After giving careful consideration to my options to seek redress for the wrong facilitated against me in the Council Chamber by the Mayor and supporting members of council, I decided the instrument provided under Parliamentary Rules of Order was the appropriate mechanism.
Last night ,at the first council meeting following the obnoxious event I raised a Question of Privilege and made the following remarks .
An individual took the podium during public forum and launched a spate of fallacious, unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations and accusations against me.
Permission had not been sought nor could it have been granted for the individual to accomplish her vindictive objective.
You facilitated the opportunity by failing to disallow her lengthy and abusive statement.
You referred to a pre-arranged “inquiry between yourself and staff”.
You invited a resolution to waive procedure to allow the spurious allegations to be part of the public record. And to direct the aforementioned meeting be held.
The motion failed for want of the two-thirds majority required but you pressed forward in your determination and declared the motion carried.
Twice during the meeting, legal counsel advised the matter was not within council's jurisdiction. You disregarded the advice.
The remedy when a councillor has been offended by remarks which impugn his or her motives is to demand a retraction and an apology.
In these circumstances, the remedy is neither adequate nor sufficient.
A number of the town's legislative requirements were circumvented to permit the vilification of a council member.
You identified a meeting between yourself and staff as an “inquiry”.
You clearly intended to give credence to unfounded, unsubstantiated and fallacious allegations.
You duty is to preside over council with fairness, impartiality and integrity. You abused your authority.
My motive in seeking clarity in accounting for funds raised and expended under the auspices of the municipality has been impugned by your actions, Madam Mayor.
Nothing less than a public retraction of these spurious allegations, striking the same from the public record and a public apology for this egregious offence will suffice as a remedy.
The Mayor's response;
"I will consult with my lawyer about your remarks Councillor"
Last night ,at the first council meeting following the obnoxious event I raised a Question of Privilege and made the following remarks .
I am offended Madam Mayor by events which transpired in Council on May 12th.
An individual took the podium during public forum and launched a spate of fallacious, unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations and accusations against me.
Permission had not been sought nor could it have been granted for the individual to accomplish her vindictive objective.
You facilitated the opportunity by failing to disallow her lengthy and abusive statement.
You referred to a pre-arranged “inquiry between yourself and staff”.
You invited a resolution to waive procedure to allow the spurious allegations to be part of the public record. And to direct the aforementioned meeting be held.
The motion failed for want of the two-thirds majority required but you pressed forward in your determination and declared the motion carried.
Twice during the meeting, legal counsel advised the matter was not within council's jurisdiction. You disregarded the advice.
The remedy when a councillor has been offended by remarks which impugn his or her motives is to demand a retraction and an apology.
In these circumstances, the remedy is neither adequate nor sufficient.
A number of the town's legislative requirements were circumvented to permit the vilification of a council member.
You identified a meeting between yourself and staff as an “inquiry”.
You clearly intended to give credence to unfounded, unsubstantiated and fallacious allegations.
You duty is to preside over council with fairness, impartiality and integrity. You abused your authority.
My motive in seeking clarity in accounting for funds raised and expended under the auspices of the municipality has been impugned by your actions, Madam Mayor.
Nothing less than a public retraction of these spurious allegations, striking the same from the public record and a public apology for this egregious offence will suffice as a remedy.
The Mayor's response;
"I will consult with my lawyer about your remarks Councillor"
Posts
13 comments:
That's her response to everything. She's a bully and the only way to react to a bully is to stand toe to toe to her, just like you're doing, Evelyn. Your support in this Town is growing daily. You remain the only voice to ask the questions we deserve to know. Thank you. The Mayor is in way over her head and her cronies are too dumb to realize it. And, as an aside...what happened to Bob McRoberts? Has his character flown the coop. We hear nothing from this man that got more votes that the Mayor. He has (or had) a loyal following. I guess having taught math to every child in Aurora doesn't really qualify you for the role. Too bad, we had such high hopes. He'd get a D- in my class.
Another lawyer at taxpayer expense no doubt!
Your comments were well written and delivered in a very civilized and approprate manner. Well done.
Evelyn,
You could say the sky was blue, and I'd argue it was green, that's how much I tend to disagree with you.
But I agree with you on this one.
Ditto on the McRoberts question. I wish he would show some character - which I've heard he has plenty of - on the issue.
Regardless of what you've said, done, or not said, or not done in the past, nobody should be subjected to a harangue like that.
Hang in there.
