Answers To Questions Below

Council lost no time making it clear to all and sundry,litigation against town residents by a former Mayor would not be funded.

I thought more needed to be done. I still do.

We had our first in- camera meeting to receive a recommendation from the town solicitor. We reported out to people waiting in the council chamber.

What we reported was sufficiently fankled to be completely unintelligible.

A week later, we had a special meeting to re-consider the previous council's decision. Immediately after that we had a second special meeting to reverse the decision of the previous council.

I thought the process was clumsy.

I believed the new council had a right to be fully briefed on the circumstances that led to the previous decision before they decided to reverse it.I'm fairly sure, under the circumstances, no councillor could offer a satisfactory explanation of what had been done.

I spent the day, before the special meeting, arguing the case for an in camera session to brief Council on everything that had transpired on September 14th.

I spoke to the Mayor. I discussed the matter with the associate town solicitor. He agreed with my perspective.

No matter. The arrangement had been made with staff advice. My argument that Council and the community needed clarity, fell on deaf ears.

I agreed the families sued by the former Mayor at town expense needed to know immediately, they would no longer be fighting town hall.

I agreed the decision should be prompt.

I went along with the format prepared with a specific understanding.

Two invoices. in the amount of $43,000 for legal services provided to the former Mayor had been received. They had not been paid.

I strongly believe Council was entitled to a full briefing before the decision to reverse a decision made by the previous Council. I also believed payment of the invoices should with-held until Council had an opportunity to completely comprehend the decision to be made.

With that understanding, I did not argue against the agenda going forward as prepared.

During the debate, information came out to support my contention, no fees should be paid by the town.

Councillor Gallo, who voted for the decision we were about to reverse, made the statement he had no idea the resolution would lead to legal action against three residents.

Councillor Gallo's comment prompted me to ask the solicitor to clarify procedures.

"Is it not true" I asked, " Council must be advised of pending litigation"?

He agreed and went further. He said Council must authorize litigation.

Aye...and there's the rub. The previous council , at no time, authorized litigation.

Councillors Gallo , Granger and Gaertner all acknowledged during the campaign , they had no idea of litigation against town residents until they read it in the media.

It is how I learned it myself because that's how it happened.

In my book, the town is not on the hook for $43.000 in legal fees. Litigation was never authorised.

Now, of course I know other stuff I can't tell you about.

I disagree entirely that criticism of an elected official, whether severe or anonymous,is the business of the corporation.

It is an inevitable occupational hazard of the job.

There never should have been an in-camera discussion by council of critical comments in a blog. But there was. And that complicates things. Though I'm champing at the bit, I don't feel entirely free to disclose what was discussed behind closed doors.

This much I am resolved; there should be no legal payments made on former Mayor Morris' behalf.

Council did not authorize litigation and Council should not authorize payment for fees to pay for litigation.

Councillors must be informed of all aspects of this matter. No other party has authority to authorize payment of the invoices received.