Further Thoughts

Anonymous comment in part:

"The then-Mayor was a signatory to the agreements on the part of the Town. She has stated on her campaign literature some sort of legal study. Possibly she and the Law Clerk drafted the three agreements.

This entire subject is boring beyond belief. What will be interesting is the selection process for the two Councillors to serve on the Ad
Hoc Committee."
*************8
Councillor Pirri has asked the Mayor to call a special meeting to reconsider the decision made at the last Council meeting on  make- up and terms of reference for negotiations with the Community Centre Board.

The Mayor has agreed. The meeting will happen to-night. At 6p.m.
It won't be televised. 

Councillors will have a second chance to debate the issue again
depending on how narrowly the question is framed.

I believe the question of two councillors representing the town on the committee is already proving  problematic.

Three people have volunteered to serve. According to  terms accepted by council, the Mayor must make the selection.

One volunteer  is on record as being in complete support of the  current agreement. It's difficult to comprehend how  he would negotiate in good faith to  change the agreement along the lines recommended.

Two others moved and seconded the amendment that wasn't an amendment, to remove  notice of termination  that castrated  the Abel/Pirri motion, that. was  facilitated by the Mayor, contrary to rules of procedure that  an amendment cannot alter the intent of an original motion.

It's hard to see how they could be appointed by the Mayor to the negotiating committee without creating an impression of things not seeming to be right.

Then there's the business of confidentiality recommended by the town solicitor.

By law, no councillor can be excluded from a meeting where town business is being conducted.

The Mayor is ex officio  member of all town committees. It means he is entitled to attend all committees where town business is being discussed. The Mayor  cannot be excluded.

It's in the Act. The Municipality cannot pass a law or rule to contravene a provincial law.

Provincial law trumps .

It's a good  thing Council is going to be discussing the issue again.

But they didn't listen to me the first time .I don't expect they will  a second time. Who knows, the Mayor may  decide I should not be allowed to repeat my argument.

I told them, they were setting themselves up for failure.

I told them  I said; "The seriously flawed agreement was the responsibility of the past Council but if you adopt this recommendation it  becomes your responsibility. It will be upon your heads."

I got more