KA-NON has left a new comment on your post "You were asking":
@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.
Posted by KA-NON to Our Town and Its Business at 16 September 2
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
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.
***********************
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.
Petch House Re-visited
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Happy Days":
I think it is a great idea. And I do recall whose idea it was. There might even have been refinements suggested in the question asked of residents about the use of Petch, Give the thing a chance. Someday the Auroran might run have a little list of anouncementsPosted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business
I accidentally deleted the above comment . I could only bring it back by copying.
Last I heard about the Petch House it has not been given an occupancy permit by the Building Department.
Why I have no idea.
It does not have power hooked up lthough power is available and power outlets are installed.
The wood floor is waiting to be installed whenever the word is given.
Until power and the flooring is in and an occupancy permit given we can't offer use of the building.
It's a shame. And extremely frustrating.
I think it is a great idea. And I do recall whose idea it was. There might even have been refinements suggested in the question asked of residents about the use of Petch, Give the thing a chance. Someday the Auroran might run have a little list of anouncementsPosted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business
I accidentally deleted the above comment . I could only bring it back by copying.
Last I heard about the Petch House it has not been given an occupancy permit by the Building Department.
Why I have no idea.
It does not have power hooked up lthough power is available and power outlets are installed.
The wood floor is waiting to be installed whenever the word is given.
Until power and the flooring is in and an occupancy permit given we can't offer use of the building.
It's a shame. And extremely frustrating.
Cain and Able and the biblical Mess of Potage
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Chris Emmanuel.":
"A politician worth his salt doesn't whine."
You mean like you did about Dawe and Abel after last week's council meeting?
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 15 September 2014 09:28
***************************
Bless your innocence. Did you think I was whining when I told readers what those two did.
Do you think anyone but me would have brought it to attention.
Geoff Dawe and John Abel are just a couple of guys in the last election who had the advantage of circumstances beyond their control
The prime objective of the election was to toss the incumbent rascals out.
If I have a criticism of either, it is disappointment. I can't even blame them for that.
They had no reason to believe I would handle my responsibilities differently to any time in the past.
I had hopes but no real grounds to expects anything from them.
Neither had political experience and sadly they took their lessons from those who were defeated.
John Abel moved a motion a number of months ago to have a representative from the insurance company come to Council and provide an explanation for the increase in premiums. The figures he apparently wanted were not disclosed on that occasion.
This time it was the Mayor's resolution. Obviously it had more clout. Figures were produced.The purpose was served.
John was first to draw a comparison to my opposition to paying the Feds a half million for that old wooden shed in the corner of our town park.
Geoffrey followed up but with a little less assurance.
Once they had the figures there was little further interest .
Like why did the insurance company provide a person no longer in office with $143,000 to defend against a Conflict of Interest . Clearly the decision to sue three residents for millions in damages was a personal action. The action was lost. The court found it was intended to silence political criticism.
Why did the insurance company pay $143,000. to defend the indefensible.
In the matter of $845,000 in other legal fees , the Vice President indicated the normal process is to bring the parties together to seek a settlement early in the process. He did not explain why the normL process was not followed.
Nor did he explain why the first lawyer assigned was replaced at the request of the defendants with a lawyer of their choice.
The boyos both, Dawe and Abel, with biblical fervour ,had no interest in anything but figures and assigning blame.
The thought occurs; the Honorable Member of the Provincial Assembly Premier Kathleen Wynn is suing for defamation, the Honourable former(?) Leader of the Opposition. Tim Hudak and a colleague .
The accusation was made that public records in the Premier's office were shredded after Ms Wynn became Premier. It's a serious accusation because it's against the law.
The relevant question.....
Is the provincial insurance company paying Kathleen Wynn's legal fees?
Or Tim Hudak's et al ?
Or both?
What impact will that have on provincial insurance premiums?
If there's an increase, is Kathleen Wynn responsible for the suit to protect her reputation against Tim Hudak et al ?
Or is Tim Hudak et al responsible for intent to damage the Premier's reputation ?
Maybe Wikipedia has the answer. Like the one about personal injury.
"A politician worth his salt doesn't whine."
You mean like you did about Dawe and Abel after last week's council meeting?
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 15 September 2014 09:28
***************************
Bless your innocence. Did you think I was whining when I told readers what those two did.
Do you think anyone but me would have brought it to attention.
Geoff Dawe and John Abel are just a couple of guys in the last election who had the advantage of circumstances beyond their control
The prime objective of the election was to toss the incumbent rascals out.
If I have a criticism of either, it is disappointment. I can't even blame them for that.
They had no reason to believe I would handle my responsibilities differently to any time in the past.
I had hopes but no real grounds to expects anything from them.
Neither had political experience and sadly they took their lessons from those who were defeated.
John Abel moved a motion a number of months ago to have a representative from the insurance company come to Council and provide an explanation for the increase in premiums. The figures he apparently wanted were not disclosed on that occasion.
This time it was the Mayor's resolution. Obviously it had more clout. Figures were produced.The purpose was served.
John was first to draw a comparison to my opposition to paying the Feds a half million for that old wooden shed in the corner of our town park.
Geoffrey followed up but with a little less assurance.
Once they had the figures there was little further interest .
Like why did the insurance company provide a person no longer in office with $143,000 to defend against a Conflict of Interest . Clearly the decision to sue three residents for millions in damages was a personal action. The action was lost. The court found it was intended to silence political criticism.
Why did the insurance company pay $143,000. to defend the indefensible.
In the matter of $845,000 in other legal fees , the Vice President indicated the normal process is to bring the parties together to seek a settlement early in the process. He did not explain why the normL process was not followed.
Nor did he explain why the first lawyer assigned was replaced at the request of the defendants with a lawyer of their choice.
The boyos both, Dawe and Abel, with biblical fervour ,had no interest in anything but figures and assigning blame.
The thought occurs; the Honorable Member of the Provincial Assembly Premier Kathleen Wynn is suing for defamation, the Honourable former(?) Leader of the Opposition. Tim Hudak and a colleague .
The accusation was made that public records in the Premier's office were shredded after Ms Wynn became Premier. It's a serious accusation because it's against the law.
The relevant question.....
Is the provincial insurance company paying Kathleen Wynn's legal fees?
Or Tim Hudak's et al ?
Or both?
What impact will that have on provincial insurance premiums?
If there's an increase, is Kathleen Wynn responsible for the suit to protect her reputation against Tim Hudak et al ?
Or is Tim Hudak et al responsible for intent to damage the Premier's reputation ?
Maybe Wikipedia has the answer. Like the one about personal injury.
Chris Emmanuel.
Chris Emanuel is bowing out of Newmarket politics after three terms. He has written a piece on Facebook with his thoughts on politics and social media.
Chris is an affable young man . I was interested in what he had to say particularly about social media. He notes people say negative things on social media they might not say otherwise,
A moderator is not required to publish negative comments. There is a question of judgement .
I think it's an advantage for politicians to know what people are thinking....good and bad. They should be evaluating support or opposition to the ideas Chris talks about.
Not all have merit. Not all are free of political intent.
Politics have always been fraught with risk. Kinda like log rolling. . If you don't learn to keep your balance a regular plunge into ice cold river is inevitable.
That experience is also useful.
Chris claims he is not leaving politics because of negativity. He is looking for a new challenge.
I think that's unlikely. Chris Emmanuel demonstrated a serious lack of judgement and social responsibility. He acknowledged his fault. He was remorseful.
He had to make a judgement about whether the community would be willing to overlook the fact he was in charge of a vehicle while rip-roaring drunk.
No-one else is in a better position to judge . No-one shares the responsibility.
No person can be blamed for reminding voters of a salient fact.
I think Chris made the right decision to leave politics.
But he loses points for judgement by complaining about negativity in politics and the social media.
Negativity in politics is a given. Some people are nice. Some are not. Some are nice most of the time but sometimes not. Others are nasty all of the time and never not.
