It's about thirty months of knowing it's wrong and unable to do a thing about it.  It's  about having five councillors who  support their leader no matter what. Their fate is tied.They have to believe,  she who must be obeyed must be right.
Others  found because I was the only one saying it and  it is too incredible to believe that   it could  in fact be true Of course at some point I stop repeating  what I know to be true. It's like spitting into the wind.
Like Shirley Valentine,   kitchen wall  and rock on a beach on an island in the Aegean Sea, I always have Blog  for confidences.
Staff  knew  but it didn't matter a hill of beans what they said.  She would  do it anyway and they   have  the inhibiting factor of  walking the plank, or more likely, being escorted from the premises.
Traditionally, municipal people  have the next election to anticipate relief from   change.  There's an awareness of that between politicians and public servants. It doesn't always sit easy. Things are  even  less comfortable  with  four years in between. It's a long time to hold the fort.
It's ironic. No other level of government has fixed terms of four years.  Stephen Harper passed a law to that effect and broke it within months.   Both senior  levels have the opportunity to caucus out of sight and sound. If they break the law, they can re-write the law to fit. If  there's a serious challenge of  confidence, they can  call an election.  If they  generate  scandal  across the land, the opposition and the media   go into full cry and  judgment rests with the electorate.
Being  alone  on a particular  issue is not unusual.   It happened  throughout my career. It was never  lonesome. There were always people who trusted my judgement  .Others who respected the fact  I  stood my ground. Always as now, they kept me informed of their support and encouragement.
Then of course, there was  time. Time to prove I was right.
But  I never said   "I told you so."  For one thing, it was no satisfaction. Being right and not being able to persuade others is  failure of sorts in politics.The guys would have been  testy if I had gloated over their error and there was always the need to nurture the working relationship.
I could never tell  what I thought of their competence which was just as well because they were equally  likely to say what they thought of mine.It would have been an undignified exchange at best from which nobody could emerge unscathed.
Not like this term. The  Mayor and her  coterie, now somewhat shrunken, made it clear from the start there would be no working relationship. Whoever did not fall into line would be punished accordingly.  For six months I made the effort to influence  that attitude.  But all was for nought. Their resolve was  unshakable. So and thus, they set me free. It's been bare knuckles ever since.
Last week I spent a number of hours calling  every municipality in York Region and one other. I asked the same question of each:  What is the process in your municipality for retaining and communicating with legal counsel?
The answer was the same. Administration  advises Council when services are needed. Council authorises.   Communication  from that point  is between administrative staff and  counsel retained  Occasionally, if the situation merits, there may be direct  conference with Council.
In NO municipality does  a member of  Council  have  unlimited and private  communication  with lawyers at public expense.
Except in  Aurora.
In No municipality does  Council retain legal services independent of advice from the administration.
Except  Aurora
.
In No municipality does the Council retain legal services for political expediency
Except in Aurora.
Not every municipality has an in house solicitor. Most  have a roster of  firms to deal with  items  of specific expertise.
Mayor of King, Margaret Black, who is  herself a solicitor, may on occasion consult a lawyer.   She pays the bill herself.
In Vaughan , members of  Council  each have an office expense budget. It's probably the same in Richmond Hill and Markham. Each Councillor exercises judgement about how they use the resource. They don't have to but they publish on line how it's spent..
Over the  years, I have served on councils with seven different Mayors, including myself. Our practice of communicating with legal counsel has always been, as it currently is, in  neighbouring regional municipalities.
The Administration advises.. Council authorises. Direct  communications from that point are between staff and legal counsel with reports submitted from staff to Council when necessary.
Mayor Phylis Morris is the first Mayor  in Aurora and the only one in the Region who habitually
retains lawyers  for political expediency and converses  directly with counsel on corporate legal matters.
There is no indication  she pays  the costs she generates for legal expenses. In fact, when she retained legal counsel to make a futile case of wrongdoing  against the former Mayor, she adamantly stated she had no intention of using her own resources.Two solicitors were involved over a period of two years  with council never at any time having the opportunity to view the correspondence.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
 
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 

3 comments:
so what can be done about this??
Can taxpayers demand that council refund the municipality for all the unncessary legal bills?
"Our town staff is hardworking,committed and conscientious in carrying out their responsibilities and duties on behalf of the Town. Their efforts are supported and greatly appreciated by Council. Your publications and statements appear to have unjustifiably and unnecessarily disparaged and maligned Town staff and must cease without delay."
It's clear from this that your comments were aimed at staff. Is this not the the case?
In today's blog you try to indicate that staff are being led by the nose by the Mayor and others and following willing in fear of losing their positions.
What exactly is your position on staff? If they are as innocent as I think you claim they are, then just remove the offending material. Since they weren't the target.
"60. The Minutes. The record of the proceedings of a deliberative assembly is usually called the Minutes, or the Record, or the Journal. The essentials of the record are as follows: (a) the kind of meeting, "regular" (or stated) or "special," or "adjourned regular" or "adjourned special"; (b) name of the assembly; (c) date of meeting and place, when it is not always the same; (d) the fact of the presence of the regular chairman and secretary, or in their absence the names of their substitutes, (e) whether the minutes of the previous meeting were approved, or their reading dispensed with, the dates of the meetings being given when it is customary to occasionally transact business at other than the regular business meetings; (f) all the main motions (except such as were withdrawn) and points of order and appeals, whether sustained or lost, and all other motions that were not lost or withdrawn; (g) and usually the hours of meeting and adjournment, when the meeting is solely for business. Generally the name is recorded of the member who introduced a main motion, but not of the seconder."
The above is from Robert's Rules of Order.
The reason I post it, is that there was some debate whether staff had recorded the minutes properly of the famous Sher St. Kitts address to council.
I haven't reviewed the meeting video, but I do remember more motions than that reflected in the minutes. I also remember a point of order regarding the 2/3 majority.
I also remember the Clerk answering that there is a majority when the Mayor asked if it was a 2/3's majority.
I would like to see the lawyer's opinion, in patricular what he has to say about the minutes and the 2/3 vote.
Post a Comment