Raises some more interesting questions.
They arise from advice of two lawyers retained by the ex-Mayor and paid by the town, who had the temerity to suggest to a member of Council, moi, that I should not attend two council meetings because I would have a conflict of interest as a result of being the subject of discussion. I might hear something in the meeting that would be to my financial advantage.
The rationale was the penalty for being found guilty of a Conflict of Interest would be the pecuniary advantage to myself. The financial penalty is having Council remuneration suspended for three months.
Each time I think about it, the more outrageous it becomes.
How dare they?
What gave them the right to suggest to a duly elected member of Council ,she didn't have the right to attend a meeting of the Council to which she was duly elected?
How many other Councillors in Ontario have they misled in that direction besides the former Mayor of East Gwillimbury and Councillor Marlene Johnstone? They were also told they should retain legal counsel. They did that as well as stay away from Council meetings.
How dare they suggest an entire segment of the community should be deprived of th representation in any deliberation of their local government?
If it was inappropriate that I should hear what was being said, why would it be appropriate for other members of Council to be saying it in a closed meeting on town hall premises with staff resources and legal counsel present to do their bidding.
How could they perceive, these self -styled experts in municipal law, that such business being discussed behind closed doors was appropriate to be discussed there or anywhere, if it was inappropriate for a Council member to participate.
The Conflict of Interest charge against the former Mayor is not the business of the Municipality.No person, except the member, can decide if there is a Conflict of Interest.
Why would these two lawyers take it upon themselves to advise me so?
If the ex=Mayor is found to be in contravention of the Act in this matter, why is it different to all the rest?
The intent was always the same.
It was always about the former Mayor pursuing a private objective with a contrived rationale and the support of the same five members of Council.
What does the Conflict of Interest Act say about aiding and abetting, in the commission of a contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Are the questions relevant?
I would be interested in hosting a discussion.
Of what ethical value is a Code of Ethics or Conduct that can be and has been used as a blunt instrument by an inept gang of thugs to beat up on an honest-to-goodness, rough and ready, politician.
What price any of the pious and righteous legislation prohibiting bullying and harassment ,if the GD legislation itself can be used to bully and harass?
That's the question for the day.
Or the weekend maybe.