Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Georgina.....There Is A Solution": The by-law was without any doubt passed behind closed doors-- this is taken from the Committee of the Whole Minutes from Monday November 21st, page 16:23. RECESS COUNCIL AND RESOLVE INTO CLOSED MEETING:
Moved by Councillor Smockum
Seconded by Councillor Craig That the Council Meeting recess at this time and move into a closed meeting pursuant to Section 239 of The Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to consider:
i) Personal matter about an identifiable individual; Section 239(2)(b), MA
*24. RISE AND REPORT FROM CLOSED MEETING:
Moved by Councillor Smockum
Seconded by Councillor Davison
RESOLUTION NO. CW-2011-0278
THAT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BE REQUESTED TO FOLLOW LEGAL ADVICE ON A PERSONAL MATTER.
(unrelated topic between what I'm pasting here)
25. ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Councillor Smockum
Seconded by Councillor Davison
That the Committee of the Whole meeting resolve into a Special Council meeting at 11:40
a.m., immediately following the Committee of the Whole meeting to deal with the following
matters:
i) Roll Call
ii) Declarations of Pecuniary Interest
iii) Memorandum concerning appointment of members of the public to the Former
Sutton Public School Steering Committee
iv) A By-law to indemnify a Member of Council against damages and the costs of legal
proceedings
v) Confirming By-law
vi) Adjournment
If you were to dig up the actual Agenda as a whole, you'd find
that nothing was recorded (at least publicly) after item iii) Memorandum concerning appointment of members of the public to the Former Sutton Public School Steering Committee
Hunting for RESOLUTION NO. CW-2011-0278 mentioned above through the Town's Electronic Records management yields nothing.
Fortunately, The Pefferlaw Post has identified the relevant By-law as No. 2011-0121
However, having searched this in town records online I can find the Bylaw, but for the past two days the webpage that it is supposed to open in refused to load (having taken too long to respond according to google) -- either their system has been down for the last two days or they are attempting to hide this by-law from the people like me following the trail of slime through the mazes of bureaucracy. Hope that clarifies a few specifics.
********************
Anything but. It raises far more serious questions.
Item 24. The resolution contains similar weasel words used in Aurora when staff were directed to take whatever action was necessary to resolve the situation.The election was underway. Council had no further meetings. Councillors heard about the suit at the doors while they campaigned . The decision to litigate against three local residents was made without council authority.
Item Number 25.
"Adjournment was moved and seconded".
Presumably there was a vote. No further business can take place following adjournment.Special Meetings require public notice of forty-eight hours and circulation of an agenda stating its purpose.
Committee of the whole cannot resolve into a Special Council Meeting.
Did the Mayor attend the closed meeting. Did he participate in the vote to "request staff to follow legal advice on a personal matter. Did he vote on the resolution in the so-called "special meeting of council?
Did he declare a pecuniary interest when asked and abstain from voting on the resolution to " request the C.A.O.to obtain legal advice to be sought on a personal matter"
Was the Clerk present? The Clerk is the statutory officer responsible to ensure municipal business is conducted in accordance with the statutes?
Aurora's former Mayor is currently facing a charge of Conflict of Interest because of the issue. It has been filed by a citizen of Aurora. It was to be heard in February. It has been delayed until August.
The charge followed an investigation by a solicitor retained for the purpose of determining how things evolved and publication of his findings. Which included the statement the Mayor appeared to be in conflict.
The Town Solicitor employed by the town during the period no longer is.
Aurora paid legal fees of $65,000 on behalf of the former Mayor for a case that failed miserably and caused tremendous stress and horrendous expense to three families in the community.
Too damned right...I did not vote to pay that bill.
The families were served on the eve of Thanksgiving... for God's Sake.
Georgina residents can stop this now if they have the will. Your Council answers to you and not just at election time.
There is no weaselling out of it. The town is not involved in litigation. The Mayor is. His is the personal matter referred to in the "request to the CAO to obtain legal advice to be sought on a personal matter " as stated in the recorded minutes. .
Like a cab, the meter keeps on clicking.
if the Mayor of G and his Council breached the Municipal Act, any taxpayer can sue them under the Act. The money would have to be returned, there could be a fine and the taxpayer's legal fees would have to be paid. Then, if you really stretch your imagination, the Mayor and his Councilors could be barred from seeking public office for up to 7 years.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of smart people in Georgina. They will pick the ball up and run with it.
( Didn't know any of the above a year ago: such is life in Aurora.)
Given what these people have done to the land and shoreline in Georgina, it would be fitting if someone from the Reservation led the charge.
