The Plot Thickens

And the pot boils over.

A revealing comment has been posted on the Aurora Citizen Blog.

Anonymous suggests complaints in the double digits have been filed against myself with the Town's Integrity Commissioner.

remember the process. It calls for complaints to be channelled to the Commissioner through the Director of Corporate Services. The Provincial Statute 223.5 (I think) unequivocally requires secrecy in the process. As well as confidentiality in the Town's Bylaw.

The Director of Corporate Services (Municipal Clerk)is the responsible authority at the municipal level for upholding provincial statutes. It is why that official is sworn and the appointment is made by bylaw. It is the meaning of the term Statutory Officer.

I keep repeating that but it doesn't seem to get through.

The Chief Building Official is responsible for upholding the National Building Code and other regulations pertaining to building

The Planning Director is responsible for upholding the Planning Act and Regulations and the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for adhering to provincial regulations in the area of municipal finances.

There are no ifs and or buts.These are not empty titles. If they were, provincial authority over municipalities would be a sham.

And that is not the case.

There have been precedents, usually in elections, when municipal clerks ,who are also Election Officers, have been prosecuted for failing to fulfill their legal responsibilities.

The anonymous comment raises the question; if true, how did that information become known?

Only the clerk or acting clerk of the municipality receives complaints.Her authority is limited to receiving and forwarding to the Integrity Commissioner.

The purpose is to maintain physical separation and independence of the Integrity Commissioner's Office from the Corporation and the political body.

How else would the privacy of the complainant and the complained about be protected?

How else would the Integrity Commissioner go about his due diligence without tampering or interference?

How else would the independence needed to perform the quasi-judicial function of rendering a fair and impartial judgement be guaranteed?

I know of one other complaint filed against me. The Commissioner informed me. As part of the process.

He spent almost two hours on my deck one lovely sunny afternoon, in an effort to convince me of the merits of participating in the process.

A person's reputation as an elected official is as valuable as any complaint he might receive, he assured me. If I did not participate, the only evidence before him would be the accusation against me.

He left without my commitment. But he spared no effort to ensure my complete understanding of the process and assure me of his own integrity.

Now we have evidence; laws requiring secrecy and confidentiality and the Integrity of an Integrity Commissioner are not enough.

Information appears to have been revealed from the only possible source. The Aurora Town Hall. Where I was refused, on camera, by the town solicitor, after double consultation with the Mayor, access to a decision which was my right to receive.

Logic dictates the complaint of six members of council, compiled by a lawyer at taxpayers' expense, and publicised world wide, had to be dismissed. In their eagerness to do all harm possible and tie the hands of the Commissioner, our brave warrior Councillors simply shat upon their own doorstep, trampled joyfully through it and made sure no clean spot remained.

No trace of good faith, a favourite phrase of David Nitkin, was ever evident in any degree which would possibly have allowed that complaint to be accepted.

And it doesn't take the Wisdom of Solomon to understand why.