Some don't stand up too well to functioning in a goldfish bowl. They can't handle criticism.
Some make decisions that cannot be overlooked and then there are consequences.
A politician worth his salt doesn't whine.
Chris is an affable young man . I was interested in what he had to say particularly about social media. He notes people say negative things on social media they might not say otherwise,
A moderator is not required to publish negative comments. There is a question of judgement .
I think it's an advantage for politicians to know what people are thinking....good and bad. They should be evaluating support or opposition to the ideas Chris talks about.
Not all have merit. Not all are free of political intent.
Politics have always been fraught with risk. Kinda like log rolling. . If you don't learn to keep your balance a regular plunge into ice cold river is inevitable.
That experience is also useful.
Chris claims he is not leaving politics because of negativity. He is looking for a new challenge.
I think that's unlikely. Chris Emmanuel demonstrated a serious lack of judgement and social responsibility. He acknowledged his fault. He was remorseful.
He had to make a judgement about whether the community would be willing to overlook the fact he was in charge of a vehicle while rip-roaring drunk.
No-one else is in a better position to judge . No-one shares the responsibility.
No person can be blamed for reminding voters of a salient fact.
I think Chris made the right decision to leave politics.
But he loses points for judgement by complaining about negativity in politics and the social media.
Negativity in politics is a given. Some people are nice. Some are not. Some are nice most of the time but sometimes not. Others are nasty all of the time and never not.
Some don't stand up too well to functioning in a goldfish bowl. They can't handle criticism.
Some make decisions that cannot be overlooked and then there are consequences.
A politician worth his salt doesn't whine.
Sunday, 14 September 2014
Happy Days
There was a wedding at the Petch House on Saturday. I understand it's the second in the house.
I was down there on Friday with my grand-daughter taking pictures. That's when I heard about the wedding. I thought it was odd . Nothing had been said about weddings. A secret perhaps.
The building has been sitting , neat and pretty in a perfect location for over a year. Time seemed to come to a halt as far as being available for any purpose .
It's down a little slope just beyond the southern arbor entrance to the Arboretum.
A small courtyard of crazy paving surrounded by flower beds sets of the front entrance.
In a grassy area an old iron wheeled farm wagon is a mass of blossoms. The wagon
was found in a barn ruin and brought to its current showcase is probably of equal vintage.
The path meanders past the house, deeper into the Arboretum.We took some pictures .It's a beautiful walk. Despite or maybe because of the cool dull day ,it was a place of peace and tranquillity.
I think it's odd that the house has not been celebrated. Almost as if it's an intent .Wouldn't that be positively weird !
All the fab labs ,satellite universities and fantasy heritage theme parks pursued in a frenzy with hours of staff time, consultant fees and potential for millions to be drained from the town treasury.
All of which came to nought, nil ,nada, zilch and zero.
While the lamentable ruin perched mouldering on the shoulder of Leslie Street was shovelled clean of mould , feces and rotting carcasses.....was taken apart board by board and transported to a yard in the Village of Vandorf.
Boards and pieces of boards were sussed out from heritage salvage in the town's possession to replace rot in the structure.
Windows were custom designed by experts elsewhere and installed.
Clapboard siding to match original cladding of the building was also custom milled to complete authenticity of design. Logs never intended to be exposed to the elements were once again clad
The whole put together again with artisan expertise.
All within budget. Half paid by financial donation.
But not before consultant engineers (2) had been paid a whack for a mass of verbiage contributing nothing. The second fee was $8,000. and recommended an expenditure of $440,000
An initial report advising extent and budget for the project was provided by Van Nostrand of Vandorf
at no cost. The same Van Nostrand who eventually undertook and completed the project
So now ,bearing no resemblance to the disgusting discard that bore no resemblance to the original structure that sat rotting and mouldering to our shame, awaiting it's fate on Leslie Street for more than a decade, it has continued to sit a further year, empty and forlorn, awaiting a staff report to complete wiring and install the vintage floor boards.
Except for two couples who have sought it's use to celebrate their weddings
Concrete floor and lacking power but no matter, romance enough to celebrate their vows of commitment.
I was down there on Friday with my grand-daughter taking pictures. That's when I heard about the wedding. I thought it was odd . Nothing had been said about weddings. A secret perhaps.
The building has been sitting , neat and pretty in a perfect location for over a year. Time seemed to come to a halt as far as being available for any purpose .
It's down a little slope just beyond the southern arbor entrance to the Arboretum.
A small courtyard of crazy paving surrounded by flower beds sets of the front entrance.
In a grassy area an old iron wheeled farm wagon is a mass of blossoms. The wagon
was found in a barn ruin and brought to its current showcase is probably of equal vintage.
The path meanders past the house, deeper into the Arboretum.We took some pictures .It's a beautiful walk. Despite or maybe because of the cool dull day ,it was a place of peace and tranquillity.
I think it's odd that the house has not been celebrated. Almost as if it's an intent .Wouldn't that be positively weird !
All the fab labs ,satellite universities and fantasy heritage theme parks pursued in a frenzy with hours of staff time, consultant fees and potential for millions to be drained from the town treasury.
All of which came to nought, nil ,nada, zilch and zero.
While the lamentable ruin perched mouldering on the shoulder of Leslie Street was shovelled clean of mould , feces and rotting carcasses.....was taken apart board by board and transported to a yard in the Village of Vandorf.
Boards and pieces of boards were sussed out from heritage salvage in the town's possession to replace rot in the structure.
Windows were custom designed by experts elsewhere and installed.
Clapboard siding to match original cladding of the building was also custom milled to complete authenticity of design. Logs never intended to be exposed to the elements were once again clad
The whole put together again with artisan expertise.
All within budget. Half paid by financial donation.
But not before consultant engineers (2) had been paid a whack for a mass of verbiage contributing nothing. The second fee was $8,000. and recommended an expenditure of $440,000
An initial report advising extent and budget for the project was provided by Van Nostrand of Vandorf
at no cost. The same Van Nostrand who eventually undertook and completed the project
So now ,bearing no resemblance to the disgusting discard that bore no resemblance to the original structure that sat rotting and mouldering to our shame, awaiting it's fate on Leslie Street for more than a decade, it has continued to sit a further year, empty and forlorn, awaiting a staff report to complete wiring and install the vintage floor boards.
Except for two couples who have sought it's use to celebrate their weddings
Concrete floor and lacking power but no matter, romance enough to celebrate their vows of commitment.
Saturday, 13 September 2014
Please think again
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Toronto..Act 3":
We have an improvised sign on the front door:
No Politicians Please
If we don't already know you from your work in town forget it
Moderate comments for this blog.**************************
This is not the tradition in Aurora. We respect people who put their names forward to serve.
They mostly finance campaigns from their own resources. They spend many hours tramping streets and climbing steps.
It doesn't cost anything to be civil.
Without candidates we would have no democracy.
My first campaign was three years after coming to live in Aurora and five after arriving in Canada.
I was never completely mobile. I campaigned by telephone. I called every home on the voters'
' list and . made two call backs if I didn't find anyone home.
Of all the people I spoke to, there were never more than three rude responses.
Aurora is a great town. We need to maintain and restore the traditional standard of dignity and civility.
I have signs to place in lawns.
Financial donations would be much appreciated.
My phone number : 905-727-6457
E-mail address.: evelyn.buck @ rogers.com
We have an improvised sign on the front door:
No Politicians Please
If we don't already know you from your work in town forget it
Moderate comments for this blog.**************************
This is not the tradition in Aurora. We respect people who put their names forward to serve.
They mostly finance campaigns from their own resources. They spend many hours tramping streets and climbing steps.
It doesn't cost anything to be civil.
Without candidates we would have no democracy.
My first campaign was three years after coming to live in Aurora and five after arriving in Canada.
