Here's what I know to date. Deputy-Mayor Bob McRoberts and Councillor Alison Collins- Mrakas have not received their copy of the one and only decision.
Bob has e-mailed the Director of Corporate Services inquiring when he might receive it.The Councillor is an extremely courteous, thoughtful and temperate individual.There has been no response.
The Director has resigned. with a month's notice. In not responding to Bob's query she is either, not at the Town Hall , she is refusing to participate in the political melee or they've tied her up and stuffed her into a broom closet
I'll write a Blog about the reality of being a municipal public servant one of these days. In the best of circumstances , it is not like any other job.
Following the trail of the decision; it was forwarded to the office of the Director of Corporate Services . The Director was on vacation. The Deputy-clerk acts in the absence of the clerk. The Statute requires a municipality must appoint a clerk and a Deputy both with certification. Why? things like marriage licences and death certificates have to be issued and Commissioner of Oath services and stuff like that. You know...public records and stuff.
A Town Hall cannot operate without the Town Clerk or a Deputy. You can do without a CAO. You can do without a lawyer in the house.
You can't function without a Town Clerk or a Deputy Clerk.
The Deputy had copied the decision on pink paper, inserted it into plain brown envelopes, marked them confidential , placed one in each councillor's box in the councillors' room and sent e-mails informing councillors, they were there.
Twenty minutes later the e-mail was recalled and the envelopes were gathered back up.
It seems Mr. Cooper, town solicitor, who has no role in the matter, ordered them to be recovered.
He directly informed me later, after extensive consultation with the Mayor,that the Deputy-clerk had not been appointed Acting Clerk by Council. He on the other hand, had been appointed Acting C.A.O. and it was his decision the Deputy Clerk did not have authority in the matter of distributing the Integrity Commissioner's decision.
Therefore ...
So I waited. The Director of Corporate Services (Town Clerk)returned the following Monday. I went to the Town Hall with a CBC reporter and cameraman. After a couple of hours , I received the document it was always my right to receive.
Still neither Deputy Mayor McRoberts nor Councillor Collins Mrakas have received theirs.
Councillor MacEachern sent an e-mail informing ,they were not entitled because hey did not sign the complaint,she said.
Councillor Granger has suddenly come out of his shell, big brave fellow that he is, and started a stream of abusive e-mails to Allison. Knowing the Councillor's peculiar facility with words the authorship is suspect.
I am reminded of the account of how he threatened a little girl on a bicycle cart selling ice cream. in the street around the town park. He reduced her to tears...big brave gladiator that he is.
But back to the plot, the Integrity Commissioner directed the Clerk, the decisions were to be forwarded to eight councillors and moi.
I read verbatim to reporters , the actual decision made by the Commish. The CBC reporter was at my elbow when I opened the envelope, please. What I read was not as stated by the Mayor to the press later, "a selected excerpt"
It seems the complainants quickly became aware there is more to the business of filing a complaint than previously realised. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on a lawyer to ferret out material and write it for them , wasn't enough.
I kept telling them the process cuts both ways. But they wouldn't listen.Oh Dear me.. .No. They had their eye on the ball.
Well whit kin ye dae. ..these young yins...ye canny tell them onything...even fur thir ain benefit
Even before the Commissioner set up the first one,Councillor Alison had advised of the need for training. Councillor MacEachern declared emphatically she had no intention of attending any training. The Code of Conduct had only one purpose in her mind. She repeated her adamant opposition when the Commissioner set up two educational workshops for council.
If they had attended , they might have learned something but there's no guarantee. Three of them didn't attend the first one; the Mayor and Councillors MacEachern and Gallo. The second one was not permitted.
Had they met with the Commish when he requested a meeting to rate damage caused by my comments, which is the informal process to attempt to resolve differences, they might have become more proficient in their effort or understood it wasn't going to fly.
Instead, I believe, when they discovered their triumphant denouement of moi had the potential to backfire,they made hasty plans and announced a special meeting before the decision could be forwarded and distributed.
The decison came through first . So they tried to bury it.
Then the Director of Corporate Services returned from vacation and did what the rules required.
Picture the Adventures of Sylvester the Cat and Tweetie Pie. at this juncture.
Then they had their meeting and stripped the Integrity Commissioner of his "powers" It took almost six hours to figure out how to break the news.
The latest strategy is for the Mayor to declare the matter still in abeyance until a new Director of Integrity is appointed. Councillor Buck is only giving out "selective" parts of the decision. The Councillor was not "exonerated"
That's because their accusations didn't stick. They were held to be "wholly political"
One Councillor said the wrong person was appointed as Commissioner. It should have been a lawyer. I'll bet they have one in mind.
In the meantime, the Director of Corporate Services suddenly exhibited , after providing me with a document it was my right to receive, a preference for retirement.
The Mayor says, it's "outrageous"to suggest anything different.
A Council meeting for August 11th was cancelled without explanation. That would have been the first meeting after receipt of the decision at which the document was required to be made public.
The Mayor has announced it will be made public at the next Meeting in September and it will be accompanied by a "statement"
.Damned if I know what the statement will state. I'm just a Councillor after all.
Friday, 14 August 2009
Thursday, 13 August 2009
A Clarification.
In the flurry of comments, answers to questions and the normal to and fro interaction with the media when there's a news story on hand, an impression may have been conveyed that I received a confidential document directly from the Town's Integrity Commissioner. It is a mis-statement.
It is my responsibility to correct it.
The Integrity Commissioner's Report was provided to me through the Office of the Director of Corporate Services as required by Provincial Statute and the Town's Code of Conduct and witnessed by the CBC reporter and cameraman who accompanied me to the Town Hall and waited for several hours , on my second attempt to obtain what was rightfully mine.
Considering I had previously been unable to wrest it from their fevered grip , I came to the brilliant conclusion all by myself, the decision had not found favour with Mighty Mayor and I freely speculated as to that likelihood.
Well yes, I think I can be excused for taking a modicum of pleasure in the outcome of their endeavour
Frankly....I chortled.
It is my responsibility to correct it.
The Integrity Commissioner's Report was provided to me through the Office of the Director of Corporate Services as required by Provincial Statute and the Town's Code of Conduct and witnessed by the CBC reporter and cameraman who accompanied me to the Town Hall and waited for several hours , on my second attempt to obtain what was rightfully mine.
Considering I had previously been unable to wrest it from their fevered grip , I came to the brilliant conclusion all by myself, the decision had not found favour with Mighty Mayor and I freely speculated as to that likelihood.
Well yes, I think I can be excused for taking a modicum of pleasure in the outcome of their endeavour
Frankly....I chortled.
The Aura of Aurora
Is being besmirched except that the community has few illusions about the last two and a half years of our political affairs.
Still some things are sufficiently convoluted to make their meaning less than clear.
The Mayor's quote in a Star story this morning is a classic example.
The minutes of an infamous meeting when an individual made a series of false accusations against a member of council, courtesy of the Mayor, when presented to the May 26th meeting for approval were not a true record .
They were challenged by Councillor Collins Mrakas. A resolution was put forward for the minutes to be reviewed. Mayor Morris directed the CAO to respond to the Councillor's concern.
Chief Administrative Officer Neil Garbe stated he and Mr. Cooper , town solicitor had met for an hour to discuss how to handle the minutes. With the resultant vote, the Mayor declared the Councillor's motion defeated.
It all sound so rational.
Except it's not. The Municipal Clerk is legally responsible for maintaining public records.There is no room for discussion about how Council decisions will be recorded. The record is the record.
A motion was presented to permit fallacious accusations against a Councillor to be part of the public record.
On a point of order, the requirement to waive rules of procedure to allow that to happen was noted.
The mayor entertained a vote to waive the rules.Approval was declared.
On a further point of order, it was noted the motion requires two-thirds majority. Five votes to three do not two-thirds make.
The mayor ruled it did.
The subsequent minutes bore no record of the wild and reckless allegations made by a member of a town sub-committee who has as yet failed to provide a public accounting of funds raised by public solicitation, under the auspices of the municipality. for a public event.
Council's direction to include the party's accusations in the public record was not followed.
No prompting by the mayor, no conferencing between Senior Staff changes the fact, the public record of the May 12th meeting are not accurate.
A decison was made in full view of the public at large, courtesy of Rogers Cable T.V. and not followed through.
I attribute the fiasco to combined inexperience of the CAO and town solicitor. It was a clear and astounding demonstration of a failure to understand the significance of the role of the Municipal Clerk and the requirement to defer to the statutory responsibilities of that office.
It is a criminal offence to mess with public records.
Every meeting of Aurora Council is pre-orchestrated. Staff are briefed beforehand as to questions the Mayor will ask and answers they will provide. Directors' report are vetted before
presentation to Council and changed if the Mayor so orders.
If Staff read the Star story this morning about how responsibility for "vouching" the minutes became theirs, they will undoubtedly better understand, if they have not so far, their true role in the Mor-Mac administration.
Still some things are sufficiently convoluted to make their meaning less than clear.
The Mayor's quote in a Star story this morning is a classic example.
The minutes of an infamous meeting when an individual made a series of false accusations against a member of council, courtesy of the Mayor, when presented to the May 26th meeting for approval were not a true record .
They were challenged by Councillor Collins Mrakas. A resolution was put forward for the minutes to be reviewed. Mayor Morris directed the CAO to respond to the Councillor's concern.
Chief Administrative Officer Neil Garbe stated he and Mr. Cooper , town solicitor had met for an hour to discuss how to handle the minutes. With the resultant vote, the Mayor declared the Councillor's motion defeated.
It all sound so rational.
Except it's not. The Municipal Clerk is legally responsible for maintaining public records.There is no room for discussion about how Council decisions will be recorded. The record is the record.
A motion was presented to permit fallacious accusations against a Councillor to be part of the public record.
On a point of order, the requirement to waive rules of procedure to allow that to happen was noted.
The mayor entertained a vote to waive the rules.Approval was declared.
On a further point of order, it was noted the motion requires two-thirds majority. Five votes to three do not two-thirds make.
The mayor ruled it did.
The subsequent minutes bore no record of the wild and reckless allegations made by a member of a town sub-committee who has as yet failed to provide a public accounting of funds raised by public solicitation, under the auspices of the municipality. for a public event.
Council's direction to include the party's accusations in the public record was not followed.
No prompting by the mayor, no conferencing between Senior Staff changes the fact, the public record of the May 12th meeting are not accurate.
A decison was made in full view of the public at large, courtesy of Rogers Cable T.V. and not followed through.
I attribute the fiasco to combined inexperience of the CAO and town solicitor. It was a clear and astounding demonstration of a failure to understand the significance of the role of the Municipal Clerk and the requirement to defer to the statutory responsibilities of that office.
It is a criminal offence to mess with public records.
Every meeting of Aurora Council is pre-orchestrated. Staff are briefed beforehand as to questions the Mayor will ask and answers they will provide. Directors' report are vetted before
presentation to Council and changed if the Mayor so orders.
If Staff read the Star story this morning about how responsibility for "vouching" the minutes became theirs, they will undoubtedly better understand, if they have not so far, their true role in the Mor-Mac administration.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Hullo Alyson Gloin
How nice to hear from you. The last time I saw you, you were a shy little girl in Grade School.
Now you are sending me a message of support from yourself, your father and your late mother.
Bless your heart darlin', your thoughtfulness is much appreciated.
I have seen your brother Doug's byline occasionally . And didn't your sister Chris follow in your father's footsteps into journalism.
But what are you doing and your little sister?? I see your Dad around town now and then.
Send me your e-mail address and bring me up-to-date.There are lots of people in town who would love to hear
All the best.
Now you are sending me a message of support from yourself, your father and your late mother.
Bless your heart darlin', your thoughtfulness is much appreciated.
I have seen your brother Doug's byline occasionally . And didn't your sister Chris follow in your father's footsteps into journalism.
But what are you doing and your little sister?? I see your Dad around town now and then.
Send me your e-mail address and bring me up-to-date.There are lots of people in town who would love to hear
All the best.
Another Thought
When I received my copy of Mr. Nitkin's decision in the office of the Director of Corporate Services on Monday, the document had had to be copied and a page prepared for signature of receipt. There was a wait but no sign of reluctance.
The atmosphere was congenial and professional. Miss King looked glowing and refreshed from her vacation and in good spirits.There was obviously no doubt as to her responsibility to provide the documentation to those referred in the regulation and Mr. Nitkin's decision.
I have subsequently learned Councillors McRoberts and Collins Mrakas have not been provided with their copies.
The Mayor has informed them they are not entitled.
