"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Saturday 1 August 2009

What Has Happened Since.

I haven't heard a dicky-bird. The Code of Conduct on the Town's Web site, outlines a process that outlines time lines following a complaint being received by the Integrity Commissioner.

All is quiet from my angle. Considering the tumult that went before ...the silence is weird.

On the other hand, the hurly-burly of politics is robust as usual in the Megalopolis to the south of us.

Mayor Miller says the councillors who are speaking against the settlement with the union are
"disgraceful" His opponents are equally forceful in their opinions about the settlement and the Mayor's and Top Honcho Penachetti's role in the matter.

It's unlikely complaints to the City's Integrity Commissioner will result from either side of the issue. Their Code does not hold political discourse to be illegal..

The Honorable Member of The Legislature for our Riding. Mr. Frank Klees' name has been brought into the discussion. Mr. Klees recently presented a private member's amendment to the legislature to remove restrictions on the right of free speech in Human Rights legislation.

Someone might bring the Honorable member's attention to Provincial Legislation which permits a Code of Conduct for any Municipality which choses to adopt.

The legislation is odd.

It allows a municipality to adopt a Code if it sees fit. It allows individual wording of a Code. Only a handful of municipalities have and there appears to be little uniformity in wording, And strangest of all ,since an elected person cannot be charged with an offence, there is provision for penalties but no avenue for appeal.

The upshot is, if I were a councillor in Richmond Hill or Newmarket or ninety-nine per cent of the Province of Ontario, there would be no video voyeurism of council meetings or analysing of personal blogs or interpretion of a councillor's public comments, by a lawyer. retained by the Mayor and a group of compliant councillors at taxpayers expense.

There would be no Integrity Commissioner to receive and investigate complaints from
the same group of councillors, who took the precaution of having their own private investigation by a lawyer. and widely publicising the same, before handing said complaint, composed by said lawyer. to the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and rule upon.....all at taxpayers' expense.

You know, just because lawyers have written legislation on the direction of the provincial government, and another has privately investigated an Elected Member of Aurora Council on direction of some members of Council and submitted to the Council, a personal judgment on the councillor's conduct and advised said council they are within the ambit of Provincial legislation and their own adopted Code of Conduct to publicise his professionally prepared complaint at public expense, in every avenue possible....just because of all of that... that doesn't make any of it right.

No comments: