Something weird is happening. The Toronto Star tells the story.
A court decision has determined irregularities took place during the municipal election.Forms adding voters to the list were not properly signed by elections staff.
A Councillor has been removed from office by the municipal clerk. What?
How can that happen?
69 votes separated the two top candidates.
A re-count was not requested. The vote was certified. The Inaugural took place.The Councillor was sworn into office and took her seat. Six months of the term is completed.
The clerk has decided a by-election will be held. The Councillor and her staff must remove themselves from city hall.
The ward will have no representation until a by-election is completed.
The Clerk apparently reversed a previous decision to appeal the court decision.
The Mayor did not consult with the City Clerk.
The City Clerk "communicated" with the Mayor's staff.
The Councillor "removed from office" by the clerk is not a supporter of Mayor Ford's agenda.
The candidate defeated by the Councillor removed from office, is an avid supporter of The Mayor's agenda.
The Mayor's spokesperson has declared the "Ford Nation" will be out in force to defeat the incumbent Councillor.
I know of no regulation or law which gives a City Clerk/Elections Officer authority to change the result of an election. Removal of the Councillor from office does exactly that.
The City Clerk / Elections Officer had previously legally certified the election count.
Even when a re-count has been requested ,a Councillor declared elected, takes the Oath . the seat at the table and occupies that seat until such time as the votes have been re-counted and a change is determined.
On the other hand, irregularities cited in the court decision are the responsibility of the Election Officer/ Clerk.
In allowing the decision to stand without appeal, the Clerk/ Election Officer is acknowledging a failure of due diligence.
A public avowal that the failure will not happen again is scarcely good enough.
The City's legal department has apparently nothing to say on the issue.
The times, they are verrry interrresting
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Evelyn:
How does this relate to Aurora, or does it?
I would really like to keep Tronna political news out of our town.
Does due diligence occur any more or is it simply a catch-all when everything else fails?
"How can that happen?"
How can what happen? Are you saying that "The clerk" operated on their own authority? I think the answer to your question is in your second sentence.
"A court decision has determined irregularities took place during the municipal election.Forms adding voters to the list were not properly signed by elections staff."
Do you not think that the Clerk has acted on the authority of the Court in this case? Seems that way to me.
If I understand the laws, the Clerk is in essence the highest "non-elected" municipal official with authority. The Clerk is the consistent element in municipal government. Some cities and towns add things like CAO to the mix but it is the Clerk that is recognized as the authority.
Post a Comment