Paul Pirri has left a new comment on your post "Another $68 K Tax Dollars Slithers Out From the T...":

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
********************

So that accounts for why I couldn't find the specific Aristotle quote on Google this morning.

I believe there is no university that provides the learning experience one receives as a council member. We all learn from one another.

Being in agreement is not a requirement. Ideas put forward with force and conviction is a purpose. Supremacy of ideas is the ultimate objective.

If you have asprations of going forward in politics ,you can have no better grounding than serving at the municipal level.

Only at our level do you make personal contact with people and acquire what it takes to be an effective representative.

Only at our level can the bond of trust be formed to stand you in good stead.

Once the bond has formed,it can never be broken except by your own hand.

You build it by being true to yourself first.

I do not agree that Council's decision to pay the fees was necesssary because it was lawful.

Council is a legislative body

Council were not informed nor did they authorise litigation. Nor is it likely majority support would have been received for that action.

The law firm was responsible for the advice that an anonymous posted comment critical of a politician was grounds for litigation by the municipality against three residents of the municipality.

In my judgment the advice was seriously flawed.

The law firm's first responsibility is to administration of the law. Their second is to the municipality. They were not chosen for the roster of external legal service to serve as a personal legal resource to the Mayor.

Now who is going to deliver justice to the three families who were subject to this spurious action and face the horrendous financial burden of defending themselves.

We have acknowledged responsibility for the litigation by paying the legal fees, should we also acknowledge responsibility for the financial hardship imposed on the families by the litigation.

As Councillors, a principal obligation is to "save the town harmless"

A lesson learned in my lifetime is that two realities can contradict each other yet both can be equally true.

In politics and in life, the challenge is not to choose between the two; but to accept the reality of both.

It's one of life's conundrums.

I'm sure Aristotle had something to say about this as well.