The subject of litigation against three families by the Town's former Mayor, in a suit claiming 6 million dollars in damages and paid for by the town has initiated a discussion.
That's a good thing.
But it is perforce, an uneven debate, considering how much information is neither open nor transparent.
This much we all know.
The decision made by the previous council on September 14/15 has been reversed by the current council . The tap has been turned off. No more money will flow from the town coffers to pay for an action repudiated, in no uncertain terms,by the majority of taxpayers in the Town of Aurora.
Six councillors are quoted as not having been informed of the litigation until reading of it in the media.
According to a response, in a public meeting held on December 22nd, by the town's associate solicitor,only council has authority to proceed with litigation..
The previous council did not.
It remains to be determined who did.
I have given Notice of Motion to Council for solicitor-client confidence to be waived in this matter.
If the motion receives a seconder and reaches the table for debate and a vote is cast in support by the majority, all documentation pertaining to this action, from start to finish, will be available for the public to become fully informed.
At this point, I am not aware what obstacles may be in the way of accomplishing my intent.
Or how other councillors may perceive the situation.
I can only speak for myself.
Prosecuting a suit for damages in an amount of $6 million , against three members of our community, by the might of the corporate juggernaut , through questionable authority, for alleged defamation by an anonymous person, was an act which cannot and has not been upheld by the community.
Such injustice has not been tolerated by fair-minded people.
Let alone paid for by public funds appropriated from the municipal treasury.
Tuesday 4 January 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
The lawsuit was a mistake, and the original motion should never have been passed. I agree with you regarding transparency. My question is; will you still agree with yourself if it turns out that senior staff erred as well, by too broadly interpreting the council motion?
(It is interesting that you have not published my last comment to your blog.)
Hey Darryl, Evelyn did not post my previous post either, which is her perogative - it's her blog!
I do not support the law suit, do not think it should have been launched, and am glad that the town is no longer standing behind it. That said, I don't think "ANY and ALL" can be interpreted too broadly. It IS broad. I am sure that was the point of those that authored it. I personally do not see any other way forward other than to pay the o/s legal bills up to the time that council informed Aird & Berlis to cease working on it on.
Those councillors in the room who claimed after the fact that they never envisioned a lawsuit stemming from it were either naiive then or disingenuous now.
I am in full agreement with Evelyn re: waiving privilege on this and exposing "ANY and ALL" information regarding this matter to the public. Given the tone and results of the election, I don't think that it should take much political courage on behalf of council to do so.
Keep pushing Evelyn!
Darryl has, or had his own blog.
Nothing new has been posted since the election so maybe it was nothing more than an election tool, but if he's looking for a platform to voice his opinions why is he looking to others to do it for him?
Interesting indeed.
You tell him Chris....
Your blog is the "gold standard" in blogging.
While Darryl's was an "election tool", yours has become a tool to generate hate and defamation without allowing the target of your hatred to defend or refute your claims. All under the guise of "wit" and "humour". Debate used to be a two-way exchange. In the Christopher Watts world, it's a "Put-up or shut-up" exchange.
Pathetic
Fuimus
ps.
I guess I need a blog to counter the Watts hatred thrown at me.
Robert the unclean Bruce,
My blog serves as my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you honestly believe my blog generates "hate" and "defamation" perhaps you would could back up your claim by citing examples, you have yet to do so for any of your claims, but if you wish to start now perhaps you could do so by responding to any one of my posts on my blog so as not to derail the conversation here.
I'd love to hear you make a case that your "psuedonym" is suffering from defamation.
That's akin to someone claiming their suffering PTS because someone messed with their Farmville account.
As my blog does not have "targets" but topics, all I can say in response is that anyone who wishes to voice their opinion in support or opposition is welcome to do so on my blog. Some have.
Like councilor Buck, and the Moderator of the AC Blog I moderate comments. I have not seen any posted under your screen name.
Debate is a two way exchange, one in which you choose not to participate.
As for someone who is operating under a "guise" perhaps you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement, given that you write under a screen name.
Oh and P.S.
You don't "need" a blog to counter anything, but one can be useful to express your opinions.
What you need is to drop your screen name and take ownership of your words. Either that or accept that by continuing this charade you do so with negative credibility.
To quote Dan Gillmor from his recent book Mediactive :
"An anonymous comment on a random blog, by contrast, starts with negative credibility, say –26 or –27. Why on earth should we believe anything said by someone who’s unwilling to stand behind his or her own words? In most cases, the answer is that we should not. The random, anonymous commenter on a random blog should have to work hard just to achieve zero credibility, much less move into positive territory."
Chris..... let go of the mouse !!!
You said the same crap 7 times!!!
Fuimus
You're right Mr. Watts. I've given the blog a bit of a make over now to get it out of election mode. Let's see if I can start it up again.
Oh, and BTW, Ms. Buck did in fact publish my comment at the same time she published the one above. It appears she does not necessarily publish comments in the order in which she receives them. Go figure. I've actually been fairly impressed with her willingness to publish negative comments towards herself, though I have noticed that it can sometimes take days for them to appear.
Any way. The banter back and forth between you and RTB has totally ignored the point of the original blog post. I dare say, I am the only commentor who has addressed the original issue at all. I've changed my view slightly since my previous posts, which I will put up on my own blog later today. Feel free to drop by.
cheers.
Perhaps RTB should look into an anger management program. Just a suggestion; not a hate comment.
To be fair Chris, your blog is not the easiest to leave a comment on. I think the fact that there are few responses there reflects the fact. Either that or there are a lot of posts submitted to your blog but you prefer to not publish them?
Post a Comment