The Mayor is quoted in the press stating the question of a by-election is no longer on the table.
A By-election supporter has asked if that means there is no point in making representation to council. Is the issue dead?
The fact is decisions can not be made in Committee. The public has a right be informed in advance of items to be decided in a council meeting. The objective is openness and transparency and an opportunity for input if desired. It is required by law.
At the last council meeting an indication was given to all present and to people at home, the question would be dealt with at the next council meeting.
Public forum prior to a council meeting and the opportunity to delegate to council is part of the democratic structure of municipal government.
The opportunity has been used by citizens on a number of occasions. When the traffic calming tender came in at $211,000 dollars instead of the estimated $80,000, residents from the north-east quadrant came in droves to the council chamber and persuaded councillors to change the votes they had cast in committee. They had received, on direction from the Mayor, hand-delivered letters from the town to alert them to the possibility the project would be cancelled due to exorbitant cost.
The vote on Tuesday to deny suspension of the procedural bylaw to allow reconsideration of the by-election was five to three. No explanations were offered by any of the five. No reference made to the lengthy list of emails forwarded in favour of a by-election. The Mayor had previously directed all emails on the issue be placed on the agenda of the next council meeting.
The clear intention was to deal with the issue at the next council meeting.
During the debate at the previous council meeting, councillors claimed time was needed to consult with the community before a decision was made. I believe the refusal to allow the matter to come forward when the community has made strong representation to hold a by-election, is an example of a total lack of respect for all but the special interest they serve.
The vote taken in committee must be ratified by council. Before that happens residents have a right to be heard and have their views considered. Just like the members of the Coalition of Ratepayers group did when they argued to have $211,000 spent on traffic calming in their neighborhood.
Your voices can only be ignored if you allow that to happen.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
OH! OH! My mistake.
It seems the requirement for the Mayor to vote is part of the Town's Procedural Bylaw. It is not a requirement of the Municipal Act nor therefore an example of Queen's Park meddling minions..
Last week residents saw how the Mayor's vote turned a majority into a tie. Under all known Rules of Order, tried and true, the Presiding Officer's or Mayor's vote is required to be used to break a tie not to create a stalemate.
It is another example of a clause in our By-law which undermines rather than facilitates the democratic principle.
In Committee last night, still another gaffe. At 11:10 p.m. Councillor Bob Mc Roberts gave notice of a motion for reconsideration of the option to fill the seat vacated by Grace Marsh's resignation with a By-election. Bob was advised it was necessary by Clerk-Administrator Bob Panizza .
Chairman of the meeting, Councillor Evelina Mac Eachern promptly put the notice to a vote. It was defeated five to three.
This morning the mayor apparently informed the press the option of a by-election is now off the table
.Last Tuesday indication was given to the public, the question would come back to the table at the next Council Meeting. Also messages from the community would be placed on the agenda for consideration Support for a byelection have flowed steadily since the news of Grace Marsh's resignation. which came after months of frustration and a public scene of shrieking abuse by the Mayor.
Clearly there was never any intention to hear from the communiy..
.According to Rules of Order notice must be given of a forthcoming motion. The motion itself must be in writing and circulated before being presented at a Council Meeting. The motion is tabled, debated, the question is put. and the vote taken.. All under the eyes of the camera. In full view of the town's electorate Council decisions are not made in Committee.
.
I am often accused of not having respect for the Mayor. It's only partly true
My respect for the office, the institution of council and the community we serve compels my civility.It is a practice.of half a lifetime.
Respect for intelligence ,competence and integrity must be earned. It doesn't come gift-wrapped.
.
.
Last week residents saw how the Mayor's vote turned a majority into a tie. Under all known Rules of Order, tried and true, the Presiding Officer's or Mayor's vote is required to be used to break a tie not to create a stalemate.
It is another example of a clause in our By-law which undermines rather than facilitates the democratic principle.
In Committee last night, still another gaffe. At 11:10 p.m. Councillor Bob Mc Roberts gave notice of a motion for reconsideration of the option to fill the seat vacated by Grace Marsh's resignation with a By-election. Bob was advised it was necessary by Clerk-Administrator Bob Panizza .
Chairman of the meeting, Councillor Evelina Mac Eachern promptly put the notice to a vote. It was defeated five to three.
This morning the mayor apparently informed the press the option of a by-election is now off the table
.Last Tuesday indication was given to the public, the question would come back to the table at the next Council Meeting. Also messages from the community would be placed on the agenda for consideration Support for a byelection have flowed steadily since the news of Grace Marsh's resignation. which came after months of frustration and a public scene of shrieking abuse by the Mayor.
Clearly there was never any intention to hear from the communiy..
.According to Rules of Order notice must be given of a forthcoming motion. The motion itself must be in writing and circulated before being presented at a Council Meeting. The motion is tabled, debated, the question is put. and the vote taken.. All under the eyes of the camera. In full view of the town's electorate Council decisions are not made in Committee.
.
I am often accused of not having respect for the Mayor. It's only partly true
My respect for the office, the institution of council and the community we serve compels my civility.It is a practice.of half a lifetime.
Respect for intelligence ,competence and integrity must be earned. It doesn't come gift-wrapped.
.
.
THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
I believe every property owner needs to be informed about town assets and nitty gritty about how things are managed. Municipal staff are our main resource and the key to success.. They labour in the background while politicians are front and centre.It's how it has to be.
There are 413 municipalities in Ontario. Over a hundred have Chief Administrative Officers. The rest are managed by Clerk-Administrators or Clerk-Treasurers.
Towns are governed by a myriad of provincial regulations. Under the Constitution, we have no right to exist. Generally speaking we are here to provide the services most practically administered at a lower level.
The education for clerks and treasurers happens on the job. The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers designs Certificate Courses provided at Queen's University by correspondence.
course. No other credentials can fullfil the function.
Because they function under provincial legislation and there are on-going amendments it is the clerk-treasurer who provides the expert ise to elected representatives.
The Associations of Clerks and Treasurers and Chief Administrator Officers are compact groups. They are always available to each other to consult on the various problems and solutions they inevitably share. Whatever develops ,somebody has had experience of it. They know twhat works to solve the problem and what doesn't.
Such was the trust established in previous councils, I came to believeit was the Clerk's job to keep the elected body within the law. When I returned to council in 2004, I said that to Larry Alyson, the CAO. He promptly disabused me of the notion. He said it was his job to advise Council. He could not make them take the advice.
Well, I thought what does that say about the efficacy of provincial rules and regulations. If a council decides not to heed the advice they receive, who is to say they should?
I thought working for nine political bosses was like walking a tight-rope. What staff had over t politicians was continuity. In bad times all they needed was to survive until the next election. That has become more difficult with the advent of the four year term. What they can never do is engage in open dispute with political masters.
The logic is simple. If skills and professional expertise lie in one particular field that's where you look for alternative opportunities.
If background reveals conflict with elected representatives, a resume, no matter how good, will be diminished when perceived by other politicians. Not even when they leave a job are they likely to speak negatively of previous employers.
That's why they strive to stay out of political debate. Also why it is inappropriate and completely unfair for politicians to draw them into the hurly-burly.of political action.
In our current situation staff are consistently being used to support the Mayor's position. When that fails she uses outside legal consultants. to justify decisions difficult to defend. .
There are 413 municipalities in Ontario. Over a hundred have Chief Administrative Officers. The rest are managed by Clerk-Administrators or Clerk-Treasurers.
Towns are governed by a myriad of provincial regulations. Under the Constitution, we have no right to exist. Generally speaking we are here to provide the services most practically administered at a lower level.
The education for clerks and treasurers happens on the job. The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers designs Certificate Courses provided at Queen's University by correspondence.
course. No other credentials can fullfil the function.
Because they function under provincial legislation and there are on-going amendments it is the clerk-treasurer who provides the expert ise to elected representatives.
The Associations of Clerks and Treasurers and Chief Administrator Officers are compact groups. They are always available to each other to consult on the various problems and solutions they inevitably share. Whatever develops ,somebody has had experience of it. They know twhat works to solve the problem and what doesn't.
Such was the trust established in previous councils, I came to believeit was the Clerk's job to keep the elected body within the law. When I returned to council in 2004, I said that to Larry Alyson, the CAO. He promptly disabused me of the notion. He said it was his job to advise Council. He could not make them take the advice.
Well, I thought what does that say about the efficacy of provincial rules and regulations. If a council decides not to heed the advice they receive, who is to say they should?
I thought working for nine political bosses was like walking a tight-rope. What staff had over t politicians was continuity. In bad times all they needed was to survive until the next election. That has become more difficult with the advent of the four year term. What they can never do is engage in open dispute with political masters.
The logic is simple. If skills and professional expertise lie in one particular field that's where you look for alternative opportunities.
If background reveals conflict with elected representatives, a resume, no matter how good, will be diminished when perceived by other politicians. Not even when they leave a job are they likely to speak negatively of previous employers.
That's why they strive to stay out of political debate. Also why it is inappropriate and completely unfair for politicians to draw them into the hurly-burly.of political action.
In our current situation staff are consistently being used to support the Mayor's position. When that fails she uses outside legal consultants. to justify decisions difficult to defend. .
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Shootout At The Old Corral
On February 12th this year we had a bit of a show down between Mayor Morris, Councillors MacEachern and Gaertner and John Rogers, Chief Administrative Officer of the Town of Aurora. It happened at the end of a meeting. The agenda was almost completed.
Under new business, Councillor Gaertner expressed disgruntlement that she was being required to sign a confidentiality agreement to obtain documents related to the sale of town lands.
The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern took up the complaint. Emails had previously been sent from the Mayor to Mr. Rogers directing him to provide the material. Ultimately, the Mayor had discussed the matter with the Real Estate Brokers who had the town's contract to sell the lands and were responsible for the documents in question.
Mr. Rogers explained his purpose was to protect the integrity of the process by maintaining consistency for all parties receiving the documents to sign an agreement. The explanation did not sit well with the Mayor and the two councillors.
Councillor Gaertner stated; "I find all this extremely hard to believe."
In this instance a motion put forward ordering the CAO to provide the documentation required without an agreement being signed by Councillor Gaertner. Four councillors now had documents; Councillor MacEachern, Gaertner, Granger and Wilson. The three others had signed.
The package was apparently substantial, had always been been accessible for viewing in the legal department as opposed to leaving the security of the Town Hall.
The option had not been acceptable due apparently to Councillors' part-time status and un- availability during business hours.
No explantion was ever offered as to why the Councillors were so adamant about the neccessity to have the documents let aloe remove them from the town hall.
They argued for the process to be by Real Estate Broker. They chose the firm from a competition. The time allocated for the first part of the business was almost complete. As a Councillor, I can think of no reason to have this material in my possession.
When a meeting was convened to receive a presentation of bids, Councillor MacEachern immediately declared a Conflict of Interest.
I said nothing. It is a truism that in the public's business, things must not only be right, they must appear to be right.
The bids were disappointing. A great deal of work had been done. Clearly more remained.
At the nextin camera meeting, a motion was put forward to reject the bids summarily. I voted in favor.
The report came to council. Councillor Gaertner called it for discussion. Council rejected the bids because they were too low, she said.
It was not my reason. Since Councillor Gaertner had chosen to speak for council I was obliged to speak for myself. Sometimes the moment must not be allowed to pass.
I said I believed the process was tainted.
The Mayor was not content. She demanded I explain. I declined - several times. Finally I acceded to the urgency of the demand.
I cited the facts outlined above.
Mr. Rogers had stated his intent in requiring confidentiality agreements be signed was to protect the integrity of the process. The majority of council refuted that position. I did not.
At a following meeting, the matter was alluded to once more. An emergency closed meeting was called to discuss "legal liability the town may incur due to statements made the previous evening."
I did not attend.
Seems the gist of the matter to be determined was; if Councillor Buck were to be sued for
slander by Councillor MacEachern would the town be liable for costs to defend itself against possible legal action by other parties.
Still another lawyer was retained. He has completed his research and rendered his opinion. No doubt it will be reported out in the fullness of time.
I will not be losing sleep.
Under new business, Councillor Gaertner expressed disgruntlement that she was being required to sign a confidentiality agreement to obtain documents related to the sale of town lands.
The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern took up the complaint. Emails had previously been sent from the Mayor to Mr. Rogers directing him to provide the material. Ultimately, the Mayor had discussed the matter with the Real Estate Brokers who had the town's contract to sell the lands and were responsible for the documents in question.
Mr. Rogers explained his purpose was to protect the integrity of the process by maintaining consistency for all parties receiving the documents to sign an agreement. The explanation did not sit well with the Mayor and the two councillors.
Councillor Gaertner stated; "I find all this extremely hard to believe."
In this instance a motion put forward ordering the CAO to provide the documentation required without an agreement being signed by Councillor Gaertner. Four councillors now had documents; Councillor MacEachern, Gaertner, Granger and Wilson. The three others had signed.
The package was apparently substantial, had always been been accessible for viewing in the legal department as opposed to leaving the security of the Town Hall.
The option had not been acceptable due apparently to Councillors' part-time status and un- availability during business hours.
No explantion was ever offered as to why the Councillors were so adamant about the neccessity to have the documents let aloe remove them from the town hall.
They argued for the process to be by Real Estate Broker. They chose the firm from a competition. The time allocated for the first part of the business was almost complete. As a Councillor, I can think of no reason to have this material in my possession.
When a meeting was convened to receive a presentation of bids, Councillor MacEachern immediately declared a Conflict of Interest.
I said nothing. It is a truism that in the public's business, things must not only be right, they must appear to be right.
