"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 23 June 2014

I Remembered Something Else.

As well as paying $45,000. for legal fees  for a personal suit by the former Mayor against town residents  and $8,500.  to an  external lawyer to advise.

In addition  there was termination for cause  and severance  of $186,000.or thereabouts , paid to an employee of barely two years.

No insurance  to cover any of it. Straight out of taxpayers' pockets. Paid  by the new Council with nary a hint of concern or doubt as the cost of doing business.

A town carries  insurance against losses from employee miscreant conduct.


I have until the  Council in July to decide if I have a conflict of interest in the
question of increase in  insurance premiums.

 I have had no pecuniary advantage from town insurance coverage.

No part of  my costs of litigation are paid by the company.

No decisions made by the company were influenced by a decision of  mine.

Would  disclosure of facts and figures resulting from decisions made by the company benefit me  financially?   I don't  see how.

If a  citizen  were to file charges of a Conflict of Interest , would I be entitled to a legal defence  paid by the insurance company?

Would that be different to the elected representative  already charged with Conflict of Interest?

D'you know, I never thought of that. Would that be another cost that contributed to increase in premiums?

Does anyone have particulars of cost of doing what the Conflict of Interest Act requires?


Anonymous said...

You do not want to even think about it. It is a can of worms.The defence of the CoI would have been paid by the town.
As to your question about a possible conflict of interest re the insurance premiums, I believe you have none. Your call.

Anonymous said...

Mayor Dawe has a Notice of Motion on the Agenda for tomorrow's Council meeting that deals quite specifically with the Town's annual insurance premium. What is not stated so clearly is that the reference is to liability insurance to protect staff and elected officials against legal action that may be brought against them.

'NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT BFL Canada, being the Town's insurer, be requested to publicly present updated information to Council as soon as possible regarding significant insurance matters/claims affecting the Town directly, including any amounts and legal costs paid to date for existing claims, and ways to reduce the Town's insurance premium in future years."

As to your question about a personal conflict of interest insofar as the six defendants in your action against them are being defended at taxpayers' cost under the town's liability insurance policy, you should seek counsel from your lawyer.

Obviously, as a member of Council you have a legitimate right to know and access any and all documentation in connection with the town's insurance coverage, liability or otherwise, but you are in the unusual position of being the plaintiff against the six.

I would guess from figures in the press during the past few years that costs could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The judge in the inquiry against the Mississauga mayor suggested in his report that there should be an option for the office of the Attorney General to be involved, so that individual citizens didn't have to mortgage their homes when pursuing a perceived breach of the Act.

Anonymous said...

Isn't your suit partly responsible for the increase in the Town's insurance costs?

Anonymous said...

Just for once, going back some 20 years in time, let the election this October result in at least 5, and preferably 6 members of Council chosen to be individuals with an above average intelligence, and an above average ability to think and speak precisely and simultaneously.

We need decision makers, not referrals and deferrals until everyone loses track of what was intended at the outset.

I doubt if the above is going to happen, so I feel sorry in advance for the minority.