced, the fact of their monitoring made sense to me. I had no reason for concern that my privacy was being invaded. I did not agree to authorise the Mayor to retain legal counsel at taxpayers' expense to advise on the matter.
It is almost two years that the item has been kicking around in camera and talked about in public. Two lawyers have advised. Neither concluded an invasion of privacy. Even if there was, legal action would not succeed because no harm could be proven.The cost of the exercise has not been shared with Council No written advice has ever been circulated.
Last night , the issue was" reported out". The expression is used when it is deemed appropriate to let the public in on in camera deliberations. Apparently, all they need to know is that phone monitoring took place and will not happen again. How's that for openness, transparency and accountability?
Monitoring phones to ensure town resources are not being abused seems a sensible idea. On the other hand, inflating the issue to invasion of privacy and spending public money to prove a case of wrong-doing against a political rival and failing that,ultimately sweeping the whole thing under the rug with an innocuous comment for public consumption is considerably less palatable in my view.
The second part of anonymous' question deals with my political support for the rival candidate for the office of Mayor in the last election.The claim is Aurora did not support him. Mais non , mon ami.. His vote was not far behind. But since you have resurrectedthe issue, it may be worth noting a considerable majority of voters did not support the successful candidate.
Agreed.... Il ne fait pas de difference maintenant......So .... What's up Doc?
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I think it's absolutely absurd that this item appeared on a public agenda. Perhaps the Mayor doesn't realize how silly she is making herself look to the public. This in my humble opinion is nothing more than a tool in her quest to tarnish the reputation of the former mayor. There is absolutely nothing immoral or improper about viewing telephone logs. I'm sure the Town monitors staff's telephone calls. Is she going to publicize and abolish that standard business practice? Is she going to criticize every other corporate body that employs this practice? Once again, the Mayor of Aurora is an embarrassment to this community.
Can a resident request an accounting of the costs for this investigation?
thanks for the info evelyn, because I didn't get it when reading it on the agenda. Given the huge fuss the mayor and her posse made about this "issue" - especially during the federal candidate nomination proceedings - I was waiting for some big long report about it(probably to be referred back to staff no doubt given this bunch - you excluded of course!)
Then I saw that two line "report" and I thought, that's it? why all this fuss? why the lawyer (or lawyers you're saying?)why the secret meetings about it?
But I Guess that's your point, it was just that - "fuss" and bother. To paraphrase you "much ado about nothing..."
I fully agree!
Councilor Buck, I agree with you there shouldn't be a problem with monitoring outgoing or incoming calls to prevent abuse. Where we part company is in your definition of abuse. The abuse you refer to originating from the Councilors Town hall phones amounted to about $35 over a period of 2 years for all 8 phone lines.
I see that all reports and comments on this matter refer to "the former Mayor". There can only be one "the former Mayor" at this time, so let's call it as it is - the former Mayor Tim Jones took it upon himself to instruct staff to provide him with a log of all incoming and outgoing phone calls from the Councilor's phones. If determining the source of this rampant abuse was the only factor, me thinks the former Mayor Tim Jones should have consulted his fellow councilors before beginning his surveillance.
Is this an invasion of privacy? Apparently not. Should it be. I would say yes. Police require a warrant before they install a number recorder on a phone. I don't see this as any different. What distinguishes surveillance from routine office administration is the purpose for which it was carried out.
I believe a communication begins the moment a number is dialed. Vital information can be gathered from this data - who's calling who and when. The courts and police recognize this as well. Do you think maybe the former Mayor Tim Jones saw the same opportunity? Some will have you believe the former Mayor only did this for 2 years because he wanted to save $35.
PS. Wasn't it during this time that staff had determined that about $500K of repairs to the ARC were required? Did the former Mayor know about any of this? Maybe not, he was hot on the trail of $35 worth of unauthorized long distance calls.
this is and always will be a tempest in a teapot concocted by a tinpot dictator...
it's absolute nonesense to suggest anyone's privacy was invaded - sheer lunacy - but then again, we are talking about this mayor - a mayor that reads the local paper, highlights in yellow marker "offending comments" and then proceeds to refute them line by line at council meetings! just crazy!!
I think it speaks volumes about the paranoia of the mayor and her trusty sidekick co-mayor McEachern
the two of them can find a conspiracy in a close game of tiddlywinks...
Post a Comment