Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Rules Is Rules":
ENOUGH!
This should not be discussed up here. We could do damage while trying to help.
*********
I agree.
We can't have a conversation if only a few people know what it's about. I am not one of the few.
I started it in response to a question about a ruling I made on Tuesday.
David clearly indicated he was going to talk about someone and try to be diplomatic.
It didn't matter who or what he planned to talk about. It was not stated,as required,in his formal request for delegation status.
Had it been, it would have been explained to him by staff, it could not be allowed.
A meeting held for the purpose of conducting town business cannot be used for another personal purpose.
I have better reason than most to know it's a flagrant misuse of the authority of the chair to encourage and permit such abuse.
Ongoing ramifications can be severe. We all have good reason to understand what they are.
So this conversation is over.
What was educational was how swiftly the Know-Nothings pounced even though they hadn't a clue what was going on. We can learn from that.
ReplyDeleteGood call. I have a question about the blasted Municipal Act for anyone who knows that answer and won't charge for it. A hypothetical 'if' a Judge finds Morris breached the Act, what are the consequences? To date, I have learned she can be banned from elected office for 7 years [ which is already written ] and can be ordered to return the money from the Town. But what I'm interested in is if there is any sort of fine for doing this sort of thing when you have the experience to have known it was wrong. Can't find anything but am likely not looking in the right place.
ReplyDeleteRather than throw it out to those here to interpret....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01m25_e.htm
Decide yourself.... good luck