Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "No
Room For Argument, Only The Fact.":
"The word going around is that
Councillor Gaertner is using an address which is not her place of residence.
If it is not true, it should be corrected forthwith.
If it is, the
process is as follows.
The person who knows the circumstances, shall come
forward and request Council to declare the seat vacant
There is
onus.
Under the law, it rests with the person who knows the facts of the
matter."
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Your statement
"If it is not true, it should be corrected forthwith." rings quite the opposite
to me. Is the onus on her to prove this statement false. I think that our legal
system is based on the reverse of that.
If someone knows something, then
instead of the pussy-footing that goes along on this blog, put up or shut up.
********************
This is an interesting reaction. Guilt or innocence ?
As previously noted, a candidate for office must provide sworn information to the Clerk of the Municipality, who is the Elections Officer, to establish eligibility for office.
Residence or ownership of property within the municipality is a requirement.
The Councillor's residence has been sold. The Councillor no longer lives at that address
The community has an interest.
Does the Councillor live within the municipality?
If so, where?
It's a simple matter to produce appropriate documentation.
There are no accusations here.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
So why don't you ask the Town Clerk to check this simple matter by referring to title documents/tax rolls etc.?
If Gaertner is no longer a property owner nor a resident of Aurora appropriate steps should be taken to request her immediate resignation as a member of Council.
2 Gaertners listed in the phone book. It will be up to the Councillor herself to do any straightening out necessary. Until such time, there certainly are no accusations. Curiosity, sure.
Post a Comment