Reader's Comment

Is as follows:

In a letter dated May 25, 2010, signed by John Leach, the Town Clerk, in response to a Freedom of Information request, Mr. Mascarin's legal expenses for the period December 1, 2006, through December 31 2009, were stated as $154,361.

There is a difference of approximately $7,000 between the above figure and that which your blog states.

What is particularly striking, though, is that your figure appears to have occurred during 2009. Mr. Leach's information refers to a 37 month period.

Does this mean that Mr. Mascarin's billings to the town for a 25 month period amounted to only some $7,000?

Possibly you can dive back into the paper pile to confirm the accuracy of the numbers and the time periods.

Glad you enjoyed your trip to the west coast!

July 7, 2010 2:59 PM

***********************

Thanks for the information obtained through a Freedom of Information application.

On principle, I refuse to take that route. I believe an elected representative is entitled to receive answers to all matters of public business. I accept no authority on the part of staff to deny a reasonable request for information.

Respect for privacy of individuals who work or have worked for the municipality and protecting the interest of the municipality are of course, a given.

My correspondent notes his response from the Town was dated from December 1st 2006.

That was the first day of this term of office.

Mr. Mascarin did not appear on the scene until the question of a by-election had to be decided.I believe in the Spring of 2008.

I challenged the Clerk of the day, Provincial legislation takes precedence over Municipal Bylaws.

He knew I was right. But apparently he chose to obtain a legal opinion rather than risk the wrath of the presiding member.

Mr. Mascarin's was the resource he used. They had worked to-gether in the Town of Markham years before.

The lawyer's first letter was short and to the point. It supported my contention.

The power asked for further expansion.

That involved a second written opinion and eventually Mr. Mascarin was seated at the table, displacing staff, during a council meeting, to assist the presiding member steer the decision.

The Chamber was full that night. Residents were there to express support for a by-election.

That was not the decision made.

The second involvement of Mr. Mascarin concerned a staff matter and a procedure behind closed doors such as I have never seen nor had our now retired Municipal Clerk,in the course of his entire career.

Because of the right to privacy , I can not breathe a word of what transpired. Except to say, I was sickened by the process.

Mr. Mascarin's next participation in town affairs, was 2009, when Council retained his services for the purpose of "investigating" ,formulating and publicising a complaint to the first Integrity Commissioner against a member of Council.

We appreciate the information which I have been refused. I accept the figure of $154,361 as accurate. It makes my point.

Our anonymous contributor, might like to request , how much the municipality has paid out in settlements to employees who have left the town. for one reason or another, during the same term of office.

It would also be useful to know precise costs of various legal proceedings to fail to obtain a Consolidated Board Hearing for the Westhill Application; including fees paid to retain, second-hand, expert witnesses already retained and paid for by the opponents to the Westhill application.

It is my understanding, we sent two solicitors to the last Request for Leave to Appeal which was denied but respondent awarded $1000.in costs.and successfully delayed the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing into the application.

In the last two appeals , title of the action showed as McCutcheon et al.v Westhill Redevelopment Company Limited.

McCutcheon et al . decided after the third proceeding to take the matter no further.

The last two appeals were undertaken and paid for by the municipality although names documented in the action were not changed.

Little things like that catch one's attention.

***********************************

WEIRDEST of WEIRD TREE BYLAW

Remember the Dustin Hoffman movie where the American government contrived a war to stimulate patriotism and draw public attention from THEIR failure to solve real problems.

An Aurora war has been declared. AGAIN!!!.

Yesterday, Councillors received a copy of a "Media Alert" notifying that two principals of Westhill have been charged by the town for "injuring" and "destroying" trees.

The town's tree bylaw will be thoroughly scrutinised.

A property owner is required to make application to "injure" or "destroy" their own trees on their own property.

They pay a fee per tree. Staff hie forth to the site, examine, identify and measure each tree proposed for injury or destruction.They report on the condition of the trees.They may retain an arborist for the task. They recommend to Council whether or not the application should be granted.

The decision is made by Council.

It is wholly political.

A property-owner can do everything required; pay an architect to advise where a house should be located, identify trees to be removed , pay an arborist and substantial fees to the town for the privilege of "injuring" or "destroying" his own trees on property more than likely to be a legal building lot of record in his ownership, post a sign to inform all and sundry of his plans for them to object if they choose, and ultimately be refused by the political body.

Depending on how the wind blows.

No refunds follow when professional approval is recommended and politically rejected.Public resources have already been expended though for no useful purpose.

The true test of a Municipal Bylaw is how it stands up in court.

Is it reasonable? Fair? How has it been applied ? Has there been consistency in application?

It should be an interesting argument.

They probably have air-conditioning in the court, I think I'll go.