And The Mirror Appears

I listened carefully to Lawyer Mascarin at the in-camera meeting of Tuesday last. The picture continues to take shape. As days pass and information grows, reason presents.

My challenge now is to convey my understanding of a complicated situation in a clear and unambiguous format.

Yesterday I listed times and circumstances of legal services independently retained by the Mayor at taxpayers' expense. over the past thirty months.The list was not complete

Town solicitor, Shelley Pohjolla was asked several times to provide an opinion on my public utterances. . The Solicitor's time is a public resource. Her advice was " a Councillor is entitled to state an opinion. Councillor Buck goes to the line. She does not cross it".

Ms. Maclean, Interim Solicitor, worked two or three days a week between Shelly Pohjolla's departure and a new solicitor being appointed. Ms Maclean was instructed to write an opinion on the significance of failure to sign the Code of Conduct. A full page was submitted with no law cited to compel a councillor to sign the document

Two lawyers over a two year period were retained to create a case for wrong doing against a former Mayor and political rival. Phones in an unsecured area of the town hall had been monitored . The effort to prove invasion of privacy ended with an appearance by the second lawyer at an in-camera meeting, where he stated firmly, if an invasion of privacy was successfully argued and a damage suit launched, no award would be possible because no damage had occurred.

He was surprised that no Councillor had received his previously submitted written opinions.

Mr. Mascarin is the latest solicitor retained by council to examine my utterances and conduct for legal infractions. Council had apparently delegated Mayor Morris, and Councillors MacRoberts and MacEachern to meet and instruct Mr. Mascarin on the specifics of his task.

DVDs of council meetings, Blog Posts ,Letters to the Editor and comments to the Aurora Citizen Blog were subject to his scrutiny.

Thirty-three pages were submitted. Except for recording secretary, no corporate staff attended the meeting. It was strictly a council affair.

Mr. Mascarin made comments to me personally at the start of the meeting. They were along the same lines of Mr. Rust D'Eye, that I noted in my previous post. They inferred , I might hear something which might work to my advantage in the event of litigation if I attended the meeting. It would represent a Conflict of Interest for which there are serious penalties in law.

Later , a Councillor expressed severe frustration "they" were having to " talk about strategy while the person against whom the strategy was to be used was in the room".

A citizen who suspects town business is being improperly discussed behind closed doors, can legally request an investigation. A Councillor , knowing matters being discussed behind closed doors do not conform to the approved list and has the temerity to say so, can be accused of breaching confidentiality. The contradiction cannot be squared.

Insurance coverage was recently discussed behind closed doors. If a Councillor is sued as a result of carrying out responsibilities, legal indemnity is provided by the town. The insurance provider takes charge, assigns legal counsel and generally has a controlling hand in the matter.

On the other hand, Legal costs are not provided when legal action is taken by a councillor against another party.

Action for defamation is a matter for civil litigation. Not town business. Because of information, on legal indemnity , in an e-mail to the town solicitor, I questioned the propriety of the Mayor independently retaining legal services.

Subsequently , a recommendation was made from an in-camera meeting for council to approve retaining the latest legal services.

Twice now, I have been formally advised, of a possibility of incurring a Conflict of Interest by attending a meeting of the council of which I am a duly elected member. The reason given,? I might hear something to my pecuniary advantage should litigation ensue.

Since I do not ever contemplate litigation against my town I perceived no likelihood that I might ever be in a Conflict of Interest.

Ah, foolish moi ! At last I understand. The litigation referred to would be against me. I would be the person sued.... by council colleague or colleagues.

But wait a minute! that doesn't make any sense.

An unknown sum of tax dollars, has been expended in pursuit of evidence of breaches
of various Acts of Town Legislation. Abuse of Public Resources is referenced as well as The Code of Conduct. Penalties of Reprimand or Three Months Suspension of Remuneration are often cited.

The town has many Bylaws governing Policies and Practices. Administrative Policy No. 50 which specifically governs procurement practices. has recently been the focus of Mr. Mascarin's attention on the instruction of Council.

During 2008 budget discussions, after the first year of the Mayor making a practice of retaining legal services on her own volition, Mr. Gutteridge. Chief Financial Officer, recommended a line item be included in Council's budget to provide for the expense of legal retainers by Council.

The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern strenuously objected. Services retained by council should be part of the corporate legal services budget, they stated adamantly. Mr. Gutteridge shrugged ; "If that's how you want it Madame Mayor, that's how it will be"

As a consequence, there is no adopted Council budget for legal services.In my judgement, no public funds can be legitimately expended for the purpose.

Administrative Policy No. 50 governing procurement practices.; On page 8 Clause 13 states:

"Elected Officials shall not approve nor acquire any goods or services".

Action for defamation has been identified several times in the last weeks as a civil matter. It cannot be undertaken with public funds. No insurance coverage is provided to meet the cost.

Considering the facts, if any party is at risk of Conflict of Interest by attending a meeting which contemplates litigation . it would surely have to be the party contemplating the litigation and using public resources to forward the intent.

The obligation of a councillor to abide by the Code of Conduct even if the document has not been signed is frequently referenced. I think, if an elected official needs a document to spell out what constitutes responsible and honourable conduct, they are clearly not competent to fulfill the most important and basic requirement of the task.

Be that as it may. Clause 3 . of the Code states in Communications and Media Relations;

Members of Council will accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of Council, even if they disagree with the majority decisions of council.

and further:

Information concerning adopted policies, procedures and decisions of the Council shall be conveyed openly and accurately.

Amen to all of that I say . And I would argue that 's exactly what I am about in the here and now.












.