I was never completely mobile. I campaigned by telephone. I called every home on the voters'
' list and . made two call backs if I didn't find anyone home.
Of all the people I spoke to, there were never more than three rude responses.
Aurora is a great town. We need to maintain and restore the traditional standard of dignity and civility.
I have signs to place in lawns.
Financial donations would be much appreciated.
My phone number : 905-727-6457
E-mail address.: evelyn.buck @ rogers.com
Another Chapter on Litigation costs
I continue to be assailed for denying freedom by choosing not to publish certain comments.
No such thing. I have no obligation to provide a platform to everyman.
If comments are offensive or abusive,in my judgement ,they will not be posted.
It's my decision to make.
There are no rules yet for social media.
It may be there never will be.
It means we have to exercise personal discipline. I' ve made a few changes since I began. Sowem were from gut instinct .Others from events.
In 2010 in Aurora Some stuff went down we ll learned from.
A severely critical comment was published about tformer Mayor Morris in the Aurora Citizen blog.
It was political.
Yet the town's CAO , stepped out of the administrative role and without authority from Council ,
e-mailed demanded the comment be removed ...by a deadline.
The demand was repeated.
Then a special meeting of Council was called , during an election., to discuss a critical comment.
of the Mayor on a blog.
An ambiguous motion was passed giving staff authority to do what was necessary to deal with the matter. I understand the motion had been prepared beforehand.
I did not attend the meeting. Politicians are subject to criticism. It's the nature of things. .One might say the essence of politics. It was not the business of the corporation or the administration.
During the election, without further communication, Councillors learned while knocking on doors, the Town had commenced litigation against three residents....moderators of the Aurora Citizen Blog.
A municipality never proceeds to court without Council authority.
Despite being twice and recently advised by the town solicitor of no provision in the town's insurance coverage for an elected member to precipitate legal action... Legal action had begun.
We have learned recently, legal counsel was retained by the CAO. and the town solicitor was the only affidavit filed against the residents in the proceedings
The eventual result was dismissal and a judgement that the proceeding had been an attempt to silence political criticism.
Four of six members who assented to the ambiguous motion were turfed out of office.
The residents were vindicated. But the price was high. The action was successful in that the Aurora Citizen has not published since.
The new Council after paying another solicitor $8,000 for advice, paid $43,000. in legal fees to date and terminated the town's involvement in the action.
I did not vote for either expenditure. I said we would be were ill-advised to pay the fees with town resources and we had not heard the last of it.
Nor had we.
A Charge of Conflict of Interest was filed by a citizen against the former Mayor on the basis she voted to spend town funds on personal litigation.
She was quoted as saying she had no intention of spending her money. I had her that vow before.
Despite there was no insurance coverage for the litigation and Ms Morris was no longer an elected member, the insurance company paid to defend the Conflict charge.
We learned last week the cost was $143,000.
The citizen who filed filed the legitimate charge was ordered to pay court costs.
So much for citizen justice.
Last week, the town solicitor provided information to the media about the current status of litigation between Ms Morris and the town. As I said ,we had not heard the last of it.
A suit was filed for payment of $250,000.to cover Ms Morris costs "on behalf of the town"
There have been further proceedings . I may not be at liberty to speak of that so I had better not.
This post ! As often happens took itself in a different direction.
It was to be a short comment about freedom of expression and the right to decide what would appear on my blog.
I should be working on my campaign
I have signs. I prefer to put them on private lawns. I can keep better track of them.
Financial contributions are welcome.
My phone number: 905-727-6457
e-mail address: evelyn,buck@rogers.com
Any help I receive will be much appreciated.
P.S. Ms Morris twice failed to sign and return a document committing to refund the municipality's cost for the litigation from the millions claimed in damages if the litigation was successful.
Friday, 12 September 2014
Toronto..Act 3
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "You be the judge":
Oh, my. T.O. Has another candidate for Mayor
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 12 September 2014 19:12
************************
It's not brand spanking new.
We shall see how the community will process this new act in the drama.
It might be a good time to turn off the drivel for a few days.
John Tory would be mistaken to imagine it strengthens his chances.
Olivia Chow has been thoughtful and careful throughout not to exploit Rob Ford's difficulties.
It's the difference between understanding and respect for how ordinary people feel about their politicians, and no understanding or respect whatsoever.
Few people like to see a man kicked when he's down. Especially if he's their man.
John Tory hath a lean and hungry look. He seldom let's an opportunity pass.
The Ford name will still be on the ballot. The campaign organization won't miss a beat. The nuts and bolts will not change.
Throughout all the fall downs and pick-ups, and the highs and lows, Doug Ford has been stalwart and steadfast by his brother's side.
No-one can dis-respect a brother's loyalty.
No distinction has been made between the brothers' philosophy on what's best for Toronto.
So, we shall see how the voters of Toronto appreciate the new Act in the play. How the reality of life has a way if intruding.
If it was a work of fiction would it win the Booker Prize or even a nomination?
Oh, my. T.O. Has another candidate for Mayor
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 12 September 2014 19:12
************************
It's not brand spanking new.
We shall see how the community will process this new act in the drama.
It might be a good time to turn off the drivel for a few days.
John Tory would be mistaken to imagine it strengthens his chances.
Olivia Chow has been thoughtful and careful throughout not to exploit Rob Ford's difficulties.
It's the difference between understanding and respect for how ordinary people feel about their politicians, and no understanding or respect whatsoever.
Few people like to see a man kicked when he's down. Especially if he's their man.
John Tory hath a lean and hungry look. He seldom let's an opportunity pass.
The Ford name will still be on the ballot. The campaign organization won't miss a beat. The nuts and bolts will not change.
Throughout all the fall downs and pick-ups, and the highs and lows, Doug Ford has been stalwart and steadfast by his brother's side.
No-one can dis-respect a brother's loyalty.
No distinction has been made between the brothers' philosophy on what's best for Toronto.
So, we shall see how the voters of Toronto appreciate the new Act in the play. How the reality of life has a way if intruding.
If it was a work of fiction would it win the Booker Prize or even a nomination?
If I have to be the one, I can't think of anyone better
Had my hair cut to-day. Can't stand it when it grows to a certain length. I told the hairdresser about the nice comments in the blog and made a bright spot in her day. It' s all about the cut.
I have posted a couple of nasties on the issue of expensive defence of defendants. I did not bring up the subject.
Nasty remarks seldom get time or space on blog. But occasionally they serve to illustrate the extent of ill will in the community against freedom of expression.
Few risk being in the middle of an ugly situation.
So anonymity is acceptable. Severe criticism of Councillors is not published. Judgement is exercised.
But the blog is open to thoroughly spiteful stuff against myself. People who function at that level are not having a lot of fun or satisfaction.
But I do know our rights.
They're worth defending.
If it falls to me, it falls to me.
I have posted a couple of nasties on the issue of expensive defence of defendants. I did not bring up the subject.
Nasty remarks seldom get time or space on blog. But occasionally they serve to illustrate the extent of ill will in the community against freedom of expression.
Few risk being in the middle of an ugly situation.
So anonymity is acceptable. Severe criticism of Councillors is not published. Judgement is exercised.
But the blog is open to thoroughly spiteful stuff against myself. People who function at that level are not having a lot of fun or satisfaction.
But I do know our rights.
They're worth defending.
If it falls to me, it falls to me.
You be the judge
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "It is the season":
"We had an election to rid ourselves of the gloom that hung about us."
But, with your constant re-hashing over these last four years, you've never allowed that gloom to completely dissipate.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 12 September 2014 12:4
********************
That?s not fair. The municipality is currently being sued by the former Mayor for $250,000,
The suit was filed in a court in Waterloo.
It's still the Town of Aurora being sued. Legal expenses are still being generated. It has been going on for months now.
I can hardly be blamed .
It was a resolution of the Mayor's that finally brought out actual expenditure to date of six individuals who caused to be published a damaging statement against myself being provided a defence by BFL the company providing insurance protection to the town.