The authority and responsibility to forward Mr.Nitkin's decision rests with The Director of Corporate Services.
It is not within the authority of the Mayor.
Two Councillors being refused a document to which they are legally entitled, would not have been a decision of the Director of Corporate Services.
It would more likely have been an order which she was not prepared to accept.
Notice of her resignation was circulated the following day.
The atmosphere was congenial and professional. Miss King looked glowing and refreshed from her vacation and in good spirits.There was obviously no doubt as to her responsibility to provide the documentation to those referred in the regulation and Mr. Nitkin's decision.
I have subsequently learned Councillors McRoberts and Collins Mrakas have not been provided with their copies.
The Mayor has informed them they are not entitled.
The authority and responsibility to forward Mr.Nitkin's decision rests with The Director of Corporate Services.
It is not within the authority of the Mayor.
Two Councillors being refused a document to which they are legally entitled, would not have been a decision of the Director of Corporate Services.
It would more likely have been an order which she was not prepared to accept.
Notice of her resignation was circulated the following day.
News Flash
The Director of Corporate Services has decided to retire. She will leave her office at the end of this month
The Chief Administrative Officer informed Council by e-mail yesterday and asked it be kept confidential to "allow Lucille to inform her staff."
A Toronto Star reporter called me this morning to ask for my thoughts on the matter. I told him what I was told; the Director had decided to retire.
But he persisted. Reporters are like that.
"Why do you think she wants to retire" he asked .
"You will have to ask the lady " I said.
"Do you have anything to say about it" he said.
"They wouldn't let her do her job" I said. "She was at risk"
"What do you mean" he said.
"The Clerk is a Statutory Officer" I said. " She is legally responsible for upholding Provincial Statutes. That is her area of expertise. She is the authority. She is liable of she fails in her duty.
She cannot use the excuse the Mayor or Councillor Evalina MacEachern or the Chief Administrative Officer or the Town Solicitor wouldn't let her " I said.
"Do you think that's why she quit" he said.
"Well" said I "if I carried that weight of responsibility and somebody was stopping me from upholding the law and putting me at risk I would have quit before now "
The interview ended.
Of course.... I don't have to.
As a Councillor, they can't make me quit and they can't shut me up. Even when they get a lawyer to write it and adopt a Code of Conduct, appoint an Integrity Commissioner ,get a lawyer to write a phony complaint against me, file it with the Integrity Commissioner, get shot down and fire the Integrity Commissioner.They can't make me quit.
All they did was prod me with a pointy stick and create another unholy mess for themselves.
Hallelujah...I cry
The Chief Administrative Officer informed Council by e-mail yesterday and asked it be kept confidential to "allow Lucille to inform her staff."
A Toronto Star reporter called me this morning to ask for my thoughts on the matter. I told him what I was told; the Director had decided to retire.
But he persisted. Reporters are like that.
"Why do you think she wants to retire" he asked .
"You will have to ask the lady " I said.
"Do you have anything to say about it" he said.
"They wouldn't let her do her job" I said. "She was at risk"
"What do you mean" he said.
"The Clerk is a Statutory Officer" I said. " She is legally responsible for upholding Provincial Statutes. That is her area of expertise. She is the authority. She is liable of she fails in her duty.
She cannot use the excuse the Mayor or Councillor Evalina MacEachern or the Chief Administrative Officer or the Town Solicitor wouldn't let her " I said.
"Do you think that's why she quit" he said.
"Well" said I "if I carried that weight of responsibility and somebody was stopping me from upholding the law and putting me at risk I would have quit before now "
The interview ended.
Of course.... I don't have to.
As a Councillor, they can't make me quit and they can't shut me up. Even when they get a lawyer to write it and adopt a Code of Conduct, appoint an Integrity Commissioner ,get a lawyer to write a phony complaint against me, file it with the Integrity Commissioner, get shot down and fire the Integrity Commissioner.They can't make me quit.
All they did was prod me with a pointy stick and create another unholy mess for themselves.
Hallelujah...I cry
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
I said the decision was received on August 5th. That's is when I received an e-mail notifying me of the fact. The Deputy- Clerk had been acting clerk for a week and a half before the e-mail was received.
Sorry for the confusion,
Did I jump to the conclusion that Complaints in "double digits' were directed against myself.
Maybe. Sorry about that too.
The Commissioner had said he would answer queries from residents about the process. Maybe he gave file numbers to all the contacts he has received.
It has been a hectic couple of days. I'll take the time to-morrow to check the comments and see if there's anything else that needs to be clarified.
Hopefully we'll get the address straightened out as well.
Bear with me
Sorry for the confusion,
Did I jump to the conclusion that Complaints in "double digits' were directed against myself.
Maybe. Sorry about that too.
The Commissioner had said he would answer queries from residents about the process. Maybe he gave file numbers to all the contacts he has received.
It has been a hectic couple of days. I'll take the time to-morrow to check the comments and see if there's anything else that needs to be clarified.
Hopefully we'll get the address straightened out as well.
Bear with me
Answer to Robert The Bruce
Mr. Nitkin highlighted the words I capitalized. I don't know how to highlight specific words so I capitalized.
The Code of Conduct has rules. The Mayor and Friends and legal Counsel appear to feel no compunction about picking and choosing which they will observe and which they will not. I think that puts the rules into question. . For me at least.
Mr. Nitkin, on the other hand, is fastidious in his application of the rules including those of secrecy and confidentiality. He will not likely defend himself against the criticism levelled against him.
Wording from the Council Resolution from August 6th indicates beyond question " despite efforts to persuade the Commissioner", there was a determined effort to interfere with the process and obtain the decision they desired.
Imagine that an individual whose entire professional reputation is about ethics and integrity, having the misfortune to sign a contract with Mayor Morris and her consistent majority.
The story is not over yet.
The Code of Conduct has rules. The Mayor and Friends and legal Counsel appear to feel no compunction about picking and choosing which they will observe and which they will not. I think that puts the rules into question. . For me at least.
Mr. Nitkin, on the other hand, is fastidious in his application of the rules including those of secrecy and confidentiality. He will not likely defend himself against the criticism levelled against him.
Wording from the Council Resolution from August 6th indicates beyond question " despite efforts to persuade the Commissioner", there was a determined effort to interfere with the process and obtain the decision they desired.
Imagine that an individual whose entire professional reputation is about ethics and integrity, having the misfortune to sign a contract with Mayor Morris and her consistent majority.
The story is not over yet.
THE DECISION OR PART THEREOF
On two full pages. Leading to the decision are five whereases. A six bullet explanation follows.
The decision itself occupies nine and a half lines of type.
It reads:
The decision itself occupies nine and a half lines of type.
It reads:
Therefore
It is the DECISION of my office that this statement of complaint, as is, is unacceptable and that as is, no investigation or inquiry shall take place. The complaint is ILL-FORMED in that some of its enumerated signatories have refused to sign and have indeed repudiated the use of their names. It is INCOMPLETE in that the impacts of its allegations upon the behaviour, duties, and/or reputation of councillors(or the organization) themselves is absent. Query oo8 is INAPPROPRIATE that the way it was crafted, politicized and communicated, may be, and be seen to be, wholly political.Explanation of this last test point can be seen in the many tests or measures of political interference that were raised in my e-mail of July 30th in direct communication to the proponents.
The decision was made on the 5th of August. It was in the hands of the Deputy Clerk, Acting clerk for the previous week and a half, on that date.
The process required it be provided by that officer to the complainants and to the councillor whose conduct was of concern.
Despite a visit to the town hall, the decision was not provided to the Councillor whose conduct was said to be of concern. It was refused. By the Acting Chief Administrative Officer, Town Solicitor Christopher Cooper, after no less than two consultations with the Mayor.
The Mayor later stated on camera it was intended the public would receive the decision at the same time.
That was not a decision for the Mayor to make.
The "Special" meeting ,called before notice the decision had been made and forwarded to the appropriate official , was held on Thursday August 6th.
Reference in the decision is made to a communication made to the proponents on July 30th.
to "the many tests and measures of degree of political interference"
Reference in the resolution on Aug 6th, adopted by the proponents to the complaint, is made to "repeated efforts to persuade the Commissioner "
Clearly, there was interference in the Commissioner's powers and authority prior to the decision and prior to the meeting at which the six proponents' of the complaint decided .to 'strip the powers and authority" of the Town's recently contracted Integrity Commissioner.
From its beginning, this Blog has provided factual information to readers. If I make a mistake, I correct it. If I indulge myself in personal criticism of a colleague, I withdraw it.
The Blog provides my thoughts on everything I write about.
It tells no-one what to think. It provides raw material, told with my particular bent and invites readers to form their own conclusions.
I ask nothing more.
In a free, civilized , robust community, what more can be asked.
We have it all.
All we need, is to determine how to use it.
The decision was made on the 5th of August. It was in the hands of the Deputy Clerk, Acting clerk for the previous week and a half, on that date.
The process required it be provided by that officer to the complainants and to the councillor whose conduct was of concern.
Despite a visit to the town hall, the decision was not provided to the Councillor whose conduct was said to be of concern. It was refused. By the Acting Chief Administrative Officer, Town Solicitor Christopher Cooper, after no less than two consultations with the Mayor.
The Mayor later stated on camera it was intended the public would receive the decision at the same time.
That was not a decision for the Mayor to make.
The "Special" meeting ,called before notice the decision had been made and forwarded to the appropriate official , was held on Thursday August 6th.
Reference in the decision is made to a communication made to the proponents on July 30th.
to "the many tests and measures of degree of political interference"
Reference in the resolution on Aug 6th, adopted by the proponents to the complaint, is made to "repeated efforts to persuade the Commissioner "
Clearly, there was interference in the Commissioner's powers and authority prior to the decision and prior to the meeting at which the six proponents' of the complaint decided .to 'strip the powers and authority" of the Town's recently contracted Integrity Commissioner.
From its beginning, this Blog has provided factual information to readers. If I make a mistake, I correct it. If I indulge myself in personal criticism of a colleague, I withdraw it.
The Blog provides my thoughts on everything I write about.
It tells no-one what to think. It provides raw material, told with my particular bent and invites readers to form their own conclusions.
I ask nothing more.
In a free, civilized , robust community, what more can be asked.
We have it all.
All we need, is to determine how to use it.
Monday, 10 August 2009
It's Been a Long Day
But there are a couple of things I need to do before I go to bed.
My e-mail address has been funky. I haven't been getting comments to my posts. . So if you sent one in and it didn't appear, that's the explanation I think we have it fixed now.
The Integrity Commissioner decided on the complaint filed by the Mayor and five councillors. It was not accepted.
The Mayor has publicly stated the decision to remove the Powers of the Commissioner was made prior to the decision being known.
In a Pig's Ear.
To-nights news story on the CBC about the Commish, his first decision and the removal of his powers, was really well done. Imagine having to get a sense of what a story is all about when it's been going on for five and a half years.
The only snag was the final comment that one of my options is to sue the town. THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. I have asked for a correction but I don't know if the editors will see it as significant as I do.
I'm part of the town. I don't plan to sue myself. I don't plan to play tit-for-tat with the Code of Conduct complaint process either. I will fight my political battles where they are meant to be fought ...in the political arena.
My e-mail address has been funky. I haven't been getting comments to my posts. . So if you sent one in and it didn't appear, that's the explanation I think we have it fixed now.
The Integrity Commissioner decided on the complaint filed by the Mayor and five councillors. It was not accepted.
The Mayor has publicly stated the decision to remove the Powers of the Commissioner was made prior to the decision being known.
In a Pig's Ear.
To-nights news story on the CBC about the Commish, his first decision and the removal of his powers, was really well done. Imagine having to get a sense of what a story is all about when it's been going on for five and a half years.
The only snag was the final comment that one of my options is to sue the town. THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. I have asked for a correction but I don't know if the editors will see it as significant as I do.
I'm part of the town. I don't plan to sue myself. I don't plan to play tit-for-tat with the Code of Conduct complaint process either. I will fight my political battles where they are meant to be fought ...in the political arena.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
The Plot Thickens
And the pot boils over.
A revealing comment has been posted on the Aurora Citizen Blog.
Anonymous suggests complaints in the double digits have been filed against myself with the Town's Integrity Commissioner.
remember the process. It calls for complaints to be channelled to the Commissioner through the Director of Corporate Services. The Provincial Statute 223.5 (I think) unequivocally requires secrecy in the process. As well as confidentiality in the Town's Bylaw.