Well done Evelyn. Your statement was articulated in a very professional manner. Too bad the Mayor and her loyal consorts can't say the same.BTW Ms Gaertner's question about a cost reduction in the ball diamond was embarrasing even to Mayor Morris. She is truly out of her element and perhaps more as a sitting councillor. If the taxpayers are on the hook for Ms. Morris' legal advice this would be truly outrageous. Imagine having to pay to defend Ms Morris because among other things she failed to recognize the 2/3 rule AFTER she spent taxpayers monies re-inforcing this rule in the first place. As for McRoberts I like many had high hopes. Looks like he has given up and putting in his time. Why fight team Morris?
Evelyn more and more you are the voice of reason. Keep it up.
You go girl!
Evelyn is not the only voice and she shouldn't be expected to be the only one. We should all make our opinions known loud and clear to the entire Council. Some members of Council are better at counting, but all of them are expected to do the job and do it right.
You can email Evelyn at ebuck@e-aurora.ca and you can use the same formula for all Councillors.
Evelyn,you are a lady in the truest sense.I am sorry you had to endure the discomfort heaped upon you by Ms. St.Kitts (Snowballs Chance In Hell) & Ms. Morris.Is anyone truly surprised that the Mayor must contact her lawyer regarding your statement ? I think not.Thank you for being who you are.Stand tall! You have alot of support.
I wrote a letter to the editor in today's Era Banner. Unfortunately the editor took the liberty of editing what I felt were some of the more pertinent details. The fact is that the Mayor was copied on e-mails from Councillor Evenlina MacEchern that were sent to me that we less than civil or what most reasonable people would call professional and absolutely no action was taken in my defence, therefore I take great exception to the Mayor's revising the rules on a selective basis in order to suit her own political objectives. I have come to know that's the way that politics is played in Aurora, but I don't have to like it. The phone log issue is yet another example where the Mayor and Evelina may want to hold a mirror to themselves before they cast disparaging comments on you. The Mayor knows full well how she and Evelina have played politics and in some cases, including this most recent internal mud slinging, I highly suspect they have staged and orchestrated many events in order to at least try and obtain the desired outcome; in this case, your tarring. The new kinder and gentler approach to local politics did not appear to come to pass now did it ? In the 2006 election it seems that we replaced the self interested and poorly informed back room dealings of one small group for another, no matter how self righteous they may all see themselves. That may just be a political reality that we all have to continue to fight to change, but it is no wonder that Winston Churchill called democracy the worst possible form of government except for all the others. Evelyn, you and I both know that we have not always agreed on issues but just like the good old days in the Highlands, allegances did and still do change depending on the fight that must to be fought and in this latest battle I think that Mayor Morris and Councillor MacEchern need to be held fully and completely accountable for the charade they are currently playing at. The spin doctors are hard at work, so good luck, because clearly "you have miles to go before you sleep, you have miles to go before you sleep".
Watched the video of May26 and was curious by someting put forth by collins-mrakas. It seems Aurora Council rules allow only ratepayers of the town to speak in open forum.Since Ms.St Kitts is neither an Aurora citizen or ratepayer why was she given the opportunity to speak at all in open forum let alone have her accusations made part of the public record (in summary anyways)
"Since Ms.St Kitts is neither an Aurora citizen or ratepayer why was she given the opportunity to speak at all "
Near the end of the meeting, Stephen Granger brings it all home by telling everyone that the Mayor has made St-Kitts an honorary citizen of Aurora.
That would indicate that she CAN speak in open forum, no? I don't know much about the timeline, and the Mayor seemed to be hissing when it was mentioned - but it was mentioned.
My thought on the the mayor's response Evelyn is that she could not understand what it was you were asking. She actually needs a lawyer to interpret what it was you said.
That in itself is not at all surprising.
Have a great day!
"Stephen Granger brings it all home by telling everyone that the Mayor has made St-Kitts an honorary citizen of Aurora.
That would indicate that she CAN speak in open forum, no? I don't know much about the timeline, and the Mayor seemed to be hissing when it was mentioned - but it was mentioned."
I think Stephen Granger asked the mayor what rights the title of honorary citizen of Aurora entails in terms of benefits etc..
The mayor responded “None what so ever”
Around 3 hours 3 minutes into the video.
Honourary Citizen - what a joke! How much in taxes does an "honourary citizen" pay, compared to a "real citizen" who has to watch their hard earned money squandered and wasted on lawyers hired on the premise of protecting the Town, when it's all about Phyllis? Maybe we should all move out of Town and then apply to be "honourary citizens" so that we too can come to the microphone and spew venom on the elected officials and ask for money for parades. It just baffles the mind that some think it's ok. Wonder what colour the sky is in the world they wake up to every day, because its not the real world.
Post a Comment