It was Councillor Abel's question that brought forwrad the information the normal process is to seek a settlement of the matter early in the process.
In this issue , the normal process was not followed.The question of why was not asked.
I Councillor Abel's question elicited the response that damages might be resolved with an apology.
That was true when notice of intent to sue was served on the defendants five years ago.
It was not my action that brought the issue to the fore once again during the election.
That was done by our current Mayor.
It was Councillor Abel who suggested cost of providing a legal defence has a connection to the half million dollar purchase of the drill shed occupying a corner of our town park.
Mayor Dawe echoed the Councillor's sentiment.
The voters will decide the merit of that as a campaign tactic.
"We had an election to rid ourselves of the gloom that hung about us."
But, with your constant re-hashing over these last four years, you've never allowed that gloom to completely dissipate.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 12 September 2014 12:4
********************
That?s not fair. The municipality is currently being sued by the former Mayor for $250,000,
The suit was filed in a court in Waterloo.
It's still the Town of Aurora being sued. Legal expenses are still being generated. It has been going on for months now.
I can hardly be blamed .
It was a resolution of the Mayor's that finally brought out actual expenditure to date of six individuals who caused to be published a damaging statement against myself being provided a defence by BFL the company providing insurance protection to the town.
It was Councillor Abel's question that brought forwrad the information the normal process is to seek a settlement of the matter early in the process.
In this issue , the normal process was not followed.The question of why was not asked.
I Councillor Abel's question elicited the response that damages might be resolved with an apology.
That was true when notice of intent to sue was served on the defendants five years ago.
It was not my action that brought the issue to the fore once again during the election.
That was done by our current Mayor.
It was Councillor Abel who suggested cost of providing a legal defence has a connection to the half million dollar purchase of the drill shed occupying a corner of our town park.
Mayor Dawe echoed the Councillor's sentiment.
The voters will decide the merit of that as a campaign tactic.
It is the season
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Litany of Legal Fees not paid by BFL Continues...":
To 22:49
It's easy to say that after the fact and when you don't have to live through the experience yourself.
We try to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have at the time. What more can we ask of ourselves and others?
Whatever E. Bishenden did at the time she would have thought it best for her and her family in order to put an end to it. IMHO, that whole incident drove a huge wedge into local politics and not only at the municipal level. And it is still not fully settled.Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 12 September 2014 10:1
***********************************
Apologies to Elizabeth for publishing her name in the Blog. It will not appear again. It did this time because I had never understood unto now what it meant that the third party sued by the former Mayor had "settled".
It prompts information not mentioned before.
The news three residents were being sued hit the newspapers while candidates were knocking on doors. Candidates Granger and Gallo both stated publicly they knew nothing about it.
After the election, the new Council had to deal with the matter. The Town Solicitor informed Council that the former Mayor had not signed an agreement forwarded to her previously.
The document was a commitment to pay back to the town whatever had been expended to obtain financial compensation for damage to her reputation.
In previous discussions with Council, the Solicitor had informed no provision was in the insurance policy for a Council member to undertake litigation against any party.
Yet the town did. The CAO retained a lawyer. The Town Solicitor filed the only affidavit.
A Judge found the Town Solicitor was evasive in his answers and lied to the court.
The case had proceeded to court without the normal process of obtaining Council authority.
The judgement was that the action was an attempt to silence criticism of a politician.
We need to think about this.
The environment created in Aurora has been described as toxic.
Last night I had an anonymous comment asking me to release cancelled cheques in payment of my legal bills. How much had I paid? To show if a person doing business with the town had paid. And had I declared a conflict of interest when that person's business was before Council.
The comment was obviously written by one whose first language was not English.
I will keep to myself who I think that might be.
I have little doubt about the instigator.
For years we heard dark references about not being allowed to do the job she was elected to do.
About being compelled to resort to lawyers to protect the town, the other half of the deadly duo, staff and whoever else might be in need under the umbrella of righteousness.
The dark glower sent in shards across the table left no doubt who, in her mind, was responsible for the trouble she had seen.
Always managing to locate people ready and willing to say things needing to be said but she was never willing to say.
We had an election to rid ourselves of the gloom that hung about us. With the assistance of many hands, hearts and minds, we accomplished what had never been accomplished before. We elected a Mayor without prior experience.
But it seems the virus may not yet be conquered entirely.
To 22:49
It's easy to say that after the fact and when you don't have to live through the experience yourself.
We try to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have at the time. What more can we ask of ourselves and others?
Whatever E. Bishenden did at the time she would have thought it best for her and her family in order to put an end to it. IMHO, that whole incident drove a huge wedge into local politics and not only at the municipal level. And it is still not fully settled.Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 12 September 2014 10:1
***********************************
Apologies to Elizabeth for publishing her name in the Blog. It will not appear again. It did this time because I had never understood unto now what it meant that the third party sued by the former Mayor had "settled".
It prompts information not mentioned before.
The news three residents were being sued hit the newspapers while candidates were knocking on doors. Candidates Granger and Gallo both stated publicly they knew nothing about it.
After the election, the new Council had to deal with the matter. The Town Solicitor informed Council that the former Mayor had not signed an agreement forwarded to her previously.
The document was a commitment to pay back to the town whatever had been expended to obtain financial compensation for damage to her reputation.
In previous discussions with Council, the Solicitor had informed no provision was in the insurance policy for a Council member to undertake litigation against any party.
Yet the town did. The CAO retained a lawyer. The Town Solicitor filed the only affidavit.
A Judge found the Town Solicitor was evasive in his answers and lied to the court.
The case had proceeded to court without the normal process of obtaining Council authority.
The judgement was that the action was an attempt to silence criticism of a politician.
We need to think about this.
The environment created in Aurora has been described as toxic.
Last night I had an anonymous comment asking me to release cancelled cheques in payment of my legal bills. How much had I paid? To show if a person doing business with the town had paid. And had I declared a conflict of interest when that person's business was before Council.
The comment was obviously written by one whose first language was not English.
I will keep to myself who I think that might be.
I have little doubt about the instigator.
For years we heard dark references about not being allowed to do the job she was elected to do.
About being compelled to resort to lawyers to protect the town, the other half of the deadly duo, staff and whoever else might be in need under the umbrella of righteousness.
The dark glower sent in shards across the table left no doubt who, in her mind, was responsible for the trouble she had seen.
Always managing to locate people ready and willing to say things needing to be said but she was never willing to say.
We had an election to rid ourselves of the gloom that hung about us. With the assistance of many hands, hearts and minds, we accomplished what had never been accomplished before. We elected a Mayor without prior experience.
But it seems the virus may not yet be conquered entirely.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Updates
The town has not purchased the drill shed yet. A bylaw to purchase was passed on Tuesday as a requirement of the Department of National Defence minions.
Two figures made public are price and cost of work needing done. It's being sold "as is". Cost of maintenance has not been addressed.
The building is useless to any other organization. There's no property for side yards, rear yards, parking or landscaping .
None of the requirements of modern zoning are available.
I repeat, the town has not agreed to purchase.
If you don't think we should have to pay for that old barn sitting in a corner of the town park, there's still time to let your Councillors know. They will likely be at the Hoedown on Saturday night.
The property should come back to the rightful owner At the same price paid by the Auld Queen
and Emperor.
Pssshaw!!!!!!!!
*********************
The Culture Centre Board pays no rent for Church Street School. Despite millions spent to renovate to it's current condition. Maintenance is provided and paid one hundred per cent by the town. On top of that we shovel almost $400,000 a year at them from tax coffers and aside from the Mayor and Councillor Abel we don't have a clue who they are. They appoint themselves and get to keep whatever revenue the building and programs produce and solicit sponsorships and donations from the community. They meet in secret.