The bids were disappointing. A great deal of work had been done. Clearly more remained.
At the nextin camera meeting, a motion was put forward to reject the bids summarily. I voted in favor.
The report came to council. Councillor Gaertner called it for discussion. Council rejected the bids because they were too low, she said.
It was not my reason. Since Councillor Gaertner had chosen to speak for council I was obliged to speak for myself. Sometimes the moment must not be allowed to pass.
I said I believed the process was tainted.
The Mayor was not content. She demanded I explain. I declined - several times. Finally I acceded to the urgency of the demand.
I cited the facts outlined above.
Mr. Rogers had stated his intent in requiring confidentiality agreements be signed was to protect the integrity of the process. The majority of council refuted that position. I did not.
At a following meeting, the matter was alluded to once more. An emergency closed meeting was called to discuss "legal liability the town may incur due to statements made the previous evening."
I did not attend.
Seems the gist of the matter to be determined was; if Councillor Buck were to be sued for
slander by Councillor MacEachern would the town be liable for costs to defend itself against possible legal action by other parties.
Still another lawyer was retained. He has completed his research and rendered his opinion. No doubt it will be reported out in the fullness of time.
I will not be losing sleep.
Friday, 2 May 2008
Precedents are Useful. Facts are Better.
In January 1973. I was appointed to the Office of Mayor. Dick Illingworth had been elected in December A single meeting had been held, when he was obliged to resign because of a conlict with his civil service job. I had come in at the head of the poll in the council vote. I ran and lost to Dick for the Mayor's office in the previous election. Considering my come-back vote, there was little doubt of voter confidence.
As I remember, two councillors thought they would like the opportunity, others felt my electoral support was solid. I was appointed unanimously. Two years later I was challenged and re-elected to the Mayor's Office.
At the time of my appointment,the election was immediately behind us. A full term was ahead. I had held office previously. My competence was known. The vote was unanimous.I re-call no demannd from the public for a by-election.
Six months into the term a councillor resigned because of a change in family circumstances. His seat was filled by the runner-up who had served several previous terms.That decision was unanimous .There was no public call for a by-election.
The term of office was two years . The town had eighteen months to wait to make a different decision if ithat one displeased them They did not.
That was then. This is now.
The situation is different.. Overwhelming support continues to flow in support of a by-election. by-election.Today.until now. ten e-mails in favour,two for an appointment.
There will not be unanimous support in council for an appointment.
If a name comes forward, there will be debate. Not a desirable prospect from a candidate's perspective. With such a clear preference from the community, any person who respects the democratic process should be willing to participate in an election.
Two years and seven months remain in the present term.
Things have changed since the last election left two losing candidates for the Office of mayor and twelve for council.
The community demands the right to choose.
Aurora deserves the best. Let's not settle for less.
As I remember, two councillors thought they would like the opportunity, others felt my electoral support was solid. I was appointed unanimously. Two years later I was challenged and re-elected to the Mayor's Office.
At the time of my appointment,the election was immediately behind us. A full term was ahead. I had held office previously. My competence was known. The vote was unanimous.I re-call no demannd from the public for a by-election.
Six months into the term a councillor resigned because of a change in family circumstances. His seat was filled by the runner-up who had served several previous terms.That decision was unanimous .There was no public call for a by-election.
The term of office was two years . The town had eighteen months to wait to make a different decision if ithat one displeased them They did not.
That was then. This is now.
The situation is different.. Overwhelming support continues to flow in support of a by-election. by-election.Today.until now. ten e-mails in favour,two for an appointment.
There will not be unanimous support in council for an appointment.
If a name comes forward, there will be debate. Not a desirable prospect from a candidate's perspective. With such a clear preference from the community, any person who respects the democratic process should be willing to participate in an election.
Two years and seven months remain in the present term.
Things have changed since the last election left two losing candidates for the Office of mayor and twelve for council.
The community demands the right to choose.
Aurora deserves the best. Let's not settle for less.
Thursday, 1 May 2008
Democracy or Not
A special Meeting was held last night to declare Grace Marsh's seat vacant. The agenda listed the decision as to how it would be filled. I moved the motion to declare the vacancy and call a by-election.
The decision was a majority of four to three in favour. Then the Mayor voted to create a deadlock. So the question remained. A new motion was put forward to fill the seat by appointment. It was deferred for a legal opinion.
The Procedure Bylaw became the issue. It was interpreted, at the Mayor's coaching that once a vote had been taken the issue could not be raised again for six months. I challenged that. The Bylaw intends once a decision is made, the question can not be raised again until six months have elapsed. A tie vote is a non-decision.
When a vote results in a tie it is deemed to be defeated. That is deadlock. The question remains to be decided. The Municipal Act requires a decision to be made within sixty days. Therefore the matter is still pending and still open.
The deadlock derived from the Mayor's vote demonstrates why the question must be decided promptly if council is to function properly. An odd number of councillors are needed for a decision-making body.
For the Mayor's vote to be used to create a deadlock completely undermines the functional structure of the decision-making body that is Council. The Mayor's vote is intended to break deadlock not create it. The only time the Speaker of either senior legislative body votes is in the event of a tie.
That's how it always was until some minion at Queen's Park, clearly lacking in comprehension of the practical application, changed the regulations to require the Mayor to vote on every question.
On Monday, councillors received a steady flow of emails favouring a by-election. None favoured appointment.
Susan Walmer was at the meeting in the evening as was John Gallo (runner-up in the last election). Ms Walmer was widely credited for the election of the Mayor and a slate of candidates in 2006. Mr. Gallo was the losing candidate and I believe one of the slate, who called the morning after the election and asked me to step aside and let him have my seat. Apparently he doesn't think much of the voters right to choose.
On Tuesday morning early, there were two identical emails favouring appointment. There have been none since.
If I am reading reaction to Grace Marsh's resignation right, the community strongly favours the right to choose her replacement. Between now and the next council meeting. May 5th, there needs to be a resounding clamour of voices that makes no bones about it.
Aurora deserves the best. Don't settle for less.
If you would like to voice your opinion to All Councillors and the Mayor - the email address to use is allcouncillors@e-aurora.ca
The decision was a majority of four to three in favour. Then the Mayor voted to create a deadlock. So the question remained. A new motion was put forward to fill the seat by appointment. It was deferred for a legal opinion.
The Procedure Bylaw became the issue. It was interpreted, at the Mayor's coaching that once a vote had been taken the issue could not be raised again for six months. I challenged that. The Bylaw intends once a decision is made, the question can not be raised again until six months have elapsed. A tie vote is a non-decision.
When a vote results in a tie it is deemed to be defeated. That is deadlock. The question remains to be decided. The Municipal Act requires a decision to be made within sixty days. Therefore the matter is still pending and still open.
The deadlock derived from the Mayor's vote demonstrates why the question must be decided promptly if council is to function properly. An odd number of councillors are needed for a decision-making body.
For the Mayor's vote to be used to create a deadlock completely undermines the functional structure of the decision-making body that is Council. The Mayor's vote is intended to break deadlock not create it. The only time the Speaker of either senior legislative body votes is in the event of a tie.
That's how it always was until some minion at Queen's Park, clearly lacking in comprehension of the practical application, changed the regulations to require the Mayor to vote on every question.
On Monday, councillors received a steady flow of emails favouring a by-election. None favoured appointment.
Susan Walmer was at the meeting in the evening as was John Gallo (runner-up in the last election). Ms Walmer was widely credited for the election of the Mayor and a slate of candidates in 2006. Mr. Gallo was the losing candidate and I believe one of the slate, who called the morning after the election and asked me to step aside and let him have my seat. Apparently he doesn't think much of the voters right to choose.
On Tuesday morning early, there were two identical emails favouring appointment. There have been none since.
If I am reading reaction to Grace Marsh's resignation right, the community strongly favours the right to choose her replacement. Between now and the next council meeting. May 5th, there needs to be a resounding clamour of voices that makes no bones about it.
Aurora deserves the best. Don't settle for less.
If you would like to voice your opinion to All Councillors and the Mayor - the email address to use is allcouncillors@e-aurora.ca
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
TELL-TALE TALLY
So now we know the cost of George Rust D'Eye's "investigation" into the infamous "leak" that informed the community of the decision to refuse an offer by York Regional Police to purchase, at the appraised value, land we had for sale for the purpose of building a multi-million dollar Regional Police Headquarters which would have brought eight-hundred of the highest paid jobs in the Region to funnel into the economy of the Town of Aurora.
A story to that effect had appeared in The Auroran in mid-November. It was assumed there had been "a leak" from an in-camera meeting held early September. THREE MONTHS BEFORE.
The Mayor called a Meeting to deal with the urgency of the matter and to retain the services of Mr.George Rust D"Eye's a renowned municipal solicitor. The Mayor refused to say why Nor do I recall the terms of reference being shared with council.
I do declare,I think our Mayor believes when she was elected she was endowed with The Divine Right of Kings.
Mr Rust D'Eye completed his work before the year's end.
Before starting, the gentleman informed me,myself,alone, that he had read letters to the editor, emails and Blogs written by myself. He enquired had I retained legal counsel , floated the idea of Conflict of Interest and indicated it was a serious offence with severe penalties.
At no time was I asked about the" leak" Nor I understand ,was the editor and publisher of The Auroran.
A written report with a verbal presentation was made at an in-camera meeting before the year's end. The document was collected back from councillors immediately .We were informed the material must remain confidential.
Nothing has been heard of the matter since.
The cost of the exercise was $16,200. What we got for it I cannot tell.The rules must be obeyed.
Regulations require that matters dealt with behind closed doors must be reported out in public when completed. There is no time limit as to when the reporting should happen. The taxpaeyers may never know Unless there's a leak
Think of that:
Sixteen thousand , two hundred smackeroos collected in taxation. . Filched from taxpayers' pockets and spent will-nilly on something they are not even allowed to know about.
So much for much trumpeted Openness and Transparency.
A story to that effect had appeared in The Auroran in mid-November. It was assumed there had been "a leak" from an in-camera meeting held early September. THREE MONTHS BEFORE.
The Mayor called a Meeting to deal with the urgency of the matter and to retain the services of Mr.George Rust D"Eye's a renowned municipal solicitor. The Mayor refused to say why Nor do I recall the terms of reference being shared with council.
I do declare,I think our Mayor believes when she was elected she was endowed with The Divine Right of Kings.
Mr Rust D'Eye completed his work before the year's end.
Before starting, the gentleman informed me,myself,alone, that he had read letters to the editor, emails and Blogs written by myself. He enquired had I retained legal counsel , floated the idea of Conflict of Interest and indicated it was a serious offence with severe penalties.
At no time was I asked about the" leak" Nor I understand ,was the editor and publisher of The Auroran.
A written report with a verbal presentation was made at an in-camera meeting before the year's end. The document was collected back from councillors immediately .We were informed the material must remain confidential.
Nothing has been heard of the matter since.
The cost of the exercise was $16,200. What we got for it I cannot tell.The rules must be obeyed.
Regulations require that matters dealt with behind closed doors must be reported out in public when completed. There is no time limit as to when the reporting should happen. The taxpaeyers may never know Unless there's a leak
Think of that:
Sixteen thousand , two hundred smackeroos collected in taxation. . Filched from taxpayers' pockets and spent will-nilly on something they are not even allowed to know about.
So much for much trumpeted Openness and Transparency.
Sunday, 27 April 2008
The Great Campaign
There has been a flurry these last few days and I don't mean precipitation. The Mayor is on the attack. Staff received an email seeking information or confirmation of talk the town had legal costs because of action taken by residents in which I was named as the cause.
If there was substance to the "talk" I knew nothing of it. It would be odd to be party to legal action in the circumstance. But the possibility intrigued me. If a house can be stolen out from under, maybe a person can be a party to la law suit and not be aware.
Last Wednesday, after a Planning Meeting the Mayor announced a Special Emergency Meeting to discuss potential liability to the town from legal action as a result of what happened at Tuesday's Council Meeting.
That's a subject for another Blog.
Following the in-camera meeting, in a public space, the Mayor was heard shrieking abuse at Councillor Grace Marsh. It's a familiar routine to associates and positively horrendous.
"How dare you!"
"Don't you dare!"
Accusations of perfidy and transgression abound.
The other routine is the extended baleful glare.
It is not rational discourse. No logical response is possible. Grace Marsh, the epitome of grace and dignity resigned her seat the next day. She gave no reason but those favoured to regularly witness or be a target of the histrionics can readily understand.
In response to an email from myself expressing my concern about the haste to make a decision about filling the vacancy. I stated expressions of regret to staff about Councillor Marsh's resignation have a hollow ring to those who know the circumstances.
An email response from the Mayor advised me that for my own good I should stop sending negative emails.
There is a weird perception among some current councillors that their actions should not be subject to critique. Criticism for positions taken and/or their rationale should never be allowed.
"She must be stopped", one councillor has been heard to lament. Councillor MacEachern has suggested has suggested I should stay at home.
This group has no comprehension of the shared authority of a council.
Though the freedom of our elections can allow it to happen, it is not anticipated an amorphous blob will form a municipal council. It is why we do not have the division of the party system of politics at the local level. It is the reason nine members take their separate seats.
That's what forms the substance of openness and transparency. It served our community well long before there were Regulations or Codes of Ethics.
At no time in history has the phrase Openness and Transparency had more meaning than the Age of The Blog. No Councillor is ever powerless with this magical tool of communication.
The Mayor and her faithful acolytes are having trouble dealing with the new reality.. That's tough.
It is here to stay for those who wish to use it. . Politicians would be wise to govern themselves accordingly. It may not be a camera watching and recording every action, but it surely is the next best thing.
