"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

Wednesday 12 June 2013


Since the Inaugural , Councillor Gaertner has made clear at any and every opportunity, continued profound loyalty and devotion to the  former Mayor . It was as though the new Council were usurpers of power rightfully belonging to others.

Decisions  of the former  Mayor  have always been defended by the Councillor 

Last night was no exception.  A draft of the new Code of  Ethics was on the table  for discussion and direction  that a Bylaw be prepared. 

As usual, the golden merits of a Code of Conduct were re-introduced.  The  advantage of enforcement and punishment were cited by Councillors Gaertner and Ballard. 

The latter referred to the activity  of writing things about people .and  the need for punishment to control the nefarious practice. 

No-one at the table referred to Councillor Ballard's habit of tweeting nasty things about colleagues. I thought  I demonstrated  remarkable  discipline. 

I made the point  that a Code of Conduct does not permit  an offence to be charged, No penalties are attached to the Bylaw.. Unlike other Municipal Bylaws, A  Code of Conduct Bylaw cannot be enforced. 

But sparks  flew when the issue of going in-camera  to discuss legal advice on the former Mayor's  
current  legal suit against the  Town for recovery of costs  incurred by herself in a SLAPP  action against three constituents during last election. 

Five Councillors, including Gaertner and Gallo, voted to  make that happen.  Counciillor Ballard has repeatedly argued in  defence of the former Mayor in public meetings. 

When the motion was made to go in camera, Councillor Pirri expressed his position  discussion should be  public.There is no  guarantee information would not be leaked. 

I echoed the Councillor's concern and added my own.  I worried aloud Council had no reason to expect confidential advice would not  be relayed to the other party by her defenders.

I noted the problem was  created in the previous term when matters which were not  business of the corporation were taken behind closed doors and  improper decisions were made. 

On a point of privilege , Councillor Gaertner   stated her integrity  had been challenged and demanded an apology .

Mayor  Dawe requested I change my wording. I  responded I found myself between a rock and a hard place and  no other wording  sufficed to express  my  concern .

A serious dilemma presents itself. 

The Mayor ruled he would not recognise me for the rest of the meeting. We recessed  in camera ,
returned to public session and  unanimously approved external counsel to defend the  former Mayor's claim against the town for $290.000.

And  so, the drain on  public resources continues. 

It may be timely to request once again the complete tally to date of funds expended  for the obsessive pre-occupation  of  expeditionary law of the previous term of Aurora Council. 


Anonymous said...

Wendy is a sitting lapdog for Morris and has no integrity.

Now she proposes to pose as a legal expert.

Sit! Stay! Quiet!

Anonymous said...

It was puzzling to watch the meeting & realize that none of the participants, with the possible exception of Evelyn, saw that there was not even agreement around the table about what a Code of Ethics should be, should do and/or would mean. If no one can agree on the meaning of the thing, what use can it be to the business of running the town?

Anonymous said...


What light through yonder window breaks?

I fear 'tis Integrity, sick and pale with grief,

Abandoning us in our hour of need,

To seek a shelter in a gentler place

Where she art more fair than we.

Anonymous said...

The hypocrisy continues. It is only the role of each player that changes.
I remember when councillor Buck was accused of being the cause of a leak by the "holiest of holies group of council members(I think it was something about a police building - you will know what I am referring to).
Councillor Gaertner didn't think then that she was attacking another's integrity or honesty and was quite happy to be part of that lynch mob.
So why, at the last council meeting, did she feel that she had any grounds to express outrage when the discussion was about potential leaks from council?
I think the leak fears are quite valid, given her history of blind allegiance to the unsavoury bunch of 6 would-be dictators that sat around the council table then.