Any similarity between the current circumstance of Councillor Gaertner, to the situation when the St.Kitts woman was encouraged by the former Mayor in May 2009 to take the podium and deluge myself with unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations and allegations, is smoke and mirrors, carefully contrived by ghosts and ghoulies of the past council.
For two years,the community had been besieged by horrid fascination of town events. Not unlike a Stephen King movie complete with power glower and awful screams.
In May of 2009, on the DVD of a council meeting could be seen our new solicitor advising the former Mayor, the town had no role in the matter of accusations and allegations against myself. The advice was pointedly ignored.
The St Kitts woman had fund-raised under the auspices of the town in March. Solicited donations for a silent auction. Held the auction during an evening of entertainment at the Legion and subsequently reported no proceeds.
Questions asked in the community were echoed by myself in my capacity as elected representative.
No satisfactory response resulted. Instead, the woman showed up at a council meeting and as noted, was permitted to heap spurious allegations against me with the encouragement of the presiding member.
At a small reception prior to a later council meeting, St Kitts was honoured with a cake as most valuable volunteer at a small reception in a room behind the council chamber.Sort of by way of a victory celebration, on the night the Code of Conduct complaint against me was publicised, at a cost of $70k for a legal hit man.
But I digress. The DVD of the notorious May 2009 meeting recorded a motion moved and seconded to suspend the procedure bylaw to allow scurrilous comments against a sitting council member to become part of the public record. It required and received two-thirds majority to suspend. The motion conformed to the Rules of Order.
Minutes eventually presented for approval at a following Council meeting were not reconciled with the facts.
Contrary to the direction of council, St Kitts' comments were NOT included.
The minutes were challenged.
In response, the Chief Administrative Officer advised Council of a conference between himself ,the clerk and the solicitor and their decision to follow precedent and not include the spurious attack.
Responsibility for the public record rests with Statutory Officer, the Municipal Clerk.
The conference had no validity.
The record was inaccurate.
The record was incomplete
Offensive remarks which should never have been permitted, were excluded.
A spurious attack permitted, encouraged and planned beforehand by the presiding member and others, against an elected member of the Council, was wiped from the written record.
The minutes did not reflect the reality The record was tampered and tinkered and rendered invalid.
Whatever the never acknowledged reason, to save the town harmless from the reprehensible actions of the presiding member and five Councillors, the minutes were DOCTORED.
Similarities between that and the current situation with Councillor Gaertner are none. Nada... Nil...Zilch ... Zero
Amen my friends.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I am glad that this council is so focused on getting the job done rather than bog themselves down with crap.
I am sorry, we are not any better off than a year ago. The players are different (in some respects) but the play is the same. When will they learn who is supposed to be served by their being councillors?
Aurora has successfully surpassed Vaughan as the most dysfunctional council in York Region - maybe the GTA.
I remember that there was a lot of discourse about the minutes not reflecting what happened - the evidence of what actually happened being on the DVD. Many members of the public were upset about the whole affair. St.Kitts should not have been permitted her tirade in the first place. The responsibility lies not only with her but with the chair who allowed it to happen. The chair wanted it on the public record and then subsequently the minutes did not reflect what happened. It was a disgusting display and unconscionable misuse of political posturing.
I agree that the whole sordid event and fallout is quite different from Gaertner's dispute about who moved a motion... or not.
I agree, as well, that the current situation is entirely different as well. It's as plain as day on a review of the facts.
Anyone who compares the DVDs --- the camera doesn't lie --- will see what transpired in both instances.
If I understand Councilor Buck and her supporters, there was "DOCTORING" of the minutes by the CAO, Clerk and Town Solicitor during the last term.
Very serious allegations. Could be harmful to someone's professional career.
Sorry, I don't see a difference unless you're claiming that Councilor Buck's comments are based on fact and Councilor Gaertner's on fiction. If this is your assertion, Councilor Buck, then why not take this matter to higher level, if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of the Town.
Post a Comment