I sent the following letter to my former colleague ., Grace Marsh:
If there was substance to the "talk" I knew nothing of it. It would be odd to be party to legal action in the circumstance. But the possibility intrigued me. If a house can be stolen out from under, maybe a person can be a party to la law suit and not be aware.
Last Wednesday, after a Planning Meeting the Mayor announced a Special Emergency Meeting to discuss potential liability to the town from legal action as a result of what happened at Tuesday's Council Meeting.
That's a subject for another Blog.
Following the in-camera meeting, in a public space, the Mayor was heard shrieking abuse at Councillor Grace Marsh. It's a familiar routine to associates and positively horrendous.
"How dare you!"
"Don't you dare!"
Accusations of perfidy and transgression abound.
The other routine is the extended baleful glare.
It is not rational discourse. No logical response is possible. Grace Marsh, the epitome of grace and dignity resigned her seat the next day. She gave no reason but those favoured to regularly witness or be a target of the histrionics can readily understand.
In response to an email from myself expressing my concern about the haste to make a decision about filling the vacancy. I stated expressions of regret to staff about Councillor Marsh's resignation have a hollow ring to those who know the circumstances.
An email response from the Mayor advised me that for my own good I should stop sending negative emails.
There is a weird perception among some current councillors that their actions should not be subject to critique. Criticism for positions taken and/or their rationale should never be allowed.
"She must be stopped", one councillor has been heard to lament. Councillor MacEachern has suggested has suggested I should stay at home.
This group has no comprehension of the shared authority of a council.
Though the freedom of our elections can allow it to happen, it is not anticipated an amorphous blob will form a municipal council. It is why we do not have the division of the party system of politics at the local level. It is the reason nine members take their separate seats.
That's what forms the substance of openness and transparency. It served our community well long before there were Regulations or Codes of Ethics.
At no time in history has the phrase Openness and Transparency had more meaning than the Age of The Blog. No Councillor is ever powerless with this magical tool of communication.
The Mayor and her faithful acolytes are having trouble dealing with the new reality.. That's tough.
It is here to stay for those who wish to use it. . Politicians would be wise to govern themselves accordingly. It may not be a camera watching and recording every action, but it surely is the next best thing.
I sent the following letter to my former colleague ., Grace Marsh:
Good Morning Grace
I know you decided to be a candidate because you thought you could make a contribution. I encouraged you. It was the same reason I decided in 2003 to try to restore the lost dignity and order to Aurora Council; an institution I regard as the most important in the life of the community.
I know when you began to have doubts and fear that on balance, frustration might be far greater than satisfaction. The time away from your family kept growing and productivity steadily diminished.
I know when one councillor did his yelling jag you were deeplyoffended.. It was especially difficult because of your own innate sense of dignity and civility. Under no other circumstance would you choose such an association.
When it happened a second time, you were quiet for weeks afterwards. I felt you were struggling with a decision. You felt both honoured and humbled by being chosen to serve the community in the last election.You said so on the night of The Inaugural. Now you were fighting the realisation you might not be able to continue to serve.
I know the issue of a contribution to capital reserves in the budget could have given you the professional incentive to think it might still be worthwhile. Then to watch the manipulation as it was jerked this way and that and finally removed would be another hope vanquished.
I heard about the yelling and shrieking abuse on Wednesday night. I did not have to be there to know the words. I was afraid it would be the last straw for you. When I received your message I was devastated but not surprised. I know how hard it was for you to break your commitment. I also knew you had reached a point of no return.
So, waste no more time grieving than you must my friend. Do not believe your experience was typical. The current term of Aurora Council is a gross aberration of how it should be.....
It was never thus.And it may not be again.
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Oh My God.
The Honorable Dalton McGuinty may be everything Mike Harris said he was. And Mike Harris was no prize to bring home to mother either.
Dalton is telling women the clothes dryer uses 6% of the household consumption of hydro power. They should stop using it and hang the wash out to dry.
Yes Indeed we've come a long way baby.
I wonder if he checked with his female MLA,S before he launched that initiative.
Did he check with any of the people who happily signed the covenant that meant they would not have a neighbour's unmentionables flapping in their face or blocking their view when they had time to enjoy their ribbon- width backyards after working full time and spending three hours a day commuting to the city.
I have a daughter who lives in a single family detached house. She uses an umbrella style clothes dryer. She has a family of six. Hangs the wash out to save money. It is one of the measures that allows her to be a stay-at-home mother. Albeit much of wash-day outside in the fresh air at least eight months of the year.
I have a clothes line. Last year I replaced my washing machine with one that sits under the counter in the kitchen. I gave up my dishwasher because carrying a full basket of laundry up the basement stairs was not an option.
I have not used a dryer since the last of my children finally moved out of the house.
I am a single unit household. I dry outside because it's cheaper and sweeter, not because some suit thinks I should. Shows how much attention he was paying when he was growing up in a household with seven brothers.
Every time I think things can't get any sillier.
They do.
Dalton is telling women the clothes dryer uses 6% of the household consumption of hydro power. They should stop using it and hang the wash out to dry.
Yes Indeed we've come a long way baby.
I wonder if he checked with his female MLA,S before he launched that initiative.
Did he check with any of the people who happily signed the covenant that meant they would not have a neighbour's unmentionables flapping in their face or blocking their view when they had time to enjoy their ribbon- width backyards after working full time and spending three hours a day commuting to the city.
I have a daughter who lives in a single family detached house. She uses an umbrella style clothes dryer. She has a family of six. Hangs the wash out to save money. It is one of the measures that allows her to be a stay-at-home mother. Albeit much of wash-day outside in the fresh air at least eight months of the year.
I have a clothes line. Last year I replaced my washing machine with one that sits under the counter in the kitchen. I gave up my dishwasher because carrying a full basket of laundry up the basement stairs was not an option.
I have not used a dryer since the last of my children finally moved out of the house.
I am a single unit household. I dry outside because it's cheaper and sweeter, not because some suit thinks I should. Shows how much attention he was paying when he was growing up in a household with seven brothers.
Every time I think things can't get any sillier.
They do.
Monday, 21 April 2008
Bafflegab
Last Tuesday Aurora Minor Ball came to council as a delegation. They are having problems accommodating their numbers on existing facilities. Overuse of facilities are creating undesirable even dangerous conditions. The need for additional fields have been identified in the Capital Forecast for the past several years. Each year a recommendation is made. Each year it is dismissed.
Last year, two million dollars were included in the Administration budget for purchase of land to accommodate the growing need. Funds were available in the Cash-in-Lieu Reserve Account. The money was collected from developers for the purpose. They cannot be used for any other purpose. If not used for the purpose collected, it cannot again be identified in new calculations for the next round of development charges.
Still council dismissed the staff recommendation.
Minor Ball came to council to emphasize the need and to discover why, once again provision for the facilities had been removed from the budget.
It was interesting to watch the issue being stickhandled. The normal process of tabling a motion for debate went by the board. Bafflegab was fast and furious. 'Is that all you want? What about a club house, a stadium? What else do you need ?' Finally, the Director was directed with a flourish to find a location and get to work on designs the very next day.
The delegation appeared to be understandably impressed.
Designs have been on hand for the past two years. There are two potential properties All that remains is for the Budget to be re-opened and the financial commitment made.
This year's budget is on council's agenda to be approved tonight. Will there be a motion to amend to add oodles of dough ? Perhaps by the same person who moved it be removed ?
We shall see.
Last year, two million dollars were included in the Administration budget for purchase of land to accommodate the growing need. Funds were available in the Cash-in-Lieu Reserve Account. The money was collected from developers for the purpose. They cannot be used for any other purpose. If not used for the purpose collected, it cannot again be identified in new calculations for the next round of development charges.
Still council dismissed the staff recommendation.
Minor Ball came to council to emphasize the need and to discover why, once again provision for the facilities had been removed from the budget.
It was interesting to watch the issue being stickhandled. The normal process of tabling a motion for debate went by the board. Bafflegab was fast and furious. 'Is that all you want? What about a club house, a stadium? What else do you need ?' Finally, the Director was directed with a flourish to find a location and get to work on designs the very next day.
The delegation appeared to be understandably impressed.
Designs have been on hand for the past two years. There are two potential properties All that remains is for the Budget to be re-opened and the financial commitment made.
This year's budget is on council's agenda to be approved tonight. Will there be a motion to amend to add oodles of dough ? Perhaps by the same person who moved it be removed ?
We shall see.
Skullduggery II
A reader has asked about the "leak" and "investigation" that followed at the end of last year What was the upshot and what did it cost??
The matter arose from a story which appeared in The Auroran that Council had turned down an offer to purchase land by York Region Police for the purpose of relocating Central Headquarters. It would have been a spectacular building housing eight hundred of the best-paying jobs in York Region. The decision was made on September 11Th The story appeared in November. After it appeared it seemed everybody but me had known for ages the plan was in the works.
Yet it seemed the Mayor and others were sure a heinous crime of "leaking" had been perpetrated and they sought to discover the culprit They retained George Rust D'Eye a former city solicitor to follow the trail.
The Mayor apparently had asked Mr. Rust D'Eye to attend council . After opening the meeting she introduced Mr.Rust D'Eye, then refused to answer a question as to his purpose Immediately she declared an emergency meeting and council trooped into the back room to examine the entrails.
All except the Mayor and Mr. Rust D' Eye. He was introduced to myself. He asked had I retained legal counsel ,said he had read numbers of emails and letters to the editor I had written and floated the idea I should not attend the in-camera meeting due to a vague reference to conflict-of-interest. It didn't seem like particularly useful advice. I went anyway.
Mr. Rust D'Eyehas had two consultations with council and obviously others with the Mayor,the nature of which have not been revealed. He advised his final report was solicitor-client privilege and could not be released. It was circulated , then collected . There has not since been even a whispered reference to his findings. What I can reveal is that neither Rust D'Eye nor anyone else ever inquired of myself or The Auroran as to the source of "the leak".
I suspect the purpose was a political exercise to divert attention from the awful truth. Counci, on a split vote, did in fact turn down the opportunity to have York Regional Police Headquarters locate here with all the economic advantage that entailed..
In my opinion , it was an error in judgement of gargantuan proportions. The reasons given being so puerile as to defy logic completely.
The rule calls for decisions made behind closed doors to be publicly reported . Thus far it has not happened.
I am currently awaiting a response to my inquiry about the legal cost of the boondoggle
Stay tuned.
The matter arose from a story which appeared in The Auroran that Council had turned down an offer to purchase land by York Region Police for the purpose of relocating Central Headquarters. It would have been a spectacular building housing eight hundred of the best-paying jobs in York Region. The decision was made on September 11Th The story appeared in November. After it appeared it seemed everybody but me had known for ages the plan was in the works.
Yet it seemed the Mayor and others were sure a heinous crime of "leaking" had been perpetrated and they sought to discover the culprit They retained George Rust D'Eye a former city solicitor to follow the trail.
The Mayor apparently had asked Mr. Rust D'Eye to attend council . After opening the meeting she introduced Mr.Rust D'Eye, then refused to answer a question as to his purpose Immediately she declared an emergency meeting and council trooped into the back room to examine the entrails.
All except the Mayor and Mr. Rust D' Eye. He was introduced to myself. He asked had I retained legal counsel ,said he had read numbers of emails and letters to the editor I had written and floated the idea I should not attend the in-camera meeting due to a vague reference to conflict-of-interest. It didn't seem like particularly useful advice. I went anyway.
Mr. Rust D'Eyehas had two consultations with council and obviously others with the Mayor,the nature of which have not been revealed. He advised his final report was solicitor-client privilege and could not be released. It was circulated , then collected . There has not since been even a whispered reference to his findings. What I can reveal is that neither Rust D'Eye nor anyone else ever inquired of myself or The Auroran as to the source of "the leak".
I suspect the purpose was a political exercise to divert attention from the awful truth. Counci, on a split vote, did in fact turn down the opportunity to have York Regional Police Headquarters locate here with all the economic advantage that entailed..
In my opinion , it was an error in judgement of gargantuan proportions. The reasons given being so puerile as to defy logic completely.
The rule calls for decisions made behind closed doors to be publicly reported . Thus far it has not happened.
I am currently awaiting a response to my inquiry about the legal cost of the boondoggle
Stay tuned.
Monday, 14 April 2008
A Reader's Comment
The following email was in my inbox this morning. I've removed the writer's name:
----- Original Message -----
The province isn't following up on its mandate to protect our water resources by protecting the moraine and is leaving the municipalities to carry the load. Mrs. Buck, Why aren't you angry at the province for not doing their job? Instead you are angry with Mayor Morris because she is doing a job the premier should be, but isn't.
When the floodwaters are pouring in Mrs. Buck, you don't wait for the appropriate authorities to tell you to buy a boat. As usual you are barking up the wrong tree, looking to save a dollar, when the farm is at stake.
What saddens me most about you is not your opinions, but that there are enough people out there not paying attention, that someone like you got elected.
It is a Sad, Sad world indeed.
My response:
Good Morning Reader,
Thank you for your message. I'm sorry you are disappointed. that I do not share your views and that I was elected despite that fact.. I was not however elected to disregard the town's own Official Plan and ask the taxpayer's of Aurora to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to argue against the law at a Municipal Board Hearing .Municipal Board decisions are based entirely on evidence of the law They do not stray outside the law. That is the reality.
