The Conundrum

I may have been the only one who didn't understand the P.McG monicker was not a  name.  I was not the only one who didn't think it was funny.A couple of readers had strong language of their own to deal with  the vulgarity.

Besides  the outrage  in the community by the Mayor's decision to sue three families over unproven allegations, the  action has generated  vigorous intelligent conversation on the Aurora Citizen Blog.

The Mayor's latest twist to undertake the action at her own expense will certainly keep the conversation going.

If it removes the Mayor from Conflict of Interest, where does it leave  Councillors whose vote made it possible  for the Mayor to pursue her initial objective?

We know  a comment critical of the Mayor was taken behind closed doors to be discussed as  town business.

Councillor Collins Mrakas and myself refused to participate .  Councillor McRoberts subsequently repudiated the decision. He stated publicly the resolution which appeared in public was not the one he understood to have been passed by Council.

We currently have a communication from the Clerk  that a further amendment to the minutes of the September 14th meeting, approved by a majority at the  September 28th meeting will be presented at the last Council meeting of the term after the election.

The amendment notes ,on September 14th ,Council re-convened  from the closed session  out to the chamber at 1.11a.m. It further notes the Mayor  departed at 1.10 a.m.The meeting adjourned at 1.14a.m.

I suppose the point is ,the Mayor was not present when Council approved the motion in public,that was approved  in private, to direct staff to retain external counsel ,which resulted in three Aurora families  being served with notice of legal action from the Mayor in her capacity as head of the Council, in a suit for damages for 6 million dollars, using taxpayers resources.on the eve of Aurora's Thanksgiving Celebration for all our blessings.

Now it seems the point has changed again. According to the media,the Mayor has  apparently decided to undertake the action as a private individual and shoulder the costs herself.

The problem is, the action was unlikely to have  been  undertaken in the first place without legal work having been undertaken to determine  what  was possible.

What were Councillors told that allowed them  to believe an elected official could use public funds to sue private citizens  for something it  is  by no means clear they were responsible for doing.

What laws were cited? Who did the due diligence to discover the laws? Who paid for the due diligence? What did it cost? Who received the payment?

If it was  all on hand on September 14th, when was direction given to produce it. Who authorised it? Who signed the cheque?

What will it take to get answers to the questions ?

The election is on October 25th. The new term does not begin until December 1st. Members cannot take their seats until they have taken their Oath of Office on December 7th.

What will it take to get to the bottom of it?