New Information On The Ad paid from a Surplus

Late yesterday afternoon, I received the following e-mail from the Town's Chief Financial Officer.

"Councillor Buck, the parade ad cost $255 and ran at the request of the Chair of LSAC. With my consent it was funded by the Parade budget surplus. The plans for the ad were withheld from Ms St. Kitts"

***************
My post yesterday provided information the ad was funded from the July 1st Parade surplus

Information on how it was authorized was still outstanding.

Because....the ad bore none of the usual identification of the Town of Aurora.

It presented as a message straight from the heart of the St Kitts woman.

It was beside, but not part of the Aurora Notice Board or on the same page.

Which is why I had to ask.

The Treasurer seeks to assure me. Despite recognized administration policy on disposition of surplus funds from a completed project, the Treasurer did approve surplus funds to be used for the ad.

The request came from Chairman of Leisure Services Advisory Committee.

Who is...none other than, Councillor Evalina MacEachern.

The "plans were kept secret from Ms St Kitts"

Councillor MacEachern has an extremely good relationship with The Chief Financial Officer.

Appointment of the Officer without a recruiting process or competition, a requirement of a town Administration policy, which in turn, is required by provincial regulation under the Municipal Act of Ontario was strongly supported by the Councillor.

The Councillor, who is Financial Controller of an Electrical Distributing Company expresses continued confidence by frequent commendations of The Officer in public meetings.

But there's a problem.

Even without a Code of Righteousness, there is a standing rule in all democratic institutions; staff will only accept direction from Council as a Whole.

In addition, Clause 4 of the Code of Righteousness states:

Members of Council shall acknowledge and respect the fact staff work for the Town as a corporate body and are responsible for making recommendations that reflect their professional expertise and corporate objectives without due influence from any individual member.

In addition, Members shall acknowledge and respect the fact staff carry out directions of Council as a whole and administer policies of the Town. A member of Council shall refrain from using their position to improperly influence members of staff on their duties and functions or to gain advantage for themselves or others.

Members of Council shall refrain from publicly criticizing individual members of staff in a way that casts aspersions on their professional competence and credibility.

Clause 7 says:

Members may only use Town property or services for activities connected with the discharge of official duties or associated community activities having the sanction of Council or permitted by Town policies.


Now....what do you think of them apples?

Here's what I think:

If I believed there is merit in a Code of Righteousness for Councillors over and above the Oath of Office;

If I believed such a Code would be respected by the Mormac Cult ;

If I believed the Code was anything but alternate methodology for people without the rudimentary political skills to compete in a political arena even at the lowly local.

Boy..... would I have an iron-clad complaint to file to the integrity commissioner of the cult's choosing, against a member of the cult.

I wouldn't need to pay $50,000 taxpayer dollars to a lawyer to "investigate" a colleague; direct him to listen to tapes of Council meetings, read blog postings and letters to the editor, all of them open and transparent to the public and amenable to their judgement

All I would need is a copy of the e-mail I received yesterday from the town's vacationing treasurer.