The current provincial government was re-elected after they passed the Oak Ridges Moraine Act. I believe we may assume the majority of Ontarians support The Act. I do not recall Mr. Klees making an issue against the Act during the election.Nor did I observe the Green Party arguing The Act was inadequate. Were you active in the Provincial campaign arguing against The Act? I do not recall Aurora's Mayor making an issue of it during the Provincial Campaign either.
Yet that is when opposition to the terms of The Oak Ridges Moraine Act should have been fought.The millions of dollars the Province spent to take land out of development in Richmond Hill might very likely have been used by the McGuinty government to demonstrate their commitment to preserve sensitive land masses.
You are free to express your opinion and your passion for the environment and you should be. Legislators,and Aurora Councillors are legislators, must abide by the law. I believe candidates for office should be honest with the electorate. They should not make promises they know they cannot keep. That is my passion. I know it is not realistic to expect seeking votes to be absolutely straightforward But In taking the position I do, I am keeping my commitment to those who elected me.
Perhaps you will acknowledge while we may have different principles, we have the same right to adhere to our own..And to fight for them if need be.
Regards,
Evelyn Buck
Councillor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Blog Reader"
To: <evelynb@aci.on.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: A CALISTHENIC GUARANTEED TO SECURE AN EXCRUCIATING SELF-INJURY
The province isn't following up on its mandate to protect our water resources by protecting the moraine and is leaving the municipalities to carry the load. Mrs. Buck, Why aren't you angry at the province for not doing their job? Instead you are angry with Mayor Morris because she is doing a job the premier should be, but isn't.
When the floodwaters are pouring in Mrs. Buck, you don't wait for the appropriate authorities to tell you to buy a boat. As usual you are barking up the wrong tree, looking to save a dollar, when the farm is at stake.
What saddens me most about you is not your opinions, but that there are enough people out there not paying attention, that someone like you got elected.
It is a Sad, Sad world indeed.
My response:
Good Morning Reader,
Thank you for your message. I'm sorry you are disappointed. that I do not share your views and that I was elected despite that fact.. I was not however elected to disregard the town's own Official Plan and ask the taxpayer's of Aurora to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to argue against the law at a Municipal Board Hearing .Municipal Board decisions are based entirely on evidence of the law They do not stray outside the law. That is the reality.
The current provincial government was re-elected after they passed the Oak Ridges Moraine Act. I believe we may assume the majority of Ontarians support The Act. I do not recall Mr. Klees making an issue against the Act during the election.Nor did I observe the Green Party arguing The Act was inadequate. Were you active in the Provincial campaign arguing against The Act? I do not recall Aurora's Mayor making an issue of it during the Provincial Campaign either.
Yet that is when opposition to the terms of The Oak Ridges Moraine Act should have been fought.The millions of dollars the Province spent to take land out of development in Richmond Hill might very likely have been used by the McGuinty government to demonstrate their commitment to preserve sensitive land masses.
You are free to express your opinion and your passion for the environment and you should be. Legislators,and Aurora Councillors are legislators, must abide by the law. I believe candidates for office should be honest with the electorate. They should not make promises they know they cannot keep. That is my passion. I know it is not realistic to expect seeking votes to be absolutely straightforward But In taking the position I do, I am keeping my commitment to those who elected me.
Perhaps you will acknowledge while we may have different principles, we have the same right to adhere to our own..And to fight for them if need be.
Regards,
Evelyn Buck
Councillor
Saturday, 12 April 2008
A Calisthenic Guaranteed To Secure an Excruciating Self-Injury
I was wrong. The price tag for OMB proceedings on the Westhill Development Proposal up to April 8th was $119,000 not $10,000. Obviously, the consequences of supporting the neighbours' requestfor a Joint Board Hearing were not fully understood. Professional advice bought and paid for was not accepted.
Instead the rallying cry went out to members of S.T.O.R.M.(Save the Oak Ridges Moraine). Support was on hand to refuse the application and join the demand for a Joint Board Hearing. The Mayor subsequently and publicly dismissed concern about legal costs.
It's a familiar scene. Advocates of nature are free to embrace their passion without regard for pesky details like law.. Politicians are free to exploit that passion and ignore the hard reality They may even have made a commitment during the last election.
I have referred before to a similar fateful decision made on October 22, 2003.during a council meeting during the campaign.. A staff report was presented for closed door discussion and to meet a provincial deadline. Legal connotations were cited. They were dismissed by some councillors.with a hint of an accusation impropriety.
Councillor MacEachern argued the matter should be discussed in the open.. Councillor Vrancic dictated a resolution off the top of his head and declared" we should not fear legal costs.We should show the way for other municipalities ." A lawyer resident said talk about legal costs was ridiculous.. He offered to represent the town himself if it came to that.Emotions were high. The Council chamber was full. Ms. Morris, a candidate for council was there with Sue Walmer, to join the crusade toSave the Moraine. .
Next year's audit revealed not-to-be-feared legal costs were $270,000. Nothing was accomplished then or learned either apparently. The crusade paid off in votes for the valiant.
During the last election, at a meeting sponsored by the Coalition of Ratepayers, random questions were pulled out of a hat. A written questionnaire had already been circulated. Candidates views were known. I was asked how I would respond to an application for development on the Moraine.
I said:for the second time:and in the second election;" There is no simple answer. The Town's Official Plan governs. The Provincial Oak Ridges Moraine Act governs . If money is to be spent to protect The Moraine , it should be provincial money. I would not put the burden on the home-owners and businesses of Aurora.
Candidate Wilson was asked the same question. His response was loud and emphatic. He declared he would not permit development on The Moraine .
Evelina MacEachern's question was a bit of a twist. She was asked whether she had ever observed a conflict of interest while on council previously. She said she couldn't believe she had received that question. She had no idea it was coming. She answered in the affirmative. On one occasion, in-camera, the matter of raises for non-union staff was on the agenda. Mayor Jones, whose wife was on staff, declared a conflict and did not participate. Later however when the matter was reported out he failed to declare. Ms. MacEachern said she did not draw attention to the oversight because she didn't know she could.
Of the twenty candidates in the contest only four had previous experience. What was the chance anyone but Ms. MacEachern could have given that answer ?
I have a basic philosophy. I trust everyone until they give me reason not to. then I never do again.
The event and the questions were organized by Sue Walmer. As was the Coalition of Ratepayers in time for the election. As was STORM. Ms. Walmer is still is a member of the town's environmental committee. As was the Mayor. Ms. Walmer was understood to be heavily involved in Morris' bid for the Mayor's chair. It was understood the coalition had a slate of candidates
It often happens when I start on a particular topic the writing takes off in in a circle before it comes back to main theme.
The price tag for the refusal of the Westhill development application and support four of Westhill's neighbours request for a joint board hearing is currently $119,000 and counting – half legal, and half technical expertise.
Had the process been allowed to continue, fees for the expertise would have been paid by the developer. The appllication was refused. .The work became redundant from the applicant's perspective. The Municipal Board will make the decision and t taxpayers of Aurora will pay for the redundant work. The town required it to be done. .
Three weeks had been set aside for the scheduled hearing. That time has since been revised to six weeks. Projected cost is $150,00. Add that to the $119,000 already spent.
The neighbours' lawyer has appealed the OMB decision againsta Joint Board Hearing to Divisional Court .. The town is not supporting it but our previous action will bolster his argument.
A Joint Hearing requires seventeen weeks or therabouts.Our cost for that process will be close to half a million dollars. Add that to $119,000.
Our advocacy budget for 2008 is spent. Pending a decision from Divisional Court the anticipated extra cost will have to be added to this year's budget. It represents between two and three points on the tax rate.
I think this may be where the generational gap between myself and fellow councillors becomes apparent. $10.thousand dollars wasted is to me unpardonable. Make that half a million and you will understand the extent of my despair.
The Westhill lands are designated in the Aurora Official plan to permit a golf course and residential development. There were serious issues that needed to be settled prior to a site plan being approved. Under the guidance of town and regional staff and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Environment, the developer has already spent three-quarters of a million dollars .. Their OMB costs will not be less than ours.
The Ontario Municipal Board cannot disregard the Town's Official Plan. The town cannot argue against The Town's Official Plan at an OMB hearing or a Joint Board either for that matter.We cannot argue in that forum against the Oak Ridges Moraine Act or the Ministry of the Environment or the Region or The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
I do not profess proficiency in math. I do not profess to the expertise of a Chief Financial Officer responsible for a Corporate Budget of fifty-one million dollars and counting. Neither do I claim the Wisdom of Solomon. But I believe there is an obvious conclusion here.
We dug our collective selves in deep this time..
Instead the rallying cry went out to members of S.T.O.R.M.(Save the Oak Ridges Moraine). Support was on hand to refuse the application and join the demand for a Joint Board Hearing. The Mayor subsequently and publicly dismissed concern about legal costs.
It's a familiar scene. Advocates of nature are free to embrace their passion without regard for pesky details like law.. Politicians are free to exploit that passion and ignore the hard reality They may even have made a commitment during the last election.
I have referred before to a similar fateful decision made on October 22, 2003.during a council meeting during the campaign.. A staff report was presented for closed door discussion and to meet a provincial deadline. Legal connotations were cited. They were dismissed by some councillors.with a hint of an accusation impropriety.
Councillor MacEachern argued the matter should be discussed in the open.. Councillor Vrancic dictated a resolution off the top of his head and declared" we should not fear legal costs.We should show the way for other municipalities ." A lawyer resident said talk about legal costs was ridiculous.. He offered to represent the town himself if it came to that.Emotions were high. The Council chamber was full. Ms. Morris, a candidate for council was there with Sue Walmer, to join the crusade toSave the Moraine. .
Next year's audit revealed not-to-be-feared legal costs were $270,000. Nothing was accomplished then or learned either apparently. The crusade paid off in votes for the valiant.
During the last election, at a meeting sponsored by the Coalition of Ratepayers, random questions were pulled out of a hat. A written questionnaire had already been circulated. Candidates views were known. I was asked how I would respond to an application for development on the Moraine.
I said:for the second time:and in the second election;" There is no simple answer. The Town's Official Plan governs. The Provincial Oak Ridges Moraine Act governs . If money is to be spent to protect The Moraine , it should be provincial money. I would not put the burden on the home-owners and businesses of Aurora.
Candidate Wilson was asked the same question. His response was loud and emphatic. He declared he would not permit development on The Moraine .
Evelina MacEachern's question was a bit of a twist. She was asked whether she had ever observed a conflict of interest while on council previously. She said she couldn't believe she had received that question. She had no idea it was coming. She answered in the affirmative. On one occasion, in-camera, the matter of raises for non-union staff was on the agenda. Mayor Jones, whose wife was on staff, declared a conflict and did not participate. Later however when the matter was reported out he failed to declare. Ms. MacEachern said she did not draw attention to the oversight because she didn't know she could.
Of the twenty candidates in the contest only four had previous experience. What was the chance anyone but Ms. MacEachern could have given that answer ?
I have a basic philosophy. I trust everyone until they give me reason not to. then I never do again.
The event and the questions were organized by Sue Walmer. As was the Coalition of Ratepayers in time for the election. As was STORM. Ms. Walmer is still is a member of the town's environmental committee. As was the Mayor. Ms. Walmer was understood to be heavily involved in Morris' bid for the Mayor's chair. It was understood the coalition had a slate of candidates
It often happens when I start on a particular topic the writing takes off in in a circle before it comes back to main theme.
The price tag for the refusal of the Westhill development application and support four of Westhill's neighbours request for a joint board hearing is currently $119,000 and counting – half legal, and half technical expertise.
Had the process been allowed to continue, fees for the expertise would have been paid by the developer. The appllication was refused. .The work became redundant from the applicant's perspective. The Municipal Board will make the decision and t taxpayers of Aurora will pay for the redundant work. The town required it to be done. .
Three weeks had been set aside for the scheduled hearing. That time has since been revised to six weeks. Projected cost is $150,00. Add that to the $119,000 already spent.
The neighbours' lawyer has appealed the OMB decision againsta Joint Board Hearing to Divisional Court .. The town is not supporting it but our previous action will bolster his argument.
A Joint Hearing requires seventeen weeks or therabouts.Our cost for that process will be close to half a million dollars. Add that to $119,000.
Our advocacy budget for 2008 is spent. Pending a decision from Divisional Court the anticipated extra cost will have to be added to this year's budget. It represents between two and three points on the tax rate.
I think this may be where the generational gap between myself and fellow councillors becomes apparent. $10.thousand dollars wasted is to me unpardonable. Make that half a million and you will understand the extent of my despair.
The Westhill lands are designated in the Aurora Official plan to permit a golf course and residential development. There were serious issues that needed to be settled prior to a site plan being approved. Under the guidance of town and regional staff and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Environment, the developer has already spent three-quarters of a million dollars .. Their OMB costs will not be less than ours.
The Ontario Municipal Board cannot disregard the Town's Official Plan. The town cannot argue against The Town's Official Plan at an OMB hearing or a Joint Board either for that matter.We cannot argue in that forum against the Oak Ridges Moraine Act or the Ministry of the Environment or the Region or The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
I do not profess proficiency in math. I do not profess to the expertise of a Chief Financial Officer responsible for a Corporate Budget of fifty-one million dollars and counting. Neither do I claim the Wisdom of Solomon. But I believe there is an obvious conclusion here.
We dug our collective selves in deep this time..
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Ruminations
Martin Short was the focus of a television feature replayed recently. The late John Candy, Dan Ackroyd, and others were part of the program. They talked about early years as high school students in Hamilton. Martin about how he learned he could entertain people. When he was quite young he discovered he had a talent for impersonation. Then he discovered he could make people laugh. He was paying particular attention to individual styles of expression.He watched television a lot and listened carefully.
