The Last Post..Conflict Of Interest

Raises some more interesting questions.

They arise from advice of  two lawyers retained by the ex-Mayor and paid by the town,  who had the temerity  to suggest to a member of Council, moi, that I should not attend two council meetings because I would have a conflict of interest as a result of being the subject of discussion.  I might hear something in the meeting that would be to my financial advantage.

The rationale was the penalty for being found guilty of a Conflict of Interest would be the pecuniary advantage to myself. The financial penalty is having Council remuneration suspended for three months.

Each time I think about it, the more outrageous it becomes.

How dare they?

What gave them  the right to suggest to a duly elected member of Council ,she didn't have the right to attend a meeting of the Council to which she was duly elected?

How many other Councillors in Ontario have they misled in that direction besides the former Mayor of East Gwillimbury and Councillor Marlene Johnstone? They were also told they should retain legal counsel. They did that as well as stay away from Council meetings.

How dare they suggest an entire segment of the community should be deprived of th representation  in any deliberation of their local government?

If it was  inappropriate that I should hear what was being said, why would  it  be appropriate for  other members of Council to be saying it in a closed meeting on town hall premises with staff resources and legal counsel present to do their bidding.

How could they perceive,  these self -styled  experts in municipal law, that  such  business being discussed behind closed doors was appropriate to be discussed there or anywhere, if it was inappropriate for a Council  member to participate.

The Conflict of Interest charge against the former Mayor is not the business of the Municipality.No person, except the  member, can decide if there is a Conflict of Interest.

Why would these two lawyers take it upon themselves to advise me so?

If  the ex=Mayor  is found  to be in contravention of the Act in this matter, why is it different to all the rest?

The intent was always the same.

It was always about the former Mayor pursuing  a private objective with a contrived rationale  and the support of the same five members of Council.

What does the Conflict of Interest Act say about aiding and abetting, in the commission of a contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act?

Are the questions relevant?

 I would be interested in hosting a discussion.

Of what ethical value  is a Code of  Ethics or Conduct that can be and has been  used as a blunt instrument by an  inept gang of  thugs to beat up on an honest-to-goodness, rough and ready, politician.

What price any of the  pious and righteous legislation prohibiting bullying and harassment ,if the GD legislation itself can be used to bully and harass?

That's the question for the day.

Or the weekend maybe.