A reader asked for wording of the motion reported out on Tuesday, to better understand Council's action in dealing with the Litigation matter referred behind closed doors.
I wanted to provide it exactly. For some reason, no doubt legitimate, I cannot copy
and paste official records. So I have re-produced it in writing .
Moved By Wendy Gaertner Seconded by Evelyn Buck
That the Confidential Memo dated December 14th 2010 from the Director of Legal Services/Town Solicitor entitled Morris v Johnson et al - Defamation Action be received.
Recorded vote 6Yeas 3Nays
The Nays were Ballard, Gallo, Gaertner
Generally when a Councillor moves a motion it's understood the Councillor supports the motion..
A motion to receive means no action be taken. The recommendation is not accepted.
It's a weird and convoluted situation. I have often listed business permitted by provincial regulation to be discussed behind closed door.
Litigation by the Town, litigation against the Town, both qualify.
Discussing either issue publicly would jeopardize the town's interest. The other side cannot be given ammunition of any kind. It's called Breach of Trust.
In the last term, there was an example of that being done deliberately.Probably not with the intention of jeopardizing the town's interest. More likely to harm moi.
Lots of things happen that shouldn't happen and don't end up in court.
It's like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly in some circumstances. In all circumstances, it is hellishly expensive.
But the convoluted aspect of this issue is the Town did not litigate against Johnson et al. The former Mayor did. After an in-camera discussion on a matter which did not involve the town's interest, Councillors voted to take any and whatever action necessary to resolve "the matter"
That direction evolved into commencement of litigation by an elected official against three families in the community.
No special meeting was called for Council to authorize litigation.We read about it in the newspaper.
Litigation is not something done lightly. A price tag cannot be guessed. The outcome cannot be assumed. The Town only does it after all other options have been exhausted.
It is my impression, before we do, Council authority to proceed is required.. It seems only sensible.
So far as I am aware, after September 14th, when the initial resolution was passed,
no further meeting was called.
I have difficulty with that aspect.
My second problem is the litigation was taken by the former Mayor. I know of no legislation permitting an elected official to litigate at public expense against a residents or residents.
The situation became more confusing when the documents were to withdraw the official title.
The direction of dealing with the matter behind closed doors and paying for litigation from public resources quite simply leaves me scratching my head .
I don't get it
On Tuesday, December 21st, two Special meetings have been called by Mayor Dawe to deal with the issue.
First Special meeting will deal with a motion to re-consider the decision made on September 14th. The second meeting will deal with matters arising from the result of the first meeting.
At this point, Councillors Pirrie,Abel and myself have circulated e-mails indicating our ability to attend
Councillor Gaertner has indicated a prior commitment.
Other Councillors may have indicated intent to attend without circulation.
Five Councillors are needed for a quorum. Four are now confirmed.
OK, so I am guessing that Thompson is the fourth available councillor to go along with Buck, Abel and Pirri. I will also assume that Ballard and Gallo will join Gaertner , and inidcate their unavailability.
ReplyDeleteThat leaves Sandra Humfryes holding the balance of power on this.
We may learn some things based on her availability for this meeting.
Don't forget the new Mayor!
ReplyDeleteCouncilors voted to take any and whatever action necessary to resolve "the matter"
ReplyDeleteIs this documented in the official record ?
Are there minutes of these in camera discussions?
Would the Town not be in a strong position to recover their losses associated with this illegal law suit?
How do you explain why three members of this council would vote against simply receiving this memo?
Your information begs far too many questions with very few answers , hopefully this picture becomes much more clear and soon , this mess needs to be explained !!!!
I don't know if it's appropriate to dock a councillor's pay for meetings not attended, other than by serious family matter or medical reason attested to by a physician. let's say $500 a time.
ReplyDeleteThis prior commitment business is total BS, especially in view of the important nature of the specific subject for consideration.
I don't care if Gaertner served the Hot Spot for 17 years or ran around the town collecting Easter eggs every spring.
Her behaviour so far this term is a disgrace. To move a motion and then vote against it is the epitome of stupidity.
Having an undergraduate degree in sociology and selling porcelain, among items listed in her resume, must have occurred in the far distant past when she was still rational.
What a surprise that Gaertner and Gallo are sticking together. I cannot speak for Ballard at this juncture. Time will tell and show how is allegiances lie. He has the benefit of the doubt for now... but not for long.
ReplyDeleteWhere oh where is Wendy's head: first moving the motion and then voting against it. She leaves me scratching my head as usual. What a flake.
Has anyone met an Aurora resident who will admit to voting for Wendy?
ReplyDeleteShades of Mulroney.
Sprite
The subject of this motion revolves around freedom of expression, at the very root of the Canadian Constitution.
ReplyDeleteFailure on the part of any councillor to attend and participate in the discussion is a dereliction of duty.
Such councillor or councillors should be called upon to resign.
How will we be able to have any confidence in the fulfillment of their office in the days and years to come?
If politics be an "honourable profession" those who practice it should accept their oath-bound responsibilities.
Pride goes before a fall. I guess pride gets in the way of Gaertner and Gallo having to acknowledge that they both made a huge gaff when they voted on September 14th and now don't have the guts to face up to the consequnces of that gaff. Cowards!!
ReplyDeleteAnonynomous said:
ReplyDeleteThe subject of this motion revolves around freedom of expression, at the very root of the Canadian Constitution.
Failure on the part of any councillor to attend and participate in the discussion is a dereliction of duty.
Such councillor or councillors should be called upon to resign.
How will we be able to have any confidence in the fulfillment of their office in the days and years to come?
If politics be an "honourable profession" those who practice it should accept their oath-bound responsibilities.
The subject of this motion should be the use of public funds to support a private lawsuit. Municipal governments are not in the business to debate constitutional rights - that is the domain of the federal government. Do not make this issue any more than it really is.
As far as a councillor not attending, I think that you have to expect that council meetings that are called at the last minute may not fit into everyone's schedule - especially at a time of year when there is a lot get-togethers or family members travelling. Again, this issue, while important to the fiscal health of the corporation, is not an issue that someone should alter their personal schedule to attend.
Should Morris attend?
Evelyn Buck wrote:
ReplyDeleteGenerally when a Councillor moves a motion it's understood the Councillor supports the motion..
However it is not against any rules that someone moves a motion but not support it? I have seen instances when a counciller will move a motion to at least get it on the table for discussion. Also, I have seen a mover have a "change of heart" and retract their "moving" after debate.
Fuimus