*****************
The hydro property is rented.... I think the lease is thirty or forty years. Long enough to make town ownership irrelevant. We forfeit assessment revenue by keeping it in town ownership. We lost twenty-seven jobs when Hydro moved out. As landlords we are responsible for upkeep of the building and property. The parks department maintains the yard. I have no idea how many of the $27 million we are spending on the J.O.C. as parks department share. Completely unnecessary had we kept the hydro building. Comments received make it sound as if QYR use it on Tuesday evenings and Saturdays.
I hear alterations made by QYR make it useless to the town. Even if the Feds decided the needs of modern warfare makes current drills out of date.
**********************
The additional Wikipedia reference to a personal injury claim is interesting. So it's not about bodily injury. It's about mental injury caused by being defamed.
I am the one suing for defamation and abuse of authority, abuse of resources, and denial of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I' m the one who suffered personal injury. So why are the people who caused the personal injury provided with defence counsel paid for through the town's insurance policy. I am a Councillor. Why am I not the one protected from injury.
The Vice President said the company tries to bring the parties to a settlement. No...they did not do that. The problem can sometimes be resolved with an apology, he said. No....they did not do that either. The opportunity was provided.
Mental injury...damned right there has been mental injury. If the town is carrying insurance to protect a Councillor from mental injury caused by defamation,why don't I know about it?
$845,000 the insurance company paid to defend defendants has done little to assuage my mental injury, that's for sure.
My tax dollars were used to cause me harm.
Mayor Dawe and Councillor Abel, elected for change from last transgressions, now adding insult to injury in time for a new election by doing exactly what the last lot thought they could do without challenge. And at almost the same time, four years ago when three other citizens were subjected to the same kind of abuse paid for with their own taxes to silence criticism.
Two figures made public are price and cost of work needing done. It's being sold "as is". Cost of maintenance has not been addressed.
The building is useless to any other organization. There's no property for side yards, rear yards, parking or landscaping .
None of the requirements of modern zoning are available.
I repeat, the town has not agreed to purchase.
If you don't think we should have to pay for that old barn sitting in a corner of the town park, there's still time to let your Councillors know. They will likely be at the Hoedown on Saturday night.
The property should come back to the rightful owner At the same price paid by the Auld Queen
and Emperor.
Pssshaw!!!!!!!!
*********************
The Culture Centre Board pays no rent for Church Street School. Despite millions spent to renovate to it's current condition. Maintenance is provided and paid one hundred per cent by the town. On top of that we shovel almost $400,000 a year at them from tax coffers and aside from the Mayor and Councillor Abel we don't have a clue who they are. They appoint themselves and get to keep whatever revenue the building and programs produce and solicit sponsorships and donations from the community. They meet in secret.
*****************
The hydro property is rented.... I think the lease is thirty or forty years. Long enough to make town ownership irrelevant. We forfeit assessment revenue by keeping it in town ownership. We lost twenty-seven jobs when Hydro moved out. As landlords we are responsible for upkeep of the building and property. The parks department maintains the yard. I have no idea how many of the $27 million we are spending on the J.O.C. as parks department share. Completely unnecessary had we kept the hydro building. Comments received make it sound as if QYR use it on Tuesday evenings and Saturdays.
I hear alterations made by QYR make it useless to the town. Even if the Feds decided the needs of modern warfare makes current drills out of date.
**********************
The additional Wikipedia reference to a personal injury claim is interesting. So it's not about bodily injury. It's about mental injury caused by being defamed.
I am the one suing for defamation and abuse of authority, abuse of resources, and denial of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I' m the one who suffered personal injury. So why are the people who caused the personal injury provided with defence counsel paid for through the town's insurance policy. I am a Councillor. Why am I not the one protected from injury.
The Vice President said the company tries to bring the parties to a settlement. No...they did not do that. The problem can sometimes be resolved with an apology, he said. No....they did not do that either. The opportunity was provided.
Mental injury...damned right there has been mental injury. If the town is carrying insurance to protect a Councillor from mental injury caused by defamation,why don't I know about it?
$845,000 the insurance company paid to defend defendants has done little to assuage my mental injury, that's for sure.
My tax dollars were used to cause me harm.
Mayor Dawe and Councillor Abel, elected for change from last transgressions, now adding insult to injury in time for a new election by doing exactly what the last lot thought they could do without challenge. And at almost the same time, four years ago when three other citizens were subjected to the same kind of abuse paid for with their own taxes to silence criticism.
Follow up on insurance premiums.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Litany of Legal Fees not paid by BFL Continues...":
Wow ! You are really cooking this morning. I was able to follow but expect most readers including myself are going to need some time. Some of what you wrote, I knew about. Other material was just rumour when it happened. It is interesting that the insurance guy blew this all into the open.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 September 2014 11:37
**********************=**
BFL Vice president did tell us more than I realize. I was distracted by the antics of Councillor Abel.
Writing a post compels me to arrange my thoughts in order. I took down a post titled Anything can happen in politics. It was not clear enough for my liking and I am also restricted by my legal role as a complainant against six people who in my view abused public trust in numerous ways.
I took a shower after finishing the post on insurance claims. My mind kept on turning. The post
needs completion.
Particulars are included in the town solicitor's report are on BFL stationary. It means Aurora staff did not provide them.
The Vice President answered questions about process. He did not volunteer information.
I asked why he had not provided the figures for defence of the six. Mayor Dawe noted it was in the documentation. He pointed to the solitary " Personal Injury Claim". I felt stupid and apologized to the V.P. I said I was not looking for it under that title. But I did not ask why it was under that title.
I was only half stupid. Why is a legal defence against legal action complaining of defamation, abuse of authority, abuse of public resources and denial of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by a Councillor being paid as a claim to defendants for personal injury.
I did not ask the obvious question and the answer was avoided.
We have checked Wikipedia. The funding in no way fits the category of personal injury.
It is my understanding from a reliable source, the insurance company initially denied the claim. Something happened that made them change their mind.
No clerk was on staff at the time. The Town Solicitor was Acting-CAO. It is the clerk's function to process insurance claims. A Municipal Clerk is a statuary office. Meaning: He has legal authority and responsibility.
A lawyer was assigned to the defendants by the insurance company. There was a flurry of activity for several months between the assigned lawyers and the defendants. In the end they demanded a new lawyer.
They were authorized to regain their own.
They did that.
I cannot speak of the trial until the decision is handed down. The Judge has from July 23rd, 6 months to make the decision.
The Clerk hired to replace the clerk who made a sudden decision to retire after giving me the Integrity Director's decision is no longer with the municipality .
His position, as Director was made redundant for the purpose of economy.
One other small detail I left out may be significant in the overall picture.
The Clerk was on vacation when the Integrity Commissioner made his decision. The Deputy Clerk accepted and notified Councillors the decision was in their mail boxes. Immediately after the message was withdrawn.
I went to the Town Hall to receive my copy. The Deputy Clerk did not appear. Instead the Solicitor
passed by a couple of times on his way to and from the Mayor's office. He did not acknowledge my presence. I had a Rogers camera person and reporter with me at the time. I had waited an hour.
Finally the solicitor did approach . Informed me cameras were not allowed in the town hall. Also informed me he was acting CAO and since the deputy clerk was not appointed acting clerk by Council and therefore he was instructing her not to provide me with the Integrity Commissioners decision.
This was in August.
The Deputy Clerk left the town hall in tears that day and was on stress leave until a new clerk was hired some months later. The only candidate by the way with municipal clerk experience.
The lawyer had been on staff since April. His was the only affidavit provided in the SLAPP action, the one the Judge said was evasive in his answers and lied.
He was no longer Town Solicitor early in the new term.
So now the question outstanding on the issue of vastly increased premiums due to an exorbitant claim for defence in a lawsuit is why is it classified as a personal injury claim.
How kosher is that?