The Director of Corporate Services (Municipal Clerk)is the responsible authority at the municipal level for upholding provincial statutes. It is why that official is sworn and the appointment is made by bylaw. It is the meaning of the term Statutory Officer.
I keep repeating that but it doesn't seem to get through.
The Chief Building Official is responsible for upholding the National Building Code and other regulations pertaining to building
The Planning Director is responsible for upholding the Planning Act and Regulations and the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for adhering to provincial regulations in the area of municipal finances.
There are no ifs and or buts.These are not empty titles. If they were, provincial authority over municipalities would be a sham.
And that is not the case.
There have been precedents, usually in elections, when municipal clerks ,who are also Election Officers, have been prosecuted for failing to fulfill their legal responsibilities.
The anonymous comment raises the question; if true, how did that information become known?
Only the clerk or acting clerk of the municipality receives complaints.Her authority is limited to receiving and forwarding to the Integrity Commissioner.
The purpose is to maintain physical separation and independence of the Integrity Commissioner's Office from the Corporation and the political body.
How else would the privacy of the complainant and the complained about be protected?
How else would the Integrity Commissioner go about his due diligence without tampering or interference?
How else would the independence needed to perform the quasi-judicial function of rendering a fair and impartial judgement be guaranteed?
I know of one other complaint filed against me. The Commissioner informed me. As part of the process.
He spent almost two hours on my deck one lovely sunny afternoon, in an effort to convince me of the merits of participating in the process.
A person's reputation as an elected official is as valuable as any complaint he might receive, he assured me. If I did not participate, the only evidence before him would be the accusation against me.
He left without my commitment. But he spared no effort to ensure my complete understanding of the process and assure me of his own integrity.
Now we have evidence; laws requiring secrecy and confidentiality and the Integrity of an Integrity Commissioner are not enough.
Information appears to have been revealed from the only possible source. The Aurora Town Hall. Where I was refused, on camera, by the town solicitor, after double consultation with the Mayor, access to a decision which was my right to receive.
Logic dictates the complaint of six members of council, compiled by a lawyer at taxpayers' expense, and publicised world wide, had to be dismissed. In their eagerness to do all harm possible and tie the hands of the Commissioner, our brave warrior Councillors simply shat upon their own doorstep, trampled joyfully through it and made sure no clean spot remained.
No trace of good faith, a favourite phrase of David Nitkin, was ever evident in any degree which would possibly have allowed that complaint to be accepted.
And it doesn't take the Wisdom of Solomon to understand why.
A revealing comment has been posted on the Aurora Citizen Blog.
Anonymous suggests complaints in the double digits have been filed against myself with the Town's Integrity Commissioner.
remember the process. It calls for complaints to be channelled to the Commissioner through the Director of Corporate Services. The Provincial Statute 223.5 (I think) unequivocally requires secrecy in the process. As well as confidentiality in the Town's Bylaw.
The Director of Corporate Services (Municipal Clerk)is the responsible authority at the municipal level for upholding provincial statutes. It is why that official is sworn and the appointment is made by bylaw. It is the meaning of the term Statutory Officer.
I keep repeating that but it doesn't seem to get through.
The Chief Building Official is responsible for upholding the National Building Code and other regulations pertaining to building
The Planning Director is responsible for upholding the Planning Act and Regulations and the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for adhering to provincial regulations in the area of municipal finances.
There are no ifs and or buts.These are not empty titles. If they were, provincial authority over municipalities would be a sham.
And that is not the case.
There have been precedents, usually in elections, when municipal clerks ,who are also Election Officers, have been prosecuted for failing to fulfill their legal responsibilities.
The anonymous comment raises the question; if true, how did that information become known?
Only the clerk or acting clerk of the municipality receives complaints.Her authority is limited to receiving and forwarding to the Integrity Commissioner.
The purpose is to maintain physical separation and independence of the Integrity Commissioner's Office from the Corporation and the political body.
How else would the privacy of the complainant and the complained about be protected?
How else would the Integrity Commissioner go about his due diligence without tampering or interference?
How else would the independence needed to perform the quasi-judicial function of rendering a fair and impartial judgement be guaranteed?
I know of one other complaint filed against me. The Commissioner informed me. As part of the process.
He spent almost two hours on my deck one lovely sunny afternoon, in an effort to convince me of the merits of participating in the process.
A person's reputation as an elected official is as valuable as any complaint he might receive, he assured me. If I did not participate, the only evidence before him would be the accusation against me.
He left without my commitment. But he spared no effort to ensure my complete understanding of the process and assure me of his own integrity.
Now we have evidence; laws requiring secrecy and confidentiality and the Integrity of an Integrity Commissioner are not enough.
Information appears to have been revealed from the only possible source. The Aurora Town Hall. Where I was refused, on camera, by the town solicitor, after double consultation with the Mayor, access to a decision which was my right to receive.
Logic dictates the complaint of six members of council, compiled by a lawyer at taxpayers' expense, and publicised world wide, had to be dismissed. In their eagerness to do all harm possible and tie the hands of the Commissioner, our brave warrior Councillors simply shat upon their own doorstep, trampled joyfully through it and made sure no clean spot remained.
No trace of good faith, a favourite phrase of David Nitkin, was ever evident in any degree which would possibly have allowed that complaint to be accepted.
And it doesn't take the Wisdom of Solomon to understand why.
Saturday, 8 August 2009
SometimesYou Have To Step Back
To see the whole picture.
In 2007 the Mayor met George Rust D'Eye, a former municipal solicitor. at a conference. Mr. Rust D'Eye apparently advised he could advise council how to deal with a problem the Mayor had articulated. The Mayor brought the good word back to Council.
Mr Rust D"Eye's services were soon called upon, on the pretext of a leak from an in-camera meeting. The entire York Region Police Department knew Aurora had turned down the opportunity to have the Regional Police Headquarters built on land we had for sale. The Region offered the appraised value for the land. When word got into the press three months later, for the Mayor's purpose, a "leak" was assumed.
Mr. Rust D'Eye advised Council,in a lengthy legal report, A Code of Conduct would solve the problem of " leaks". The Mayor has informed Council and the community, he helped to write it. It was adopted by Council, with no obvious sign it had been read and despite the contention of Councillor Allison Collins Mrakas who has several Masters Degrees and is in fact a Manager of Ethics in an academic institution, that the Code as written was unenforceable. .
In November 2008, an Integrity Commissioner was appointed. Eight months later. on June 18th 2009 , a contract was finally agreed upon.
Before that however, Council retained another former municipal solicitor (they never retained George Rust D"Eye again) and assigned him the task of watching videos, reading Blogs and comments to Blogs to ferret out perceived offences against the Code, report his findings and document an iron-clad complaint to be submitted to the Integrity Commissioner as soon as the agreement was signed.
In the meantime, a "special" volunteer, much admired by the Mayor, exercised the privilege at public forum of a council meeting to heap unfounded and unsubtantiated accusations and allegations. on the head of the same member of the Town's Council who was eventually the object of Council's complaint to the Integrity Commissioner.
In March of 2009, public donations had been solicited in support of a public event by the Mayor's favourite appointed volunteer member of a sub-committee of an Advisory Committee of Council. No account was subsequently offered of proceeds of the fund-raising or their disposition. In fact , statements were made that proceeds had merely paid for a wing-ding party. Self-righteous outrage was expressed that a councillor would seek answers to the obvious question.
Where are the funds, publicly solicited under the auspices of the municipality and donated for a public event.?
Subsequently, the complaint of six members of council, prepared by the lawyer, accompanied by his twenty-three page legal report was filed with the Town's Integrity Commissioner.
But first it was publicised in every known venue at taxpayers' expense.
Within the body of the complaint, the solicitor states, in light of the potential penalty that the councillor's "remuneration might be suspended" represented a "pecuniary benefit" to said Councillor. By choosing to attend a secret meeting of the council of which she is a member, she is in a Conflict of Interest.
At no time apparently. did it occur to the parties that;
1. accusing a Councillor under a Code of Conduct containing clauses of their adaptation; 2.retaining counsel, as a Council to compile a list of perceived contraventions of the clauses; 3.filing a complaint with an Integrity Commissioner retained on a contract , written to suit their purpose;
might represent egregious contravention of every principle of fairness and ethical conduct.Let alone Conflict of Interest.
Weeks later. behind closed doors, with the town solicitor, they received the decision their complaint had not been accepted. In effect, it had been dismissed.
Consequently they removed all authority from the Commissioner immediately and severed his contract.
But not apparently without a prior meeting being held between the Commissioner, Town solicitor and the Mayor, in an attempt to persuade the Officer to see the error of his ways.
I think: a reading of the Code... according to Rust D'Eye... circa 2008 ... reveals a number of
ethical principles which were never intended to be anything more than hieroglyphics on a page.
In 2007 the Mayor met George Rust D'Eye, a former municipal solicitor. at a conference. Mr. Rust D'Eye apparently advised he could advise council how to deal with a problem the Mayor had articulated. The Mayor brought the good word back to Council.
Mr Rust D"Eye's services were soon called upon, on the pretext of a leak from an in-camera meeting. The entire York Region Police Department knew Aurora had turned down the opportunity to have the Regional Police Headquarters built on land we had for sale. The Region offered the appraised value for the land. When word got into the press three months later, for the Mayor's purpose, a "leak" was assumed.
Mr. Rust D'Eye advised Council,in a lengthy legal report, A Code of Conduct would solve the problem of " leaks". The Mayor has informed Council and the community, he helped to write it. It was adopted by Council, with no obvious sign it had been read and despite the contention of Councillor Allison Collins Mrakas who has several Masters Degrees and is in fact a Manager of Ethics in an academic institution, that the Code as written was unenforceable. .
In November 2008, an Integrity Commissioner was appointed. Eight months later. on June 18th 2009 , a contract was finally agreed upon.
Before that however, Council retained another former municipal solicitor (they never retained George Rust D"Eye again) and assigned him the task of watching videos, reading Blogs and comments to Blogs to ferret out perceived offences against the Code, report his findings and document an iron-clad complaint to be submitted to the Integrity Commissioner as soon as the agreement was signed.
In the meantime, a "special" volunteer, much admired by the Mayor, exercised the privilege at public forum of a council meeting to heap unfounded and unsubtantiated accusations and allegations. on the head of the same member of the Town's Council who was eventually the object of Council's complaint to the Integrity Commissioner.
In March of 2009, public donations had been solicited in support of a public event by the Mayor's favourite appointed volunteer member of a sub-committee of an Advisory Committee of Council. No account was subsequently offered of proceeds of the fund-raising or their disposition. In fact , statements were made that proceeds had merely paid for a wing-ding party. Self-righteous outrage was expressed that a councillor would seek answers to the obvious question.
Where are the funds, publicly solicited under the auspices of the municipality and donated for a public event.?
Subsequently, the complaint of six members of council, prepared by the lawyer, accompanied by his twenty-three page legal report was filed with the Town's Integrity Commissioner.
But first it was publicised in every known venue at taxpayers' expense.
Within the body of the complaint, the solicitor states, in light of the potential penalty that the councillor's "remuneration might be suspended" represented a "pecuniary benefit" to said Councillor. By choosing to attend a secret meeting of the council of which she is a member, she is in a Conflict of Interest.
At no time apparently. did it occur to the parties that;
1. accusing a Councillor under a Code of Conduct containing clauses of their adaptation; 2.retaining counsel, as a Council to compile a list of perceived contraventions of the clauses; 3.filing a complaint with an Integrity Commissioner retained on a contract , written to suit their purpose;
might represent egregious contravention of every principle of fairness and ethical conduct.Let alone Conflict of Interest.
Weeks later. behind closed doors, with the town solicitor, they received the decision their complaint had not been accepted. In effect, it had been dismissed.
Consequently they removed all authority from the Commissioner immediately and severed his contract.
But not apparently without a prior meeting being held between the Commissioner, Town solicitor and the Mayor, in an attempt to persuade the Officer to see the error of his ways.
I think: a reading of the Code... according to Rust D'Eye... circa 2008 ... reveals a number of
ethical principles which were never intended to be anything more than hieroglyphics on a page.
Friday, 7 August 2009
What didI tell you?
Just received an e-mail from the Mayor's office. A copy of the minutes from last night's "Special" meeting followed immediately.
It was called to order at 5.20p.m. They recessed into Closed Session at 5.53 pm. ,re-convened and reported out at 11.05 p.m. and adjourned at 11.12p.m.
When a council goes behind closed doors only those matters listed on the agenda can be discussed.
