Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "You Were Asking":
At the Council meeting dated September 14, 2010, there was a resolution to move into Closed Session to consider two items, Adena Meadows Limited et al and Potential defamation. When Council reconvened into Open Session more than 1 1/2 hours later there was a motion made, seconded and carried unanimously to the effect that the Town Solicitor "be directed to retain external legal counsel and to take any and all actions to bring resolution to this matter."
This matter was now in the public domain.
In the Agenda of the GC meeting scheduled for February 7, 2012, appearing under Closed Session, Item 2 is "Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees: LGL 12-002 - Waiver of Closed Session Confidentiality."
There was no further reference to this item and if it was discussed, a conclusion reached and a direction given, this all remains closed to the public. When will the public be informed about this?
Is this matter more important than the unanimous decision taken almost 18 months ago that launched what has been described by a Superior Court justice as a failed legal action, one that has cost Aurora taxpayers $55,000, not to speak of the suffering to three of its families?
If our municipal government is to be considered responsible, transparent and accountable, this question must be answered, sooner rather than later.
******************
There's a mis understanding in the last part of your statement. The decision on Sep. 14th 2010 was not unanimous. .
The meeting of September 14th 2010 was boycotted by two councillors on the basis that "potential defamation' was not an item of business for Council to discuss.
A third Councillor attended the meeting . When the decision was reported out he made a definitive
statement of disagreement that the Municipal Act permitted the action proposed. Three Councillors voted in opposition.
The same six Councillors who gave the ex-Mayor a blank cheque for everything undertaken during that notorious term of office, provided authority for this last excess that scandalized the community.
It is also an issue of unfinished business.
A charge of Conflict of Interest has been filed against the former Mayor.
The discussion and decision took place behind closed doors.
Witnesses can be sworn.
I don't know why Tuesday's decision is not public. I would argue it should be. It's too early to ask. The Town Hall isn't open yet
Tuesday's meeting was general committee. The in camera meeting was also committee. The decision made therefore is yet to be ratified in Council.
I think.
Pay attention to the vote in Council.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Two points...
"The meeting of September 14th 2010 was boycotted by two cuncillors on the basis that "potential defamation' was not an item of business for Council to discuss."
So? These same councillors could have not attended because they were sick or on vacation. Did the remaining members in attendance constitute a quorum?
"A third Councillor attended the meeting . When the decision was reported out he made a definitive
statement of disagreement that the Municipal Act permitted proposed."
Okay... but is this closing the barn door after the "horse" has left? You councillors make statements all of the time after a meeting that you disagree with the decision. Again, majority has won.
We are almost 18 months removed from this event and there is still a pent up anger with a lawfully constituted meeting and decision. If you need to vent your anger, it should be vented toward the councillors that were at the meeting then and are still at that table.
The decision was unanimous on the part of those present and who voted.
Two were absent and the third retracted his vote afterward.
Council will be watched at its next meeting February 14.
Post a Comment