"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

Monday, 15 September 2014

You were asking

KA-NON has left a new comment on your post "Cain and Able and the biblical Mess of Potage":

Is the $845K an incurred expense, or is a large portion of it a reserve amount? Hard to imagine they have incurred that much in legal fees.


Documentation was provided to council last week listing various categories of claims paid out guy the insurance company over. a period of years.

The objective  of the report was to explakn the reason for a hefty increase in premiums. 

The figure if $845.000. was identified as  Person! Injury  In brackets ( Buck v Morris et al)

The figure of $153,932 was identified as Conflict of Interest (Hervey v Morris, Morris v Aurora)

The funds paid out by BFL  totalled more than  half of all claims paid from January 1st 2008 until August 21st 2014.

Title of the Report is 
Town of Aurora 
Impact of Claims  on current and future liability premiums. 

The increase in premiums for this year was 40%

I have tried to avoid the subject of legal expenses paid on behalf of the defendants in the litigation in which I am complainant .We  are currently awaiting a Judge's decision.

Mr Sinardo in answer to a question by councillor Abel indicated the normL process is to  bring the parties together to effect a settlement.

He was  not asked why the normal process was not followed in this case. He did not offer an explanation. 

I suppose it's possible he did not know .

And yet... it's hard to accept  he attended a Council meeting to explain a huge increase in premiums without knowing the facts. 

As mentioned before, an obvious question about why legal expenses were paid to defend 
the former Mayor from a Conflict. Of Interest  charge remains unanswered.

Three residents were  personally  sued for damages in the millions . Agreement to reimburse  the toin the event  the suit was successful was twice 

The town did not  pay out almost a million dollars for legal  fees. 

The insurance company did. 

The town paid premiums to the insurance company
The insurance company  consequently increased  premiums to the town to cover the legal expenses they agreed to pay on behalf of  defendants and complainant. 


Anonymous said...

Why do you keep repeating that an effort to settle was not made? Even if it was, we have no way of knowing if it would have been successful, do we?

Surely, the most pertinent fact is the sum of $845.000 (and counting). Unquestionably, the reasons for the increased cost of coverage for the Town, borne by the taxpayers, is the paramount point of the BFL presentation.

Anonymous said...

Who really believes that presentation was to explain why there was an increase in premiums? Because I certainly don't. It was another theatrical performance, and a bad one at that.

KA-NON said...

@22:42 The reason she should keep repeating that no offer of settlement was made, is because the reason the point about settling was made in the first place was very likely to intimate (without saying it directly) that the plaintiff (Buck) was offered a settlement, did not take it, and is therefore solely responsible for the large claim amount, and the increased premiums, which of course come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

As I see it, there are three things worth repeating.

First, is that there was no settlement offer made. Why is this the case? Evelyn said then, and has repeated often since, that a simple apology could have made this go away.

Second, even if the insurance costs for this case continue to skyrocket, we should remember that the genesis of the claim was the malicious and politically-motivated conduct of the prior power-plant, NOT Evelyn's reasonable and rightful attempts to right the wrong. Each of us would do the same.

Third, that there are numerous other hits on our liability loss runs, as well as direct legal costs in pursuit of fruitless/questionable goals (e.g. attempts to prevent legal golf course development) that are/were contrary to the Town's interests, and have cost us all boat loads of money. Why is there no fuss being made over those?

I am very disappointed in Mayor Dawe and Cllr Abel for the production that they put on, and for the lengths they went to in order to lay the blame for increased insurance premiums at Evelyn's feet. It was clearly a naked political tactic, and certainly not very becoming. I would hate for that act to fool anyone into believing that Evelyn is responsible for the increased premiums.

Anonymous said...

We hear that "normally" they try to bring parties together. What we don't know - and neither side is going to tell you - is if the attempt was made but was rebuffed. I am sure the plaintiff was not willing to settle.

No it was not theatrics. It was however some form of closure. When the law suits started, the residents were told - and I would hazard a guess that you could go back in the archives of this site to back me up - insurance premiums would not be increased because of the legal battles. Anyone that has had an auto insurance claim can tell you that is bunk. But still, there are those that beleived it and are no dumbfounded at this news.

Anonymous said...

23:31 has provided an accurate assessment - all just a performance. Staff could have easily been directed to answer or obtain answers to unknowns.

Anonymous said...

If the town voted to continue to provide legal services to those not longer in office, they can hardly be surprised in the premiums go up.

Anonymous said...

I believe the Banner settled. No ?
We do not generally hear the specifics of settlements but an attempt is " supposed " to be part of the process.

Anonymous said...


What do you believe it was?

Anonymous said...

I have yet to hear of an insurance company's attempt at bringing the parties together to try and reach a settlement.

Insurance companies are always combative as they will do everything possible to avoid having to pay.

Anonymous said...

Another boating season lost

Anonymous said...

I have been trying to get a list of registered candidates for the election and the town website requires that I log in with a username and a password.

This was not the case last night.

If this is now a requirement on the past of the town I will tell you right here and now that I will not vote in the municipal election and will not make any donations to the campaign of any office seekers.

Please check with whatever idiot has introduced this barrier to a vital tool of our democratic system, i.e. knowing the names of candidates, and a number of them have websites from which it is possible to read what they write about themselves

Anonymous said...

We got a complete list last night from the town web-site.

Anonymous said...


So did I last night. Maybe we are the same person.

I just, one minute ago, tried to get the Candidate's list and was told to log in.

Why don't you try it now and report back to us.

Anonymous said...

8:45-We're heading into an election. We're going to see and hear a whole pile of performances up until October 27th.

Anonymous said...

Is tonight the last meeting ?
Please, please let it be so.

Anonymous said...

I have just spoken to to a very helpful young lady in the town's Communications Department.

The left hand column on the Aurora Votes 2014 shows certified candidates.

The centre column still shows registered candidates.

The registered were changed to certified but the link between the two had not been updated so that now all candidates are certified.

This is being attend to immediately.

Anonymous said...

Do the names of candidates' campaign managers need to be filed anywhere?

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure one of the last-minute candidates is even a taxpayer. As far as I know, he lives at home with his mother.

Anonymous said...

So ?

Anonymous said...

i believe that Cllr Pirri lived at home when he ran & was elected. Some of the other candidates may still live at home. Did you have a point or was that just a nasty crack ?

Anonymous said...

No one was named, 08:25, so how "nasty" could it really be?