Councillors McRoberts and Collins Mrakas notified in considerable detail why they were not prepared to attend ; no reason was given for the meeting and no agenda was circulated. I also indicated I would not attend for all of the reasons cited by both colleagues.
Apparently an agenda was circulated. though not to myself, thirteen minutes before the meeting was scheduled to begin.
The late agenda listed:
1. Code of Conduct Complaint
.
2. Matters related to an individual.
If the order was followed, the Code of Conduct Complaint was discussed and then a decision was made to remove all powers from the Integrity Commissioner and recruit a new one.
It took all those hours to figure out a way to tell you that.
Now do you believe me?
It was called to order at 5.20p.m. They recessed into Closed Session at 5.53 pm. ,re-convened and reported out at 11.05 p.m. and adjourned at 11.12p.m.
When a council goes behind closed doors only those matters listed on the agenda can be discussed.
Councillors McRoberts and Collins Mrakas notified in considerable detail why they were not prepared to attend ; no reason was given for the meeting and no agenda was circulated. I also indicated I would not attend for all of the reasons cited by both colleagues.
Apparently an agenda was circulated. though not to myself, thirteen minutes before the meeting was scheduled to begin.
The late agenda listed:
1. Code of Conduct Complaint
.
2. Matters related to an individual.
If the order was followed, the Code of Conduct Complaint was discussed and then a decision was made to remove all powers from the Integrity Commissioner and recruit a new one.
It took all those hours to figure out a way to tell you that.
Now do you believe me?
A Clash of Principles
I've been struggling with it for some time. On the one hand, municipal public servants have the same right to privacy as any other citizen. On the other we have experienced almost a complete turn over of senior staff under the Mor-Mac political regime.
The change happened in less than optimum circumstances. The community has a vital interest in the management of the corporation. Management is an important link in the day to day affairs of the community. They don't actually fix broken sewers or get down and dirty but their competence does have an impact on those who do.
In any major upheaval, people have a right to know things are proceeding as they should.. How would they learn in the normal course of events.?
There is only one conduit. Speaking for myself. it is me.
I have concerns.
Yesterday, at the town hall was an example:
I approached the reception desk on the second floor and was greeted with the usual cheerful welcoming smile of acknowledgement. I asked for Cindy Janzen.
Whether it is Cindy or Lucille , the Director, a message would ordinarily be relayed back . Whether they had to finish what they were doing or ... they would promptly appear. It's a courtesy to which I am accustomed.
The doors to the inner offices may or may not be locked. I've never tried them . As an elected member I observe the line between administrative and political. I do not have authority to invade their space any more than they can trespass in mine. I wait.
Contrary to her usual practice, Cindy did not appear.Neither did I receive the courtesy of a message.
Instead, after time, Mr. Cooper, our relatively new solicitor came from his office, and walked across the public area, past where I was seated, to the Mayor's office. Mr. Cooper is the Acting Chief Administrative Officer while Mr. Garbe is on vacation. He did not acknowledge my presence.
In at least seventy-five per cent of municipalities in Ontario, the town clerk heads the administration.It is not an optional position. Chief Administrative Officers on the other hand, are not that common
In our town, when the CAO is absent for any reason, the Director of Corporate Services formerly town clerk, and still with the same responsibilities, is the Acting C.A.O. The two would never be absent at the same time. For the past two weeks, they have been .
That's a change.Not an improvement.
Mr. Cooper walked past me. He had to to reach the Mayor's office. A steady stream of staff , going to and from and up and down from various offices passed through, Nary a one went by without a cheerful smile and polite acknowledgement of the Councillor in the waiting space. I wasn't hiding.
Cindy never did appear. Instead after a couple of consultations with the Mayor, Mr. Cooper presented himself. He first informed me cameras are not permitted in the town hall.
I allowed that to pass.
His next statement was that he, Christopher Cooper, is Acting Chief Administrative Officer in the absence of Mr. Garbe. I knew that. .
Ms Janzen ,he added has not been appointed Acting Director of Corporate Services therefore she does not have the authority to forward the decision of the Integrity Commissioner
to the parties entitled to receive it under the requirements of Provincial Statute and Town Legislation.
There is not a great deal to be gained from having an argument with an official in a public place. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, they say, whoever they are, and they had possession. My purpose was to gain possession of what is legally mine....Or not.... which in itself tells a story.
The facts are,town practice is for the deputy-clerk to be acting clerk when the clerk is not available. No other reason exists for the position of deputy to be sworn by bylaw. A clerk and deputy clerk must have certification which is acquired by successfully passing particular courses recognised by whatever body is responsible for accreditation.
Mr. Cooper ,once again, offered an opinion which is entirely unacceptable to me.
I would contend, the solicitor would be hard-pressed to validate his opinion with reference to town bylaws and past practice. Most municipalities do not have in house solicitors either. It is the Municipal clerk who is legally liable for upholding provincial statutes as well as municipal bylaws even in those municipalities which do. It is the meaning of "statutory officer".
Considering circumstances governed by what I regard as his erroneous opinion, the refusal to put forward the decision already made by the town's Integrity Commissioner, in the matter of a complaint prepared at great legal expense to the taxpayers against myself, the nature of which is the assertion that I have disrespected the professional competence of town directors, I do not believe I am obliged to maintain silence in this matter.
The Mayor's subsequent comment in the media broadcast, " it is intended the public should be made aware of the decision all at the same time" clearly indicates the decision has already been conveyed to the complainants. The decision as to when and to whom it will be forwarded, is not he Mayor's to make. Even a cursory glance at the satute and the bylaw makes that clear.
The statement made in the town hall, was clearly under the Mayor's orders with the solicitor's compliance. Acting as C.A.O. , has been withheld from the two Councillors who refused to sign and the Councillor who was the object of the complaint but made available to the complainants.
From my perspective, it is difficult to comprehend how any person, acting in a public capacity. can allow him or herself to be party to an arrangement which has neither the force of law, morality or ethics.
Confidence and trust are qualities which must be engendered and fostered.They may not be assumed.
The change happened in less than optimum circumstances. The community has a vital interest in the management of the corporation. Management is an important link in the day to day affairs of the community. They don't actually fix broken sewers or get down and dirty but their competence does have an impact on those who do.
In any major upheaval, people have a right to know things are proceeding as they should.. How would they learn in the normal course of events.?
There is only one conduit. Speaking for myself. it is me.
I have concerns.
Yesterday, at the town hall was an example:
I approached the reception desk on the second floor and was greeted with the usual cheerful welcoming smile of acknowledgement. I asked for Cindy Janzen.
Whether it is Cindy or Lucille , the Director, a message would ordinarily be relayed back . Whether they had to finish what they were doing or ... they would promptly appear. It's a courtesy to which I am accustomed.
The doors to the inner offices may or may not be locked. I've never tried them . As an elected member I observe the line between administrative and political. I do not have authority to invade their space any more than they can trespass in mine. I wait.
Contrary to her usual practice, Cindy did not appear.Neither did I receive the courtesy of a message.
Instead, after time, Mr. Cooper, our relatively new solicitor came from his office, and walked across the public area, past where I was seated, to the Mayor's office. Mr. Cooper is the Acting Chief Administrative Officer while Mr. Garbe is on vacation. He did not acknowledge my presence.
In at least seventy-five per cent of municipalities in Ontario, the town clerk heads the administration.It is not an optional position. Chief Administrative Officers on the other hand, are not that common
In our town, when the CAO is absent for any reason, the Director of Corporate Services formerly town clerk, and still with the same responsibilities, is the Acting C.A.O. The two would never be absent at the same time. For the past two weeks, they have been .
That's a change.Not an improvement.
Mr. Cooper walked past me. He had to to reach the Mayor's office. A steady stream of staff , going to and from and up and down from various offices passed through, Nary a one went by without a cheerful smile and polite acknowledgement of the Councillor in the waiting space. I wasn't hiding.
Cindy never did appear. Instead after a couple of consultations with the Mayor, Mr. Cooper presented himself. He first informed me cameras are not permitted in the town hall.
I allowed that to pass.
His next statement was that he, Christopher Cooper, is Acting Chief Administrative Officer in the absence of Mr. Garbe. I knew that. .
Ms Janzen ,he added has not been appointed Acting Director of Corporate Services therefore she does not have the authority to forward the decision of the Integrity Commissioner
to the parties entitled to receive it under the requirements of Provincial Statute and Town Legislation.
There is not a great deal to be gained from having an argument with an official in a public place. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, they say, whoever they are, and they had possession. My purpose was to gain possession of what is legally mine....Or not.... which in itself tells a story.
The facts are,town practice is for the deputy-clerk to be acting clerk when the clerk is not available. No other reason exists for the position of deputy to be sworn by bylaw. A clerk and deputy clerk must have certification which is acquired by successfully passing particular courses recognised by whatever body is responsible for accreditation.
Mr. Cooper ,once again, offered an opinion which is entirely unacceptable to me.
I would contend, the solicitor would be hard-pressed to validate his opinion with reference to town bylaws and past practice. Most municipalities do not have in house solicitors either. It is the Municipal clerk who is legally liable for upholding provincial statutes as well as municipal bylaws even in those municipalities which do. It is the meaning of "statutory officer".
Considering circumstances governed by what I regard as his erroneous opinion, the refusal to put forward the decision already made by the town's Integrity Commissioner, in the matter of a complaint prepared at great legal expense to the taxpayers against myself, the nature of which is the assertion that I have disrespected the professional competence of town directors, I do not believe I am obliged to maintain silence in this matter.
The Mayor's subsequent comment in the media broadcast, " it is intended the public should be made aware of the decision all at the same time" clearly indicates the decision has already been conveyed to the complainants. The decision as to when and to whom it will be forwarded, is not he Mayor's to make. Even a cursory glance at the satute and the bylaw makes that clear.
The statement made in the town hall, was clearly under the Mayor's orders with the solicitor's compliance. Acting as C.A.O. , has been withheld from the two Councillors who refused to sign and the Councillor who was the object of the complaint but made available to the complainants.
From my perspective, it is difficult to comprehend how any person, acting in a public capacity. can allow him or herself to be party to an arrangement which has neither the force of law, morality or ethics.
Confidence and trust are qualities which must be engendered and fostered.They may not be assumed.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
And Frightend a Little Mouse under Her Chair
I went to the Town Hall this morning. Brianna, a lovely young woman reporter from Rogers Cable came along with her camera.
Yesterday, I received notification a decision on the much publicised complaint of a few weeks ago, has been made by the Integrity Commissioner. As procedure requires, it had been directed to the Director of Corporate Services to forward a copy to the Complainants and the Councillor whose "Conduct is of Concern" Moi.
I sent an e-mail to the Deputy-Clerk requesting my copy. It was not forthcoming. Instead I received an e-mail response. Three clauses of procedure were cited and I was informed a copy would be provided in a "Special" meeting called by the Mayor to be held behind closed doors.
The problem was, the clauses cited did not conform to the plans cited.
Procedure requires a copy of the decision will be forwarded to the parties. It will be presented at the "next council meeting". It does not mean "forwarded " at some arbitrary date or during a "special" meeting called by the Mayor to deal with the matter behind closed doors.
So, today, I went to the Town Hall to obtain my copy. I asked at reception to speak to the Deputy-clerk . She had received the communication from Mr.Nitkin. I thought therefore, it could reasonably be assumed she was Acting Director in the absence of the Director who would have received the communication if she were not on vacation. Well somebody had to receive such an important communication.
But that was yesterday. Today, I waited for the deputy-clerk to emerge from the inner sanctum. And I waited and waited and chatted to Brianna about the matter.
After a while, Mr. Cooper who is Town Solicitor and Acting Chief Administrative Officer emerged from his side of the sanctum and passed by without acknowledging moi on his way to the Mayor's Office.
He returned after a bit .... still with his head down and crossed behind the reception desk. I could see him through the glass. He visited with the deputy clerk.He emerged again and returned to the Mayor's office. Eventually, he came out once more and approached myself and Brianna.
"Cameras are not allowed in the Town Hall, Councillor Buck." he said.
"Is that right, Mr. Cooper " I said. "I hadn't heard that before"
Brianna and her camera stayed.
He informed me... "Ms Janzen, Deputy-Clerk has not been appointed Acting Director of Corporate Services , therefore she does not have the authority to provide you with a copy of the decision."
I smiled.
So ....I was being refused a copy of the decision to which I am entitled.
No matter.
It doesn't take an Einstein to figure ..
The complaint has not been accepted.... Ergo....it has been dismissed.
The flap is on.
