Confidential ! Yes or No

As a Councillor,Reeve and Mayor, until this council, I have never known dispute about confidentiality requirements.

No member was ever accused of "leaking" and harming municipal interest.

No lawyers were called in to "advise" if a Councillor had damaged reputations of other Councillors on the basis of strong opposition to a council resolution.

No councillor was ever accused of "undermining" or "frustrating the decisions of council" by casting a vote in opposition to the majority.

A vote is a vote. When the die is cast, the deed is done. It cannot be undermined or frustrated by a solitary vote in opposition.

Of politicians I have known in fifty, of one hundred and fifty year history of the town , only one hoisted herself on a pedestal, challenged the integrity of colleagues and avowed the need for a Code of Ethics and subsequently, for the added advantage of punishment, through the terms of a Code of Conduct .

Mayor Phyllis Morris may claim that distinction.

Six lawyers,at public expense, have been used to further her agenda..

Now a seventh , David Tzubuchi has joined the team. Mr. Tzubuchi is newly appointed Integrity Commissioner which office requires exercise of independence and impartiality.

Until the last term, no-one had difficulty discerning when the town's interest was at issue. Nor to recognise individual privacy.

Things became obscure when the municipality's interest was confused with political imperative.

Last week, I found a memo on a confidential agenda which did not meet the test It was dated June 2nd, 2009, within a day of a Council vote to retain Solicitor John Mascarin to carry out an investigation of me, myself a duly elected spokesperson of the Town of Aurora.

They did that at a special meeting held on the evening, prior to the Annual Civic Awards Ceremony.

Former Clerk, Lucille King submitted the memorandum, in response to a question from the Mayor regarding Town Insurance coverage for Councillors respecting litigation.

According to the Code of Conduct and the Procedural Bylaw, no member of Council has authority to direct staff to prepare a report.

Yet, there it is; a confidential memo setting out the question and direction from the Mayor.

The request was to report circumstances whereby a Councillor may or may not be protected against liability by the town's insurance provider, Public Sector BFL Canada Risk & Insurance Services Inc.

The memorandum included an e-mail response from an Officer of the Insurance providers. It was not qualified by a confidentiality clause.

It noted as follows ; "Members of Council are defined as "Insured".

"No policy covers for a claim by insured against insured"

There's more; three bullet points. Can't think why I never noticed it before.

Despite lawyerly admonitions, I do not agree such information mitigates against the municipality's interest. Nor that of individual privacy. It does not therefore qualify as an in-camera matter.

Clients of insurance providers are the people who pay the freight. Like any other corporation, officers of the corporation are protected. Clients are entitled to know terms and conditions.

If Mayor Morris believed council members needed to be aware of liability protection, and a report was required .....in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Procedural Bylaw, two Councillors, probably Gaertner and Granger needed to move and second a resolution to direct staff to prepare the report. The resolution needed to be supported by a majority for the report to become part of the public record.

Where's the harm to the corporation?

The process also needed to be in accord with the oft-trumpeted principle of "open and transparent".

I don't need a lawyer, instructed by the Mayor, to advise me when the municipality's interest needs to be protected. Or, when the real risk is to political posteriors exposed to the elements of public opinion.