Mar 29, 2012 - 11:38 AM
Controversial bylaw repealed
But taxpayers on hook for $25K
After receipt of the final legal expenses for the Grossi versus McLean defamation suit in the amount of $25,500, council repealed the controversial indemnification bylaw March 26.
The final bill for legal services provided by Cassels Brock amounted to $16,539.91, according to a CAO report brought before council Monday night.
The town, however, is also covering former leisure services director and defendant in the claim John McLean’s legal expenses, as previously reported in The Advocate.
The town agreed to the claim for reimbursement filed by Mr. McLean for an amount of $3,961.24, bringing the bill for legal fees to $20,501.15.
CAO Winanne Grant said $5,000 has also been added to the 2012 budget to cover costs associated with the investigation of closed session meetings launched by Keswick resident Kristina Toomey.
After receiving the report, it took council about five minutes to unanimously repeal the bylaw.
The only question asked was by Ward 2 councillor Phil Craig, who asked whether repeal meant the same as rescinded.
After being advised by Ms Grant that the preferred wording under procedure would be repeal, council members voted unanimously to repeal the bylaw.
The final bill for legal services provided by Cassels Brock amounted to $16,539.91, according to a CAO report brought before council Monday night.
The town, however, is also covering former leisure services director and defendant in the claim John McLean’s legal expenses, as previously reported in The Advocate.
The town agreed to the claim for reimbursement filed by Mr. McLean for an amount of $3,961.24, bringing the bill for legal fees to $20,501.15.
CAO Winanne Grant said $5,000 has also been added to the 2012 budget to cover costs associated with the investigation of closed session meetings launched by Keswick resident Kristina Toomey.
After receiving the report, it took council about five minutes to unanimously repeal the bylaw.
The only question asked was by Ward 2 councillor Phil Craig, who asked whether repeal meant the same as rescinded.
After being advised by Ms Grant that the preferred wording under procedure would be repeal, council members voted unanimously to repeal the bylaw.
Posts
11 comments:
Given that there is no real collective political will to end the current contract, perhaps the best strategy would have been to let the current contract run its course and not renew.
My fear is that the months-long negotiation course that has been charted will result not only in an "improved" contract, but also an extension of term beyond the term of the current council.
If we just let it expire, or better yet terminate with extreme prejudice as the Mayor indicated we would do if the negotiations did not render the results we are looking for, then the whole thing could AT LEAST be a clear election issue in the next campaign.
I've got a bad feeling about this ...
KA-NON
Grossi's Mountain = Dawe's ACC. Both shameful.
"My fear is that the months-long negotiation course that has been charted will result not only in an "improved" contract, but also an extension of term beyond the term of the current council."
Why are "improved" and "extended" things to "fear" in the new contract, KA-NON? All but one councillor has stated their support of the cultural centre in regards to programming.
It's some of the present terms that are at issue, things that will be addressed and remedied over the coming months of negotiations. There will be no 'baby thrown out with the bath water' here.
I'm looking forward to an improved and extended new agreement. One without the perceived taint of MorMac, something that is erroneously being held against the present organization. A new contract with our fine, new mayor's signature on it is being eagerly anticipated.
Evelyn, The post above was intended to be on the "Synopsis" post.
KA-NON
1:19 PM
Wherever did you get the idea that Mormac taint was to blame for the way Aurorans feel about a bad agreement with the ACC? It is the agreement, a piece of bloody foolish legal errors written in haste without proper representation for the Town, which needs to be dealt with right now. No one links the present organization back to Mormac in these discussions. And any bad feeling that has arisen comes solely from the current Board.
Secret meetings ,culled mail list e-mail attacks, not bothering with minutes. bullying in the Town Hall - none of that has anything to do with Mormac. It is all
Recent and Ugly. It is on their own heads - you cannot blame Mormac taint.
Very nicely written ,1:19 PM. But it's still horse pucky!
Sometimes one does not receive what one anticipates.
This entire subject is stupid beyond all of the words that have been written about it the past few months.
The present agreement is seriously flawed, as identified quite specifically by the Town Solicitor in an early December report.
At the time of drafting the Town's interest was represented by a legal clerk. This of itself is a joke.
This is an example of what happens in federal politics when legislators discuss the cost of a dozen pencils, a subject about which they presumably know lots, vs. the cost of a proposed jet fighter aircraft involving billions of dollars. They spend days on the pencils and don't ask a single question with respect to the plane, relying on expert advice.
So it is with culture - everyone's an expert and they have the opinions to prove it.
By the way, I think our mayor is decent, not fine, and after 16 months in office is no longer new.
HELLO ? What is this about the ' current organization ' ? The Board is not old, has not been in place long. The ' current' members are the old members with a couple of
exceptions. If you want to blame the' old ' board, Ballard was on that, I think. Do not try to re-write history in this town. The Board has no history except for being people who sit on boards. HELLO, OUT THERE? The current group is the old one. Do not try and fudge the issue. They have been complicit from the beginning despite what they say. And, since they are accountable to no one. who believes what they say except perhaps our poor Mayor? HELLO?
@1:19
My point is that there should not be any legally binding agreement with this board, or any other board, at all.
The facility should be managed by the town. Period. It should be entirely accountable to council, and it should come under the auspices of competent town staff. Period. This arms-length agreement is complete, unadulterated crap.
Nobody has put together one solitary sound argument in favour of the existence of any agreement. The best that even the advocates can muster amounts to nothing more than scare mongering.
KA-NON
KA-NON
"No one links the present organization back to Mormac in these discussions."
You're kidding, right?! The writer of this very blog does, and has told us so ... multiple times!
"Sometimes one does not receive what one anticipates."
Very, very true, 4:19. We need look no further than at those that anticipated a contract termination on Feb. 28th, do we?
Post a Comment