It seems everyone has a unique style. They adopt certain words and phrases and a speech cadence. In Second City, Martin created his own hilarious characters and has gone from strength to strength in the North American entertainment industry.
When I met Logan, Heather Sisman's son, he was seven years old. He latched on to words and phrases like candy to be savoured. He likes to discuss things and is no slouch in the art of persuasion. Soon after we met, in an argument with his mother he raised his arms in a classic gesture and said, " As Evelyn Buck would say, where's the logic in that?"
At the beginning of this term, Aurora Cable camera people had a pool going. They bet how often and when a phrase would be used by one or other councillor. It seems I was in the habit of saying "Forty years ago". After I learned that I tried to avoid being so predictable. I would say instead "a hundred years ago". I am not about to give up an advantage.
When the flurry of nasty anonymous comments came in response to my Kangaroo Court Blog, I used the process to devine the authors. Words and phrases were a dead giveaway. The writers were not strangers.
Heather Sisman argues I can not make assumptions. Why not, I say? Why should they have all the fun I was simply exercising my intuition. At my time of life, it is a well-honed skill. It's my business to listen carefully and store away for future reference.
Paranoia is probably the main occupational hazard for politicians at every level. We are deemed to have thick skins. In fact, the opposite is the case. A reputation for honesty and straight talk is a precious asset. It is built in the face of conventional wisdom that there is no such thing as an honest politician. It is easy to lose and easier to squander.
Remember the old maxim: "You can fool some of the people some of the time. You can not fool all of the people all of the time" Relatively speaking, politicians tend to have a short shelf life. Life in a goldfish bowl is not how it seems. and things are always tougher than imagined.
It's a bit like being a new parent. You don't know anything about it. But you know you wont make the same mistakes your parents did.
If you are lucky, your parents will still remember what it was like to be new parents. Their advantage is knowing everything new parents know ... and a lot more besides.
It seems everyone has a unique style. They adopt certain words and phrases and a speech cadence. In Second City, Martin created his own hilarious characters and has gone from strength to strength in the North American entertainment industry.
When I met Logan, Heather Sisman's son, he was seven years old. He latched on to words and phrases like candy to be savoured. He likes to discuss things and is no slouch in the art of persuasion. Soon after we met, in an argument with his mother he raised his arms in a classic gesture and said, " As Evelyn Buck would say, where's the logic in that?"
At the beginning of this term, Aurora Cable camera people had a pool going. They bet how often and when a phrase would be used by one or other councillor. It seems I was in the habit of saying "Forty years ago". After I learned that I tried to avoid being so predictable. I would say instead "a hundred years ago". I am not about to give up an advantage.
When the flurry of nasty anonymous comments came in response to my Kangaroo Court Blog, I used the process to devine the authors. Words and phrases were a dead giveaway. The writers were not strangers.
Heather Sisman argues I can not make assumptions. Why not, I say? Why should they have all the fun I was simply exercising my intuition. At my time of life, it is a well-honed skill. It's my business to listen carefully and store away for future reference.
Paranoia is probably the main occupational hazard for politicians at every level. We are deemed to have thick skins. In fact, the opposite is the case. A reputation for honesty and straight talk is a precious asset. It is built in the face of conventional wisdom that there is no such thing as an honest politician. It is easy to lose and easier to squander.
Remember the old maxim: "You can fool some of the people some of the time. You can not fool all of the people all of the time" Relatively speaking, politicians tend to have a short shelf life. Life in a goldfish bowl is not how it seems. and things are always tougher than imagined.
It's a bit like being a new parent. You don't know anything about it. But you know you wont make the same mistakes your parents did.
If you are lucky, your parents will still remember what it was like to be new parents. Their advantage is knowing everything new parents know ... and a lot more besides.
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Turgid Verbiage
I read the transcript from the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the Westhill Golf Course development; all 211 pages. It cost almost $3 thousand dollars. I was particularly interested in the comments of the town's lawyer for reasons which may not be obvious but I cannot reveal because certain things must be kept secret to save the town harmless.
There was an exchange of emails between the Chief Administrator and the Mayor before the Hearing. In response to questions, the CAO informed the Mayor how much a transcript costs, that they are normally required by parties to the hearing but not always. They are not normally required for the public.
Average length of a transcript is 300 pages - cost is $2100. Usual time to produce a transcript is two weeks. If it is needed quicker, cost is between six and nine hundred dollars more. The Mayor gave the direction for a transcript in the shorter time.
We had a two page dissertation circulated by Sue Walmer as soon as the hearing was over. Ms. Walmer and the Mayor attended the hearing together and Walmer was appalled at the Chairman's lack of knowledge of what it was about.
"His bias," Ms. Walmer said "made me despair for the environment."
The Chairman had informed all present the function of the Board is to protect the rights of property owners. He said property owners should appreciate that. Ms. Walmer did not. Considering the hearing was about four property owners seeking to protect their rights by asking for something more than a plain old OMB hearing,(three weeks) I think the Chairman's point was well made.
Ms. Walmer was the Mayor's campaign manager. She organized the Coalition of Ratepayers for the purpose of the election. She continues to organize.
Anyway, I ploughed through the verbiage. Mr. Northey, lawyer for the opposing neighbours had most to say. Naturally enough because it was his motion. Mr. Beaman ,the town's lawyer. on the other hand had the least. He supported Mr. Northey's arguments and took issue with language about "teeth" of Mr. McQuaid who represented the developer. He also appeared to be urging the Chairman to accept a transcript. No doubt it would justify the expense.
The hearing lasted until 5.30 p.m. Last time I heard anything about legal fees, they were $600 an hour. I figure a rough estimate of legal costs for the day might be $5,400. Add travel time, preparation time and the cost of the transcript, our cost to be a party to that hearing would not likely be less that $10 thousand.
The motion was dismissed. The result would have been the same without our participation.. So once again, we are ten grand out with nothing to show for it. Zilch, Zero, Nada and Nil.
Last I checked, the town's share of the taxes from an average house in Aurora was about $700. The means the entire revenue for this year from mine and twelve other houses on my street went to pay for this exercise in futility.
A further Municipal Board Hearing is scheduled for April 7th. Three weeks have been allocated and it might take longer. There will be legal costs, staff time and expert witness costs.
I understand a joint board hearing,that's what was being requested, would have lasted seventeen weeks or longer. It would also have called for an army of experts to testify.
But wait, if we are going to be defending a refusal of the application, in the face of supportive evidence for the development from our staff,we may have to recruit a complete new team to support our refusal and refute our own staff reports. Wouldn't that be interesting? The potential cost simply boggles the mind.
Planning staff had been working for months maybe years on this proposal.They advised the developer as to what was possible. Serious work still needed to be done and time was growing short. Council's precipitate decision to refuse the application lwould have brought the work to a halt.
As a result, we will be at a considerable disadvantage at the Board Hearing starting on April 7th. Work that needed to be done to ensure this development is done right has not been completed. Hundreds of staff hours have already been expended.
This is the last parcel to be developed under transition status of the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan. It was being carefully shepherded by our staff, the Region and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Until council decided to cut all of them off at the knees.
An offsite orientation meeting at the beginning of this term, would have provided new councillors with a thorough briefing on the Oak Ridges Moraine Act. They would have learned about legal rights of property owners and the requirement to conform to more restrictive regulations to protect the Moraine.
They might have been able to recognize crass political opportunism when they saw it.
There was an exchange of emails between the Chief Administrator and the Mayor before the Hearing. In response to questions, the CAO informed the Mayor how much a transcript costs, that they are normally required by parties to the hearing but not always. They are not normally required for the public.
Average length of a transcript is 300 pages - cost is $2100. Usual time to produce a transcript is two weeks. If it is needed quicker, cost is between six and nine hundred dollars more. The Mayor gave the direction for a transcript in the shorter time.
We had a two page dissertation circulated by Sue Walmer as soon as the hearing was over. Ms. Walmer and the Mayor attended the hearing together and Walmer was appalled at the Chairman's lack of knowledge of what it was about.
"His bias," Ms. Walmer said "made me despair for the environment."
The Chairman had informed all present the function of the Board is to protect the rights of property owners. He said property owners should appreciate that. Ms. Walmer did not. Considering the hearing was about four property owners seeking to protect their rights by asking for something more than a plain old OMB hearing,(three weeks) I think the Chairman's point was well made.
Ms. Walmer was the Mayor's campaign manager. She organized the Coalition of Ratepayers for the purpose of the election. She continues to organize.
Anyway, I ploughed through the verbiage. Mr. Northey, lawyer for the opposing neighbours had most to say. Naturally enough because it was his motion. Mr. Beaman ,the town's lawyer. on the other hand had the least. He supported Mr. Northey's arguments and took issue with language about "teeth" of Mr. McQuaid who represented the developer. He also appeared to be urging the Chairman to accept a transcript. No doubt it would justify the expense.
The hearing lasted until 5.30 p.m. Last time I heard anything about legal fees, they were $600 an hour. I figure a rough estimate of legal costs for the day might be $5,400. Add travel time, preparation time and the cost of the transcript, our cost to be a party to that hearing would not likely be less that $10 thousand.
The motion was dismissed. The result would have been the same without our participation.. So once again, we are ten grand out with nothing to show for it. Zilch, Zero, Nada and Nil.
Last I checked, the town's share of the taxes from an average house in Aurora was about $700. The means the entire revenue for this year from mine and twelve other houses on my street went to pay for this exercise in futility.
A further Municipal Board Hearing is scheduled for April 7th. Three weeks have been allocated and it might take longer. There will be legal costs, staff time and expert witness costs.
I understand a joint board hearing,that's what was being requested, would have lasted seventeen weeks or longer. It would also have called for an army of experts to testify.
But wait, if we are going to be defending a refusal of the application, in the face of supportive evidence for the development from our staff,we may have to recruit a complete new team to support our refusal and refute our own staff reports. Wouldn't that be interesting? The potential cost simply boggles the mind.
Planning staff had been working for months maybe years on this proposal.They advised the developer as to what was possible. Serious work still needed to be done and time was growing short. Council's precipitate decision to refuse the application lwould have brought the work to a halt.
As a result, we will be at a considerable disadvantage at the Board Hearing starting on April 7th. Work that needed to be done to ensure this development is done right has not been completed. Hundreds of staff hours have already been expended.
This is the last parcel to be developed under transition status of the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan. It was being carefully shepherded by our staff, the Region and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Until council decided to cut all of them off at the knees.
An offsite orientation meeting at the beginning of this term, would have provided new councillors with a thorough briefing on the Oak Ridges Moraine Act. They would have learned about legal rights of property owners and the requirement to conform to more restrictive regulations to protect the Moraine.
They might have been able to recognize crass political opportunism when they saw it.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Bringing This Comment to the Top
And my comment:
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and your support. I understand your reservations about letters to the editor from council members. There are arguments pro and con.I know them all. As a practising politician,I have to respond to the exigencies of circumstances , if only to keep my end up. My supporters expect it of me and I need them as much as they need me. I do not sit alone in that council seat. The people who put me there are with me always.
My last Blog morphed into a letter to the editor. It need not have happened The Force decided to place a couple of my emails on council's agenda for the purpose of finding fault. I objected to that. I had no intention of submitting to the carping critics. I responded in the Kangaroo Court Blog to the points made during the histrionics.They keep making the same assumption that I am helpless and harmless.
To function effectively, a council needs to have an opportunity for informal dialogue. We should be able to throw half-formed ideas across the table and consider every possibility. We are the only level of government which doesn't have that flexibility. We may be the only council in the region to interpret the legislation so rigidly as to deny ourselves that opportunity. The Internet restores that which has been lost. Tossing ideas across the wires is an excellent alternative. We already have a ton more meetings than are necessary or useful.
The one we didn't have which was critical was the weekend orientation gathering at the beginning of the term. Its purpose is to bring new councillors together with staff and experts to put them into the picture on the state of the nation, so-to-speak. The Mayor made sure that didn't happen, although I understand she has already attended a couple herself at the Region.
Obviously my opinion is not shared. Heavens to Betsy that can't be allowed. Councillors cannot be subject to the influence of each other. That is not what The Coalition of Ratepayers and The Sports Coalition intended when they worked so hard to elect their respective slates and were successful with at least five of their picks.
We have thirty-two months of this term left. There is serious work to be done. We can do it together as a nine member council and staff or we can go on as we are. Whatever the choice, I will continue to keep people informed by whatever means available to me.. I made no pledges to special interest groups in the last election.
You mentioned "the leak" that caused the Mayor to retain legal counsel. The issue related to an offer by York Regional Police to purchase, at the appraised value, a parcel of land we had for sale The offer was for the purpose of building new Regional Police Headquarters in Aurora. The request was refused on September 11th. The news story appeared in November. How long does anyone imagine a secret like that can be kept? Had it been reported out as it should have been, there would have been no secret to leak. It has still not been reported out. In fact at one point, it was denied by a councillor in a letter to the editor.
Do you my friend, have any curiosity about what the lawyer retained by the Mayor came up with at taxpayers' expense at the end of "the investigation"? That was never reported out either.Nor was the cost.
We have four councillors who continue to think for themselves and vote independently. They include Councillors McRoberts, Marsh, Collins-Mrakas and myself. Every councillor puts an enormous amount of time and effort into the job. What separates us are the decisions we make and the way they are made. I can only answer for myself. I think Aurora expects the best and deserves no less
.
