Richmond Hill councillor Carmine Perrelli sues town over bylawPublished on Monday July 09, 2012
Noor Javed
Carmine Perrelli — the same councillor who charged taxpayers for $1,181 in golf equipment last year (and has paid back the town since) — says he believes the bylaw is illegal and won’t hold up to a court challenge.
“I have brought legal action against the town to have the bylaw quashed,” said Perrelli, who filed the suit last Friday “I am not suing for money,” he said, although he will be seeking costs.
“I’m so convinced the bylaw is illegal, that I am willing to put my money up to fight this.”
Councillors voted 6-2 against discussing the suit in private session at Monday’s council meeting.
“If in fact I don’t get all my costs the question I need to ask my attorneys is can I make a claim against the councillors personally because they’ve breached their fiduciary duty to not only pay me for my costs but to possibly refund the town for spending taxpayers’ dollars,” said Perrelli after the meeting.
“I’m putting my money where my mouth is. Are the councillors prepared to put their money where their mouth is? It’s easy to put their mouth where the taxpayers’ money is,” he said.
His concern is with a bylaw which narrowly passed in April that would require councillors to invite all other council members and appropriate town staff to any resident meetings they hold regarding development projects that have regional infrastructure of transit implications.
Perrelli believes the bylaw is too vague, and that it will interfere with his ability to do his job.
“These are not public meetings. These are by invitation only meetings,” said Perrelli. “I don’t understand what the bylaw requires me to do: Do I have to invite other councillors a minute before the meeting? Do I charge them a fee to come?
He said the bylaw is illegal because it imposes rules on how “private meetings” should be run, and fall outside the jurisdiction of what the municipality can govern under the Municipal Act.
Perrelli said he made many attempts to get council to rescind the bylaw, but his motions were not supported.
The bylaw motion was brought forth by Councillor Brenda Hogg, who felt the council-wide invitations would be in the best interest of the town.
******************
I've been asked for my thoughts.
I read the story twice .
Richmond Hill has wards.
Property owners are entitled to invite residents to a meeting to explain a development proposal and answer any questions that arise.
Developers are often advised to do so before a public planning meeting is held. .
They can hear concerns.They can make changes to a proposal to meet the concerns.
They may overcome residents' objections. They may not.
They don't have to make the effort.But they would be wise to do so.
A property owner in the municipality, has a right to ask any Councillor to meet and hear what is being proposed. .
It is for the Councillor to decide what is wise.
In Aurora, Councillors may request the use of the Council chamber to hold a meeting of residents to discuss issues.
The tree bylaw ,Wells Street School closing, Williams High School relocation, Hydro One's plans to increase loads on overhead wires
have all been the subject of such meetings.
No such meeting in a town facility can be closed to the public or the press.
If a meeting is held in a private facility, like a resident's home, it's hard to see how a town bylaw could compel an invitation to any
person,whether or not a regional issue was being discussed .
The argument is as much about Council's right to pass a bylaw, as it is about the right to hold a meeting in a private setting without being compelled to include Councillors and town staff on the invitation list.
A Council can pass whatever bylaw they choose,as long as it doesn't contravene Provincial or Federal legislation.
But a bylaw is only as good as it stands up to a legal challenge. .
The court of public opinion. needs also to be considered.
The news story does not include the purpose of the bylaw. How it will be enforced? What penalties are to be imposed?
Proceeding to litigation to uphold a Councillor's right to hold private meetings with developers is definitely a dodgy principle It poses obvious questions.
In politics, things don't just have to be right. They must also appear to be right.
The news story has obvious gaps.
Neither side takes a grip on logic.
Posts
1 comment:
T'is truly the ' silly season' !
Post a Comment