Anonymous people are gung-ho for the town to fork over $43,000 for legal costs even as they know, there is stuff they don't know,that I can't tell.
This Council has to discover what there is to know before they can decide whether or what you can be allowed to know.
Though the issue should never have gone behind closed doors, since it did, stuff happened that can't come back out from behind closed doors until we know, the town's interest will not be harmed.
But there is stuff you can know about.
Fair-minded people were scandalised that three families were sued for six million dollars by the former Mayor at public expense.
The families have had to incur legal costs of $15,000 and counting, to defend themselves.
Despite Council's December 22nd decision to reverse the September 15th decision to fund legal action against them, on January 13th,a further legal proceeding is scheduled.
What are the merits of three families having to find resources from within their own means, to defend rights and reputations against a former town official.
We are not pondering rights and wrongs of the matter. We are agreed it was wrong.
We are contemplating eventual and total tally for these proceedings.
At the special meeting of council last week, the town's associate solicitor was in attendance. The town's solicitor has recused himself.
Legal proceedings against the families were started under the name of the former Mayor, complete with title.
Subsequently, prior to the election, the title of Mayor was withdrawn.
At the special meeting, the associate solicitor informed Council, authority to litigate rests with Council.
Council did not authorise litigation.
In a news item in The Auroran this week, associate solicitor further acknowledges the resolution passed by Council on September 15th," to take any and all action" was sufficiently broad to cause "difficulties" for councillors.
It is fair to say.
Other things have also caused difficulties. At risk of repeating myself, let me run through the list:
September 14th, a comment from the Aurora Citizen blog was circulated to council
immediately prior to a Council meeting.
Following a table-side conference between Mayor and Clerk, it was a last minute addition to a scheduled in-camera agenda.
There was no time for research or a written report for council's consideration.
The resolution reported out by Council giving "carte blanche" to staff was
pre-prepared. It was endorsed publicly by council at 1.14 a.m. September 15th
No further council deliberation took place. Though required, Council authority to proceed with litigation was neither sought nor provided.
The law firm retained are specialists in municipal law.
Council learned of the suit from the media.
Twelve comments from the Aurora Citizen Blog are cited in legal documents, now a matter of public record.
Now, chew on that for a while and think again about which invoices you desire to be paid from your pockets.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I have a couple of questions/points.
1. You have said many times that Council did not authorize litigation, but that it did authorize "any and all actions be taken". Please explain how litigation does not fall under "any and all".
If what you are saying is that, legally, even when operating under the broad banner of "any and all", there is a requirement for staff to report back and get specific permission to launch litigation
on behalf of the corporation, then you may be right. Please tell us where that legal stipulation is contained in the Municipal Act, or in any other document that holds dominion over the actions of our town.
2. Even if you can split the hair between any and all, and specific instructions to sue, (LEGALLY that is, not simply MORALLY), I don't think it matters regarding whether or not we pay the bill. All it would mean is that we (Aurora) made a mistake when we engaged the law firm. But engage them we did, and so, we owe them for their services . Full stop. Nobody WANTS to pay this bill. But it seems like we HAVE to.
UNLESS...
The law firm in question knew that the Town was not LEGALLY able to engage them, but went ahead and did the work anyway. Then, perhaps there would be an argument for reneging on the bill. Perhaps this is some of what we will be able to know if privacy privilege is waived?
Dear Evelyn:
It is my understanding that formal minutes are not maintained in connection with "in camera" Council sessions. Whatever record exists, notes, doodles on paper, etc., are maintained by the Clerk and are done so in complete confidentiality and in a secure location. No one, i.e. no councillor or member of staff, may gain access to this material other than by request to the Clerk for specific reason, and then in the presence of the Clerk.
Since there appears to be a problem in determining whether Council acted within the authority of the Municipal Act during the now infamous meeting September 14, 2010, a point later questioned by then Deputy Mayor McRoberts, it would be appropriate for Mayor Dawe to retain external expert legal council to review the events and provide an impartial opinion. This might cost a few thousand dollars, but if the opinion was that Council acted outside of its authority, it is quite arguable and defensible that the town not pay a penny of the Morris legal adventure.
The circumstances surrounding how the 'defamation' matter came to be presented and included on the agenda quite frankly stink. It would be good to know that all of us have suffered through the stink without now having to suffer in our wallets. By now the stink is long gone. Let us hope the legal bill will be likewise.
Perhaps,perhaps, perhaps. Perhaps the law firm should issue a credit to the town for the bill and charge the only person who could have gained anything from the lawsuit to begin with.
I never supported the law suit.
It is all supposition until all of the information both public and currently private from the Town comes out in regards to how it went from council to legal proceedings. "Someone" at the Town of Aurora authorized work to proceed by the external lawyers. Therefore the Town is responsible for the bill until they told the lawyers to stop billing them as of December 22, 2010.
Whether the councillors were wrong in using such a broad statement of "any and all actions be taken" and/or the "someone" at the Town interpreted that statement to mean the Town can proceed with legal action and with an open cheque book is a different issue from the responsibility of paying a vendor authorized to do work on the Town’s behalf.
Wrong as it may be for the Town to have been financing this action it is still the Town's responsibility for paying the apparent $43,000 legal bill. The Town is still liable for this mistake.
What needs to be clarified is whether they were acting with proper legislative and/or administrative authority to do so and we (the public) won’t know this without further information.
Anonymous 5 January, 2011 11:53 AM
In my opinion you are correct.
The "any and all" proposal was put forth and the vote was taken.
We're on the hook. Why incur further legal costs by trying to weedle out of it?
The fact that there never should have been a vote on such a vague proposal is beside the point.
The fact that two councillors that voted in favour were re-elected is even more bizarre.
Hopefully council will put forth reforms that will prohibit this sort of 'star chamber' politicking in the future.
This question of paying the $43,000is a red herring and only distracts from the real issue.
Who at the Town didn't know that a legal firm had been engaged to represent Ms. Morris? This was no surprise. Now there's been a change of heart but the bills todate are legitimate and payable. How any member of the Council can even contemplate not paying the bill is beyond any sensibity that I can think of.
The real question is whether those named in the lawsuit published comments about the Mayor that were untrue and damaging? Or if one can say whatever they want without accountability?
In regards to the last post - The "real issue" you talk about will be dealt with by the courts so don't worry about getting distracted.
The bill you mention will of course be paid so don't get upset about that, but the question of who really should be paying it is still interesting in my mind. It sounds like Phyllis got council to agree to a generic resolution knowing full well that she would start litigation which would cost big bucks - had she worded the resolution more clearly it may not have passed. So she tricked the council into something she already had a plan about. Then when we discover there are some legal irregularities about the resolution why not re-consider the whole series of events and get it right.
To Resident....
I think that you give PM too much credit. Do you honestly think she is some evil master-mind that tricked all of those other people around the table? People have said on these blogs that she is not a intelligent as her resume states but according to you, her and Doctor Evil are one in the same.
Yaah Baby!
Anonymous 2:34 wrote "Do you honestly think she is some evil master-mind that tricked all of those other people around the table? "
In the case of Granger/Gaertner/Gallo/Wilson it never took much to "trick them". McRoberts on second thought saw thru the charade
and Evilina well you decide.
To Anonymous Jan 6, 2:34
Yes it does sound like evil plotting doesn't it? The way the last council term was conducted, nothing...NOTHING would surprise me.
Post a Comment