Three Posts back

I talked about my problem of discerning between town business to be discussed behind closed doors and that which should not.It was never a problem until this term.

The issue becomes more obscure once discussion has ensued. Things said are not recorded.

There is no audio record. Discussion cannot be referenced. It becomes simply a matter of he said/ she said.

Councillor Collins- Mrakas recently moved to have meetings audio-taped . The idea went down the tube with the usual lop-sided vote.

The Province recently passed regulations to permit a citizen to demand an investigation of in-camera meetings if they appeared not to be in accordance with regulations . How would a person know that?

Aurora teamed with several other municipalities to appoint investigators. There didn't seem to be a point. The agenda identifies the issue. The vote is all that's recorded in camera and if it needs to be confidential to protect the town's interest it cannot be revealed.

What a rigmarole that is.

I posted my dilemma about the last in-camera meeting. Five and a half pages of a six and a half page memorandum, stamped private and confidential, were already in the public record.

I attended the meeting because questions I had on the last page needed answers before I could determine the matter needed closed door discussion.

There was advice from a solicitor which is generally considered solicitor/client privilege.

On the other hand, I am still searching for the council resolution giving the precise direction which required advice from the solicitor. I remember direction but not precise wording .

A review reveals the issue was considered at a public planning meeting . Council received a staff report setting out the position to be taken on an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board A pre-conference was already scheduled.

Neighbouring property owners were opposed to the development. Staff advice was set aside. A lengthy resolution, penned at the table by Councillor Evalina McEachern was adopted.

Information was received that the neighbours intended to request the OMB to authorise a Consolidated Board Hearing. A resolution was passed giving Town support to the neighbours' request.

The Board turned down the request.

The neighbours appealed to the Divisional Court. The Town supported the appeal.

Evidence presented to the Divisional Court indicated the OMB did not have authority to grant a Consolidated Board Hearing. Regulations were cited by the lawyer for the developer.

The Divisional Court suspended the proceeding and directed the OMB to consider evidence of regulations denying authority to the Board to grant the request.

The OMB did that. They accepted evidence of existing regulations prohibiting them from ordering a Consolidated Board Hearing. How could they not?

The request for such a Consolidated Board was once again denied.

Three legal proceedings have been undertaken. Experts attended as witnesses. Expert and legal fees were incurred by the developer and neighbouring opponents.

Legal fees to the Town; $135 thousand .

Nothing was accomplished.

Zero...Zilch....Nil...Nada...Amen my friends.

Still ahead is an Ontario Municipal Board hearing of potentially two weeks duration and an estimated cost of $200 ks.for legal fees . Expert witnesses will increase the tab significantly. The Town's interest must be protected.

I think legal fees will be a fraction of the cost.

I also believe you have a right to know. To my mind, there is nothing about the public being informed in this particular matter that jeopardises the town's interest.