A few months ago I wrote about three options presented to Council on how to re-imburse four residents for legal costs incurred in opposing the Westhill Development application.
One of the options was to provide a grant.
I took the position there was no justification for discussing the matter behind closed doors.
It appeared to go away.
Then it came back. I took the position again in public, during the vote to approve an agenda for a closed door session.
I said it should be discussed in public.
People have a right to know how their money is being spent.
Council were advised the discussion could reveal legal strategy therefore it should be discussed behind closed doors.
So, I attended to listen and understand how that could come about.
I saw no evidence. I claim the right to exercise my judgement
I do not agree public discussion of this proposed disbursement of funds could negatively affect the municipality's interest.
Three times this issue has been discussed.
Last night was the third.
We spent more than two hours re-hashing the same points over and over. In the end, the same result as before.
No result.
There is no obvious majority in favour of the proposal. Councillor MacEachern was missing . It would have made no difference.
At close to eleven , tempers flared. the meeting came to an end. No vote was taken.
A parliamentary rule of order prohibits the same issue being re-hashed time and time and time again.
It would be hard to describe the goings-on behind closed doors. But the rules don't permit that either.
Suffice to say, a plan to siphon money from town coffers and funnel it elsewhere, on the pretext of value has not caught on.
If the water-wearing- on- a- stone technique prevails, I will let you know.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Dear Evelyn:
You are obviously very well read.
It takes a reader to know another reader.
One of my all time favourite pieces of biographic writing is: NO ORDINARY TIME - Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II - by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It garnered a Pulitzer Prize. I am now into my fourth read.
The book demonstrates that good people do occasionally succeed in public life.
We in Aurora are cursed to be living through an abomination of government where a filthy nag's head with chain prances about our community, contaminating the very air that we breathe and the water that we drink.
If you haven't read the book, do so. It might have a salutary effect, to compensate in part for how you spend portions of your week, looking after our business.
"a filthy nag's head with chain"? Makes a change from "Mare",I suppose.
I'm no fan of Phyllis Morris, but to use such hyperbole loses the effect the writer is trying to achieve.
I have to agree with Robert the Fuimus Bruce on the A/C blog. Writers using such silly or harsh names for the Mayor do themselves and the blog-owners a disservice.
We all know that Phyllis reads the blogs. We all know that the majority of participants of Evelyn's blog and the Aurora Citizen are fed up with the Mayor and her cohorts.
To use nasty monikers for Mrs. Morris diminishes the relevance of the commenter and their views.
Just call the woman Phyllis and have done with it.
Call her annonying, call her disgraceful, call her shameless, call for her head. But just call her Phyllis.
I wish Anonymous had a sense of humour. Names such as The Lone Granger, Wendy Willow Tree, Evilina and the mare make me chuckle and a good chuckle is very therapeutic.
White Knight - I do find those other nicknames creative and humourous.
"The Lone Granger" is inspired and clever, and thus is now used by many.
"Evilina" so captures MacEachern that I can no longer think of her by any other name, and neither, it seems, can anyone else. It has become a staple in the lexicon of this blog and the A/C.
"Wendy Willow Tree" is harmless if a little bland...'nuff said.
The "Mare" just strikes me as childish and mean. I know it's a play on words, but the imagery seems to give your comments an edge that I find harsh and not necessarily clever or informative.
Sorry, maybe it just plain old bugs me.
But a "filthy nag's head with chain prancing" is over the top in my book, and discounts that commenter's opinion for me. I also think it has the potential to diminish Councillor Buck's blog if similar vents of thoughts are allowed.
There are enough people trying to minimize the content of this blog without participant's churlish monikers adding the sugar on top for Councillor Buck's detractors.
I dunno, Evilina strikes me as wrongheaded too.
I don't question that she's made any number of mistakes. But to suggest she's evil is a bit over the top.
Remember Hanlon's adage: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I have seen many emails from "Evilina". Believe me, the moniker fits. She targetted Councillor Buck at the beginning of term, and she didn't care who knew about it and spread the news herself. She became more careful once she realized "Buckie" was not backing down and more people were becoming supportive of Councillor Buck.
You reap what you sow.
To Anonymous again:
The moderator(s) of Councillor Buck's blog have the freedom to publish comments or not regardless of who writes them. Therefore if anything diminishes the credibility of this blog it is because the moderators allowed it.
Also I can attest from email responses that I have had from her that the nickname "Evilina" is MOST appropriate. I would hate to meet her in a dark alley!!
Post a Comment