Thank you again for taking the time to express your thoughts on the situation. . It's good to be able
to give and take like this.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and your support. I understand your reservations about letters to the editor from council members. There are arguments pro and con.I know them all. As a practising politician,I have to respond to the exigencies of circumstances , if only to keep my end up. My supporters expect it of me and I need them as much as they need me. I do not sit alone in that council seat. The people who put me there are with me always.
My last Blog morphed into a letter to the editor. It need not have happened The Force decided to place a couple of my emails on council's agenda for the purpose of finding fault. I objected to that. I had no intention of submitting to the carping critics. I responded in the Kangaroo Court Blog to the points made during the histrionics.They keep making the same assumption that I am helpless and harmless.
To function effectively, a council needs to have an opportunity for informal dialogue. We should be able to throw half-formed ideas across the table and consider every possibility. We are the only level of government which doesn't have that flexibility. We may be the only council in the region to interpret the legislation so rigidly as to deny ourselves that opportunity. The Internet restores that which has been lost. Tossing ideas across the wires is an excellent alternative. We already have a ton more meetings than are necessary or useful.
The one we didn't have which was critical was the weekend orientation gathering at the beginning of the term. Its purpose is to bring new councillors together with staff and experts to put them into the picture on the state of the nation, so-to-speak. The Mayor made sure that didn't happen, although I understand she has already attended a couple herself at the Region.
Obviously my opinion is not shared. Heavens to Betsy that can't be allowed. Councillors cannot be subject to the influence of each other. That is not what The Coalition of Ratepayers and The Sports Coalition intended when they worked so hard to elect their respective slates and were successful with at least five of their picks.
We have thirty-two months of this term left. There is serious work to be done. We can do it together as a nine member council and staff or we can go on as we are. Whatever the choice, I will continue to keep people informed by whatever means available to me.. I made no pledges to special interest groups in the last election.
You mentioned "the leak" that caused the Mayor to retain legal counsel. The issue related to an offer by York Regional Police to purchase, at the appraised value, a parcel of land we had for sale The offer was for the purpose of building new Regional Police Headquarters in Aurora. The request was refused on September 11th. The news story appeared in November. How long does anyone imagine a secret like that can be kept? Had it been reported out as it should have been, there would have been no secret to leak. It has still not been reported out. In fact at one point, it was denied by a councillor in a letter to the editor.
Do you my friend, have any curiosity about what the lawyer retained by the Mayor came up with at taxpayers' expense at the end of "the investigation"? That was never reported out either.Nor was the cost.
We have four councillors who continue to think for themselves and vote independently. They include Councillors McRoberts, Marsh, Collins-Mrakas and myself. Every councillor puts an enormous amount of time and effort into the job. What separates us are the decisions we make and the way they are made. I can only answer for myself. I think Aurora expects the best and deserves no less
.
Thank you again for taking the time to express your thoughts on the situation. . It's good to be able
to give and take like this.
Monday, 24 March 2008
NAVEL GAZING
The most likely occupational hazard in blogland is probably navel gazing. Writing is a solitary occupation. Authors who do it for a living express appreciation in forewords for the person who reads their work and offers constructive criticism. It's usually a spouse or partner. An editor has much to do with the finished product.
A Blog is not so grand. It is a mish-mash. A polyglot. A series of observations and opinions which evolve with ongoing events.
What makes it interesting to some and infuriate others?
The Kangaroo Court Blog created a storm. What WAS that about? I simply commented on a happening which was part of the public record. Council decided to hold a hearing on my frequent emails. Various members commented on their negative effect. They clearly believed they had a right to use a council meeting to publicize their complaints I did not agree.
Neither did I choose to occupy the prisoner's box while they indulged in histrionics. I left the council chamber. But I watched the tape at home.
The comments I have received in response to the Kangaroo Court Blog make no reference to it. They do not defend council's action. They simply light right in to abuse and name calling. One even challenges my right to be a councillor.
The positive comments defended me against the nasty ones and they are much appreciated.
A huge amount of oxygen is consumed with talk about openness and transparency. It is mandated in government regulations. As if personal behaviour can be mandated. Candidates make it a platform in their election campaign.
I don't think it's an issue. One does it or one doesn't. I've always done it. I consider it an asset. People used to say. "As long as Evelyn's there, we will always know what's going on". The blog lets me do it better than ever before, and judging by reaction in some quarters, with more effect. Letters to the editor are even more widely read.
A year ago, I referred to an issue whixh had been discussed behind closed doors. It was about Aurora Cable's intent to erect a couple of wind turbines. It had already been flogged to death in open council meetings. In great anxiety, the Mayor called an emergency meeting to deal with the crisis. I said if they brought Moses down from the mountain with a new commandment they would not convince me the matter warranted a closed door discussion. I said the issue of legal liability was contrived.
A Code of Conduct. was seen as the remedy. Eventually, a report was submitted. Those who requested it rejected it. It should not be done by staff they said. The restrictions contained therein apparently did not sit well. I resisted the temptation to comment. on the obvious.
Last fall, a story appeared in the paper that council had turned down an offer from York Region Police to buy a parcel of land from the Town at the appraised value to build a police headquarters.
In high dudgeon, The Mayor retained a lawyer to "investigate the leak". He was provided with my Letters to the Editor and emails etc. He never did approach the newspaper or myself during his investigation. He asked if I had retained legal counsel and floated the idea of Conflict of Interest and the severity of penalties for said offense, and hinted I should not attend in-camera meetings with the rest of council to discuss the issue. I scotched that idea.
Eventually he reported. His findings did not sit well. Turns out the real quest was about something I had said in a blog which had subsequently become a letter to the editor. I had referred to the standard I adhere to in decision-making.
Though regulations require reporting out on business conducted behind closed doors, there is no time limit for doing it. There has been no further openness or transparency on that issue either.
In my first years on council, two local newspapers were in fierce competition for the news. Editorials were weekly events. Often there was more than one in the Editors column. They created interest and they had influence.
There were three daily newspapers. The Globe and Mail, The Telegram and the Toronto Star. They also had reporters beating the bushes for news..
Aurora's population was a fifth of today's. Town staff were a ready source of political updates. Word of mouth was a wonderful thing, if not always accurate. If they didn't know it before being elected, councillors quickly learned the voters valued their right to choose who would represent them on council and governed themselves accordingly.
When the Region was being created, municipalities were given the right to change the numbers on council. I suggested once we should consider reducing ours.. The reaction from the community was swift and emphatic. Nine councillors we have , and nine we will keep.
There was no pecking order. Each person elected had the same authority as the next. The Mayor only had a deciding vote in the event of a tie. Block voting was unheard of. Debate on contentious issues was fought with few holds barred. Rules of order stretched like the ropes of a boxing ring. When the battle was concluded , we adjourned together to the mess at the armouries and hoisted a few.
It was robust, healthy honest and above all else, open and transparent. Aurora expected nothing less. I see no reason to believe the collective intelligence has shrunk with the town's growth in population.
A Blog is not so grand. It is a mish-mash. A polyglot. A series of observations and opinions which evolve with ongoing events.
What makes it interesting to some and infuriate others?
The Kangaroo Court Blog created a storm. What WAS that about? I simply commented on a happening which was part of the public record. Council decided to hold a hearing on my frequent emails. Various members commented on their negative effect. They clearly believed they had a right to use a council meeting to publicize their complaints I did not agree.
Neither did I choose to occupy the prisoner's box while they indulged in histrionics. I left the council chamber. But I watched the tape at home.
The comments I have received in response to the Kangaroo Court Blog make no reference to it. They do not defend council's action. They simply light right in to abuse and name calling. One even challenges my right to be a councillor.
The positive comments defended me against the nasty ones and they are much appreciated.
A huge amount of oxygen is consumed with talk about openness and transparency. It is mandated in government regulations. As if personal behaviour can be mandated. Candidates make it a platform in their election campaign.
I don't think it's an issue. One does it or one doesn't. I've always done it. I consider it an asset. People used to say. "As long as Evelyn's there, we will always know what's going on". The blog lets me do it better than ever before, and judging by reaction in some quarters, with more effect. Letters to the editor are even more widely read.
A year ago, I referred to an issue whixh had been discussed behind closed doors. It was about Aurora Cable's intent to erect a couple of wind turbines. It had already been flogged to death in open council meetings. In great anxiety, the Mayor called an emergency meeting to deal with the crisis. I said if they brought Moses down from the mountain with a new commandment they would not convince me the matter warranted a closed door discussion. I said the issue of legal liability was contrived.
A Code of Conduct. was seen as the remedy. Eventually, a report was submitted. Those who requested it rejected it. It should not be done by staff they said. The restrictions contained therein apparently did not sit well. I resisted the temptation to comment. on the obvious.
Last fall, a story appeared in the paper that council had turned down an offer from York Region Police to buy a parcel of land from the Town at the appraised value to build a police headquarters.
In high dudgeon, The Mayor retained a lawyer to "investigate the leak". He was provided with my Letters to the Editor and emails etc. He never did approach the newspaper or myself during his investigation. He asked if I had retained legal counsel and floated the idea of Conflict of Interest and the severity of penalties for said offense, and hinted I should not attend in-camera meetings with the rest of council to discuss the issue. I scotched that idea.
Eventually he reported. His findings did not sit well. Turns out the real quest was about something I had said in a blog which had subsequently become a letter to the editor. I had referred to the standard I adhere to in decision-making.
Though regulations require reporting out on business conducted behind closed doors, there is no time limit for doing it. There has been no further openness or transparency on that issue either.
In my first years on council, two local newspapers were in fierce competition for the news. Editorials were weekly events. Often there was more than one in the Editors column. They created interest and they had influence.
There were three daily newspapers. The Globe and Mail, The Telegram and the Toronto Star. They also had reporters beating the bushes for news..
Aurora's population was a fifth of today's. Town staff were a ready source of political updates. Word of mouth was a wonderful thing, if not always accurate. If they didn't know it before being elected, councillors quickly learned the voters valued their right to choose who would represent them on council and governed themselves accordingly.
When the Region was being created, municipalities were given the right to change the numbers on council. I suggested once we should consider reducing ours.. The reaction from the community was swift and emphatic. Nine councillors we have , and nine we will keep.
There was no pecking order. Each person elected had the same authority as the next. The Mayor only had a deciding vote in the event of a tie. Block voting was unheard of. Debate on contentious issues was fought with few holds barred. Rules of order stretched like the ropes of a boxing ring. When the battle was concluded , we adjourned together to the mess at the armouries and hoisted a few.
It was robust, healthy honest and above all else, open and transparent. Aurora expected nothing less. I see no reason to believe the collective intelligence has shrunk with the town's growth in population.
Saturday, 22 March 2008
The Blog and Songs of Praise
When I started this enterprise sixteen months ago, I had no idea where it might lead. I start a post and the theme takes its own direction. Watching reader numbers grow became a preoccupation. The object was to share my experience but I eventually had to remind myself the entire community is not connected to the internet. With bravado, I had declared myself independent of Letters to the Editor but I discovered my readers were slow in coming..I had to wrestle with the validity of old political maxims. How relevant are they in THE AGE OF BLOG? A post is political but also personal. I thought people would visit only if they were interested in what I had to say . I hoped there would be feedback but expected it to be civil.
I soaked up everything I heard or read about blogging. I was amazed by the number of journalists doing it. One of them said it was a tyrant. I didn't understand. Then I realized that would be about advertising revenue.
Our council has settled into a pattern of alignment. Actually, it started.that way. And so The Blog has became more defined.At first, I was half afraid of its power and freedom. The desperation to shut it down became obvious.The temptation to push it to its limits became stronger.
This Blog may be struggling in its infancy but it is certainly a powerful political tool and I believe its future is secure.
Then came the abuse. Was it a surprise? . Why read my blog if it infuriates? Why should I give space in my place to people who clearly do not hold me high in their affections. My first instinct was to respond in kind. I am nobody's idea of a sweet old grandmother. Even my grandchildren will vouch for that. Nothing in my career would suggest such a thing.
But Heather Sisman argues the negative has its place. If The Blog is to reflect Our Town and its Business, it should be the whole of it. People would not come into my home and say those things. They would not walk up to me in a public place and hurl such insults. But I am aware of those who do it in their not so private conversations. I do not complain. I do not explain. I work harder..
Songs of Praise are not a normal part of any Real Political Repertoire. The good, bad and the ugly may deserve to be seen alongside each other in the clear light of day.We will try that too and see how it goes.
Friday, 21 March 2008
An Email from a Resident
The following email was received from a young resident of Aurora who first contacted me when he was in high school. Now he's away at university, but still follows the Town's politics, and keeps in touch. I have removed his name, simply for his own privacy.
Hello Ms. Buck,
It seems like ages since I wrote you last, but after reading the last several entries I thought I couldn't help but comment. I haven't been in Aurora as frequently as I usually am- I am away at University studying Honors Political Science.
Anyway, I couldn't help but share my opinion on a frequent theme you write on. From my position as an ignorant constituent, I get the impression that your views on disclosure vary from that of general counsel's. Forgive me if I am wrong, but given that politics as I am studying it is a process of open forum, why does counsel in general seem so opposed to the concept of clarity?
I can't but help sometimes when I read your blog... especially when I come across comments like this:
Anonymous Said...
"Thank goodness that you are the only coward on council!"
It is so ironic that someone has the nerve to make the claim that you are a coward and yet they are too afraid to leave their name... The irony of it...
Anyway, the drama aside, I actually do have one particular question for you. I am writing a paper for a political analysis class, and the focus of that paper is Aurora's council... One of the main issues that voters in Aurora complain about is the fact that council at face value (in general) is very 'secretive' and particularly quarrelsome. I was wondering if you could place your finger on any particular event (not person... I wouldn't ask that or put you in that position) which you felt was of significant impact or influence in leading to today's 'situation' (I know that is general but I believe that you know what I mean by that term) with council?
