What is so interesting in all of this is that Deputy-Mayor McRoberts recanted
his vote and publicly stated that he felt the matter should never have been
discussed and decided, that the Municipal Act didn't permit such
decisions.
******
Nothing about the situation was normal. When the in-camera decision was reported Out, former Councillor Bob Mc Roberts refuted the decision made behind closed doors and stated the advice given to Council members present did not conform to his understanding of the Municipal Act.
Although Councillors Gallo and Granger and I believe Gaertner stated on the hustings, they had no idea the resolution they voted for would lead to litigation against residents, they had a second opportunity to voite with Councillor Mc Roberts. against the motion.
They did not. .
There appeared to be no doubt in their minds that action was necessary ,using town resources, against anyone who might exercise the democratic right to be critical of an elected official, even if they had no idea who the person might be. .
Friday, 11 May 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
The three G's should be offered up to the vultures, in return for which these feathered carrion-eaters should abandon Aurora forthwith and forever more.
You're right, "Nothing Has Changed" - you're still obsessed with the previous term of council.
Three lawsuits still dragging through the courts despite various negative rulings in at least one of them.
As long as others are willing to pay the legal fees that occur, there will be no apology or attempt to settle. It is all such a waste. It would have been awesome if just one of the councillors from the previous term had shown some courage and moved to tidy up the dangling bits of garbage.
Should we be obsessed with what happened last term?
No.
But this council should be taking steps to close the loopholes that allowed this expensive silliness to happen in the first place.
Otherwise we're just stuck hoping that it doesn't happen again.
1. A motion for the town solicitor to take legal action must be presented on it's own and not part of a vague 'chinese menu' of options.
"I didn't realize it meant a lawsuit"
Translation?
"I had no clue what I was voting for"
2. A decision to take legal action must be voted on by ALL and with a clear majority - at least two thirds - or more.
With such a rule in place the "congratulations - it's a baby lawsuit!" decision never could have happened simply because all were not present.
Kudos to Councillor Buck for not letting this issue get left by the wayside but more needs to be done on the 'prevention' side.
I do take issue however with the decision taken by councillors not to attend certain meetings. Perhaps a meeting isn't necessary. Perhaps the issue shouldn't be closed door and perhaps the meeting shouldn't be at midnight but if council is meeting then all should attend barring illness or emergency.
I don not pretend to understand legal matters, unlike others who claim to know everything. But I am puzzled about why Aurora continues to fund those bone-heads from the past term. Surely they could demand the law-firm representing the bullies sit down and negotiate a settlement ? Dragging this out is a huge waste of our money on supporting those people some of whom have been out of office for months and months. They were sued as individuals - not as town representatives. Let them defend themselves as individuals.
Perhaps someone like Mr. Sesto can explain why mediation isn't used right away in these matters. Sorry if my comment is ignorant, but I am confused.
To Anonymous 11:29am
I thought perhaps I should comment since my name was mentioned in: "Perhaps someone like Mr. Sesto can explain why mediation isn't used right away in these matters." Quite frankly I have no idea why mediation isn't use. My background isn't with the law. Any information that I have contributed has been simply through research on the web (then sharing those sources), forming my opinions and putting my name to it.
Post a Comment