A "Special" meeting has been called by the Mayor for five o'clock this evening. No agenda provided.No purpose stated.
At six o'clock Roger's Cable will broadcast the news. The complaint has been dismissed.
But the plan undoubtedly was ..... if they dis-credit the decision- maker, before the decision is known, they can not then be accused of dis-crediting the decision because it dis-credits the decision they made when they made the decision to dis-credit moi.
I never laid a finger on them.
They did it all themselves.
How sweet it is !
Yesterday, I received notification a decision on the much publicised complaint of a few weeks ago, has been made by the Integrity Commissioner. As procedure requires, it had been directed to the Director of Corporate Services to forward a copy to the Complainants and the Councillor whose "Conduct is of Concern" Moi.
I sent an e-mail to the Deputy-Clerk requesting my copy. It was not forthcoming. Instead I received an e-mail response. Three clauses of procedure were cited and I was informed a copy would be provided in a "Special" meeting called by the Mayor to be held behind closed doors.
The problem was, the clauses cited did not conform to the plans cited.
Procedure requires a copy of the decision will be forwarded to the parties. It will be presented at the "next council meeting". It does not mean "forwarded " at some arbitrary date or during a "special" meeting called by the Mayor to deal with the matter behind closed doors.
So, today, I went to the Town Hall to obtain my copy. I asked at reception to speak to the Deputy-clerk . She had received the communication from Mr.Nitkin. I thought therefore, it could reasonably be assumed she was Acting Director in the absence of the Director who would have received the communication if she were not on vacation. Well somebody had to receive such an important communication.
But that was yesterday. Today, I waited for the deputy-clerk to emerge from the inner sanctum. And I waited and waited and chatted to Brianna about the matter.
After a while, Mr. Cooper who is Town Solicitor and Acting Chief Administrative Officer emerged from his side of the sanctum and passed by without acknowledging moi on his way to the Mayor's Office.
He returned after a bit .... still with his head down and crossed behind the reception desk. I could see him through the glass. He visited with the deputy clerk.He emerged again and returned to the Mayor's office. Eventually, he came out once more and approached myself and Brianna.
"Cameras are not allowed in the Town Hall, Councillor Buck." he said.
"Is that right, Mr. Cooper " I said. "I hadn't heard that before"
Brianna and her camera stayed.
He informed me... "Ms Janzen, Deputy-Clerk has not been appointed Acting Director of Corporate Services , therefore she does not have the authority to provide you with a copy of the decision."
I smiled.
So ....I was being refused a copy of the decision to which I am entitled.
No matter.
It doesn't take an Einstein to figure ..
The complaint has not been accepted.... Ergo....it has been dismissed.
The flap is on.
A "Special" meeting has been called by the Mayor for five o'clock this evening. No agenda provided.No purpose stated.
At six o'clock Roger's Cable will broadcast the news. The complaint has been dismissed.
But the plan undoubtedly was ..... if they dis-credit the decision- maker, before the decision is known, they can not then be accused of dis-crediting the decision because it dis-credits the decision they made when they made the decision to dis-credit moi.
I never laid a finger on them.
They did it all themselves.
How sweet it is !
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Something is Stirring
But I can't give details. I received a private and confidential e-mail this morning. It appears I should have received formal notification of something previously but didn't.
The Mayor has called a "Special" meeting for Thursday evening at 5 . P.M. I was not informed. It's apparently about "an individual who could be identified " It generally means the Mayor is on the warpath and prepared to lynch somebody. Usually moi.
It seems stuff isn't being shared .
Why would that be, I wonder?
I had an interview with Brianna of Roger's Cable yesterday afternoon on my backyard deck..It was nice expounding my philosophy on politics to a young person willing to listen. It amounted to a very brief clip on the news .
It's always interesting to see which particular quote from the many has been selected. In this one I related how, in response to demands for apologies, retractions and a commitment to cease and desist, I had asked Councillor Wilson to provide me with a list of the "factually incorrect" statements as well specific examples of Breaches of the Code of Conduct deemed to have been perpetrated so that I could understand precisely why I am apologising.
As yet, no list has come forward..
The Mayor has called a "Special" meeting for Thursday evening at 5 . P.M. I was not informed. It's apparently about "an individual who could be identified " It generally means the Mayor is on the warpath and prepared to lynch somebody. Usually moi.
It seems stuff isn't being shared .
Why would that be, I wonder?
I had an interview with Brianna of Roger's Cable yesterday afternoon on my backyard deck..It was nice expounding my philosophy on politics to a young person willing to listen. It amounted to a very brief clip on the news .
It's always interesting to see which particular quote from the many has been selected. In this one I related how, in response to demands for apologies, retractions and a commitment to cease and desist, I had asked Councillor Wilson to provide me with a list of the "factually incorrect" statements as well specific examples of Breaches of the Code of Conduct deemed to have been perpetrated so that I could understand precisely why I am apologising.
As yet, no list has come forward..
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
10 O'Clock and All's Quiet on the Integrity Front
It was a holiday .I expect nobody was doing much of anything. Mr. Nitkin may not be finding it particularly easy to deal with the much publicised complaint of the Gang of Six accompanied by an investigative report prepared and written by legal counsel, retained at taxpayer's expense.
It must be sort of like being a council member at a meeting with the Mayor presiding. The rules vary so , depending on whose ox is being gored, it can seem like there are no rules. Procedural Bylaw notwithstanding.
Section 223.5 ( 1) of the Municipal Act states :
Duty of Confidentiality----The Commissioner and every person acting under the instructions of the Commissioner shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her duties under this part.
Section 223.6 (1) Report to Council
If the Commissioner provides a periodic report to the municipality on his or her activities,the Commissioner may summarize advice he or she has given but shall not disclose confidential information that could identify a person concerned.
It's terribly tedious reading the Municipal Act or any Act for that matter. Still one must understand how the instrument is being interpreted and used. There must be consistency in application.
It's a relatively new Act and as noted before, only a handful of municipalities are using it. .
Since no appeal is provided it has not been tested in a Court of Law.
If a person's intention is to exercise authority under an Act, it's probably a good idea to have at least a sense of the limits of authority.
Otherwise, there's a chance one might fall afoul of the very Act one is using to accuse another of wrong-doing.
Harm can come to a person like that
I scanned Toronto's Code. The legislation came about after the scandal about millions of dollars over-run in the acquisition of computers . A financial officer was being wined , dined and bedded by an ambitious and especially energetic salesman.
A Councillor had money for luxurious items without an obvious source.
The computer over-run cost millions and the city spent millions on the Bellamy Inquiry which revealed the seedy conduct described above
One of the penalties in the City's Code, is for the villain of the piece to give back the money.
The intent of the Code is clearly to discourage corruption in all its forms.
Their Code doesn't say a word about Councillors being prohibited from talking about Council's decisions and being required toexplain to the community.the" attitude" that led to the decisions, even if said councillor disagrees with said decisions.
A City Ad Hoc Committee took months to create the Code. Despite all of their earnest endeavour, I hear it's not working too well. . Several reports have been presented from the Integrity Commissioner.
At first Councillors were allowed $5 k to defend themselves . Then it was reported, they were not using defence counsel and since there is no provision for appeal, that was not thought to be a good thing. The allowance for defence was upped to $20k.
The Commissioner's initial retainer was $104k. a year. Don't know what it's at now. But that didn't cover the salary of his administrative assistant and the work of investigating a complaint.
It is a very, very, expensive operation .
But that's not how we do it up here in Aurora. Oh Dear Me ....No..
We don't fool around with the rules the government writes or even the ones we write ourselves
We just jump into the mucky-ducky, splash about, have fun and make sure everybody gets splattered.
The night they proclaimed their legal investigation and complaint, their favourite volunteers were in the audience to enjoy the triumph. The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern joined them afterwards at 12,30a.m. Our Fearless leader was overheard to say:
"Now let's go and celebrate."
It must be sort of like being a council member at a meeting with the Mayor presiding. The rules vary so , depending on whose ox is being gored, it can seem like there are no rules. Procedural Bylaw notwithstanding.
Section 223.5 ( 1) of the Municipal Act states :
Duty of Confidentiality----The Commissioner and every person acting under the instructions of the Commissioner shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her duties under this part.
Section 223.6 (1) Report to Council
If the Commissioner provides a periodic report to the municipality on his or her activities,the Commissioner may summarize advice he or she has given but shall not disclose confidential information that could identify a person concerned.
It's terribly tedious reading the Municipal Act or any Act for that matter. Still one must understand how the instrument is being interpreted and used. There must be consistency in application.
It's a relatively new Act and as noted before, only a handful of municipalities are using it. .
Since no appeal is provided it has not been tested in a Court of Law.
If a person's intention is to exercise authority under an Act, it's probably a good idea to have at least a sense of the limits of authority.
Otherwise, there's a chance one might fall afoul of the very Act one is using to accuse another of wrong-doing.
Harm can come to a person like that
I scanned Toronto's Code. The legislation came about after the scandal about millions of dollars over-run in the acquisition of computers . A financial officer was being wined , dined and bedded by an ambitious and especially energetic salesman.
A Councillor had money for luxurious items without an obvious source.
The computer over-run cost millions and the city spent millions on the Bellamy Inquiry which revealed the seedy conduct described above
One of the penalties in the City's Code, is for the villain of the piece to give back the money.
The intent of the Code is clearly to discourage corruption in all its forms.
Their Code doesn't say a word about Councillors being prohibited from talking about Council's decisions and being required toexplain to the community.the" attitude" that led to the decisions, even if said councillor disagrees with said decisions.
A City Ad Hoc Committee took months to create the Code. Despite all of their earnest endeavour, I hear it's not working too well. . Several reports have been presented from the Integrity Commissioner.
At first Councillors were allowed $5 k to defend themselves . Then it was reported, they were not using defence counsel and since there is no provision for appeal, that was not thought to be a good thing. The allowance for defence was upped to $20k.
The Commissioner's initial retainer was $104k. a year. Don't know what it's at now. But that didn't cover the salary of his administrative assistant and the work of investigating a complaint.
It is a very, very, expensive operation .
But that's not how we do it up here in Aurora. Oh Dear Me ....No..
We don't fool around with the rules the government writes or even the ones we write ourselves
We just jump into the mucky-ducky, splash about, have fun and make sure everybody gets splattered.
The night they proclaimed their legal investigation and complaint, their favourite volunteers were in the audience to enjoy the triumph. The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern joined them afterwards at 12,30a.m. Our Fearless leader was overheard to say:
"Now let's go and celebrate."
Saturday, 1 August 2009
What Has Happened Since.
I haven't heard a dicky-bird. The Code of Conduct on the Town's Web site, outlines a process that outlines time lines following a complaint being received by the Integrity Commissioner.
All is quiet from my angle. Considering the tumult that went before ...the silence is weird.
On the other hand, the hurly-burly of politics is robust as usual in the Megalopolis to the south of us.
Mayor Miller says the councillors who are speaking against the settlement with the union are
"disgraceful" His opponents are equally forceful in their opinions about the settlement and the Mayor's and Top Honcho Penachetti's role in the matter.
It's unlikely complaints to the City's Integrity Commissioner will result from either side of the issue. Their Code does not hold political discourse to be illegal..
The Honorable Member of The Legislature for our Riding. Mr. Frank Klees' name has been brought into the discussion. Mr. Klees recently presented a private member's amendment to the legislature to remove restrictions on the right of free speech in Human Rights legislation.
Someone might bring the Honorable member's attention to Provincial Legislation which permits a Code of Conduct for any Municipality which choses to adopt.
The legislation is odd.
It allows a municipality to adopt a Code if it sees fit. It allows individual wording of a Code. Only a handful of municipalities have and there appears to be little uniformity in wording, And strangest of all ,since an elected person cannot be charged with an offence, there is provision for penalties but no avenue for appeal.
The upshot is, if I were a councillor in Richmond Hill or Newmarket or ninety-nine per cent of the Province of Ontario, there would be no video voyeurism of council meetings or analysing of personal blogs or interpretion of a councillor's public comments, by a lawyer. retained by the Mayor and a group of compliant councillors at taxpayers expense.
There would be no Integrity Commissioner to receive and investigate complaints from
the same group of councillors, who took the precaution of having their own private investigation by a lawyer. and widely publicising the same, before handing said complaint, composed by said lawyer. to the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and rule upon.....all at taxpayers' expense.
