I think it's a good thing a statement has been made by the Town about the suit filed against the municipality by the former Mayor.
Complications from the legal activities of the last term have continued into the current term.
Notice of Action served on the town involves a decision made in a closed door meeting in the previous term.
Two Councillors on the current Council , voted in support of a carefully calculated resolution that cleared the way for a lawyer to be retained and suit launched against three residents of the town. It was eventually ruled a SLAPP suit meaning .. launched to prevent Public Participation in public affairs,.
I boycotted the in-camera meeting. A politician being subject to criticism is never the business of the municipal corporation. No authority exists for a Council to use public resources to undertake such action.
That meeting continued until after one a.m. the following morning. The result was an ambiguously worded resolution used by a lawyer for a lawyer to be retained and a contract signed and court proceedings commenced without necessary, further, authority from Council.
The current council has met and deliberated a number of times to resolve issues emanating from that infamous decision.
Each time, two Councillors who voted for the original decision have been present and engaged.
It would be difficult to imagine or warrant, under these circumstances, that confidentiality can or is being maintained.
This morning Councillor Gaertner, one of the two, has e-mailed a request for copies of all documentation pertaining to the new notice of action.
I think there's a problem with that.
A Conflict of Interest suit filed by a resident , at his own expense ,against the former Mayor, required staff members to be called as witnesses to what transpired during the closed door meeting.
The Town provided each staff member with legal counsel to protect their interest as public servants.
How or whether that affected testimony,I cannot say.
I did not attend the meeting nor the court hearing.
But it worries me.
We all know the surprising result of that proceeding.
A learned judge in the justice system has been heard to say frankly:
"The justice system is not what people think it is. Nor what they would like it to be"
Unfortunately ,I believe we can all agree .
Tuesday, 11 June 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Just an observation
This appears as though Councillors who were involved with any part of that earlier decision must recuse themselves from debate on the subject. They may argue that they are objective but the optics are dreadful for them. I'm afraid they wouldn't
recognize a conflict if it bit them
Perhaps Wendy should change her name plaque from Councillor to Counsellor.
@9:43 that makes no sense. Unless they stand to benefit financially, there is no conflict. Just because their position on an issue is known, and even if they had a part in effecting some decision or another, it does not mean that they may not participate if the topic comes up again, or if that prior decision is reconsidered.
9:43.. so you will have 3 councillors recuse themselves?
@ 11:52 AM
Only 2, if it were my call. Which it isn't.
12:57... then you are not using a balanced argument and are spiteful
11:41 AM
We know nothing, zilch, about who might have stood to benefit or who might have contributed along the way. Anything is possible which might be why 9:43 AM stressed the ' optics. ' ?
Thank you, 1:58 PM. I was not aware of being unbalanced & spiteful by pointing out the possibility of a conflict of interest. Are you feeling OK ?
A former Era-Banner reporter still keeping tabs on developments:
http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/3835511-former-aurora-mayor-sues-her-town/
4:02... if you are the same as 12:57 then the fact that you will only have 2 councillors recuse themselves (assuming you are referring to Gallo and Gardner) instead of 3 (including Buck) makes you unbalanced and spiteful.
Buck was a sitting councillor at the time. Her being absent from the meeting to me shows that she endorsed it because she elected to not oppose it.
10:39 AM
May I get into your fight with whoever? When have you ever known Councillor Buck to fail to declare a conflict of interest? It seems to me that she errs on the other side, sometimes declaring one when it is not obvious to listeners. So I don't see the significance of your point.
2:43 - It's not a fight. It is a question of fair and balanced.
If 9:43 who said "Councillors who were involved with any part of that earlier decision must recuse themselves" is suggesting that only Gallo and Gardner are the ones "involved" then he/she is wrong. Buck was also involved - by specifically not participating in a meeting.
She may not have a conflict. The other two may not either. However, their involvement, be active or passive could be perceived as a potentially conflicting situation.
If you are going to dictate rules, they must be everyone.. not the ones you don't like.
It is all moot anyways because none of them are going to recuse themselves. The opportnity to shine in front of their minions is too great.
3:49 PM
Gee, I didn't mean to open a can of worms ! The original comment was about the ability to recognize a conflict. Some have it; others have not. We will see if your prediction is correct. Given the scale of current political turmoil, we are such small potatoes.
Post a Comment