"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

Tuesday 24 October 2017


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A LESSON LEARNED ?????????": 

A couple of those greenhorns learned enough to grease the skids for the electoral demise of the most experienced member of council. Your professions of sagacity and omniscience didn't save you from being kicked to the curb. 

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 24 October 2017 at 21:30


Wow ...sagacity and omniscience.  I've never used such words to describe myself or needed to 
 to be anything but comfortable in my own skin. 

Honesty is a rare and risky commodity in politics, respected by many ,feared and hated by the rest
but within reach of most. It has been my standard. 

The anonymous comment is a perfect expression of fear and hate. I published it to illustrate Aurora is  an average community. No better, no worse. 

In my litigation examination for discovery, I was asked byThe Banner lawyer to acknowledge my outstanding reputation in politics. I said no and was asked why not? " Because," I said," that's not for me to say "

My experience with the legal system has been interesting and informative and came some time after meeting with George Rust D'Eye. 

We'd met earlier for the 2003 council orientation. He was booked by staff to give a talk about Conflict of Interest, severe penalties and need for advice from legal counsel. 

Council never had an orientation,as such, after 2003.

Early In the single term, the Mayor and Councillor Mac Eachern had  a problem with my forthright style. The town solicitor was frequently solicited to advise limits.   

Finally ,the solicitor felt compelled to provide an opinion in writing . I received a copy. 

"Councillor Buck has a right to state her views . She goes right to the line but she doesn't cross it" 

I knew that. It was exactly my intention.  But I enjoyed seeing it in writing. The solicitor moved on soon after. 

One Friday night, a fire erupted in a rental town house. The Mayor arrived after it was out and the family had found shelter elsewhere. No-one knew where or anything about loss. 

The Mayor circulated an e-mail informing Council, she and Councillors Mac Eachern and Gaertner planned a fund-raiser for the family. I commended their generous intention and advised neither the Mayor's office nor staff could be used. The idea did not proceed. 

On a different occasion, planning a trip, the Mayor notified Council, Councillor Mac Eachern would be in charge during her absence. Deputy Mayor is appointed at Council's inaugural meeting .The Mayor was informed  by the Clerk, delegation was not within her authority. 

Later, the Mayor lamented to a resident in the Dominion supermarket that I was a senile old bag who wouldn't allow her to do her job and he couldn't imagine how awful it was. 

The resident was a prominent citizen who had been honoured for his contribution to the community. When he read of the litigation in The Auroran,he notified my lawyer he felt he had something to contribute.  

I had never met the man. He did appear as a witness on my behalf and repeated the supermarket conversation. 

The litigation took more than five years to come to trial. That's another story. As was my right. I requested a jury.

For five weeks immediately before Christmas, the jury attended, listened and watched the evidence. We had videos. 

Finally,the lawyers delivered summations and the only remaining  step was for the Judge to instruct the jury as to the law. The night before, defendants' counsel forwarded a motion by e-mail for a mistrial. 

The judge did not instruct the jury as required.  Instead, he dismissed the jury of six men and women and took onus upon himself to decide. 

He did not deliver the decision for almost two years during which time he continued to receive 
information and after which he found the defendants had authority to conduct themselves in the manner complained about.

He did not challenge my integrity. But he questioned my judgement. 

Yesterday, a Sudbury, Ontario judge dismissed a charge of bribery against two Ontario campaign officials.  A job or appointment was discussed  with a candidate for nomination if he stood aside.

The charge was dismissed on a motion by defence counsel that the evidence did not support the charge. 

The complainant  was disabled and needed communications to be recorded. 

A section of the Elections Act prohibits the offer of jobs or appointments to candidates. It was cited
verbatim in The Toronto Star news story.

It was not a civil action. The defendants were charged by Crown prosecutors. The offence carries a fine of $25,000. and a two year jail sentence. It was a serious matter. And expensive to the public purse. 

According to the Star story, one of the defendants is contemplating legal options arising from the decision, described by the press as "unusual" 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Did anyone expect anything different in Sudbury? Who's really expecting anything to come out of the trail of the missing emails? The sad part of all these corrupt stories is that it will keep many good, honest people with integrity from running for political office.