You know, just because lawyers have written legislation on the direction of the provincial government, and another has privately investigated an Elected Member of Aurora Council on direction of some members of Council and submitted to the Council, a personal judgment on the councillor's conduct and advised said council they are within the ambit of Provincial legislation and their own adopted Code of Conduct to publicise his professionally prepared complaint at public expense, in every avenue possible....just because of all of that... that doesn't make any of it right.
All is quiet from my angle. Considering the tumult that went before ...the silence is weird.
On the other hand, the hurly-burly of politics is robust as usual in the Megalopolis to the south of us.
Mayor Miller says the councillors who are speaking against the settlement with the union are
"disgraceful" His opponents are equally forceful in their opinions about the settlement and the Mayor's and Top Honcho Penachetti's role in the matter.
It's unlikely complaints to the City's Integrity Commissioner will result from either side of the issue. Their Code does not hold political discourse to be illegal..
The Honorable Member of The Legislature for our Riding. Mr. Frank Klees' name has been brought into the discussion. Mr. Klees recently presented a private member's amendment to the legislature to remove restrictions on the right of free speech in Human Rights legislation.
Someone might bring the Honorable member's attention to Provincial Legislation which permits a Code of Conduct for any Municipality which choses to adopt.
The legislation is odd.
It allows a municipality to adopt a Code if it sees fit. It allows individual wording of a Code. Only a handful of municipalities have and there appears to be little uniformity in wording, And strangest of all ,since an elected person cannot be charged with an offence, there is provision for penalties but no avenue for appeal.
The upshot is, if I were a councillor in Richmond Hill or Newmarket or ninety-nine per cent of the Province of Ontario, there would be no video voyeurism of council meetings or analysing of personal blogs or interpretion of a councillor's public comments, by a lawyer. retained by the Mayor and a group of compliant councillors at taxpayers expense.
There would be no Integrity Commissioner to receive and investigate complaints from
the same group of councillors, who took the precaution of having their own private investigation by a lawyer. and widely publicising the same, before handing said complaint, composed by said lawyer. to the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and rule upon.....all at taxpayers' expense.
You know, just because lawyers have written legislation on the direction of the provincial government, and another has privately investigated an Elected Member of Aurora Council on direction of some members of Council and submitted to the Council, a personal judgment on the councillor's conduct and advised said council they are within the ambit of Provincial legislation and their own adopted Code of Conduct to publicise his professionally prepared complaint at public expense, in every avenue possible....just because of all of that... that doesn't make any of it right.
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
What Happened?
"What happened at last night's meeting? You said you'd keep us informed so I was surprised to find no entry today. Is everything okay?"Hey look...I have learned how to cut and paste.
Council deliberations were for the first time, live on Rogers Cable. It was a marathon. Council moved behind closed doors, at ten minutes past ten with the solicitor, who had been in the chamber since eight o'clock .
I came home and watched the rest on television.
When council re-emerged, a statement of complaint against me, signed by six members of Council was read into the record. The Mayor directed the document be posted on the Town's web site and published in two local newspapers.
A major criteria for registering a complaint is confidentiality.The purpose is obvious.A written accusation of wrong-doing is fraught with legal liability.
The role of an Integrity Commissioner is required to be independent and impartial.
It is hard for me to see how a Council, hiring a solicitor at public expense, to investigate a fellow Councillor and instruct him to come up with precise material for a written argument to support a complaint against said Councillor, complies with principles of conduct conducive to good faith and the respectful relationship espoused by the Code of Conduct.
The strict rules of confidentiality of the process may mean I will not be able to share all of the experience as we go along.
It is my understanding the rules of confidentiality have already been breached by multiple publications of the formal complaint.
There is no confidentiality attached to the informal step in the process.
I was asked by a councillor at the in-camera meeting, in the presence of Mr. Mascarin after he presented his report, to apologise, retract and commit not to do it any more.
I responded; if the Councillor would list examples of my being "factually incorrect" and other implied misdemeanours and present them to me, I would consider his request.
A second step in the informal process was a letter from the Mayor's office, prepared by Mr. Mascarin I believe, bearing signatures of six members of Council making the same demand for apology,retraction and commitment not to do it any more, to be responded to by a deadline.
I did respond to the letter that I was unable to identify specific examples of implied nefarious conduct therefore I was unable to conform to the request.
Mr Mascarin subsequently stated in a public report that I had adamantly refused the informal request
He wrote that I had published my response to the Mayor, prior to making a response to the Mayor's letter of informal demands to be met by a deadline.
My daughter Heather delivered my response to the Town Hall.
She had been working all day in my garden. It is a mess. It was neglected last year when I had my hip joint replacement surgery. I'm getting along fine,Thank you.
Heather went out to get chlorine and muriatic acid at Donnie Smith's pool shop and hand deliver the letter.She called me from the intersection traffic lights at Mary Street and Wellington
to ask if I was sure she should go into the Town Hall."I'm pretty grubby" she said.
"Yes" said I. "The envelope needs to be stamped with the time and date received"
She did that and called me again after. It was 4.29p.m. I posted my letter to the Blog at that time and forwarded it to The Auroran as a Letter to the Editor immediately after.
The Mayor's letter was not marked confidential. The informal process is not required to be confidential. I did not publish the Mayor's letter. I published my own.
Thanks to all of you, for your concern and expressions of support. I am in good spirits I sleep well.I look forward to watching and being a part of the process as it evolves in whatever direction it takes.
Check out the latest picture of my great-grandbaby twins, Reid and Claire on my personal Blog.
It is my understanding the rules of confidentiality have already been breached by multiple publications of the formal complaint.
There is no confidentiality attached to the informal step in the process.
I was asked by a councillor at the in-camera meeting, in the presence of Mr. Mascarin after he presented his report, to apologise, retract and commit not to do it any more.
I responded; if the Councillor would list examples of my being "factually incorrect" and other implied misdemeanours and present them to me, I would consider his request.
A second step in the informal process was a letter from the Mayor's office, prepared by Mr. Mascarin I believe, bearing signatures of six members of Council making the same demand for apology,retraction and commitment not to do it any more, to be responded to by a deadline.
I did respond to the letter that I was unable to identify specific examples of implied nefarious conduct therefore I was unable to conform to the request.
Mr Mascarin subsequently stated in a public report that I had adamantly refused the informal request
He wrote that I had published my response to the Mayor, prior to making a response to the Mayor's letter of informal demands to be met by a deadline.
My daughter Heather delivered my response to the Town Hall.
She had been working all day in my garden. It is a mess. It was neglected last year when I had my hip joint replacement surgery. I'm getting along fine,Thank you.
Heather went out to get chlorine and muriatic acid at Donnie Smith's pool shop and hand deliver the letter.She called me from the intersection traffic lights at Mary Street and Wellington
to ask if I was sure she should go into the Town Hall."I'm pretty grubby" she said.
"Yes" said I. "The envelope needs to be stamped with the time and date received"
She did that and called me again after. It was 4.29p.m. I posted my letter to the Blog at that time and forwarded it to The Auroran as a Letter to the Editor immediately after.
The Mayor's letter was not marked confidential. The informal process is not required to be confidential. I did not publish the Mayor's letter. I published my own.
Thanks to all of you, for your concern and expressions of support. I am in good spirits I sleep well.I look forward to watching and being a part of the process as it evolves in whatever direction it takes.
Check out the latest picture of my great-grandbaby twins, Reid and Claire on my personal Blog.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Brou-ha-ha!
Excitement is high. Yesterday's Blog obviously struck a few nerves resulting in a spate of anonymous abuse.
It's interesting. They who shall be nameless, are compelled to read what I have to say . Then orchestrate a chorus to express their contempt. How much more sensible it would be and serve their own peace of mind, if they just refrained from reading what I write.
But being sensible is not an obvious characteristic.
If they didn't say and do the things they do, I would not be able to repeat them.
If their discourse was sensible and fair and decisions had a modicum of intelligence, I would be able to paint quite a different picture.
Their problem is accepting that utterances on behalf of the public are rightfully the property of the public. You can't make a statement in public and expect it to not to be repeated..
They claim I make "factually incorrect" statements. They paid a lawyer with town money to put it in writing.
As of this moment , no "factually incorrect statement" has been specified. Apparently they haven't noticed the absence so they think no one else will either.
It's like that hilarious and horrendous scene in a Monty Python movie; White Knight and Black Knight are sword-fighting in the forest. Black Knight has lost both arms and both legs.
White Knight is unscathed. Black Knight legs cut from under him , no arms to defend himself is bouncing on the forest floor screaming "Fight. Fight...You Filthy Coward!"
I am tempted to publish this morning's anonymous crop, if only to illustrate the meanness of spirit. There were five but no way of knowing if individuals made the effort or one person drew on every resource to compose all five.
I decided the world would not be improved. If they want that stuff read, let them create their own web site and readership.
They could provide a link to Hugo Kroon's Blog and happily wallow in the muck together.
It's interesting. They who shall be nameless, are compelled to read what I have to say . Then orchestrate a chorus to express their contempt. How much more sensible it would be and serve their own peace of mind, if they just refrained from reading what I write.
But being sensible is not an obvious characteristic.
If they didn't say and do the things they do, I would not be able to repeat them.
If their discourse was sensible and fair and decisions had a modicum of intelligence, I would be able to paint quite a different picture.
Their problem is accepting that utterances on behalf of the public are rightfully the property of the public. You can't make a statement in public and expect it to not to be repeated..
They claim I make "factually incorrect" statements. They paid a lawyer with town money to put it in writing.
As of this moment , no "factually incorrect statement" has been specified. Apparently they haven't noticed the absence so they think no one else will either.
It's like that hilarious and horrendous scene in a Monty Python movie; White Knight and Black Knight are sword-fighting in the forest. Black Knight has lost both arms and both legs.
White Knight is unscathed. Black Knight legs cut from under him , no arms to defend himself is bouncing on the forest floor screaming "Fight. Fight...You Filthy Coward!"
I am tempted to publish this morning's anonymous crop, if only to illustrate the meanness of spirit. There were five but no way of knowing if individuals made the effort or one person drew on every resource to compose all five.
I decided the world would not be improved. If they want that stuff read, let them create their own web site and readership.
They could provide a link to Hugo Kroon's Blog and happily wallow in the muck together.
Saturday, 25 July 2009
Summer Time and The Living is Easy
Sometimes I sit and think
And sometimes I just sit
It was the caption under a picture of a white Sealyham terrier, head tilted , on a calender in my grandmother's house. I don't remember which wall or even which room. Just the picture and the caption . I have seen it of course many times since.
I thought of it when I was sitting on my deck this week. It occurred to me a dog never just sits. A dog is forever watchful and aware. Their eyes are full of intelligence and inquiry. Speak to them, about things they understand, they know the words .Many of their senses are superior to our own.
For some reason, my thoughts wandered to how children's nursery rhymes are a recount of some horrible event. Ring-a-Ring o' Rosy depicts the Great Plague during the Middle-ages.
Recently I learned Little Red Riding Hood was an account of rape and murder.
I wakened this morning thinking about Snow-white and the Wicked Step-mother Queen
whose magic mirror on the wall assured her daily she was the fairest of them all. Then
one day when she asked, the mirror gave Queenie the terrible news; Snow-White is the fairest of all.
It could not be allowed. The Wicked Queen called the Woodsman and told him to take Snow-White deep into the woods and kill her. Y'all know the rest. Hundreds of years later, Disney made a full-length movie from the fable, first in techni-colour I believe.
History always repeats itself.
Here in Aurora, a person with power suffers under the delusion of being supreme. Nowhere in her ambit can anyone be permitted who has greater knowledge,better education or more experience. Only lackeys, sycophants and lesser stars must be permitted to circulate within her orbit .They detract nothing from her brilliance. .
At the time Snow White became a legend the main character was not the Wicked Queen. The story was about purity and innocence, beautiful Snow White, the Seven Dwarfs and the Handsome Prince who came to find her and presumably made her his Queen.
It was about the triumph of good over evil.
In this place and at this time, we watch the old story play out. The Queen who must be the only star in the firmament, the axe-wielding woodsman, the hag with the poisoned apple, the whole shebang.
A couple of chapters are yet to be written..
The end is not yet in sight. There will no doubt be a few more twists and turns.
I look forward to following it but the end is predictable I'll wager.
And sometimes I just sit
It was the caption under a picture of a white Sealyham terrier, head tilted , on a calender in my grandmother's house. I don't remember which wall or even which room. Just the picture and the caption . I have seen it of course many times since.
I thought of it when I was sitting on my deck this week. It occurred to me a dog never just sits. A dog is forever watchful and aware. Their eyes are full of intelligence and inquiry. Speak to them, about things they understand, they know the words .Many of their senses are superior to our own.