Thanks very much for continuing your blog... continue the conversation, because there are those of us that are listening, and come time for next election, it will be us who have listened carefully that will be able to voice our concerns and hopefully have something of an impact on the political process.
If you ever need an extra pair of hands during your next campaign, please let me know... I would be more than willing to help!
Yours sincerely,
Hello Ms. Buck,
It seems like ages since I wrote you last, but after reading the last several entries I thought I couldn't help but comment. I haven't been in Aurora as frequently as I usually am- I am away at University studying Honors Political Science.
Anyway, I couldn't help but share my opinion on a frequent theme you write on. From my position as an ignorant constituent, I get the impression that your views on disclosure vary from that of general counsel's. Forgive me if I am wrong, but given that politics as I am studying it is a process of open forum, why does counsel in general seem so opposed to the concept of clarity?
I can't but help sometimes when I read your blog... especially when I come across comments like this:
Anonymous Said...
"Thank goodness that you are the only coward on council!"
It is so ironic that someone has the nerve to make the claim that you are a coward and yet they are too afraid to leave their name... The irony of it...
Anyway, the drama aside, I actually do have one particular question for you. I am writing a paper for a political analysis class, and the focus of that paper is Aurora's council... One of the main issues that voters in Aurora complain about is the fact that council at face value (in general) is very 'secretive' and particularly quarrelsome. I was wondering if you could place your finger on any particular event (not person... I wouldn't ask that or put you in that position) which you felt was of significant impact or influence in leading to today's 'situation' (I know that is general but I believe that you know what I mean by that term) with council?
Thanks very much for continuing your blog... continue the conversation, because there are those of us that are listening, and come time for next election, it will be us who have listened carefully that will be able to voice our concerns and hopefully have something of an impact on the political process.
If you ever need an extra pair of hands during your next campaign, please let me know... I would be more than willing to help!
Yours sincerely,
An Aurora Resident
Monday, 10 March 2008
A Kangaroo Court
I have been cheerfully emailing colleagues for months. I spend more time at that than I do blogging. I feel emails provide a great opportunity for sharing. Turns out most of council hate me for it. Even Councillor Marsh said she trashes my stuff. I am crushed.I always appreciated getting background from councillors who had been there before me. Especially Councillors Walt Davis and the late Ron Simmons. They were born in Aurora - their roots ran deep. They went to school together and lived on opposite sides of Metcalfe Street by the railroad tracks. They were in the same class in Church Street School, played hockey on the same team. Principal Del Babcock was the coach. Yonge Street was their district and when they won their games, the fans had that old electric car rocking from side to side on the rails all the way home.
They were volunteer firefighters together. Then they were councillors. They knew where the bodies were buried, so-to-speak. When Del Babcock retired, I was the Mayor, and when I had to say a few words I felt I knew who I was talking about. Walt and Ron were of my own generation and they were more than generous with their memories. They had a great sense of themselves and the world around them.They laughed a lot.
Every town needs an institutional memory. At the moment, I'm the best we've got. I am eager to share and I do not understand why I don't get no respect.
Mind you, I can see why some of my comments might not be welcome. When the Mayor notified council she had appointed Councillor MacEachern Deputy-Mayor when she and Councillor McRoberts were going to be away. I had to tell her she didn't have authority to do that.
Then when she informed us she and Councillors MacEachern and Gaertner were going to fundraise for an unfortunate family who had a fire, I had to point out the Office of Mayor was for the purpose of the Corporation. It was commendable if they planned to use their own resources but they could not use the Office.
The unlucky family must have left town. We never heard of them, the fire or the fundraiser again.
Then there is the recent business of an exhibition of portrait photography in the town hall by a person from Georgina. Turns out that wasn't done according to town policy. Artists are required to register with the right department and pay fees to display their work for a month. It seems the Mayor's office decided to bypass the process, extend an invitation, and provide free use of the town hall to an admirer. There was a wine and cheese reception and a closed invitation list of one
hundred.
At the moment, on the second floor of the town hall there's a life size cardboard cut-out of the photographer wearing a dress that covers only the bare essentials, and another of the Mayor lurking in the shadows.
Councillor Wilson got riled at me recently. I asked him why he hadn't applied for the job of treasurer when it was vacant, since he obviously feels he knows so much about municipal financing. He scrutinizes the cheque register and lists items for the Chief Financial Officer to explain. Then he indicates there must be a better way of doing things.
A recent example was a mileage cheque to a bylaw officer. It was about $380. Councillor Wilson was aghast. Had he thought more about it he would have known a bylaw officer doesn't do his/her job at a desk. If they are being paid mileage, they are using their own vehicle. It is the difference between the town maintaining a fleet of vehicles or paying employees for the use of theirs. I asked him if he thought staff were plundering the town treasury.
The Mayor and Councillor were outraged I would say such a thing to an elected representative. I also suggested the Chief Financial Officer’s job might have more significance than being required constantly and promptly respond to a Councillor's barrage of questions and hints the job could be done better.
The Chief Administrative Officer is Councillor MacEachern's favorite target. The Councillor has a writing style peculiarly her own. She suggested once, I should consult a doctor. She believed I was suffering from mad cow's disease. She should have seen both my daughters' responses to that one. I did not share it with my sons.
The ease of the internet is such a plus. An email can be read or not depending on a person's time or interest. But Councillor Granger says I am messing with his mind. The Mayor feels I am distracting her and stopping her from exercising her role. Someone else suggests I am cyber-bullying. Not being fully computer literate, I have no idea what that means.
I think I'm doing what I was elected to do and at the same time, not causing needless embarrassment and bringing down the tone of council meetings even further by doing it in public.
It's hard to watch bad stuff happening without saying anything. So, I say it - in e-mails, circulated within the council.
I think what the public can't see is just as important as what they can. Where they are not, I am. My role is to be their eyes, ears and voice.
Parliamentary rules are intended to ensure civility in public debate. They work for politicians…mostly. But staff are regularly denigrated in public. Councillor Gaertner is particularly fond of rebuking department heads as if they are grade one students and she the autocratic principal and arbiter of all standards. Protocol prohibits a response from staff. The councillor has no idea her behaviour is inappropriate. It appears to suit the Mayor's purpose to allow it to continue.
This behaviour has been evident in the last several councils. Certainly times change but I do not believe basic tenets of decency and fair play are up for grabs.
Politics is what it is. Despite wishful thinking by less experienced members, it is not about sugar and spice and all things nice.
Neither is it about hi-jacking a council meeting for the purpose of convening a Kangaroo Court.
A Random Thought
A scene out of a Monty Python movie comes to mind. Black Knight assails Arthur (the White Knight) in the forest with a stream of insults and abuse. They draw swords.
Black Knight loses both arms and legs in the fight. He hasn't laid a blade on White Knight. Amazingly he is still upright on the stump of his body. Here is how the remainder of the scene plays out:
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw
ARTHUR:
Come on, Patsy!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow b@$t@rds! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
Black Knight loses both arms and legs in the fight. He hasn't laid a blade on White Knight. Amazingly he is still upright on the stump of his body. Here is how the remainder of the scene plays out:
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw
ARTHUR:
Come on, Patsy!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow b@$t@rds! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
Saturday, 8 March 2008
Just for the Record
Following the council meeting, the other newspaper reported I voted in favour of the Westhill Development proposal. In the interest of keeping the facts straight, here is what I had to say about the matter:
My experience goes back a long way, since before there was a Planning Act - from when politicians were wined and dined and treated to private box hospitality at hockey and football games ,in order to curry favour when applications were made for development. It was as a result of ongoing scandalous implications, the Planning Act was created .Then everyone would know the rules and that they were being treated accordingly.
The Planning Act sets out steps municipalities are compelled to follow. No ifs ands or buts There are statutory procedures. We have followed those procedures. I support and understand the concerns of the residents and I'm glad they have the resources to go before the OMB to plead their case.
The OMB has come under a lot of criticism of late because they made decisions not always in accordance with those the politicians might wish to make, but they have prevailed and I believe they have served our community well. Considering all the technical expertise we have listened to, I am very glad there is another body that has the responsibility to listen to the arguments and measure the substance both legal and technical.
This decision will not be made by this council. I accept the reports from our staff that the application/proposal is in accordance with the Official Plan. I also accept the concerns about serious outstanding issues that have to be resolved as part of a site plan approval process. I am not going to vote in favour of this motion because I believe we should not be giving weight to one or another. The instruments are available to ensure an impartial decision which is where I would like to see it rest.
I believe the resolution to support the request of Mr. Northey has the potential of incurring costs for the taxpayers of Aurora and I will be voting against the resolution.”
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Comments from "Alice In Wonderland"
Anonymous said:
The majority of council seems to be of the opinion that your constant emails are a destructive force. It seems that your negative spin diverts members from focusing on the town's business. Yet when their concerns were placed on the agenda for a public airing you opposed the agenda from the start, then left the meeting to avoid a public discussion of your behavior. It appeared as though you were too cowardly to deal face-to-face, preferring instead to bully behind the scenes. How do you feel knowing that others must delete your words? What is the point of hurting, not helping? ~ March 5, 2008 11:54 AM
I am publishing this comment because I believe it may have come from a member of council. A verbal opinion can sound sensible, depending on vocabulary. When the same thought is put into writing however, it can often be seen in quite a different light.
How can words on a screen "bully" anyone? Or a sensible person be distracted by words?
It is not the first time in history free speech has been deemed heretical. Fascist Nazi book burning and the Spanish Inquisition comes to mind..
Why would a council believe they have a right to publicly debate the conduct of any person? If that right was claimed by all, the catfights would be endless and horrendous. For the sake of civil dialogue, rules of order currently prohibit such an exercise.
The agenda has a place for councillors to promote community events. Much of what we do at council meetings seems to be promoting community events and by the way self-promotion rather than corporation business.
I feel nothing about people not wishing to read what I write. It is the essence of our freedom.
Your last point is plaintive. I feel your pain. What is the point of hurting rather than helping?
From my perspective, it has been clear since 2003 that nothing I have to say is of any interest to councillors who believe democracy is about exercising power by whatever means, fair or foul.
I would prefer writing positively about council's accomplishments if I saw anything of the like happening. But freezing me out has set me free, don't you see? I am not responsible, if your perception of political acumen lies in shutting up the solitary opposition rather than by genuine political dialogue.
I enjoy nothing more than a free open and civil exchange of ideas. On any day, I will take my chances with the power of logic.
I will continue to use the skills I have, to best endeavour. I will provide the community with a play-by-play commentary of what is happening and let the chips fall where they may. In time it will be the electorate which will exercise the only judgement that matters.
Politically reckless and carefree I may be....cowardly never.
By the way, since you have such a driving need to delete my e-mails, why are you reading my blogs?
A Comment on - Go Figure
I have chosen to post my reponse to Anonymous' comment here instead of in the comments window.
Anonymous said:
And my response:
When the Region of York was created and given planning authority over nine Municipalities there was not much inclination on the part of the municipalities to defer to the Region. Murray Pound was the first director of planning. He undertook a study of the Region's land forms. Sue Seibert, our recently retired Director of Planning worked for the region at that time and participated in the study. Sue became the first planner in the Town of Aurora. It was from her I learned about the drumlins, the types of clay left behind after the ice age and the fact the Moraine held the "last vestiges of Carolinian Forest." Long before any government at Queen's Park had heard of the Moraine we understood it's significance.
Since those years, we have treated the lands with sensitivity. They make up much of our municipality. Even before then .we were one of the first municipalities to have air line mapping to clearly delineate flood plains for a hundred year storm. We have been assiduous in our determination that no development ever takes place in flood plains, in concert with the Holland Valley Conservation Authority and its successor, South Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority.
In all modesty, I do not need to be lectured on how to exercise good stewardship over the place we are privileged to share and pass on to our children. I believe the values of the people who created a settlement in this place one hundred and fifty years ago have been upheld.
I take personal exception to relative newcomers looking down long patrician noses at our community , past and present, who have striven to protect the town's heritage and make this a better place for the present and future inhabitants. Frankly, they piss me off.
I do not argue in favour of a golf course and a seventy-five town house condominium.Although fifty-four million dollars of new assessment would contribute substantially to stabilise our tax rate.
`
I support abiding by Provincial legislation. . However much one might wish to arguethe law is an ass and inadequate to protect the Moraine. It is the Law and we are bound to abide by the law. Planning staff are statutory officers. They must advise council in accordance with the law. Lawyers retained to advise council have the same professional obligation.
There have been two Public Planning Hearings held for public input into this application and every opportunity provided for formal objections to the plan.The most recent hearing lasted from 7pm. until miidnight.
Staff have previously advised there are serious outstanding issues the applicant has yet to address. My understanding of the decision made by council last night will involve hiring new consultants to take an opposite position to the work so far undertaken. I do not believe that is a legitimate use of the town's resources. Unless the applicant abandons the project, neither do I believe it will lead to a satisfactory outcome from any perspective.
I put considerable store on the breadth of my experience, knowledge and intelligence. I do not claim infallibility. But I do commit to taking my responsibility seriously and being accountable to the people who elected me to act on their behalf. That I might find myself in conflict with other views on any issue is something I anticipate. We all have that privilege.
I make no apology for that .I will continue to exercise my independent judgement in consideration of what I believe to be right for the community.
Anonymous said:
If you are aware of current societal concerns, you would be aware that new information informs and changes on a daily basis. The times they are a changing.
Are you?
