Statutes are Trumps

I've objected before but to no avail. The practice of inviting staff to refute points made in a political debate is fraught with potential for friction between elected and appointed officials.

Our new solicitor was invited to advise whether the Chief Administrative Officer is a statutory officer. I had made the statement in a "The Buzz Around Town" post that the job is not a statutory function. Mr. Cooper cited a regulatory clause he claims gives the CAO the status. I continue to contend it does not.

On Tuesday, during the debate on a resolution, he was asked to advise if town advisory committees conform to the intent of the Municipal Act. He said they do. I say they don't.

Councillor Gaertner referenced Mr. Cooper's nine years experience as a municipal solicitor. I cited my forty-five years experience of practice in Town of Aurora affairs.

When the minutes of the May 12th meeting were challenged, Mr. Garbe stated he and Mr. Cooper had spent considerable time deliberating how the record should be reflected.

The Municipal Act cites the role of the clerk to record decisions of Council "without note or comment". Mr. Garbe and Mr. Cooper decided a "synopsis" of a non-residents comments should replace the actual comments, despite a less than two-thirds majority vote of council directing the contrary.

Mr. Garbe and Mr. Cooper are not responsible for keeping the record. It is the statutory responsibility of the Clerk.

Mr. Cooper tried quietly and diffidently to stop unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations from being presented in council in the first place. But when it suits her, the Mayor is not inclined to hear anything that might deflect her from her path.

So the situation does not improve.

On Tuesday, I presented two resolutions. Notice had been provided. The motions were in writing and circulated with the agenda in accordance with proper procedure. Everything was very orderly. That was a first. Almost as if an unseen hand was directing the play.

Except for one small issue:

The first motion dealt with make-up of advisory committees. The second was a request for a financial accounting for an annual event held for the second time at the Aurora Legion. and from the community's perspective, under the town's auspice.

I had read of a partnership claimed by Sher St Kitts, the July 1st Canada Day Parade and the Aurora Rotary Club.

It occurred to me, if town staff could not obtain an accounting for the event from the sub-committee, perhaps Aurora Rotary might be willing to share.

"People are asking questions," I said.

"People should come to council and ask their questions" said the Mayor.

Then it was the Treasurer's turn to be invited to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Elliott, sitting immediately to my right, gave a small derisory snort and responded.

"It's not my job to go knocking on the door of the Rotary Club and demand to see their accounts."

Mr. Elliot is our most recent addition to the town's almost entirely new administrative team. Council were informed in closed session by Mr. Garbe, after having three months notice from our former treasurer, that he had made an appointment on an interim basis of a year without conducting the normal recruitment process to fill the position by competition.

Tuesday was interesting .

We had the report from the June 3rd "Emergency" meeting called by the Mayor to deal with the "The Buzz Around Town" post. The disconnect between what actually happened on May 12th and how it appeared in Council Minutes was the subject.

Council has now decided to obtain legal advice from Baird and Werliss on how to deal with my Blog post. John Mascarin, the lawyer who joined us at the council table to steer the debate the night the decision was made not to hold a by-election, is with that firm. He joined us on another particularly repugnant event behind closed doors. Mr. Cooper informed us he has already been consulted by phone on this matter.

Leisure Services Director Al Downey was the last to be invited by the Mayor to contribute to the debate and affirm that his department has no connection whatsoever with the July 1st Parade sub-committee of the Leisure Services Advisory Committee.

Mr. Garbe has affirmed staff have no ability to require an accounting from the committee for proceeds derived from the July 1st Canada Day Awareness event held at the Legion in mid-March.

Mr. Elliott reported the only town funds involved were $400 for four tickets for the Mayor and three Councillors to attend the event in 2008. And $150 for six tickets for the Mayor and five Councillors to attend in 2009. He noted the cheque issued from the treasury for this year's tickets was returned, with direction the money be spent on flags for the parade. Not noted was who the cheque was payable to, who returned it and when.

The big question now is; $10k of taxpayers' money was budgeted to pay for the July 1st Canada Day Parade after Sher St. Kitts informed council ... "No money ...No parade" . Ms St Kitts is a voluntary parade organizer. With a number of other citizens, she serves on a sub-committee of the Town Leisure Services Advisory Committee , chaired by Councillor Evelina MacEachern.

The voluntary effort required for the Parade, is raising sufficient funds to pay for the Parade. With $10k of taxpayers' money to finance it, the effort hardly qualifies as voluntary.

From what we heard on Tuesday from staff and Councillor MacEachern, ( the Mayor didn't say much), there is no requirement for that committee to obtain approval or account for any financial expenditure or tell anybody anything about the July 1st Parade.
.
Except come on out and PARTEEE....at your town's expense.

However, Council has previously been assured, the town's procedures will be enforced to ensure expenditures are properly controlled.

For the life of me, I can't see how. Considering complete disassociation,independence and unaccountability of that sub-committee with any part of the town's administration.And Mr. Elliott's clear notion of what is his role and what isn't.