"A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside An Enigma"

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "No New Legal Action":

Now we might finally have an opportunity to learn if any of those attending that closed meeting have 'misremembered' what was said and done by whom. I wish I knew how to set up one of those English betting pools so that we could have a chance of making some money instead of always having to pay it out.
*******************
This is  interesting.

Alison  Collins Mrakas and myself did not attend that meeting. We contended Council had no  authority or business discussing the matter, let alone make a decision behind closed doors.

We were as stunned as the rest of the community when they did exactly that and directed staff to pursue a course of action. 

If we follow the rationale to its logical conclusion, and I  would, they had no right to use town facilities or staff resources to do what they did.

All of those actions are prohibited in their much vaunted Code Of Conduct.

They gave direction to staff to " take whatever steps are necessary"  which eventually cost the town $63,500...or thereabouts. 

Bob McRoberts did attend the meeting  When it was reported out, he read a speech to indicate complete opposition  on the basis it was not his understanding of the Municipal Act or the advice given.

When the news came out thatthree residents had been served with notice of legal action on the eve of Thanksgiving, Councillors Gallo and Granger  professed to be  unaware their decision  would lead to litigation.

On Tuesday evening at the Council meeting, I took the position, the decision  made in camera should be reported out in full. The majority of Council agreed and it was.

In the open  meeting, the vote was to authorise  two staff members present at the fateful meeting, if called as witnesses, to  answer whatever questions  asked without penalty for breach of confidentiality by disclosing what took place at an in-camera meeting.

Two re-elected  Councillors , present at the  aforesaid meeting, who have heretofore denied knowing the decision they made would  lead to litigation against three families, with all the stress that was bound to cause, voted against the motion to release  town officials to answer whatever question might  be asked.

Councillor Gaertner, boycotted the meeting. She stated it was "very serious" and stayed behind in the council chamber.

The former Mayor, charged by a citizen , with Conflict of Interest, over participating in a decision to  provide funding for a private lawsuit intended to her financial advantage, was present at Tuesday's meeting.

The two engaged in conversation during  Council's absence. 

When the vote was called,  Councillor Gaertner called for it to be recorded. 

 Gaertner, Gallo and Ballard  had their vote recorded in opposition..

Why would they do that?

What was their intent?

No reason was offered.

 They are not  charged with Conflict of Interest,despite they allowed it to happen. Or Breach of the Code of Conduct.

 A citizen has undertaken, at his own expense, to take the question to a court to be decided.

 Why would  three sitting members of Council take it upon themselves to obstruct that process?

The question I posed to Council was;  Why would we not make our decision public and assure the community of our decision to clear the way for the process?  Council agreed we should.

Yet three members  voted no and offered no reason for doing so.

The three frequently vote in unison, usually on issues that are shades of the past.

It appears the last election carried  no message for those who escaped.