Comments Galore

Conflict of Interest legislation is not straightforward . Only a councillor can decide whether or where there is personal conflict. If a charge is filed only a Judge can make the decision if there was indeed a Conflict. It's a classic example of government sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors.It looks like a response to public clamour. It isn't.

A couple of terms ago, a Mayor of East Gwillimbury was charged with a Conflict. Lawyers no doubt argued the case from both sides. The Judge found he did the deed. He also found it was not deliberately intended. No penalty was imposed. The mayor was no longer in office. It would be hard to estimate the damage to his personal reputation A Toronto Separate School Trustee was thrown off his seat and banned from running for public office for ten years. I would think, after that experience ,not running for public office for ten years might not be much of a hardship.

Only lawyers benefited from the exercise.

When George Rust D'Eye was retained by Aurora to "investigate" confidential information "leaked" to the press, he inquired if I had retained counsel. I inquired back, why would I do that? He implied there might be a "conflict" if I attended an in- camera meeting and heard something that might be to my financial advantage if I were to be charged with something or other or anything at all and it would be a very serious matter. I think the Mayor didn't want me at the meeting. But I went.

Here lies irony.The current Mayor and a Councillor of East Gwillimbury accepted Mr. Rust D'Eye's advice in the "offence" of playing Joe Lumberjack at Sharon Temple a year or so ago. They jointly hired legal counsel.They stayed out of in-camera meetings. We never heard the final tally of municipal cost. At an early stage it was over $11 thousand. The Mayor and Councillor were never charged with anything but on the advice of George Rust D'eye, they did have legal costs. Council was decimated. The community was in an uproar. In the end ,they determined to rally to replace what was removed by the Mayor's trusty chain saw at the request of The Temple Curator on a balmy Saturday morning. All was forgiven and East Gwillimbury apparently lives happily ever after.

We never heard if the Silly-Billy Trustees of Sharon Temple decided to sue the Municipality.It's my understanding, East Gwillimbury provides external maintenance to the property.It would be an act of utter foolishness to jeopardise that relationship.

I learned something new at the time of the much trumpeted "leak" in Aurora. If a person ,as a result of being a councillor, is charged with something requiring legal defense, the municipality is obligated to cover the cost .The principle applies also to an official of a private corporation. I informed Aurora's Director of Corporate Services of my understanding. He responded he knew nothing about that.

Last week, the Integrity Commissioner informed us of the failed status of the Code of Ethics in a municipality which shall be nameless. Three separate Commissioners have been appointed since the Code was adopted a couple of years ago. Councillors routinely fail to enact punitive decisions of the Commissioner. They are entitled to legal counsel when a complaint is filed against them Costs average between $20. and $40 thousand dollars. The Municipality shoulders legal cost of the Commissioner and the Councillor who has been complained about.The financial burden is substantial and who but the taxpayer pays that penalty.

Integrity Commissioner Fitkin informed us he has been meeting with "the committee" Mayor Morris and CAO Neil Garbe. They have been creating an agreement. One of which is that Aurora Councillors, unlike others, will not be entitled to a defense at Municipal expense.

Even if it was a properly constituted committee ,with terms of reference adopted by Council, I suspect that decision is not theirs to make.