Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Partly Correct.":
"We took our Oath of Office on December 1st. We had been elected since October. The former Mayor had been active since her defeat. She was in the office until the last day.A lease with the Department of National Defence was amended in November. Again without Council being aware or authorization."
Okay - can you clear something up? Not withstanding that the above statement has nothing to do with the IC....
If the council that was elected in October (let's be fair, it was LATE October) does not assume power until the end of the previous term and then sworn in, how is the former Mayor's actions regarding the DND contract unlawful? There is no requirement in the MA that says the amendments had to be ratified by council. The Mayor as CEO can make the amendments.
The post clearly irritates the commenter on several fronts. I will deal with only one.
The election date was a week earlier than previously. That meant there was a longer spell between the voters' decision to make a change and the new Council taking over. It added nothing to the process.
Reading the quote a second time , I see no reference to an unlawful act.
I know of no section in the Municipal Act that deals with amendments to contracts.
I do know of town policies and a few legalities.
Contracts to be signed require the authority of council. The resolution is familiar. Direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign the agreement. Then the agreement becomes the contract .
If it is Council's authority to sanction the contract and direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign, the same is true of changes to the contract.
If the argument is. the Mayor as CEO had authority to approve and sign an amendment to the contract, who gave the Clerk authority to do the same. He does not have the status of CEO.
Where does the Municipal Act specify the title of CEO over-rides the authority of Council ?
I've never understood why having the title of CEO means more that the Office of Mayor.
From the day of the election.... when the votes have been counted.... the results are known.. and a Chief Magistrate is defeated... with a resounding no.... a person who believes the confidence and trust of the community continues in the office that was lost, is a person refusing to deal with reality.
It is an excruciatingly painful and humiliating experience. Judgement could be flawed by stress.
It can't be shared. There is no lightening of the burden. It must simply be endured...preferably in private... avoiding more approbation.
A decision made when logically the authority to make it. has been withdrawn , becomes unfinished business and unlikely to be forgotten.
That's the harsh reality of politics.
I have to say with all the sympathy I can muster, neither the former mayor nor her chief henchman ever understood. there are limits to the power of elected office.
To anyone who cares to listen I say .... NEVER NEVER NEVER underestimate the attention people pay to how we use their trust.
Abuse it at your peril .... their anger knows no bounds.