ReplyDeleteBut should a Georgina resident sue any of them over the breach in the Act, wouldn't it still be our taxes footing their defence through their insurance policies? Isn't that what passing the by-law was about anyway (given that Mayor and council were already financially protected should someone sue them but not the other way around)?
ReplyDeleteThe Municipal Act controls how they conduct their business and has power to enforce its edicts. If they have breached the Act, the money is returned to Georgina rather than to the individual driving the case
ReplyDeletewho would get legal fees paid. Not sure where a fine would go - probably to the town also.
So far we are only hearing from Keswick. But this matter is on the move and will have legs by tomorrow. Georgina is more than just Keswick. There are other towns and plenty of other residents most of whom have computers at home. Grossi would be making an even greater error if he under-estimated how many people he and his Council have infuriated.
ReplyDeleteThat was the weakness in the Morris cadre in Aurora. They really believed that they could do whatever they wanted and enforce it with big-shot lawyers from Toronto.
Aurora's former Mayor is currently facing a charge of Conflict of Interest because of the issue. It has been filed by a citizen of Aurora. It was to be heard in February. It has been delayed until August.
ReplyDeletewith any luck it will be delayed until october 2014 , that should take care of any further notions about a return to the throne.
Evelyn,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea who you might be 'talking' to but it appears that we need a human body to go to Georgina's Town Hall with a FOI Request early in the week to determine how long the law firm representing Grossi has been working for the town. There may be other requests that someone like Paul Sesto could suggest.
"They really believed that they could do whatever they wanted and enforce it with big-shot lawyers from Toronto."
ReplyDeleteTrue dat!
Could the Keswick blogger been served a writ to shut him up ? We have seen that before and he has been too quiet.
ReplyDeleteGotta find that by-law. Are there lights at the town hall ? Cars in the parking lot ? Hello, Keswick ?
ReplyDeleteThanks for this day. Superior tag-teaming.
ReplyDeleteI've just read through the day's posts. Who needs a bloody cultural centre = this is what Aurora really needs. Awesome.
ReplyDelete"...it appears that we need a human body to go to Georgina's Town Hall with a FOI Request early in the week to determine how long the law firm representing Grossi has been working for the town."
ReplyDeleteUmmmmm... why? Back when the excrement was hitting the fan in Aurora, I recall having a discussion with a group of people - some from outside Aurora. They were quite vocal about how things should be dealt with in Aurora and someone from Aurora stood up and asked them to "butt out, this is our problem, we don't need your solutions".
Why do we need to get involved in Georgina's problems? We did not tolerate the guy from Souffville on our boards telling Aurora how to do things. Let them settle this on their own - I am sure no one here is privy to all the facts (like that has stopped anyone from discussing Aurora issues here).
8:48 AM
ReplyDeleteDid it not occur to you that it might be fun, cathartic and possibly useful for Aurora to pitch in ?
8:48 AM
ReplyDelete"ignore"
To Anonymous 30 January, 2012 8:48 AM:
ReplyDeleteFeel free to sit back and watch freedom of speech and democracy go out the window without comment because the offending actions were not done within our town limits. At least we have the comfort of knowing that you will come to the defence of those people who have had their same basic rights trampled on more locally.
Let’s hope that someone somewhere cares enough about the democratic process and the Municipal Act to do the heavy lifting for you because we all know how far things can go off track when good people don’t speak up... and come to think of it, even sometimes as a direct result of speaking up !
8:48 AM
ReplyDeleteYup. And you sure handled the situation well. Three on-going lawsuits and legal fees still being paid for a group of bullies, some of whom have been out of office for more than a year.
You should have listened to Stouffville. ( You didn't even spell the name right .)
Sorry, I know that was an 'ignore' but it was just so blatantly dumb.
It turns out that the offending letter appears to still be posted on yorkregion.com ! If the paper was sued along with Mr. McLean why is it still posted ? Conversely, if the paper wasn’t sued doesn’t that suggest that this is in fact a politically motivated and targeted SLAPP litigation ?
ReplyDeleteCheck out the letter from Georgina dated September 14th. It is posted in around documents 340 to 360 on the letters webpage on yorkregion.com.
Would a paper ever run a letter that they thought was potentially defamatory ? I also think it's interesting that this letter appears to be no worse than other letters on multiple topics that are posted for all to see.
This all makes me seriously wonder about the judgment and political motivations behind Georgina Council. Thank goodness that could never happen in Aurora... hold on... on second thought... never mind.