For some reason, my thoughts wandered to how children's nursery rhymes are a recount of some horrible event. Ring-a-Ring o' Rosy depicts the Great Plague during the Middle-ages.
Recently I learned Little Red Riding Hood was an account of rape and murder.
I wakened this morning thinking about Snow-white and the Wicked Step-mother Queen
whose magic mirror on the wall assured her daily she was the fairest of them all. Then
one day when she asked, the mirror gave Queenie the terrible news; Snow-White is the fairest of all.
It could not be allowed. The Wicked Queen called the Woodsman and told him to take Snow-White deep into the woods and kill her. Y'all know the rest. Hundreds of years later, Disney made a full-length movie from the fable, first in techni-colour I believe.
History always repeats itself.
Here in Aurora, a person with power suffers under the delusion of being supreme. Nowhere in her ambit can anyone be permitted who has greater knowledge,better education or more experience. Only lackeys, sycophants and lesser stars must be permitted to circulate within her orbit .They detract nothing from her brilliance. .
At the time Snow White became a legend the main character was not the Wicked Queen. The story was about purity and innocence, beautiful Snow White, the Seven Dwarfs and the Handsome Prince who came to find her and presumably made her his Queen.
It was about the triumph of good over evil.
In this place and at this time, we watch the old story play out. The Queen who must be the only star in the firmament, the axe-wielding woodsman, the hag with the poisoned apple, the whole shebang.
A couple of chapters are yet to be written..
The end is not yet in sight. There will no doubt be a few more twists and turns.
I look forward to following it but the end is predictable I'll wager.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Information That Might Come in Handy
A line on the twenty-four hour news channel noted a charge of intoxication against the husband of Vaughan Mayor was QUIETLY withdrawn by the Crown Attorney.
People can read into the word "quietly" whatever was intended. My own reaction was immediate. It triggered another memory.
Such a charge can only be laid by the officer present at the scene. He must describe details
and circumstances to support the charge. He may consult with the duty sergeant but only he/she can lay the charge.
He does not prosecute. That's the job of the Crown Attorney. The police officer is a witness in court proceedings.
Theoretically, the crown attorney must examine the charge and determine if the evidence is sufficient to support it before the case proceeds to trial.
The lawyer for the defence has a right to examine the charge and supporting evidence .
Since the charge was withdrawn against the husband of Vaughan Mayor one might reasonably assume the defence counsel successfully argued the evidence was insufficient to support the specific charge.
Withdrawing the charge might just have been the wisest course of action.
I had the opportunity once to ask a lawyer the question:
At what point does the Crown Attorney examine the charge and decide if the evidence supports it?
He swung his chair around to gaze at the impressive law books on the shelves behind him and thoughtfully responded:
"That's a very good question,Evelyn."
It was a parrying response which became familiar over the years.
I am reminded of it every time I read of clogged courts , overcrowded jails and people released because "justice delayed is justice denied"
When I read of the need for more judges, more courts, more crown attorneys and ever more servants on the public payroll I am reminded of my experience.
On the occasion ,I spent memorable hours going from lawyers' offices, a police station , crown attorney's office, the library on the top floor of the new court house. Three appearances in court; the last acting as defence mother.
A thousand dollars expended would have been more than fifteen had I gone with the first lawyer, a Queen's Counsel. Four hundred and fifty for the second and a day in court when nothing at all happened .
All to argue against a charge which never at any time had a scintilla of evidence to support it.
People can read into the word "quietly" whatever was intended. My own reaction was immediate. It triggered another memory.
Such a charge can only be laid by the officer present at the scene. He must describe details
and circumstances to support the charge. He may consult with the duty sergeant but only he/she can lay the charge.
He does not prosecute. That's the job of the Crown Attorney. The police officer is a witness in court proceedings.
Theoretically, the crown attorney must examine the charge and determine if the evidence is sufficient to support it before the case proceeds to trial.
The lawyer for the defence has a right to examine the charge and supporting evidence .
Since the charge was withdrawn against the husband of Vaughan Mayor one might reasonably assume the defence counsel successfully argued the evidence was insufficient to support the specific charge.
Withdrawing the charge might just have been the wisest course of action.
I had the opportunity once to ask a lawyer the question:
At what point does the Crown Attorney examine the charge and decide if the evidence supports it?
He swung his chair around to gaze at the impressive law books on the shelves behind him and thoughtfully responded:
"That's a very good question,Evelyn."
It was a parrying response which became familiar over the years.
I am reminded of it every time I read of clogged courts , overcrowded jails and people released because "justice delayed is justice denied"
When I read of the need for more judges, more courts, more crown attorneys and ever more servants on the public payroll I am reminded of my experience.
On the occasion ,I spent memorable hours going from lawyers' offices, a police station , crown attorney's office, the library on the top floor of the new court house. Three appearances in court; the last acting as defence mother.
A thousand dollars expended would have been more than fifteen had I gone with the first lawyer, a Queen's Counsel. Four hundred and fifty for the second and a day in court when nothing at all happened .
All to argue against a charge which never at any time had a scintilla of evidence to support it.
Monday, 20 July 2009
An Invitation
The Mayor is hosting a reception in the Holland Room at the Town Hall ay 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday
July 21st 2000 for the July 1st Canada Day Parade sub-committee for their generous volunteer commitment. Refreshments will be served.
A presentation will also be made during the Council Meeting, following the reception.
July 21st 2000 for the July 1st Canada Day Parade sub-committee for their generous volunteer commitment. Refreshments will be served.
A presentation will also be made during the Council Meeting, following the reception.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Like a Whirling Dervish
Politics in Aurora has never been thus . I am accused of being responsible for legal costs incurred by the Mayor and followers since the election.
The first two lawyers, were retained to pursue an action against the former Mayor and political rival. It came to nought. Costs were never revealed.
The latest adjective used against me is "relentless". I am accused of pursuing "those two women" Mayor Morris and Councillor MacEachern, the same who pursued the former Mayor, and made it eminently clear even before the election who were friends and who were not.
Relentless is not a character flaw in a politician. It's important to know your enemies. I make no apology for being focussed. I play the cards I am dealt. The game is not over until the term ends.
If legal costs incurred by the Mayor and followers are my responsibility, why is there such determination to keep them a secret?
Once I asked a question in Council; the Mayor scolded from the chair and said I should not speculate.
I answered respectfully: " Madam Mayor I asked a simple straightforward question. If I do not get the answer I will speculate". I got the answer.
I now speculate hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended on legal costs by this Mayor and her followers.
Aurora taxpayers have never carried such a burden before. . It is not carried elsewhere in the Region that I have been able to uncover. Or perhaps, even in the Province of Ontario.
I asked the town solicitor to provide me with all legal costs for 2007/8/9. He said yes, but would I mind if he spoke to the Chief Administrative Officer. I did not mind. .
Why would I ? I asked for information which is part of the public record. The solicitor is free to talk to anybody .
After a day or two, I received a call saying the figures were forthcoming but it would take a couple of days.
"Would that be acceptable Councillor?"
Why not? I could not imagine in this day and age, why the figures were not on hand. But a relentless person tends to be patient.
Next was the submission to Council of an Interim Financial Report from the Chief Financial Officer. In non-sequitor, a comment from Councillor Wilson introduced the issue of legal costs. From there, on an equally divergent path, came a motion from the Councillor seconded by Councillor MacEachern, directing the following report be submitted.
"That the Director of Finance and the Town Solicitor prepare a report to Council which indicates on an issue basis, the totals of the year to date and of the projected expenditures for the legal services line under the CAO's office."
Was there a connection to my request? I decided it bore no relevance. Giving the benefit of doubt to staff, I did not vote in opposition to a seemingly innocuous motion.
However, subsequent communication from the town solicitor removed all doubt. He informed me I would not receive legal costs for 2007/8/9 as requested. The resolution of council expressly prohibited him from providing them,he said.
Now, I thought. There's an interesting kettle of fish?
The phrase brings back one of those childhood memory flashes I talked about in a recent post; I was seven, living in my grandparent's house. There was an explosion of laughter from adults in the house at my expense:
I had intended to say "I have a bone to pick with you " I forget now who or why.
Instead I said; "I have a herring to pick with you "
Herring is a fish with a thousand bones, difficult to eat . Split open,filleted, coated in oatmeal, fried and served with mashed potatoes, it's a tasty, nourishing meal and inexpensive.My grandmother told the story once of a shoal of herring coming into the harbour and staying for weeks. People were lifting herring out of the water by the bucketful.
At the time of my tale, I was seven ,for goodness sake, I deserved marks for trying. The right words would have given force and drama to my argument. But it was part of my family dynamics... in an argument... no holds were barred.... no quarter given. Old or young, the rules were the same.
So ... in response to the question asked frequently by taxpayers; how much has been spent by the Mayor and her supporters for legal support to provide comfort and relief in their own affliction?
The information, has been requested and refused by the town solicitor.
When I made my request, I was assured the information would be provided. Mr.Cooper asked only if I minded if he spoke to the Chief Administrator. Subsequently there was direction from council which bore no relevance to my request but was deliberately planned and apparently intended to be used as a rationale to refuse to provide the information requested.
Now you know everything I know. Until further proceedings.
The first two lawyers, were retained to pursue an action against the former Mayor and political rival. It came to nought. Costs were never revealed.
The latest adjective used against me is "relentless". I am accused of pursuing "those two women" Mayor Morris and Councillor MacEachern, the same who pursued the former Mayor, and made it eminently clear even before the election who were friends and who were not.
Relentless is not a character flaw in a politician. It's important to know your enemies. I make no apology for being focussed. I play the cards I am dealt. The game is not over until the term ends.
If legal costs incurred by the Mayor and followers are my responsibility, why is there such determination to keep them a secret?
Once I asked a question in Council; the Mayor scolded from the chair and said I should not speculate.
I answered respectfully: " Madam Mayor I asked a simple straightforward question. If I do not get the answer I will speculate". I got the answer.
I now speculate hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended on legal costs by this Mayor and her followers.
Aurora taxpayers have never carried such a burden before. . It is not carried elsewhere in the Region that I have been able to uncover. Or perhaps, even in the Province of Ontario.
I asked the town solicitor to provide me with all legal costs for 2007/8/9. He said yes, but would I mind if he spoke to the Chief Administrative Officer. I did not mind. .
Why would I ? I asked for information which is part of the public record. The solicitor is free to talk to anybody .
After a day or two, I received a call saying the figures were forthcoming but it would take a couple of days.
"Would that be acceptable Councillor?"
Why not? I could not imagine in this day and age, why the figures were not on hand. But a relentless person tends to be patient.
Next was the submission to Council of an Interim Financial Report from the Chief Financial Officer. In non-sequitor, a comment from Councillor Wilson introduced the issue of legal costs. From there, on an equally divergent path, came a motion from the Councillor seconded by Councillor MacEachern, directing the following report be submitted.
"That the Director of Finance and the Town Solicitor prepare a report to Council which indicates on an issue basis, the totals of the year to date and of the projected expenditures for the legal services line under the CAO's office."
Was there a connection to my request? I decided it bore no relevance. Giving the benefit of doubt to staff, I did not vote in opposition to a seemingly innocuous motion.
However, subsequent communication from the town solicitor removed all doubt. He informed me I would not receive legal costs for 2007/8/9 as requested. The resolution of council expressly prohibited him from providing them,he said.
Now, I thought. There's an interesting kettle of fish?
The phrase brings back one of those childhood memory flashes I talked about in a recent post; I was seven, living in my grandparent's house. There was an explosion of laughter from adults in the house at my expense:
I had intended to say "I have a bone to pick with you " I forget now who or why.
Instead I said; "I have a herring to pick with you "
Herring is a fish with a thousand bones, difficult to eat . Split open,filleted, coated in oatmeal, fried and served with mashed potatoes, it's a tasty, nourishing meal and inexpensive.My grandmother told the story once of a shoal of herring coming into the harbour and staying for weeks. People were lifting herring out of the water by the bucketful.
At the time of my tale, I was seven ,for goodness sake, I deserved marks for trying. The right words would have given force and drama to my argument. But it was part of my family dynamics... in an argument... no holds were barred.... no quarter given. Old or young, the rules were the same.
So ... in response to the question asked frequently by taxpayers; how much has been spent by the Mayor and her supporters for legal support to provide comfort and relief in their own affliction?
The information, has been requested and refused by the town solicitor.
