Tomorrow's Agenda has a Notice of Motion referencing substantial increase in insurance premium. Stated objective is to suss out reasons for the increase and take measures to ensure nothing like it happens again.
A motion with wider sweep but similar intent was defeated on May 27th.
The vote was 5 to 2. The mover ,Councillor Abel and Mayor Dawe supported the motion.
Because of a Conflict of Interest, I was unable to speak to the motion. I am of course conversant with the particular circumstances.
Councillors Gallo and Gaertner spoke to the motion then decided they too had a Conflict of Interest
They perhaps should be even more conversant than myself. But possibly not.
It was February 10th when a Vice President of the Insurance company attended a budget meeting of Council Likely by invitation. To explain the vagaries of the insurance industry and variables that lead to premium increases.
It was an unproductive encounter. Answers to pointed questions were avoided.
I am privy to information. All of which I believe the community is entitled to know. Yet I am not currently at liberty to tell.
It should not be hard to imagine the difficulty.
As well, the account deserves more substance and certitude than I can satisfactorily provide.
A factual report could not likely be compiled in house.
Records are missing. Key Staff have left town service.
It seems, from what has gone before, the insurance company will not release relevant information unless compelled to do so.
A Commission of Inquiry may be the only route possible to obtain the facts of what transpired in the previous term to account for the huge increase in premiums.
Legal services retained by the former Mayor and incurred at town expense would be accessible
through the treasury department.
A town policy in place at the time prohibited the practice.
The last figure I heard for the Toronto Inquiry into corruption. cost something like thirteen million dollars. It was undertaken in David Miller's term.
McCallion's Fiefdom had a Commission inquire into the Mayor's Conflict of Interest which also cost millions.
Neither were likely covered by insurance.
The Toronto Commission findings resulted in permissive legislation to authorize Municipalities if they so chose, to adopt a Code of Conduct , appoint an Integrity Commissioner. develop a specific procedure to adjudicate complaints and thereby establish and enforce integrity to provide assurance to the governed, their affairs henceforth would, forever and a day, be managed by the governors with complete and total integrity for all to see and admire.
Yes indeedy, we have seen.
Monday, 23 June 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
They really, really do not want to know those numbers.
That cartoon in the Auroran was right on point.
Why would a couple of the defendants be "even more conversant" than the plaintiff?
11:59
Because they participated in the action and public statement that led to Clr. Buck's suit against them and the other four.
You might say they started it and therefore know more.
I hope you now understand the "even more conversant."
@11:59 I would reason that the defendants should be more intimately aware of the defense costs, and possibly the reserve amounts that the insurance carrier may be putting on this claim, and hence would have a better sense for the impact that would have on the renewal premiums.
I can see another dead-end with this motion although I believe it should be passed. Cllr Gaertner will still charge that the timing is " suspect ". I have no idea what she means unless that is a reference to the election. There are enough cowardly lions at the table who will baulk. Cllr Thompson will move to refer/defer.
Well here is a surprise....
I think we all knew this would happen regarless of what the plaintiff said.
I do not see this as something that requires E declare a conflict. Sounds like a business decision having to do with that insurance hike to me.
But the decision is hers to make.
Frankly, 12:42, I'd say their level of participation was minimal. You refer to "they," but we all know it was down to one person.
14:40
Incorrect. The march was inclusive & enthusiastic. Files available to check statements, the latest likely through Newmarket.
Colour me cynical. There is no way any of this can be done before the end of term, A bunch of window dressing during an election.
16:23, without knowing all the behind the scenes machinations, you can't categorically call "Incorrect."
20:45
But nor can you state about whose participations were minimal. You give one individual entirely too much credit/blame. There were at least 2 heads bent over the pot.
Post a Comment