1. A resident can ask for particulars of any expenditure..You certainly have that right. It was your money they spent on legal fees. I will be interested to hear the response you receive. You could also ask for an investigation of why the matter was discussed behind closed doors. If there was any likelihood of litigation against the town. it would have to have been taken by she who believed her privacy had been invaded.
These legal costs are new during this term. In the first budget, the Chief Financial Officer proposed a new line be added to the Budget for Mayor and Council The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern objected to that. The CFO was directed to include these new costs in the Legal Department Budget.
I have asked for details of costs incurred this way to date this year. I received invoices of general matters normally handled by the legal department.I have yet to receive those incurred for lawyers retained by the Mayor. Except for the $16,200 paid to George Rust D"Eye. There have been others besides the telephone log issue..
The Mayor's often states I am the reason for the need for frequent legal advice. To save the Town from litigation as a result of comments I make as spokesperson for the people who elected me.
I am informed a list of complaints is currently being compiled against me under the Code of Conduct. Fees for the Integrity Commiissioner's time will match legal fees.They will also come out of your pocket.
***************************************************************************
2. The York District Separate School Board is aware of exemption from Cash in Lieu of Parkland. That's the reason the request was made....twice.
At the time, I was not aware of the town's authority to exempt public bodies. It simply made sense to me that taxing a body with the same source of revenue we do, would be double dipping into the same pockets.
I do not know why it is so hard for common sense to prevail.
Originally, four members of this council opposed this school being built. The logic? School Boards do not pay taxes. Taxpayers should not have the burden of carrying another school that doesn't pay taxes and doesn't provide jobs.
The Board had already assembled the land and spent Lord alone knows how much on the project. Planning staff were recommending the site plan. Soil tests were underway. Years of work had probably been done to bring the project to this stage. And half of Aurora council was ready to refuse the permit
Elizabeth Crowe had to assemble parents with spokespersons from each separate school and Father Don Maclean the parish priest to come to council and stress the urgent need for the school to be built.
A few weeks later, the same councillors were ready to mount the battlements to fight the the public school board's plan to close Dr. G.W.Williams High School. The argument then was turned around . Closing that school would have a detrimental effect on the local business economy.
In forty-five years,I have heard some weird and wonderful arguments on various councils. But this group really takes the cake.
Thank you for asking. It helps to talk about it.
****************************************************************************
As you eluded to, there is only one tax payer. Governments at all levels forget this when they make stupid decisions.
ReplyDeleteSomeone asked this question before and the more and more I read on this blog and the other one, is there any mechanism under Ontario's Municpal Act that would allow the tax payers to recall a council that seems to be out of line with the priorities of the town?
I have written the municipal affairs miniter before on the recall/appointment issue and he simply passed it along to his assitant. We are half-way through this 4 year term and it is not going to get better.