"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

Sunday 14 November 2010

What Was ,Should Not Be

We had an election. Certain issues were front and centre. The people made it clear, they do not support public resources being used to fund legal action for damages against three families in the community.

It appears from comments of three Councillors during and after the election,they did not commit to that action when they voted in the wee small hours of the morning after a six hour meeting.

Other than the Mayor,no candidate on the hustings,spoke in favour of the law suit.

It cannot therefore be argued the action should continue.The people turned thumbs down. It remains only for the new Council to follow up.

In my judgment, the action should be immediately withdrawn. No further funds should be available. If there is a means for recovery of funds already expended that should happen.

There are several aspects of the decision made that morning which are anything but clear.

The Town has policies governing spending.

Under certain circumstances,Directors have authority to spend up to a certain sum without Council approval

No Council Member has that authority.

Budgets are approved each year. Still,there are spending and purchasing policies that govern. Budget approval is not authority to spend. Individual projects must be approved by Council with source of funding specified.

Councillors were not provided with written documentation of legal authority which allowed a six million dollar damage action to the advantage of the Mayor to be filed at the expense of the municipality.

The printed copy of a critical comment from a blog was circulated at the Council table at the last minute that night, as an add-on to an in-camera agenda.

It was not a matter of privacy where an individual could be identified.

Politicians surrender privacy when they put their names forward for election.

It was not a union contract negotiation matter.

It was not a real estate matter.

It was not a matter of litigation involving solicitor/ client privilege where the municipality's interest must be "saved harmless"

I would argue, none of the items permitted by the Municipal Act to be discussed behind closed doors, allowed this matter to be dealt with by Council either in private or in a public meeting.

I would further opine, it never was the business of the corporation.

It follows therefore, what was done should be undone.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I assume Mr. Dawe will declare a conflict on any discussions regarding the lawsuit since one of the defendants was his campaign strategist and another publicly endorsed him in an ad.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a motion to this effect at the last meeting of the outgoing council. It would be interesting to see which way councillors Gallo and Gaertner would vote.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 2:36

What makes you assume that the new Mayor should declare a conflict? Are you perhaps not fully aware of what this lawsuit is about?

Phyllis Morris is using public funds to sue citizens. Don't be fooled into thinking that if this suit had any chance of success whatsoever, that Joe and Jane Taxpayer would see a dime of the reward. No my friend, our role is to pay and pay again. Any gain that might be realized after costs goes in its entirety into the bank account of Phyllis Morris.

You seriously think Geoff Dawe is the one with a conflict?

Luckywife

Richard Johnson said...

My response to the conflict question is posted under Evelyn's November 14th posting entitled "Where is the Logic ?".

The anonymous poster in this instance appears lose their likely ultimate objective at least three times as far as I can see.