We Shall See

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "He Is No Machiavellian Prince":

It is difficult to imagine the circumstance that caused the town solicitor's  to request a meeting with councillors to advise them on a matter relating to the agreement, and that he advised such meeting should be held in camera.

This from the Town Solicitor whose December 2011 report launched the present expedition. His report was clear, concise, eminently sensible, totally accurate.

It would be most interesting to have his explanation for the request

*******************

I have been remiss in using the town solicitor's name in the blog.  I will refrain from doing so in future.

Having said that,   the solicitor's responsibility  is to provide Council the benefit of  professional advice.

 I have disagreed , though not with this solicitor, about what qualifies under the Municipal Act for  in camera discussion.  I have not attended such a meeting.

For example,  I disagreed  that  a critical comment about the former Mayor that appeared on the Aurora Citizen Blog, was the   town's  business. In my view,  it did not qualify for Council discussion, in public or  in camera

It  should never  have taken place. .

On that basis, neither I nor Councillor Collins Mrakas  attended that  meeting .

The current  solicitor had  solicitor/ client advice to provide.It was  provided in camera. If Council makes a decision to waive  solicitor/ client privilege, the information could be made public.

The solicitor would be asked to advise.

The municipality's interest is foremost in a Councillor's  responsibility.  The Oath of Office compels compliance

A Councillor who puts the municipal interest  at risk in legal  terms is in Breach of Trust..