Decisions of the former Mayor have always been defended by the Councillor
Last night was no exception. A draft of the new Code of Ethics was on the table for discussion and direction that a Bylaw be prepared.
As usual, the golden merits of a Code of Conduct were re-introduced. The advantage of enforcement and punishment were cited by Councillors Gaertner and Ballard.
The latter referred to the activity of writing things about people .and the need for punishment to control the nefarious practice.
No-one at the table referred to Councillor Ballard's habit of tweeting nasty things about colleagues. I thought I demonstrated remarkable discipline.
I made the point that a Code of Conduct does not permit an offence to be charged, No penalties are attached to the Bylaw.. Unlike other Municipal Bylaws, A Code of Conduct Bylaw cannot be enforced.
But sparks flew when the issue of going in-camera to discuss legal advice on the former Mayor's
current legal suit against the Town for recovery of costs incurred by herself in a SLAPP action against three constituents during last election.
Five Councillors, including Gaertner and Gallo, voted to make that happen. Counciillor Ballard has repeatedly argued in defence of the former Mayor in public meetings.
When the motion was made to go in camera, Councillor Pirri expressed his position discussion should be public.There is no guarantee information would not be leaked.
I echoed the Councillor's concern and added my own. I worried aloud Council had no reason to expect confidential advice would not be relayed to the other party by her defenders.
I noted the problem was created in the previous term when matters which were not business of the corporation were taken behind closed doors and improper decisions were made.
On a point of privilege , Councillor Gaertner stated her integrity had been challenged and demanded an apology .
Mayor Dawe requested I change my wording. I responded I found myself between a rock and a hard place and no other wording sufficed to express my concern .
A serious dilemma presents itself.
The Mayor ruled he would not recognise me for the rest of the meeting. We recessed in camera ,
returned to public session and unanimously approved external counsel to defend the former Mayor's claim against the town for $290.000.
And so, the drain on public resources continues.
It may be timely to request once again the complete tally to date of funds expended for the obsessive pre-occupation of expeditionary law of the previous term of Aurora Council.
Posts
4 comments:
Wendy is a sitting lapdog for Morris and has no integrity.
Now she proposes to pose as a legal expert.
Sit! Stay! Quiet!
It was puzzling to watch the meeting & realize that none of the participants, with the possible exception of Evelyn, saw that there was not even agreement around the table about what a Code of Ethics should be, should do and/or would mean. If no one can agree on the meaning of the thing, what use can it be to the business of running the town?
Hark.
What light through yonder window breaks?
I fear 'tis Integrity, sick and pale with grief,
Abandoning us in our hour of need,
To seek a shelter in a gentler place
Where she art more fair than we.
The hypocrisy continues. It is only the role of each player that changes.
I remember when councillor Buck was accused of being the cause of a leak by the "holiest of holies group of council members(I think it was something about a police building - you will know what I am referring to).
Councillor Gaertner didn't think then that she was attacking another's integrity or honesty and was quite happy to be part of that lynch mob.
So why, at the last council meeting, did she feel that she had any grounds to express outrage when the discussion was about potential leaks from council?
I think the leak fears are quite valid, given her history of blind allegiance to the unsavoury bunch of 6 would-be dictators that sat around the council table then.
Post a Comment