Wow ! You are really cooking this morning. I was able to follow but expect most readers including myself are going to need some time. Some of what you wrote, I knew about. Other material was just rumour when it happened. It is interesting that the insurance guy blew this all into the open.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 September 2014 11:37
**********************=**
BFL Vice president did tell us more than I realize. I was distracted by the antics of Councillor Abel.
Writing a post compels me to arrange my thoughts in order. I took down a post titled Anything can happen in politics. It was not clear enough for my liking and I am also restricted by my legal role as a complainant against six people who in my view abused public trust in numerous ways.
I took a shower after finishing the post on insurance claims. My mind kept on turning. The post
needs completion.
Particulars are included in the town solicitor's report are on BFL stationary. It means Aurora staff did not provide them.
The Vice President answered questions about process. He did not volunteer information.
I asked why he had not provided the figures for defence of the six. Mayor Dawe noted it was in the documentation. He pointed to the solitary " Personal Injury Claim". I felt stupid and apologized to the V.P. I said I was not looking for it under that title. But I did not ask why it was under that title.
I was only half stupid. Why is a legal defence against legal action complaining of defamation, abuse of authority, abuse of public resources and denial of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by a Councillor being paid as a claim to defendants for personal injury.
I did not ask the obvious question and the answer was avoided.
We have checked Wikipedia. The funding in no way fits the category of personal injury.
It is my understanding from a reliable source, the insurance company initially denied the claim. Something happened that made them change their mind.
No clerk was on staff at the time. The Town Solicitor was Acting-CAO. It is the clerk's function to process insurance claims. A Municipal Clerk is a statuary office. Meaning: He has legal authority and responsibility.
A lawyer was assigned to the defendants by the insurance company. There was a flurry of activity for several months between the assigned lawyers and the defendants. In the end they demanded a new lawyer.
They were authorized to regain their own.
They did that.
I cannot speak of the trial until the decision is handed down. The Judge has from July 23rd, 6 months to make the decision.
The Clerk hired to replace the clerk who made a sudden decision to retire after giving me the Integrity Director's decision is no longer with the municipality .
His position, as Director was made redundant for the purpose of economy.
One other small detail I left out may be significant in the overall picture.
The Clerk was on vacation when the Integrity Commissioner made his decision. The Deputy Clerk accepted and notified Councillors the decision was in their mail boxes. Immediately after the message was withdrawn.
I went to the Town Hall to receive my copy. The Deputy Clerk did not appear. Instead the Solicitor
passed by a couple of times on his way to and from the Mayor's office. He did not acknowledge my presence. I had a Rogers camera person and reporter with me at the time. I had waited an hour.
Finally the solicitor did approach . Informed me cameras were not allowed in the town hall. Also informed me he was acting CAO and since the deputy clerk was not appointed acting clerk by Council and therefore he was instructing her not to provide me with the Integrity Commissioners decision.
This was in August.
The Deputy Clerk left the town hall in tears that day and was on stress leave until a new clerk was hired some months later. The only candidate by the way with municipal clerk experience.
The lawyer had been on staff since April. His was the only affidavit provided in the SLAPP action, the one the Judge said was evasive in his answers and lied.
He was no longer Town Solicitor early in the new term.
So now the question outstanding on the issue of vastly increased premiums due to an exorbitant claim for defence in a lawsuit is why is it classified as a personal injury claim.
How kosher is that?
Guest Post
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post
I Can't Fake It:
The town is paying $515,000 plus a further $120,000 "to be set aside for building maintenance." The Auroran article doesn't say if this amount must be spent now or will be over a period of years.
There doesn't appear to be a specific use in mind for this building although CAO Garbe says: "We want to approach the Farmers' Market to see if there is any interest in having a year-round Farmers' Market there, get their feedback and see if this facility will work out," he said. "If it passes, we will move forward with having discussions with them.
I have never heard of a municipality buying a building on speculation, without having at least two or three possible uses for it. If the town itself has a use for the building then effectively there is no revenue to the town. What is the point of charging one pocket 6% and taking that money and sticking it into another pocket? Same pair of pants.
It is my understanding that the individual "farmers" pay some sort of fee to the town in order to obtain a permit for a booth/space at the present Farmers' Market location on Wells Street. I don't know if the Market itself pays anything to the town. But 6% of a capital cost of $515,000 (plus some part of the $120,000 maintenance - let's say spread evenly over four years would add another $30,000) so you are looking at 6% of $545,000 or $32,700. Can the Farmers'Market afford this? Has anyone thought to ask in advance of buying a speculative building?
Are there any other group in Aurora that might be interested in entering into a long lease? Has anyone asked.
If a serious tenant is not found shortly the town will be stuck with maintenance costs and in particular heating as winter approaches.
Your assumptions toward the end of your comment are correct from a mathematical standpoint - obviously you know your "times" table.
You stature in your second last paragraph: "Provided you can borrow money at less than the cap rate an investment like this can be leveraged by using debt financing thereby driving the return on investment up (same income, lower capital investment). I have no idea whether the town plans to leverage the investment or not."
If you borrow at 4% and your income is 6% you are making 2% on the borrowed money. But this is peanuts to the town's finances and probably isn't worth the time to arrange.
It still boils down to having a serious client for the building's use before you go out and buy another one to add to the town's inventory
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 September 2014 10:58
The town is paying $515,000 plus a further $120,000 "to be set aside for building maintenance." The Auroran article doesn't say if this amount must be spent now or will be over a period of years.
There doesn't appear to be a specific use in mind for this building although CAO Garbe says: "We want to approach the Farmers' Market to see if there is any interest in having a year-round Farmers' Market there, get their feedback and see if this facility will work out," he said. "If it passes, we will move forward with having discussions with them.
I have never heard of a municipality buying a building on speculation, without having at least two or three possible uses for it. If the town itself has a use for the building then effectively there is no revenue to the town. What is the point of charging one pocket 6% and taking that money and sticking it into another pocket? Same pair of pants.
It is my understanding that the individual "farmers" pay some sort of fee to the town in order to obtain a permit for a booth/space at the present Farmers' Market location on Wells Street. I don't know if the Market itself pays anything to the town. But 6% of a capital cost of $515,000 (plus some part of the $120,000 maintenance - let's say spread evenly over four years would add another $30,000) so you are looking at 6% of $545,000 or $32,700. Can the Farmers'Market afford this? Has anyone thought to ask in advance of buying a speculative building?
Are there any other group in Aurora that might be interested in entering into a long lease? Has anyone asked.
If a serious tenant is not found shortly the town will be stuck with maintenance costs and in particular heating as winter approaches.
Your assumptions toward the end of your comment are correct from a mathematical standpoint - obviously you know your "times" table.
You stature in your second last paragraph: "Provided you can borrow money at less than the cap rate an investment like this can be leveraged by using debt financing thereby driving the return on investment up (same income, lower capital investment). I have no idea whether the town plans to leverage the investment or not."
If you borrow at 4% and your income is 6% you are making 2% on the borrowed money. But this is peanuts to the town's finances and probably isn't worth the time to arrange.
It still boils down to having a serious client for the building's use before you go out and buy another one to add to the town's inventory
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 September 2014 10:58
Think Abaht It
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "I Can't Fake It":
8:51
Enormous " if " in your last sentence.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 September 2014 10:12
*******************
None of which is relevant. Buying real estate as an investment is not the role of a municipality.
Neither is the role of landlord.
Municipalities are expected to sell property surplus to needs in a bidding process to realize the
highest and best value.
The property rightfully belongs to the town. It is surplus to the needs of the senior level of government. They took it from the town in the first place without paying for it. It clearly became a costly liability and will be to the town as well.
It's a bloody great wooden shed, a hundred and forty years old.
Why do we have staff on the payroll whose job it is to be negotiating real estate deals?
Where would a municipal public servant acquire those skills?
8:51
Enormous " if " in your last sentence.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 September 2014 10:12
*******************
None of which is relevant. Buying real estate as an investment is not the role of a municipality.