And my response:
When the Region of York was created and given planning authority over nine Municipalities there was not much inclination on the part of the municipalities to defer to the Region. Murray Pound was the first director of planning. He undertook a study of the Region's land forms. Sue Seibert, our recently retired Director of Planning worked for the region at that time and participated in the study. Sue became the first planner in the Town of Aurora. It was from her I learned about the drumlins, the types of clay left behind after the ice age and the fact the Moraine held the "last vestiges of Carolinian Forest." Long before any government at Queen's Park had heard of the Moraine we understood it's significance.
Since those years, we have treated the lands with sensitivity. They make up much of our municipality. Even before then .we were one of the first municipalities to have air line mapping to clearly delineate flood plains for a hundred year storm. We have been assiduous in our determination that no development ever takes place in flood plains, in concert with the Holland Valley Conservation Authority and its successor, South Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority.
In all modesty, I do not need to be lectured on how to exercise good stewardship over the place we are privileged to share and pass on to our children. I believe the values of the people who created a settlement in this place one hundred and fifty years ago have been upheld.
I take personal exception to relative newcomers looking down long patrician noses at our community , past and present, who have striven to protect the town's heritage and make this a better place for the present and future inhabitants. Frankly, they piss me off.
I do not argue in favour of a golf course and a seventy-five town house condominium.Although fifty-four million dollars of new assessment would contribute substantially to stabilise our tax rate.
`
I support abiding by Provincial legislation. . However much one might wish to arguethe law is an ass and inadequate to protect the Moraine. It is the Law and we are bound to abide by the law. Planning staff are statutory officers. They must advise council in accordance with the law. Lawyers retained to advise council have the same professional obligation.
There have been two Public Planning Hearings held for public input into this application and every opportunity provided for formal objections to the plan.The most recent hearing lasted from 7pm. until miidnight.
Staff have previously advised there are serious outstanding issues the applicant has yet to address. My understanding of the decision made by council last night will involve hiring new consultants to take an opposite position to the work so far undertaken. I do not believe that is a legitimate use of the town's resources. Unless the applicant abandons the project, neither do I believe it will lead to a satisfactory outcome from any perspective.
I put considerable store on the breadth of my experience, knowledge and intelligence. I do not claim infallibility. But I do commit to taking my responsibility seriously and being accountable to the people who elected me to act on their behalf. That I might find myself in conflict with other views on any issue is something I anticipate. We all have that privilege.
I make no apology for that .I will continue to exercise my independent judgement in consideration of what I believe to be right for the community.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Go Figure
The applicants did what they were required to do. The Planning Department meticulously followed the law. As did the Regional Planning Department, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of the Environment.
Hundred of thousands of dollars public and private and countless hours have gone into the process. Outstanding issues remained to be resolved.
Last night ,Aurora council threw all of it into the dumpster. They discounted the work of the town's planning department and all the other agencies and voted to join residents in opposition to the plan at the upcoming O.M.B Hearing.
There was a time, not too long ago, when there were few statutary requirements for processing development applications. Newspapers often carried allegations of bribery and corruption in municipal government. Success in the development industry depended on having friends in the right places. Even politicians invested money in land speculation.
Then the Planning Act was passed. Precise steps had to be followed. In the Harris regime in the nineties, timing was regulated. The rules were intended to protect everyone's interest,ensure transparency and accountability. People still have property rights, they have the right to use their land and the right to protect it. The Oak Ridges Moraine Act does not deprive property owners within the area of their rights. It requires them to abide by rules intended to protect The Moraine.
Last night a phalanx of passionate advocates for the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine filled Aurora Council Chamber. They argued against the need for another golf course. The town house development will use scarce water resources they said. They made a number of claims which were simply non-factual.
Council vote to deny the application was seven to one.
The vote to partner with residents in opposition to the proposal at the O.M.B. was seven to one.
On May 23rd 2007, another development in The Moraine had a Public Planning Hearing. Sterling Cook and his wife of south Aurora expressed disgruntlement at the slowness of the process. They had a landscape architect processing the plan.
The atmosphere in the council chamber was quite different. It was warm and welcoming and positively cloying.
Public Planning Hearings are not normally scheduled during summer months. People are not paying much attention at that time of the year. Council meetings are reduced to two a month. Kids are not in school.
Nevertheless, on May 23rd, staff were hustled by the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern to hurry the thing along. The Planning Director advised: "Madame Mayor, there are statutory requirements to meet" Still they managed to meet them and a meeting was held in August. The application process was completed.
That project also was in the Oak Ridges Moraine.
There were no passionate advocates present in the chamber to save the Moraine that day
They were conspicuous by their absence.
Hundred of thousands of dollars public and private and countless hours have gone into the process. Outstanding issues remained to be resolved.
Last night ,Aurora council threw all of it into the dumpster. They discounted the work of the town's planning department and all the other agencies and voted to join residents in opposition to the plan at the upcoming O.M.B Hearing.
There was a time, not too long ago, when there were few statutary requirements for processing development applications. Newspapers often carried allegations of bribery and corruption in municipal government. Success in the development industry depended on having friends in the right places. Even politicians invested money in land speculation.
Then the Planning Act was passed. Precise steps had to be followed. In the Harris regime in the nineties, timing was regulated. The rules were intended to protect everyone's interest,ensure transparency and accountability. People still have property rights, they have the right to use their land and the right to protect it. The Oak Ridges Moraine Act does not deprive property owners within the area of their rights. It requires them to abide by rules intended to protect The Moraine.
Last night a phalanx of passionate advocates for the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine filled Aurora Council Chamber. They argued against the need for another golf course. The town house development will use scarce water resources they said. They made a number of claims which were simply non-factual.
Council vote to deny the application was seven to one.
The vote to partner with residents in opposition to the proposal at the O.M.B. was seven to one.
On May 23rd 2007, another development in The Moraine had a Public Planning Hearing. Sterling Cook and his wife of south Aurora expressed disgruntlement at the slowness of the process. They had a landscape architect processing the plan.
The atmosphere in the council chamber was quite different. It was warm and welcoming and positively cloying.
Public Planning Hearings are not normally scheduled during summer months. People are not paying much attention at that time of the year. Council meetings are reduced to two a month. Kids are not in school.
Nevertheless, on May 23rd, staff were hustled by the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern to hurry the thing along. The Planning Director advised: "Madame Mayor, there are statutory requirements to meet" Still they managed to meet them and a meeting was held in August. The application process was completed.
That project also was in the Oak Ridges Moraine.
There were no passionate advocates present in the chamber to save the Moraine that day
They were conspicuous by their absence.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Alice in Wonderland
Tuesday's meeting was particularly weird. Few are normal but this one was a doozy.
It started with a portrait photographer from Georgina doing an effective job of self-promotion. She thanked council profusely for allowing her to use the Skylight Gallery on the third floor of the Town Hall for a show of her work. She spoke of a collection she had created called Women of Wisdom in which Mayors Morris and McCallion of Mississauga were featured.
There were presentations to sixteen young hockey players who had won the “Silver Sticks Tournament Championship”. Each was called forward to pose for a photo with the Mayor. They had already experienced the thrill of being champions, received the trophy and carried it triumphantly home. We have a Civic Awards night in May to celebrate outstanding achievement.
Heritage Awards were presented also for the second time I gather. It seems they too had already been presented at Queen's Park. More photos were taken with the Mayor front and centre.
Then there was a video to watch. It purported to be about the dedicated work of David Tomlinson, a prominent naturalist in Aurora. The Mayor’s face and voice were heavily featured.
Afterwards, there was a lengthy discussion about Ontario Power Authority's plans to locate a Power Generating Station in Aurora. It ended at ten o'clock. Then we started on the Town's business agenda. I left about ten-thirty pm. Council and some staff wound their weary way home after midnight.
It is not an unusual scenario but by no means is it normal. Every week people appear by invitation of the Mayor to promote their particular enterprise. Sometimes presentations made in committee are repeated in council to take advantage of the television cameras.
By law, at the beginning of every term, we are required to fix and publicize the dates and times when town business will be debated and decisions made. Agendas are prepared and published on the web. Meetings commence promptly and immediately go off the rails. Usually all of two hours are spent receiving presentations from people the Mayor has encountered and invited to come and use council meetings to promote their projects...on camera.
Exiting the council chamber and going behind closed doors for forty-five minutes at the start of a public meeting is not unheard of, leaving staff, reporters, members of the public wondering if we are ever coming back.
The Mayor's voice is seldom still. The nittering and nattering continues unabated except when she calls upon Councillor MacEachern to allow herself time to breathe and ensure little participation from anyone else at the table.
It is the function of the presiding officer to move an agenda along in accordance with the rules and ensure impartial consideration by council of matters to be decided. So what is the solution when the presiding officer has a compulsion for the comfort of hearing her own voice non-stop?
The problem is made more difficult when the majority of council does not understand the pattern is weird... and growing ever weirder. Pretty soon, Alice will be too large to fit through the door.
What to do. What to do.
It started with a portrait photographer from Georgina doing an effective job of self-promotion. She thanked council profusely for allowing her to use the Skylight Gallery on the third floor of the Town Hall for a show of her work. She spoke of a collection she had created called Women of Wisdom in which Mayors Morris and McCallion of Mississauga were featured.
There were presentations to sixteen young hockey players who had won the “Silver Sticks Tournament Championship”. Each was called forward to pose for a photo with the Mayor. They had already experienced the thrill of being champions, received the trophy and carried it triumphantly home. We have a Civic Awards night in May to celebrate outstanding achievement.
Heritage Awards were presented also for the second time I gather. It seems they too had already been presented at Queen's Park. More photos were taken with the Mayor front and centre.
Then there was a video to watch. It purported to be about the dedicated work of David Tomlinson, a prominent naturalist in Aurora. The Mayor’s face and voice were heavily featured.
Afterwards, there was a lengthy discussion about Ontario Power Authority's plans to locate a Power Generating Station in Aurora. It ended at ten o'clock. Then we started on the Town's business agenda. I left about ten-thirty pm. Council and some staff wound their weary way home after midnight.
It is not an unusual scenario but by no means is it normal. Every week people appear by invitation of the Mayor to promote their particular enterprise. Sometimes presentations made in committee are repeated in council to take advantage of the television cameras.
By law, at the beginning of every term, we are required to fix and publicize the dates and times when town business will be debated and decisions made. Agendas are prepared and published on the web. Meetings commence promptly and immediately go off the rails. Usually all of two hours are spent receiving presentations from people the Mayor has encountered and invited to come and use council meetings to promote their projects...on camera.
Exiting the council chamber and going behind closed doors for forty-five minutes at the start of a public meeting is not unheard of, leaving staff, reporters, members of the public wondering if we are ever coming back.
The Mayor's voice is seldom still. The nittering and nattering continues unabated except when she calls upon Councillor MacEachern to allow herself time to breathe and ensure little participation from anyone else at the table.
It is the function of the presiding officer to move an agenda along in accordance with the rules and ensure impartial consideration by council of matters to be decided. So what is the solution when the presiding officer has a compulsion for the comfort of hearing her own voice non-stop?
The problem is made more difficult when the majority of council does not understand the pattern is weird... and growing ever weirder. Pretty soon, Alice will be too large to fit through the door.
What to do. What to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Evelyn,
Permit me to ramble a bit.....
I did not vote for you last time (I only voted for people that I wanted on council so if memory serves, I voted for 3 people). However, given the make up of the council, it's a good thing you are there to at least be the "senate" with the crew in place.
I can't imagine anyone in this group going out to a mess hall to hoist a pint after a meeting. It would require an ethics test first and who knows, an amendment to the code of conduct would have to be drafted.
I had high hopes for a couple members of council (Marsh and McRoberts). I think their potential is huge but they have a hard time to compete with the "wackos" around the table.
While I know it is a person's right in this country (unless Mayor Morris has taken it away) to express an opinion in public, I have a hard time when a councillor (you or any other) writes a letter to the editor of a local paper. This is especially true if the letter is dealing with an issue that was discussed at council. On the surface, it appears as sour grapes, but the reality is, unless another councillor rebuts it, it gives you (or whomever writes it) the "last word" on the subject. I feel that the place to discuss council issues is in the council chamber only.
Your blog is a great vehicle to express your opinion too. As long as it is used to discuss issues that follow the same guidelines.
I understand why Mayor Morris brought in the lawyer to look at the "leak". I would hope that she would do the same thing if any other councillor had a blog or letter that potentially compromised privelege. I somehow doubt though if Councillor MacEachren wrote a blog entry about something in council, she would receive the same unfair treatment as you.
I also have a hard time reading letters to the Editor coming from former councillors (Mr. Kean especially). He clearly has not gotten over the fact that he came in third in a two-person race for Mayor and his campaign for the next time began the day after the election. Letters to the Editor for him are free advertising. However, he (and Mr. Hogg) are civilians now, and they have the same rights as everyone else.
I had given thought to running for council last time, but given the number of candidates, I thought it would water down the vote - I was right. But watching council today, I think I would be very much like you. I like to adhere to the rules of procedure. I also like to empower the people that have a certain job. If staff has reported on an issue, why the constant referral back to staff or trying to get the Mayor involved in the process - these people are paid for a reason. I would only speak to a topic if I felt it was required. I can't count how many times I see a member want to speak to a topic but only to say "I will be supporting this motion". Who cares, that's what the vote is for. These guys are only looking for TV time. I also feel council is a venue for the town's business. There is no need to pat each other on the back for jobs well done. That is why you are there - to get the job done.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant. Keep up the blog, but try to (I know you won't) tone down the Letters to the Editor.