"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

Saturday 6 June 2009

A Youtube Video

is circulating of a typically British irreverent version of God Save The Queen put out by the British National Party. A few lines of the second verse seem particularly apt..

Scatter our enemies and make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks

Join the party before our government destroys us and mass emigration is our only hope.


Heather's Note - Click HERE for the link.

******************************************

Council had a closed meeting on Tuesday. On Thursday, after contemplating that event , I informed the town solicitor I did not agree the agenda qualified for secrecy under the Municipal Act. I gave notice I did not feel bound by the rules of confidentiality and I looked forward to hearing from him in case I was overlooking something I needed to consider. I did not hear..

The town's insurance coverage was discussed and how Councillors may or may not avail themselves of its protection. Nothing secret about that.

A post in a political Blog from the Chief Administrative Officer was the second item. Nothing secret about that. It was published.

A third item, not on the agenda but introduced and read by Councillor MacEachern, was my post "The Buzz Around Town". After persistent challenge by Councillor Gallo, discussion was not allowed.

Never fear. Next morning. the Mayor called an emergency meeting to deal with that pressingly
urgent matter in the evening behind closed doors , prior to the Citizen Awards Ceremony. Alison wasn't there. Councillor McRoberts retirement event was that night.

I do not acknowledge council's right to formally discuss in secrecy or in public ,an observation I have made on town business under my authority as Councillor except during the course of a debate.

I did not attend that meeting

At the first meeting ,there was agreement to disagree between myself and Chief Administrative Officer Neil Garbe about his authority to enter the political arena.

I contend he can't. He argues he has the responsibility to protect the town. The solicitor also argues. he has the responsibility and that he is a Statutory Officer. He referred to Section 227 of the Municipal Act.

So ....I checked . The solicitor's contention the Chief Administrative Officer has statutory authority is not validated by that section of the Act.

Section 227 of the Act states a municipality "shall" appoint a Clerk and it spells out duties under Provincial Statutes. That's what makes the office "Statutory"

Section 229 of the Act states the municipality "may" appoint a Chief Administrative Officer. It refers to general and efficient management of the town's operations and "such other duties as assigned by the municipality". No Statutory responsibility is attached to the office of Chief Administrative Officer. He cannot act outside Council authority on Town matters.

Council did not authorize Mr.Garbe to engage a political Blog with an unknown moderator over an anonymous critical comment made against the Mayor, contend injury to the municipality's reputation and give notice of intended action by the municipality if they did not conform to his ultimatum.

The Mayor would probably like me to tell you she has had conversation with Chief Armand La Barge of York Regional Police. She noted police involvement means entry and search of a person's home.

My daughter Theresa, always likes to hear what happened at council on Tuesday. If she's not up when I get home, she calls me from work on Wednesday. I gave her a sense of things.

"Mum" she said, " I think ...they think ...you are the Moderator of the Aurora Citizen Blog.They thought an ultimatum would scare the bejasus out of you , the critical comment would be retracted, an apology made, the contributor would be outed and when that strategy didn't work, the Mayor cited her connection with Police Chief Armand La Barge and noted the police would be able to enter a person's home and search".

Well... I thought..... why didn't I think of that?

Quick as a whip, I thought about something else. the Mayor said staff had not been able to do their own work for more than a week because they were fully occupied with this issue. Lawyer John Mascarin, who assisted with the by-election issue, has been consulted and who knows how many more town resources will be used before they're done with this particular "knavish trick".

And all I can do about it is tell you what's going on that shouldn't be going on, behind the scenes.

18 comments:

Knowledgeable in Aurora said...

I note the Mayor has referred to herself as being protected from "harassment" on a number of occasions. Sounds to me like you are being harassed when you are threatened with:

"police involvement means entry and search of a person's home."

Another fine example of this self absorbed Mayor believing she has all the power in the world to do what she likes, all in the name of protecting the Corporation.

Anonymous said...

A- The amount of hate directed to Evelyn Buck by the Gang Of Four or Five or whatever shows how much they hate themselves.

B- All of you people that host, write, and comment on these blogs need to learn how Google works.

Search for these phrases in the same search:
"i just started a blog" AND "auroracitizen.blogspot.com"

Cheers!

Robert the Bruce said...

Anonynous at June 8, 2009 9:56...

What a cunning investigator you are. I have known the identity for a long time after an email bounced back but I have respected the owner's desire to stay behind the scene. I hope this does not change the status of the blog.

Fuimus

Anonymous said...

"I hope this does not change the status of the blog. "

It shouldn't... the Citizen has provided a place where people can share ideas and say what they think. I think it's a good thing.

Anonymous said...

in defense of anonymous 9:56

she found publicly available information

if she had not found it

someone else would have

eventually

the lesson for all
be careful with your anonymity on the internet!

so who is anonymous 9:56?

she outs the other blog, but is no fan of the mayor.

