"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Friday, 31 August 2012

Councillor Is Not Guilty

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mayor Rob Ford ponders losing his job in conflict ...":

Please do not forget that Councillor Ballard has signed onto the Morris team and consistently votes to keep information in-house. The Hervey Conflict of Interest suit needed documentation from Aurora and is working without it. Specifically they needed the entire Rusty D'Eye report. It has been termed ' privileged' information, which means that taxpayers do not have access to it either. It is difficult to reach a decision without full disclosure.


Aurora taxpayers paid the fee for George Rust D'Eye to review the  circumstances and report to Council  how a decision was made to sue three residents of the town.
On receipt, I moved solicitor/client privilege be waived and the report be made public. 
Mr. Rust D'Eye suggested a summary as an alternative.
Council  has authority to  waive solicitor/client privilege at any time. So  long as the municipality's interest is protected.
I am not aware  a request was made for the report. 
If made, I am unaware of a Council  refusal..
Councillor Ballard has only one vote .
A single  vote does not serve to keep information "in-house"
Councillor Ballard  was not a member of the Council that  passed a  resolution  drafted previously that evolved into  litigation  against three residents during an election campaign when Council was not  available to authorize  that action.
Councillors Gaertner and Gallo are the only  current Councillors 
who attended the fateful meeting that gave the solicitor carte blanche ,adjourned after one a.m., and resulted in lurid headlines of three citizens being sued, with their own resources, by people elected to represent their interests.
Like the  meeting  when they stripped the Integrity Commissioner of his authority after he filed a decision that did not reflect to their credit. It ended after midnight as well.  


Anonymous said...

I believe it is more likely that BOTH sides involved in the Conflict of Interest case requested that documentation.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 31 August, 2012 11:10 AM.

Wouldn't one side already know what went on in that meeting? Why would they request the documentation?

I'm sure they will tell nothing but the truth when appearing before the Judge.