Neither is the role of landlord.
Municipalities are expected to sell property surplus to needs in a bidding process to realize the
highest and best value.
The property rightfully belongs to the town. It is surplus to the needs of the senior level of government. They took it from the town in the first place without paying for it. It clearly became a costly liability and will be to the town as well.
It's a bloody great wooden shed, a hundred and forty years old.
Why do we have staff on the payroll whose job it is to be negotiating real estate deals?
Where would a municipal public servant acquire those skills?
The Litany of Legal Fees not paid by BFL Continues
I posted today, then removed it. Something didn't make sense? Not just the Mayor's and Councillor Abel's slippery suggestion insurance premiums increase is because of what I have endured at the hands of Morris et al., cost to date $845,000 and not done yet.
At Tuesday's Council meeting a Vice President of BFL the town's insurance company delegated. The Town Solicitor made a written presentation on claims paid and impact on premiums. The V.P. followed up and answered questions.
The redoubtable Mayor and Councillor's plan to play the blame game of tit for tat shows their frustration and need to pay back for stuff they've done to themselves.
I understand that but can't help. It's a gift that keeps on giving. If they were nice I would be nice.
I have been reminded of legal fees I know were paid by the insurance coverage during the last term and this.
Right off the bat in 2007 and for two years lawyers least two were being paid over to make against former Mayor Tim Jones. Morris was sure there was enough to sue him for breach of privacy. She vowed she would not be spending her money.
Staff finally brought the matter to an end and the final lawyer to a meeting with the whole Council behind closed doors to end the campaign.
There was no case to answer and even if there ever had been, no damages likely to be assessed. The lawyer was surprised Council had seen none of his communications up to that time. Expense incurred was never known either.
The tribunal behind closed doors followed, herself acting as judge with lawyer at her elbow to complete the house of horrors fantasy.
Three Directors were called one at a time to be cross-examined like felons.
The lawyer's opinion was sought about policy contravened and appropriate penalty.
He cited a clause and stated termination possible. For one it came to be. But not without further public degradation and not until the contract was honoured was the CAO escorted from the premises
and a statement given to the press.
Then followed the emergency when refusal to sell a parcel of land to the Region to relocate the police headquarters hit the press. A lawyer was retained to advise how to handle the " breach" of confidentiality, three months after the decision, that was never reported out.
An invoice showed $56,000 billed for that episode.
Town Treasurer left soon after that.
The Town Solicitor found a new position closer to home and left as well.
Next big ticket was $650,000 for an OMB hearing the town lost to stop development of a golf course and 75 town houses on Leslie Street.
Several failed court proceedings and conferences incurred legal expenses to enforce a Joint Board OMB Hearing that never happened.
$45,000 was expended for a lawyer retained to read and interpret two blog posts with a view to write a complaint under the new and untested Code of Conduct.
Said complaint was publicized severally. It was read into the public record in a public meeting...on television...directed to be posted on the Town web site .....and published as a statement bearing signatures of six individuals in two local newspapers.
The complaint was considered and dismissed by the Integrity Commissioner. He judged it to be purely political.
The Integrity Commissioner was dismissed after his first decision his contract paid out for while the ink was still wet in his newly signed contract.
Not in time to invalidate the decision.
The Town Clerk provided my copy of the decision as required, and coincidentally decided to leave the town's employment on the same day.
The CAO notified Council by e-mail the Clerk had decided overnight to retire early.
During the last election campaign, legal costs were incurred to file a SLAPP lawsuit on three residents to silence criticism.
We learned a week ago the lawyer was retained by the CAO the only affidavit was filed by the Town Solicitor.
In his findings, a Judge found the Solicitor evaded answering questions and lied. It cost the lawyer at the hands of the new Council but the town paid a generous severance package.
Fees of $43,000 were just generated in the action but had not been paid by the time the current Council came to office.
A second lawyer was paid a fee of $8,000 to advise whether or not the fees should be paid.
They were.
A charge under the Conflict of Interest Act was filed against the former Mayor in connection with the law suit. It was dismissed on a technicality.
$153,932 was paid by the town's insurance company. First I know of not funded straight from town coffers.
It was listed in the report received Tuesday as "Conflict of Interest & legal expenses".
The town is currently being sued by the former Mayor for $250,000 in connection with the SLAPP action. Legal fees to defend the action are being paid.
Directly above the Conflict. A claim for Personal Injury (Buck v Morris et al.) is listed in an amount of $845,000.
In response to a question by Councillor Abel, the Vice President of BFL Insurance, present at Tuesday's meeting, informed Council the company tries to bring the parties to the table to effect a settlement.
That is the opposite of my experience.
A second question by Councillor Abel elicited the response the matter of damage award might be decided with an order to apologize.
There have been several opportunities to apologize and withdraw the statement signed by six individuals?
The first prior to commencement of the action.
The second prior to commencement of the trial.
It never happened.
It may have been initially advised.
The first lawyer assigned by the insurance company was replaced.
At Tuesday's Council meeting a Vice President of BFL the town's insurance company delegated. The Town Solicitor made a written presentation on claims paid and impact on premiums. The V.P. followed up and answered questions.
The redoubtable Mayor and Councillor's plan to play the blame game of tit for tat shows their frustration and need to pay back for stuff they've done to themselves.
I understand that but can't help. It's a gift that keeps on giving. If they were nice I would be nice.
I have been reminded of legal fees I know were paid by the insurance coverage during the last term and this.
Right off the bat in 2007 and for two years lawyers least two were being paid over to make against former Mayor Tim Jones. Morris was sure there was enough to sue him for breach of privacy. She vowed she would not be spending her money.
Staff finally brought the matter to an end and the final lawyer to a meeting with the whole Council behind closed doors to end the campaign.
There was no case to answer and even if there ever had been, no damages likely to be assessed. The lawyer was surprised Council had seen none of his communications up to that time. Expense incurred was never known either.
The tribunal behind closed doors followed, herself acting as judge with lawyer at her elbow to complete the house of horrors fantasy.
Three Directors were called one at a time to be cross-examined like felons.
The lawyer's opinion was sought about policy contravened and appropriate penalty.
He cited a clause and stated termination possible. For one it came to be. But not without further public degradation and not until the contract was honoured was the CAO escorted from the premises
and a statement given to the press.
Then followed the emergency when refusal to sell a parcel of land to the Region to relocate the police headquarters hit the press. A lawyer was retained to advise how to handle the " breach" of confidentiality, three months after the decision, that was never reported out.
An invoice showed $56,000 billed for that episode.
Town Treasurer left soon after that.
The Town Solicitor found a new position closer to home and left as well.
Next big ticket was $650,000 for an OMB hearing the town lost to stop development of a golf course and 75 town houses on Leslie Street.
Several failed court proceedings and conferences incurred legal expenses to enforce a Joint Board OMB Hearing that never happened.
$45,000 was expended for a lawyer retained to read and interpret two blog posts with a view to write a complaint under the new and untested Code of Conduct.
Said complaint was publicized severally. It was read into the public record in a public meeting...on television...directed to be posted on the Town web site .....and published as a statement bearing signatures of six individuals in two local newspapers.
The complaint was considered and dismissed by the Integrity Commissioner. He judged it to be purely political.
The Integrity Commissioner was dismissed after his first decision his contract paid out for while the ink was still wet in his newly signed contract.
Not in time to invalidate the decision.
The Town Clerk provided my copy of the decision as required, and coincidentally decided to leave the town's employment on the same day.
The CAO notified Council by e-mail the Clerk had decided overnight to retire early.
During the last election campaign, legal costs were incurred to file a SLAPP lawsuit on three residents to silence criticism.
We learned a week ago the lawyer was retained by the CAO the only affidavit was filed by the Town Solicitor.
In his findings, a Judge found the Solicitor evaded answering questions and lied. It cost the lawyer at the hands of the new Council but the town paid a generous severance package.
