Epilogue Two

Judicious oversight of town business is the responsibility of the elected body.

The Municipal Act regulates. The Administration advises .Council consents.

In Aurora, we have a Chief Administrative Officer. a Clerk, a Treasurer , a legal department with two solicitors, two law clerks and a roster of external legal firms with separate expertise .

There are 440 municipalities in Ontario. A CAO heads the administration in about 25%.

In 75% of Ontario municipalities, the Clerk is head of Administration.

Until November 2008, in the absence of the CAO, the Clerk acted .

Council has recently been informed, in the current CAO's absence; the solicitor is in charge; in his absence; the public works director is in charge ; in his absence, the treasurer is in charge: in his absence; the Clerk is in charge.

Absence on such a scale, is not the only peculiarity in the edict. But in true Mormac Format all things are grist for the mill.

Oftentimes, Council is not given the chance to consent.

Making an issue of an issue is an option but God knows, it's hard enough to get past presentations, delegations, awards and Lady Bountiful Performances, let alone deal with town business in the time legally allocated.

Chances of orderly debate are remote. Chaos.confusion, nasty digs and innuendos are more the order of the day.

Council's role of judicious oversight is lost in the melee.

I pursued the George Rust D'Eye matter to its end for a reason. I needed to hammer out the disconnect between majority decisions, solicitor's advice provided under instructions and the obligation to fulfill my commitment.

The stuff is dry, dreary and seems hopelessly convoluted. I feared I would lose your attention.

I haven't. Numbers continue to grow. Thank You.

Mr. Rust D'Eye rested his argument on the Municipal Act giving a Council authority to make decisions and adopt rules of conduct for themselves and others. According to his advice, no Councillor has the right to exercise judgement, in the face of a majority. The solicitor seemed critical of the concept.

Tough.

I would argue regulations regarding closed door discussion are at all times qualified by the requirement to protect the municipality's interest and privacy of individuals for whom we have responsibility. The operative phrase used to be "to save the town harmless"

The strongest argument favouring a nine member council, is the unlikelihood nine people will think the same on any matter of substance No more than unanimity can be expected within the community at large.

It should mean every side of an issue will be considered. Aurora had that number of councillors with a population of 5.000.

For government to be relevant, people need to hear their views represented. They don't need to win all the time. They just need to know that at least their side was heard.

By the same token, people have a right to know nothing is done in secret that should be public.

Intuition is what keeps people in public office on their best behaviour. If it's not there, it can't be learned.

No Councillor of any self-respect, is inclined to be held responsible for what they consider to be a bad decision. Nor to keep their opposition secret. Except when making it public might subject the municipality to potential litigation.

The will of the majority is the democratic rule. It doesn't mean the majority are always right.Or the minority always wrong.

It means consequences are shared by all. It doesn't mean the minority are compelled to maintain silence.

No Sirree

That's my introduction and explanation for what I'm going to share next.