"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Monday 4 April 2011

Council Did Not Authorise The Law Suit

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Grace Marsh Said:":

Rightly or wrongly the council of the day approved the legal action and the expenses they incurred. The new council turned off the tap on any further expense, but unless they abide by the last council's decisions how can we expect them to make their own decisions on anything this term.

Now if the lawsuit unfolds and it appears the town can recoup those expenses from the former Mayor I am sure that avenue will be taken.

It doesn't matter how many times  we go over it. It seems to be  hard for the reality to sink in.

The last Council did not authorise litigation against three members of the community.

Council were in recess. We were in the midst of an election campaign. Those members who voted to seek a legal opinion about whether the critical  blog comment brought to an in camera meeting  without notice and without an opportunity for a staff report was defamatory, learned  about the legal action in the media as did the rest of the community.

The comment was brought to the table by the former Mayor. Despite  the decision being contemplated involved a pecuniary advantage , she participated in the discussion and urged the decision.

The law firm which  advised the comment was defamatory, accepted the contract to pursue litigation. Without a Council resolution.

I do not believe  a majority of  the Council members who agreed to seek an opinion would  have agreed  as well to pursue litigation against three members of the community, who were not even identified as publishers of the comment.

Two members of council did not attend the in camera meeting because the item  was not  town  business  and  had no right being  discussed by councillors t a session of council.

A third member, who did attend the meeting, repudiated the decision to seek an opinion  when it was publicly reported out.

Candidates on the hustings challenged, by voters, denied  knowledge of the litigation .They did have no knowledge  the action had been  taken. There had been no meeting held to inform them or seek authorisation for litigation .

I've been asked  how the numbers went from $41 K to $68K. I will provide the answer when I receive it. Hopefully some time this afternoon.


Anonymous said...

Evelyn, I am a supporter of yours, but I think that you are wrong on this. By any logical definition, "any and all" includes litigation, and, "ANY and ALL" other courses of action that anyone can contemplate.

Litigation was not explicitly sanctioned, that is clear enough, but it is simplistic to think that means litigation could not be launched, given the VERY BROAD and ALL-ENCOMPASSING directive that was given. ANY and ALL means ANY and ALL, including litigaiton. Period.

Any of the former councillors who were in the closed meeting and claim now that they did not know what that meant were either naiive then or are disingenuous now.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous
"Any of the former councillors who were in the closed meeting and claim now that they did not know what that meant were either naiive then or are disingenuous now."
Naive is an understatement. Irresponsible is what I call it for voting for something they did not understand. Where was the common sense to probe what the motion meant or what the ramifications could be?
Or... perhaps you are right about them just being ingenuous now. It would not be the politically savvy thing to do, at the time of an election, to admit that you knew exactly what you were doing.
Much easier to deny that you did not know about it until the rest of the town did.
Remember, we are talking about politicians who wanted to be elected to this term.