Fees of $43,000 were just generated in the action but had not been paid by the time the current Council came to office.
A second lawyer was paid a fee of $8,000 to advise whether or not the fees should be paid.
They were.
A charge under the Conflict of Interest Act was filed against the former Mayor in connection with the law suit. It was dismissed on a technicality.
$153,932 was paid by the town's insurance company. First I know of not funded straight from town coffers.
It was listed in the report received Tuesday as "Conflict of Interest & legal expenses".
The town is currently being sued by the former Mayor for $250,000 in connection with the SLAPP action. Legal fees to defend the action are being paid.
Directly above the Conflict. A claim for Personal Injury (Buck v Morris et al.) is listed in an amount of $845,000.
In response to a question by Councillor Abel, the Vice President of BFL Insurance, present at Tuesday's meeting, informed Council the company tries to bring the parties to the table to effect a settlement.
That is the opposite of my experience.
A second question by Councillor Abel elicited the response the matter of damage award might be decided with an order to apologize.
There have been several opportunities to apologize and withdraw the statement signed by six individuals?
The first prior to commencement of the action.
The second prior to commencement of the trial.
It never happened.
It may have been initially advised.
The first lawyer assigned by the insurance company was replaced.
Monday, 8 September 2014
I Can't Fake It
I have registered as a candidate for Council. I wrote so many drafts that were not to answer the "simple" question, it was probably in one. I rode up to the Town Hall on my trusty scooter and did the deed.
My scooter is of the Fortress brand. The model is called "Winner". I swear I didn't even notice that until it came home. But it suits me just fine.
A comment from last week was correct. The "simple" question was "disingenuous". Do you not love our language? There's a word for everything. The person who sent it just can't stop talking about it
and insisting I have not answered.
I have been reminded of the invitation to a photo-op at the site of the new joint facility with the contractors and architects and the Director of Environment and Infrastructure.
If I don't go I am likely to be accused of not being in support of progress and courage to be a leader, all the qualities Councillor Abel so admires.
If I go and stand smiling with the Mayor and his band of steadfast supporters, I will be accused of
the height of hypocrisy.
A picture tells a thousand words. Either way I can't win. Except maybe with people who don't read or
pay attention to details.
It's a quandary.
I really believe the town's interest is not being served with this facility.
Not for a minute do I accept the extra floor is being built without a need being identified. It is
beyond credibility.
Or logic of a roof top garden as opposed to shelter for equipment or storage for heritage
salvage.
I am convinced the project has been piloted through in a calculated fashion every step of the way.
If half the effort was made to planning the project sensibly as has been devoted to getting it
approved at the last minute.
If they hadn't spent all that time chasing crazy schemes like fantasy heritage parks and university campuses, the location of which had undoubtedly been chosen before the invitations went out,
there might have been time to do it right and commend it unanimously to the community.
Like the elaborate and totally disrespectful pretext to choose a candidate for a vacancy when they knew their choicest from the beginning .
I don't respect that. I can't be a party to something I don't respect.
They can smile all the way from here to China, I will not stand beside them and fake it.
Sunday, 7 September 2014
Like it Or Not
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Setting a few things straight":
Evelyn,
A simple question - I hope you publish and answer it.
You continue to talk about the hydro building/QYR deal and how that impacted the new building decision.
Given that, as your previous commenter said, the horse has left the barn. We all know the history.
The question then, what would you propose we, knowing that you can't reverse some decisions (without costs), what do you propose is done?
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 4 September 2014 10:14
***********************
I spent hours and written a number of drafts to answer a question I conclude is not in the least bit simple.
It bores down to the central reason for the blog.
My purpose is to share, to the best of my ability, my experience as Councillor with whoever wishes to travel with me on this journey.
I promised.
The blog makes it possible.
A politician who speaks directly and personally to residents giving reasons for positions and decisions means our system of government is better.
I do not agree that an agreement between two levels of government cannot be set aside. All levels of government serve the same master. For the highest level to exploit the lowest is shameful at best and wholly cynical at worst.
It's not about breaching a contract like the Province did with two hydro generating plants with eventually admitting to a cost of $2.3 billion and now selling off assets like a bankrupt sale to get out of the hole they dug.
The decision to lease the hydro property continues to reverberate through town business.
We are now paying for a property occupying a corner of the town park which is surplus to their needs because we gave them a property that we needed.
At huge and exorbitant cost to ourselves.
Without this blog, you would not know these things. No-one else is connecting the dots.
But that in a nutshell, my friend is my objective.
Politics does not have universal appeal. With good reason. Doing the right thing can be hard.
Going along for the sake of going along is easier. There's safety in numbers.
The easy path has never been an option for me.
Because I know I am sensible and I don't think there's anything special about being sensible
I fully expect other people to be sensible too.
I may often be a solitary voice on Council. But the blog let's me share.
The weight is lighter.
The future is brighter.
You are with me every step of the way.
Evelyn,
A simple question - I hope you publish and answer it.
You continue to talk about the hydro building/QYR deal and how that impacted the new building decision.
Given that, as your previous commenter said, the horse has left the barn. We all know the history.
The question then, what would you propose we, knowing that you can't reverse some decisions (without costs), what do you propose is done?
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 4 September 2014 10:14
***********************
I spent hours and written a number of drafts to answer a question I conclude is not in the least bit simple.
It bores down to the central reason for the blog.
My purpose is to share, to the best of my ability, my experience as Councillor with whoever wishes to travel with me on this journey.
I promised.
The blog makes it possible.
A politician who speaks directly and personally to residents giving reasons for positions and decisions means our system of government is better.
I do not agree that an agreement between two levels of government cannot be set aside. All levels of government serve the same master. For the highest level to exploit the lowest is shameful at best and wholly cynical at worst.
It's not about breaching a contract like the Province did with two hydro generating plants with eventually admitting to a cost of $2.3 billion and now selling off assets like a bankrupt sale to get out of the hole they dug.
The decision to lease the hydro property continues to reverberate through town business.
We are now paying for a property occupying a corner of the town park which is surplus to their needs because we gave them a property that we needed.
At huge and exorbitant cost to ourselves.
Without this blog, you would not know these things. No-one else is connecting the dots.
But that in a nutshell, my friend is my objective.
Politics does not have universal appeal. With good reason. Doing the right thing can be hard.
Going along for the sake of going along is easier. There's safety in numbers.
The easy path has never been an option for me.
Because I know I am sensible and I don't think there's anything special about being sensible
I fully expect other people to be sensible too.
I may often be a solitary voice on Council. But the blog let's me share.
The weight is lighter.
The future is brighter.
You are with me every step of the way.
So much to know, so little time to tell
On Friday Councillors were informed by E-mail that staff will be presenting a bylaw for the purchase of Aurora Armouries to be enacted at Tuesday's Council meeting.
A memo will be included on the public agenda describing the purchase and the proposed price.
I found the communication odd. Town business is not conducted by E-mail.
Bylaws are municipal legislation.
Legislation is not an administrative responsibility.
Just short weeks ago staff were directed by council resolution to determine possibilities. No need has been established. No sensible alternatives.
Then ...Whamo.... the deed is done.
On September 9th....Three days before all bets are off and Council is up for election.
So much to tell...so little time to tell it.
What's the rush, you may ask?
Yes you may. It doesn't mean the answer will be provided.
A memo will be included on the public agenda describing the purchase and the proposed price.
I found the communication odd. Town business is not conducted by E-mail.
Bylaws are municipal legislation.
Legislation is not an administrative responsibility.
Just short weeks ago staff were directed by council resolution to determine possibilities. No need has been established. No sensible alternatives.
Then ...Whamo.... the deed is done.
On September 9th....Three days before all bets are off and Council is up for election.
So much to tell...so little time to tell it.
What's the rush, you may ask?
Yes you may. It doesn't mean the answer will be provided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
