"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

Thursday, 17 January 2013

Thank You For Helping To Clarify

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Promises Made to Be Broken.":

Language means a lot! If you continually refer to something as a secret meeting, it implies that something is nefarious -- every not for profit holds meetings -- they are not open to anyone who wants to drop in, they are business meetings for the board of directors -- they are not "secret" -- are meetings of the Rotary Club executive secret , are they open to anyone, NO.
The draft agreement for the cultural centre requires them to hold public meetings every quarter and annually.

***************
In political terms, a meeting that is secret is not open. 
The law requires public business to be  conducted in open meetings.
Except in exceptional instances; such as protecting  privacy of an individual or  legal interest of the municipality. 
Not-for-profit organisations are not public bodies. They are distinguishable from  private organisations only in that they are not- for- profit. 
The Rotary Club is a private organisation. Membership is not open.  Meetings  are not public. They do not conduct  public  business.  Rotary Club business is private.
They do not spend public funds.They spend their own.
Quarterly and annual public meetings ,when the Cuture Centre  board  intends to report to the public, do not satisfy the legal requirement for public business to be decided in public. .
not- for-profit board that relies on funds raised by themselves  to operate a program for the public, in a public facility, would be entitled to discuss management matters privately. 
Funding is the issue. 
A program funded by public resources  raised by taxation  is public business and must be conducted in public.
Libraries are regulated by The Library Act. 
Library services are  financed  in the main, from  public funds
A board governs the business of  the library
Board meetings are required to be public.  
Members are appointed by Council.
One third of the members of Aurora's Llibrary Board are Councillors. 
Council members may  form the majority of the board.
Council decides the amount of funding. 
Under the Library Act, the library board decides how  the funds will be used.
If funding for  programs, whether  heritage or cultural 
provided  in Church Street School , a public facility, are
to be financed from the public purse, board meetings cannot be private,secret, confidential or whatever else one might wish to call them. 
They must be public. 
Council  has authority to  delegate. 
Delegated authority  must be appointed by Council.
Public business,funded by public resources, must be conducted  in public. No ifs,ands or buts.
Thank you for helping me to clarify the issue in  my own mind..
If Council persists in the folly of handing over public  funds,  a public facility and authority,  to a self-appointed board, independent  of  the elected body., I will seek out whatever legal options might be available to stop that from happening. 

             

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh, more lawyers?

Anonymous said...


As many lawyers as are required.

Anonymous said...

Bless you, but take care. And if there is insurance in place to cover such an eventuality, for heaven's sake, accept it.

Anonymous said...

I have never understood what rationale Mayor Dawe was using when he agreed to those meetings. More so that he agreed to keep them from the knowledge of those who elected him and who pay his salary. It truly boggled and continues to be an irritant. To ignore legal advice, that we also pay to provide, compounds his error.
Mayor Ford ignored advice in Toronto over a far less costly business. Look where that has landed him and his city.

Anonymous said...

A lovely shot across the bow. Let's see if it slows The Ship of Fools.

Anonymous said...

If the Mayor were to vote against accepting the new agreement, could the ACC board have an argument that he did so with the knowledge and information from the Board meetings that he attended. The ACC Board could argue that he has broken their trust and confidentiality. Given the above, his safer vote is to approve the agreement. He may not have a pecuniary interest or conflict of interest as there is not a personal monetary gain but his vote may be affected by his ACC attendance. Would it be better that he abstain from voting?

Anonymous said...

6:26 PM
That's a very good point. But wouldn't he risk being viewed as a Judas Goat?

Anonymous said...

In a similar respect, will the 2 Town Councillors appointed to the ACC board always automatically vote to approve the annual ACC budget?

How will the rest of the board be expecting the Councillors to act. In who's best interest do they represent the ACC's or the Town's or other's may argue they should be one & the same.

How do you choose these Councillors? I don't think it's good enough to just appoint them if they are supportive of the operation, they also have to be able to stand back from it and be critical of it in order to make it better. They can't just be a "ACC friend" (they voted for the new contract) on Council willing to blindly support it. Nor can they be viewed as a "ACC enemy" (they voted against the new contract)otherwise they may not be trusted on the Board and be thought of all shooting down the ACC.

It's a bit of a conundrum or a real mess!

How does it work with the Library Board? (but then what the similarites & differences between the Library finances & operations and those of the ACC?