Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Answers To Questions Below":
"Two invoices. in the amount of $43,000 for legal services provided to the former Mayor had been received. They had not been paid."
"Council did not authorise litigation and Council should not authorise payment for fees to pay for litigation."
So what are you saying then Councillor Buck , Have or have not these invoices been paid , Based on what you stated here it seems there is little doubt they should not be paid . Please Do Tell!
*********************
As of December 22nd 2010, two invoices had been received from solicitors retained by the town by direction of Council and subsequently retained by the former mayor to file suit against three residents.
The invoices had not been paid.
I understand, though I did not read it myself, an official statement has been made on behalf of the town, that the invoices will be paid.
I do not acknowledge that position.
I believe, since Council did not authorize, as required,litigation to proceed, the town is not obligated to pay the amount of the invoices.
It is a matter for council to decide after a full briefing on all the facts.
At this point, I have no idea when that will happen.
RTB has a comment that we are all blinded by hatred of the former Mayor.
RTB was first person to report Councillor Granger, in answer to a question by himself at his door, during the campaign, denied any knowledge of a law suit against residents.
I volunteered the Councillor was being honest. RTB argued against the possibility.
His comment about the depth of hostility towards the former Mayor has substance.
The fact is, when the average person casts a vote in a candidate's favour, it is a
mark of trust more than confidence.
When a voter believes trust has been betrayed, reaction is powerful. Yes, it borders on hatred. Like criticism engendered by unpopular decisions, it is an occupational hazard but with far greater consequences.
I never understood why the Mormac Regime believed they could do the things they did, and people could become aware of them and there would be no consequences.
Politics is serious business.
"I believe, since Council did not authorize, as required,litigation to proceed, the town is not obligated to pay the amount of the invoices."
ReplyDelete------
Happy New Year Ms Buck.
IANAL but this is my understanding.
If staff enter into a contract with another party on behalf of the town, then the town as employer is bound by the terms of that contract. If the staff member did not have authority to enter into said contract, then it is the duty of the that staff person's supervisor to object to the contract with the other party and inform them, that the staff member was not authorized. If the other party had good reason to believe that the staff member did have the authority, than the town will still be on the hook.
Several months of work by the outside lawyers has been undertaken and at no time were they made aware that whoever entered into the contract was not authorized to do so. Further, (assuming that it was the town solicitor or similar individual) they had every reason to believe that the contracting employee had authority.
Therefore.
The town IS OBLIGATED to pay this bill.
If the, yet unnamed, staff member acted inappropriately in retaining the outside council, then you have a separate staff issue to contend with. But that has no effect on your commitment to pay.
If that staff member was the town solicitor or similar senior staff member, then ironically it may be necessary to retain further outside council to resolve it.
Just my $0.02
"Politics is a serious business"
ReplyDeleteYes it is and I hope councillor Ballard has already or very quickly realises that it is a serious business despite inviting "the games to begin."
"Politics is a serious business."
ReplyDeleteYes it certainly is and I hope that councillor Ballard has already, or will very soon, realise that it is, despite invoking to "let the games begin" in his closing inaugural comments.
If not, he is a very stupid man.
many thanks for the clarifications Councilor Buck , as is your trade mark, you have the answers ,nothing more nothing less,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting though that you say RTB seems to believe this issue is driven by hatred of the former Mayor , nothing could be further from the truth, It’s all about accountability and the trust of the electorate in their municipal government, This issue reeks of confusion , misinformation and lack of good sound Council process
Just to be clear.
ReplyDeleteThe issues around the former Mayor and council started as issues related to accountability and trust - agreed. However, from the time that Morris' lawsuit hit the press, the accountability and trust drive has been replaced with a hatred that at times has been quite strong.
While "dislike" is always a factor in politics, the hatred against the GOS and two councillors from the GOS that survived re-election has coloured the bulk of posts to this and other blogs. (The previous post here calling Ballard stupid is a good example).
While I certainly did not agree with the lawsuit or the bulk of the MorMac agenda (don't ask me what I agreed with - that will cause a s**t storm here), was anything done by them illegal or against the Municipal Act?
Fuimus
To RTB
ReplyDelete"(The previous post here calling Ballard stupid is a good example)."
Stop twisting the post to suit yourself. The comment that was posted - "realise that it is" i.e. a serious business - is purely condititional on whether Mr. Ballard DOES realize that sitting on council is not a game. If he doesn't then yes, he is a stupid man. That comment has absolutely nothing to do with hate but is an observation of what has been seen and heard from him so far. We are all perfectly entitled to draw our own conclusions and form our own opinions.
Please get off this hate bandwagon and read what has actually been written.