Royson James of the Toronto Star has a blistering criticism today of Toronto City Council. The Mayor's executive committee, which is a majority of council, is proposing a legal "offence" fund for councillors to allow them to take legal action against whomever they perceive to have "defamed"them. It notes they already have a legal "defence" fund..
Only once have I ever had to give a thought to defending myself. At a meeting of residents in a
particular neighborhood, I advised they had no need to retain legal counsel to deal with their own town council.
The lawyer, who wasn't there, was told I had advised against hiring him. I received a document informing me he was suing me for the value of my house.
S.O.B. I thought and hied myself straight up to the court house and filed a response.
There was intervention . I was implored to come and talk to the guy . I told him I said no such thing . I would defend myself to the hilt.
That was the end of it.
I was not informed then that I was indemnified under town insurance.
At the beginning of this term, when the Mayor had her first" emergency" and retained George Rust D'Eye on the pretext I had spilled the beans out of a closed door meeting of four months previous, when they refused to sell land we had for sale as a location for York Regional Police Headquarters.
A resident told me then the town must provide for a councillor's defence .
I asked and Bob Panizza , former Director of Corporate Services. told me he knew nothing about it.
Last week , information was provided at an in-camera meeting about insurance to indemnify
a councillor . I had seen a clause requiring that in the Integrity Commissioner's unsigned contract.
Aha I thought. That's where it's been hiding. It made eminent sense. So again I asked. Finally information was provided. Behind closed doors.
I considered the new information. Then I got to thinking about how many times the Mayor had retained legal counsel for a variety of non-issues like so-called invasion of privacy when telephones in an unsecured room were monitored during the previous term of office. Two lawyers were retained. The first didn't provide the desired answer .
The second was summoned to the town hall to engage in a spirited discussion with the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern before the two year effort, at tax-payers expense, to prove the former Mayor was guilty of wrong-doing was finally abandoned.
The Mayor never did have authority under the Procurement Bylaw to expend town resources on lawyers. It happened anyway.
Last week, the comprehensive information about coverage suddenly presented a posit against town funds being expended for this purpose. Our town, like the City of Toronto, has a legal defence mechanism to protect councillors being sued for doing their job. Like the City of Toronto, it does not have a legal "offence" fund.
I raised the question of impropriety of the Mayor independently retaining legal counsel at tax-payers expense, to take action against a Councillor for perceived defamation.In the same e-mail that I questioned the necessity for discussion behind closed doors about a matter which had already been articulated by the Chief Administrative Officer in two comments to a political Blog.
I received no answer to either question
.
However, on to-night's Council Agenda , a recommendation , out of a closed door "Emergency" meeting is made to retain legal counsel. Approval to retain legal counsel is being sought in a public meeting . My Blog post of June 1st; "The Buzz Around Town " was the single item of that agenda.
In that ,I proffered an explanation of why the minutes of the May 12th meeting bore no resemblance to what actually happened.
A torrent of unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations and accusations were hurled in a verbal assault against me, by Sher St. Kitts and by courtesy of the Mayor and her co-horts. By an illegal vote, staff were directed to include the comments as part of the official record.
So... now what happens?
If legal action is to be taken against me by the Council of the Town of Aurora. am I entitled to legal defence for fullfilling my responsibility as a Councillor?
.
Is it a Councilor's responsibility to maintain a blog?
ReplyDeleteI think as a Councilor, your comments at the table are protected if they're made in the context of your work as a Councilor.
Are you saying that a blog is a new way of communicating with your consituents? It might be. But are you using it to communicate relevant facts or are you using for political advantage, by running your opponents down. There lies the essence of your question.
"If legal action is to be taken against me by the Council of the Town of Aurora. am I entitled to legal defence for fullfilling my responsibility as a Councillor?"
The answer to this question lies in what you do if you're not afforded legal defence by the Town. Will you cease and desist or will you fund your own defence? Will you put it all on the line? Because if you roll over, you won't be fulfilling your responsibilty as a Councilor - by your own admission.
I hope you do rise up to the challenge, even without the Town's paid legal defence. I hope all those that support you on your blog feel strongly enough to contribute funds to your defence. I, myself, may even contribute - not because I agree with you; but because it is an important question that needs to be answered.
The political arena has some very wide boundaries. A court may add some clarity as to where the lines really lie.