(are there any fans of the mayor?)

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure there is a defence for 'her' (should I believe your use of the feminine pronoun?)

Who elected 'her' Lord High Outer?! Why volunteer that information unheeded? To hear "Oh, isn't 'she' clever" at the disclosure?

I've known since last August (I DO NOT know the individual personally) but felt no compulsion to expose someone who chose to remain nameless.

Pity 'she' did.

Anonymous said...

"she outs the other blog, but is no fan of the mayor."

Which makes the action even more mind-bogglingly stupid.

Where Is Aurora Anyway? said...

"Which makes the action even more mind-bogglingly stupid."

So your argument is this:

If you don't agree with the mayor, you should not out BH as the moderator of AC.

I don't see how the conclusion (should not out BH) follows from the premise (anti-mayor). Can you offer anything to strengthen your argument?

Goodie two shoes said...

To the last three commenters: What??

My Kinda Town said...

"Which makes the action even more mind-bogglingly stupid"

So, this is your argument:

If you're anti-mayor, you should not out BH on the AC blog.

I don't see how your conclusion (don't out BH) follows from your premise (being anti-mayor).

Can you offer anything to strengthen your argument?

I hope you follow this up with me. Because next we'll work on deconstructing your use of the word "stupid."

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should deal with your first question (Where Is Aurora Anyway?) before trying to understand something else you claim to find challenging?

Heather said...

Talk about mind-boggling.

"she outs the other blog, but is no fan of the mayor."

Nowhere in the comment detailing how to find out who 'started a new blog' does it say anything about not being a fan of (or being a fan of) anyone.

And if you all comment anonymously, it makes me think that you're just one person arguing with yourself.

Robert The Bruce - we need a couple of tinfoil hats over here, stat! :)

My Kinda Town said...

I'm not *trying* to be secretive or esoteric. I'm working with the words on this page.

Heather: In the blog outer's comment, I DO see evidence of some kind of unfavourable opinion of the mayor. See part "A."

Anon June 11, 2009 11:14 AM:

"Where Is Aurora Anyway?" -- this phrase was meant to comment that the blog outer could be on the other side of the world, and never have even been to Aurora (same with any commenter on here.)

Can you provide evidence of why my post suggested that I found anything "challenging?" I said I did not understand June 10 9:32's implied argument and asked if they could flesh it out a bit.

June 10 9:32 calls the blog outer's action of blog outing "stupid." How do you define "stupid?" Why does that definition apply to the blog outer? What if the blog outer has no vested interest in the town or its affairs? Alright, maybe there is an argument there: the action neither hurts nor harms the outer, but they wasted 5 minutes of their time, and have shown that they have no life.

And maybe I don't have a life for going all PHILOSOPHY101 on everyone.

But just look at June 9 9:49! I guess they get participation marks.

My Kinda Town said...

Oh man.

"hurts nor harms" = "hurts nor helps"

There are typos
spelling errors
grammar errors
usage errors

Sort the above by severity.

Heather said...

"Heather: In the blog outer's comment, I DO see evidence of some kind of unfavourable opinion of the mayor. See part "A.""

Here it is:

A- The amount of hate directed to Evelyn Buck by the Gang Of Four or Five or whatever shows how much they hate themselves.

(Italics are my own.) I see it as a reflexive verb in the second set of italics. Perhaps you read it differently.

So we've hit the psychology, the linguistics. Anybody got any math or science to add? :)

Anonymous said...

"I'm not *trying* to be... esoteric."

Epic Fail


"How do you define "stupid?"

The continuation of this blather.

My Kinda Town said...

Dear Heather (that's the name of an album, by the way),

I can't say I'll agree to disagree with you, because I read the sentence from Part A just like you do.

I'll break it down; maybe that will help us.

assume our premise, p = The GOF dislike EB

our conclusion, q = The GOF dislike themselves

I read A to say: if p, then q

When someone argues for q, are they anti-mayor? If the mayor is a part of the Gang of Four or Five or whatever (and that's just an a priori truth, agreed?), then they're saying she dislikes herself. So maybe you're right. They're not anti-mayor. They might pity her, and her insecurities. Look at how hostile she becomes when someone uses a big word she doesn't understand, like "semantics."

I'm kind of liking the moniker "The GOF." Actually, just GOF -- it does act like a single entity, after all. Or how about GAWF. Not as in God Awful, but just for something more phonetic.

We have four councillors. BM, ACM, EB, and GAWF. GAWFF?

Man, I don't know where this train started, but I steered it right off the tracks.

I'm having fun, anyway.

I'll go away now.

MKT

Anonymous said...

MKT -

There are definitely four councillors - I like the run down you've provided. Careful though - the GAWFF might sick the CAO on you for a comment like that.