Councillor Gaertner will undoubtedly have something to say about it at the next meeting of Council.
The Councillor insists the Code of Conduct is in place, all councillors are bound by it and anyone who disbelieves is guilty of heinous and grievous offence and must be punished severely.Failure to adhere is a sign of degradation of past Council Gold Standard.
The Councillor is supremely confident of her own righteousness and authority to judge others.She is not alone. A body of opinion in the community believes there is merit to a Code of Conduct and its predecessor the Code of Ethics .
The previous council sought and received several legal opinions on the clause requiring all councillors to sign two copies of The Code , one for themselves and one for the town's files.
After considerable verbiage, contending a councillor's refusal to sign or be bound by the Code MIGHT be viewed by others as contravening the Councillor's Oath of Office. It MIGHT mean the Councillor would be placed under scrutiny. Presumably for signs of behaviour contravening of The Code. The final advice was inevitably, there is no physical means to compel a Councillor to take pen in hand and affix a signature.
The times, they are not medieval.
The Code is claimed to have been written by a legal expert in municipal affairs. The clauses,I am advised ,are standard. What does it tell us about all the people who have signed ?
Clause 3. Communications and Media Relations.
Members of Council will accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of Council even if they disagree with the majority decision of Council.
Members shall allow respect for the decision making process of Council
Official information related to decisions and resolutions made by Council will normally be communicated to the community and the media by council in an official capacity by the Mayor or designated staff member or through a press release issued by the Corporation.
Information concerning adopted policies,procedures and decisions of Council shall be conveyed openly and accurately.
Confidential information will be communicated only when and after determined by Council.
Communications with the media and Members of Council shall be conducted through proper interviews or media releases. Members shall refrain from writing letters to the editor or writing a regular column in the newspaper or hosting or co-hosting a regular televised program .
Other silly stuff is cited in the Code such as "Members shall read and understand."
How many hours have we listened to Councillor Gaertner's questions, answers received , and finally the plaintive cry "I don't understand". Sometimes after several increasingly desperate but futile attempts at explanation.
How can a Code of Conduct compel a Councillor to "understand" any more than it can require the physical act of signing a document?
How can a bylaw require by law something beyond the realm of achievement? Who is to judge?
An unenforcable bylaw, a fiendish plot, a legal hit man, a hand-picked Integrity Commissioner, all under the heading of Righteous Conduct are matters of public record in the Town of Aurora.
Psshaw!!!!!
Posts
8 comments:
It is obvious that Councillor Gaertner does not possess the ability to read and understand.
"Heinous, grievous offence, punished severely."
We are talking about a medium-sized Ontario town, not a war crimes tribunal.
What is the councillor's problem?
It would seem Councillor Geartner breached this code on a few occasions when she had letters published in the Auroran. She signed this code of Conduct didn't she? Again does she fully understand what she signed?
You can't be serious , this must have been authored by MorMac , not a single logical thinking person on the planet could have ever put their John Henry on that Polit Bureau propaganda, not only should it have gone unsigned, it should have been shoved up the !@$ of the contriver
My Grandfather used to say that there are more horses asses in the world than there are horses.
I know I personally prove him right from time to time - but not all the time, hehe - and the same can be said for some present and former occupants of the Council table.
At least most of the horses in this term's herd are going in the same direction most of the time.
Perhaps I'm wrong (again) but didn't this code of conduct merry-go-round take up most of the previous term? maybe it just seemed like it.
Needlessly trying to re-invent the wheel.
I found a C of C on-line - took 2 minutes.
Looks relatively simple and straightforward. There's hardly any big words at all. If you ask me most of it describes what responsible adults should be doing anyway.
Let's be honest. In the world of politics this ain't the PGA Tour folks - this is strictly mini-putt.
Cut and paste the word AURORA in the appropriate spaces and we're good to go.
If this takes more than 2 council meetings you're doing it wrong.
What's the problem?
(if you feek guilty about copying their Code just comp them a few Jazz Fest tickets - we got lots)
Code of Conduct for Members of the Council of the Town of Petrolia
http://town.petrolia.on.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=54
Tim, you have been around for a while and should know better. The issue is not whether or not we have a "simple" or "straightforward" code of conduct. The issue is whether or not we need one at all. I don't think we need one at all. Every four years (at least one year too many), the electorate has their say on whether our elected representatives have behaved themselves or not. Witness that the target of the conduct complaints from last term was returned to office while the originators (for the most part) were turfed. That is all the code of conduct that we need!
I'd love to know how Councillor Gaertner justifies Phyllis Morris using a vague council motion in order to access $55,000 of the town's money (of course Morris wanted a blank cheque) in order to fund a PRIVATE lawsuit at the town's sole risk and expense, with no obligation to pay the town back, all to Morris' sole potential political and financial gain, as a result of attacking, silencing and potentially bankrupting her political rivals in the name of upholding "integrity".
Phyllis was also served with a cease and desist letter from a recently fired Integrity Commissioner because she apparently was making statements that Mr. Nitkin felt were potentially slanderous, which comments were not likely to have matched the town's official reasons for Mr. Nitkin's departure.
The previous council's conduct also raised a number of concerns related to how procedures were followed, or not followed, as the case may be, not to mention their actions towards attacking those that dared to disagree with them. Of course I doubt that Wendy shared those concerns.
Wendy and Chris Ballard have been vocal critics of this council and many of its decisions from day one.
All of this has been done despite the Code of Conduct stating:
"public office is not to be used for personal gain"
"Decisions are made through appropriate channels of government structure."
"There is fairness and respect for the differences and a duty to work together for
goodwill and common good."
"Achieve sound financial management, planning and accountability."
"Be aware of and understand statutory obligations imposed on Council as a
whole, as well as each individual Member of Council."
"Members of Council will accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and
decisions of Council, even if they disagree with the majority decision of Council."
I have to wonder, are some people exempt from these rules ? I can't seem to find that footnote in the Code of Conduct anywhere, but maybe Wendy can shed some light on how the code should apply to both her and her political allies.
Re Anonymous @ 8:20
"public office is not to be used for personal gain"
If this was part of the C of C, then why did 6 councillors, including Gaertner vote in a way that allowed Morris's lawsuit? If I am not mistaken, the 6 mill she hoped to gain was "personal gain" and not for the town an taxpaying residents!!
Gaertner continues to flounder with understanding and reality.
"Heinous, grievous offence, punished severely."
Gartner just continues to flounder doesn't she? Understanding and reality just aren't part of her makeup. As she feels that she should rule on "heinous, grievous offences. perhaps we could ship her off to Egypt to pass judgement in the Mubarek trial.
Post a Comment