It Took A While

Since three legal opinions have been provided that blog posts or letters to the editor cannot be added to a Council agenda without the permission of the writer.

We are also advised no question can be placed on an agenda, without due notice, a mover and a seconder or permission to suspend the Procedure Bylaw.

But ways have been contrived to get around all of that.

Councillor MacEachern, as chair, has placed or allowed, a letter to the editor on the agenda of a couple of meetings pf the Leisure Services Advisory Committee. Where it has been chewed over and members disaffection has been reported to Council.

Whereupon it became a matter of public record.

Councillor Gallo's Question of Privilege at the April 27th Council Meeting is an example of contriving to have content of a letter to the editor placed on a council agenda. Councillor Gallo's stated intention was to "correct the record"

A Question of Privilege is a means for a Councillor, who has been offended by a comment made in debate. He may feel he has been accused of wrongdoing,or a motive attached to a position he has taken in debate. The remedy is provided to request withdrawal of the offending comment and possibly receive an apology.

Refusal to withdraw or apologize are options. Which generally means the comments complained about stand.

The process permits an inadvertent error to be resolved without grievance. It is a necessary means of maintaining civility and reducing potential for personal animosity to grow within the council.

Huh!

The obligation to state one's position, without fear or favour, and the possibility of causing offence or being offended is an occupational hazard of politics.

The substance of Council Gallo's " Question of Privilege" was a letter to the editor. It was not part of "the record"

A Question of Privilege is introduced by a request from a member to the Chair to accept a Question of Privilege.

Following normal practice,the Chair directs the Member to state the question and rules on its acceptability.

Councillor Gallo's Question of Privilege was convoluted, clumsy and a contrived means of introducing a letter to the editor into the record. Not of correcting it.

A motion was made to receive the Question of Privilege as information.

Thereby making it part of the public record.

Taking time, in the face of such an egregious lack of comprehension of the rules , by both the member and the presiding member,would have been a waste of time.

Like so much that happens in Aurora Council, trying to untangle a tangle which has been so carefully tangled by so many hands beforehand, is a true exercise in frustration.

Council's Agenda is for the purpose of expediting town business.

Preparation is the responsibility of the Clerk. As is, keeping and maintaining records.

The Municipal Act defines it.

As it does the responsibility of elected members.

The Act requires at the beginning of each term, passage of a Procedure Bylaw, setting forth dates, times for the start and end of meetings. And publication of the Agenda beforehand.

The public must always be informed, what is to be decided at a particular meeting, within a particular time frame.

We have an Integrity Commissioner once again.

The first was hired , then fired after his first decision.

He did not find in favour of the complainants.

When the Commissioner receives a complaint, he is entitled to access records to establish validity.

Decisions of Council are required to be recorded without note or comment.

Blog posts and letters to the editor cannot be included on an agenda without the writer's consent.

The record of the April 27th 2010 Council Meeting of the Town of Aurora, is chock- a-block full of notes and comments and references to blog posts and letter to the editor.

It's the rule rather than the exception.

Readers may guess at the purpose of the intention.