First responsibility of a member of the legal profession is the administration of justice. A town solicitor's responsibility to the municipality comes second.
Five members of Council voted last night to pay $68 K for a spurious law suit launched against three members of the community. Three families in our town are burdened with legal costs, probably equal to that amount, to defend themselves against an action which could never be justified in any sense of the word.
Councillor Paul Pirrie used a quote of Aristotle in speaking to his decision to vote to pay. "What is right is just " he said and continued; |"Unfortunately in this case, what is right is unjust"
The sentiment was echoed by the Mayor and three other Councillors who voted to pay. I have no doubt of their sincerity.I am equally certain the decision was wrong.
The swathe cut through the town's administration by the last Council left many victims scattered in its wake.
That one or more might anonymously post a severely critical comment against the Mayor, in a blog, should surprise no-one. The language may have been intemperate. People who have suffered egregious injury tend to cry out in anger and distress. Yet it was fair political comment in my opinion.
The candidate registration list closes several weeks before the election. It is the end of a council mandate. Except in emergency, no substantive action is undertaken during the period of recess. Council is described as lame duck
The electorate is engaged in judging performance.
Litigation requires Council authority. No authority was given to launch an action against three members of the community. Nor was it likely to be given. Yet that is what happened.
At the beginning of each year, a municipality appoints a roster of external law firms, each with a particular field of expertise. As with a member of the law profession, their first obligation is administration of the law. The second is to act in the best interest of the municipality they have offered to serve.
Litigation against three residents of the municipality cannot in any way be regarded as to the benefit of a municipality.
The electorate certainly recognised the impropriety. The politician responsible was tossed ignominiously from office; as was right and just.
But the lawyer... the municipal expert.... whose first responsibility is the administration of justice... and second is the best interest of the municipality....he is to be paid for his role in this scandalous affair.
In my judgment ,what is unjust cannot be right.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
But the lawyer...he is to be paid for his role in the scandalous affair.
Is this not unfair? The lawyer has no "role" in the scandal. He is only performing the wishes of his client.
The lawyer entered into a contract - in good faith (not something lawyers do :-) )- to represent the then-mayor. Why should the lawyer be out of pocket? I don't think the Town should pay either, but I would suggest that this bill plus any others be accrued and a subsequent suit against the former mayor be launched (once this one is complete) to recoup those fees.
Evelyn,
Although I concede that last night I used the words Just and Unjust, I may not have used them in the way that I intended to use them, these things happen when speaking without notes on the fly.
With my copy of The Nicomachean Ethics at my side I can better elucidate what I was trying to say. To Quote:
"...Now it appears that the words justice and injustice are ambiguous; but as the different sense covered by the same name are very close to each other, the equivocation passes unnoticed and is not comparatively obvious as it is where they are far apart...
Let us begin, then, by taking the various senses in which a man is said to be unjust. Well, the word is considered to describe both one who breaks the law and one who takes advantage of another, I.e. acts unfairly. Then evidently also both the law-abiding man and the fair man will be just. So just means lawful and fair; and unjust means both unlawful and unfair..."
What I was trying to state is that generally speaking what is lawful and what is fair go hand in hand because their meanings are very extremely similar. However, there are some instances where what is lawful is not what is fair. My vote last night was for what is lawful, I believed that is where my responsibility as a councillor lies.
With that said I still have some work to do because I'm not satisfied.
As always Evelyn, I enjoy hearing your perspective (although I disagree at times) it is extremely beneficial to Aurora politics.
Many thanks
Paul
What is particularly galling is that the former mayor, by being present at and
participating in the closed session last September, that went into the early hours
of the following day, is guilty of two counts of conflict of interest that relate to
matters of a pecuniary matter.
1. Her legal bills are paid.
2. She stands to gain a substantial sum if a court determines she has been
defamed.
This is a grave moral and ethical breech as well as that of her Oath of Office.
I cannot understand how any member of the bar in good standing can
recommend that the town pay her legal bill to December 22, 2010.
I defy those who voted to approve this to come forth at a public meeting and
defend their decision.
I share your frustration councillor but the decision to pay is correct. The last council voted for the surprise behind door number 1. The fact that such an ambiguous motion such as "any and all actions necessary" was voted on at all is the problem. Would you ever hire a landscaper and simply tell him to "make my yard look nice"?
But vote they did.
The lawyers did their work and now the bill must be paid.
Not paying would just incur more fees.
Hopefully this kind of thing never happens again but in the interests of historical accuracy, is it possible to make a motion that the $68K be line-item listed on the town books as "Morris lawsuit legal fees" and not disappear into the general "Legal expenses" column?
If I had my way $68K would be deducted from the non-essential "nice to have" budget items like the Cultural Centre or Arboretum and when they complain just say "Go thank Phyllis"
Paul Pirri's stock just went through the roof in my books , how nice to see that civility has returned to the both inside and outside of Town Hall. This comment from Paul goes to prove just how wrong people are to assume that you cannot interact well with others on the team , Are you reading this Any Moose, or are you about to tie into a feast of Antlers , Don't Choke!!
Evelyn:
How did we get from $55,000 a few short weeks ago - deputy Solicitor - to $68,000?
Tired of getting screwed
As I wrote in blog reply to you on January 5, 2011: (condensed from original)
“I never supported the law suit.
…"Someone" at the Town of Aurora authorized work to proceed by the external lawyers.
…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. (end of reference).
It would appear from Tuesday night’s Council meeting that due to client/lawyer privacy issues, Aurora citizens will have to continue to wait to hear the whole story on how the lawsuit was authorized. I haven’t had a chance to watch all of the relevant sections of the taped meeting on Rogers, so I am very interested to read George Rust D’Eyes’ executive summary.
When (as I certainly hope) the Morris suit is dismissed, I would assume that since the Town is paying the legal bills to December, 2010, the Town may be named and liable in the future should Hogg, Bishenden and Johnson decide to suit for damages and to recoup their out of pocket expenses for their defense.
The Town has definitely not seen the end of this matter and it is very possible that there will be further financial repercussions.
And the citizens will still be looking for answers.
To Anonymous March 30 @ 11:33
Yours is the most logical comment I have heard on this matter - the blatant pecuniary conflict of interest which everyone involved was oblivious to, including the legal advice.
I would like nothing better than for there to be a public meeting as you suggest to hear from those who approved this travesty.
Interesting that Gaertner left the chamber, Gallo said absoulutely nothing and Ballard (a supporter in the background at the time of the decision)didn't even bother to show up when this item was under discussion.
I would like to hear from all of them - present and former - who abused taxpayers in this way.
It really makes you wonder whether we should yearn for the days of medieval punishments when a situation like this happens.
Post a Comment