When I made my request, I was assured the information would be provided. Mr.Cooper asked only if I minded if he spoke to the Chief Administrator. Subsequently there was direction from council which bore no relevance to my request but was deliberately planned and apparently intended to be used as a rationale to refuse to provide the information requested.
Now you know everything I know. Until further proceedings.
Thursday, 16 July 2009
An Aurora Anachronism
Last week,on the news, was an image of a beautiful young woman ,in the flower of her youth,dying in the arms of a friend on a city street in Iran.
She had been shot by "security forces" of her country on the orders of her government. Many precious young people, the future of our world, have declared themselves willing to die for freedom in that country.As in others.
She had been demonstrating for the right for her vote to count in the country's election
A few weeks ago, beautiful girl children in Afghanistan, faces scarred from acid thrown at them for persisting in their determination to attend school, were also featured in world news.
From Afghanistan, bodies of young Canadians, in the service of our country, having been murdered in a conflict which observes no rules. They are brought home to their familes on a ; fathers, sons, brothers, husbands;mothers,wives, daughters and sisters; young Canadians sent to help bring to the people of Afghanistan the freedom we enjoy.
In Aurora, Ontario. in 2009, under the leadership of Mayor Phylis Morris and five out of nine councillor members , we have unflagging determination, at public expense, to deny the basic right of freedom of expression to one particular individual.
Anonymous comments are posted to a Citizen Blog to support the endeavour. A "legal test" is necessary to determine " limits" to freedom of speech, they say.
They are not sufficiently secure to put their name to their views although they are certain a person who does should be stopped.
This morning, a comment is posted; there needs to be restriction on "nature, spin and content". Freedom should be for "civil discourse" only.
As an example, exception is taken to the title of my last post.
"Ladida Ladida"
The writer complains I am having fun while others are concerned about taxes having to be spent to bring me under the control of the Mayor and her followers.
The argument confounds me.
She had been shot by "security forces" of her country on the orders of her government. Many precious young people, the future of our world, have declared themselves willing to die for freedom in that country.As in others.
She had been demonstrating for the right for her vote to count in the country's election
A few weeks ago, beautiful girl children in Afghanistan, faces scarred from acid thrown at them for persisting in their determination to attend school, were also featured in world news.
From Afghanistan, bodies of young Canadians, in the service of our country, having been murdered in a conflict which observes no rules. They are brought home to their familes on a ; fathers, sons, brothers, husbands;mothers,wives, daughters and sisters; young Canadians sent to help bring to the people of Afghanistan the freedom we enjoy.
In Aurora, Ontario. in 2009, under the leadership of Mayor Phylis Morris and five out of nine councillor members , we have unflagging determination, at public expense, to deny the basic right of freedom of expression to one particular individual.
Anonymous comments are posted to a Citizen Blog to support the endeavour. A "legal test" is necessary to determine " limits" to freedom of speech, they say.
They are not sufficiently secure to put their name to their views although they are certain a person who does should be stopped.
This morning, a comment is posted; there needs to be restriction on "nature, spin and content". Freedom should be for "civil discourse" only.
As an example, exception is taken to the title of my last post.
"Ladida Ladida"
The writer complains I am having fun while others are concerned about taxes having to be spent to bring me under the control of the Mayor and her followers.
The argument confounds me.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
La-di-da La-di-da
I received an e-mail requesting I correct my records. I had received a letter to which I responded formally, copied in a Blog and forwarded as a letter to the Editor of The Auroran . The Mayor's correction stated her letter came from Council not the Mayor.
I regretted I was unable to accommodate the request since there was no record of Council's authority to send the letter . The Mayor responded there was.
Yes, well, but I have a problem with that. A Council is deemed to have legislated either by Resolution or Bylaw. Bylaws must bear the Seal of the Corporation over-written by the signature of the Clerk of the Municipality. Decisions are confirmed by Bylaw, in case any strings are left hanging, so to speak.
There is no record of a vote to authorise a letter.
The Mayor's request presents another problem; lines provided for signatures at the end of the aforementioned letter on the Mayor's stationery number eight. Aurora Council has nine members.
If a document fails to cite the relevant Resolution or Bylaw and has not been circulated to ALL Members of Council, I would contend it has no official status.
Though it can be deemed to be a statement of intent by six individuals who happen to be members of Aurora Council.
Material in the letter was produced through services rendered by a lawyer with municipal expertise. The decision to retain his services was by vote in open council. The purpose was not stated. Deliberations were conducted behind closed doors. No report out to Council took place. No resolution put forward for further action. No vote taken. Nothing confirmed by Bylaw.
It follows therefore no authority was given for an informal complaint under the Code on Conduct written by a lawyer and signed by six individuals to be processed in a letter. Council authority may not be assumed.
Further to that, if additional services by the lawyer were not authorised, payment of same becomes questionable. On what basis does the Chief Financial Officer issue cheques from the town treasury for services rendered without proper authorisation.The Procurement Bylaw does not permit.
How can the Municipality be liable for cost if service was not duly authorised?
A formal complaint bearing the same six signatures has now, I understand, been forwarded to the Town's Integrity Commissioner.
When Council votes , the Clerk of the Municipality is responsible to prepare the public record "without note or comment. Processing decisions takes matters from the political to the Administration which makes the process corporate.
Traditionally, a Mayor has the Clerk of the Municipality at her elbow. If a council debate takes a direction likely to prove impossible to administer for any reason , the clerk thereby has the opportunity to discreetly alert the Presiding Member without entering the political debate.
Since the Town has had a Chief Administrative Officer, the practice has been for the Presiding Member to be flanked by both Officers of the Corporation. If the debate might be taking council beyond their realm of jurisdiction, the opportunity was there for discreet re-direction.
This mayor decided early in the term the arrangement did not suit her. Both officers now occupy seats at sufficient distance to ensure little interference with the Mayor's and Councillor MacEachern's jurisdiction .
We have a situation where Officers of the Corporation are regularly instructed in detail how to carry out their function by politicians...mostly the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern.
As we can see, from the current situation, with calamitous result.
Six members of council with no administrative guidance or involvement whatsoever, and with murky intent have engineered an expensive process for an objective which has not been stated and results which cannot be ascertained to be in the interest of the Corporation .
And the tab is still mounting.
.
.
I regretted I was unable to accommodate the request since there was no record of Council's authority to send the letter . The Mayor responded there was.
Yes, well, but I have a problem with that. A Council is deemed to have legislated either by Resolution or Bylaw. Bylaws must bear the Seal of the Corporation over-written by the signature of the Clerk of the Municipality. Decisions are confirmed by Bylaw, in case any strings are left hanging, so to speak.
There is no record of a vote to authorise a letter.
The Mayor's request presents another problem; lines provided for signatures at the end of the aforementioned letter on the Mayor's stationery number eight. Aurora Council has nine members.
If a document fails to cite the relevant Resolution or Bylaw and has not been circulated to ALL Members of Council, I would contend it has no official status.
Though it can be deemed to be a statement of intent by six individuals who happen to be members of Aurora Council.
Material in the letter was produced through services rendered by a lawyer with municipal expertise. The decision to retain his services was by vote in open council. The purpose was not stated. Deliberations were conducted behind closed doors. No report out to Council took place. No resolution put forward for further action. No vote taken. Nothing confirmed by Bylaw.
It follows therefore no authority was given for an informal complaint under the Code on Conduct written by a lawyer and signed by six individuals to be processed in a letter. Council authority may not be assumed.
Further to that, if additional services by the lawyer were not authorised, payment of same becomes questionable. On what basis does the Chief Financial Officer issue cheques from the town treasury for services rendered without proper authorisation.The Procurement Bylaw does not permit.
How can the Municipality be liable for cost if service was not duly authorised?
A formal complaint bearing the same six signatures has now, I understand, been forwarded to the Town's Integrity Commissioner.
When Council votes , the Clerk of the Municipality is responsible to prepare the public record "without note or comment. Processing decisions takes matters from the political to the Administration which makes the process corporate.
Traditionally, a Mayor has the Clerk of the Municipality at her elbow. If a council debate takes a direction likely to prove impossible to administer for any reason , the clerk thereby has the opportunity to discreetly alert the Presiding Member without entering the political debate.
Since the Town has had a Chief Administrative Officer, the practice has been for the Presiding Member to be flanked by both Officers of the Corporation. If the debate might be taking council beyond their realm of jurisdiction, the opportunity was there for discreet re-direction.
This mayor decided early in the term the arrangement did not suit her. Both officers now occupy seats at sufficient distance to ensure little interference with the Mayor's and Councillor MacEachern's jurisdiction .
We have a situation where Officers of the Corporation are regularly instructed in detail how to carry out their function by politicians...mostly the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern.
As we can see, from the current situation, with calamitous result.
Six members of council with no administrative guidance or involvement whatsoever, and with murky intent have engineered an expensive process for an objective which has not been stated and results which cannot be ascertained to be in the interest of the Corporation .
And the tab is still mounting.
.
.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Next Chapter
It's about thirty months of knowing it's wrong and unable to do a thing about it. It's about having five councillors who support their leader no matter what. Their fate is tied.They have to believe, she who must be obeyed must be right.
Others found because I was the only one saying it and it is too incredible to believe that it could in fact be true Of course at some point I stop repeating what I know to be true. It's like spitting into the wind.
Like Shirley Valentine, kitchen wall and rock on a beach on an island in the Aegean Sea, I always have Blog for confidences.
Staff knew but it didn't matter a hill of beans what they said. She would do it anyway and they have the inhibiting factor of walking the plank, or more likely, being escorted from the premises.
Traditionally, municipal people have the next election to anticipate relief from change. There's an awareness of that between politicians and public servants. It doesn't always sit easy. Things are even less comfortable with four years in between. It's a long time to hold the fort.
It's ironic. No other level of government has fixed terms of four years. Stephen Harper passed a law to that effect and broke it within months. Both senior levels have the opportunity to caucus out of sight and sound. If they break the law, they can re-write the law to fit. If there's a serious challenge of confidence, they can call an election. If they generate scandal across the land, the opposition and the media go into full cry and judgment rests with the electorate.
Being alone on a particular issue is not unusual. It happened throughout my career. It was never lonesome. There were always people who trusted my judgement .Others who respected the fact I stood my ground. Always as now, they kept me informed of their support and encouragement.
Then of course, there was time. Time to prove I was right.
But I never said "I told you so." For one thing, it was no satisfaction. Being right and not being able to persuade others is failure of sorts in politics.The guys would have been testy if I had gloated over their error and there was always the need to nurture the working relationship.
I could never tell what I thought of their competence which was just as well because they were equally likely to say what they thought of mine.It would have been an undignified exchange at best from which nobody could emerge unscathed.
Not like this term. The Mayor and her coterie, now somewhat shrunken, made it clear from the start there would be no working relationship. Whoever did not fall into line would be punished accordingly. For six months I made the effort to influence that attitude. But all was for nought. Their resolve was unshakable. So and thus, they set me free. It's been bare knuckles ever since.
Last week I spent a number of hours calling every municipality in York Region and one other. I asked the same question of each: What is the process in your municipality for retaining and communicating with legal counsel?
The answer was the same. Administration advises Council when services are needed. Council authorises. Communication from that point is between administrative staff and counsel retained Occasionally, if the situation merits, there may be direct conference with Council.
In NO municipality does a member of Council have unlimited and private communication with lawyers at public expense.
Except in Aurora.
In No municipality does Council retain legal services independent of advice from the administration.
Except Aurora
.
In No municipality does the Council retain legal services for political expediency
Except in Aurora.
Not every municipality has an in house solicitor. Most have a roster of firms to deal with items of specific expertise.
Mayor of King, Margaret Black, who is herself a solicitor, may on occasion consult a lawyer. She pays the bill herself.
In Vaughan , members of Council each have an office expense budget. It's probably the same in Richmond Hill and Markham. Each Councillor exercises judgement about how they use the resource. They don't have to but they publish on line how it's spent..
Over the years, I have served on councils with seven different Mayors, including myself. Our practice of communicating with legal counsel has always been, as it currently is, in neighbouring regional municipalities.
The Administration advises.. Council authorises. Direct communications from that point are between staff and legal counsel with reports submitted from staff to Council when necessary.
Mayor Phylis Morris is the first Mayor in Aurora and the only one in the Region who habitually
retains lawyers for political expediency and converses directly with counsel on corporate legal matters.
There is no indication she pays the costs she generates for legal expenses. In fact, when she retained legal counsel to make a futile case of wrongdoing against the former Mayor, she adamantly stated she had no intention of using her own resources.Two solicitors were involved over a period of two years with council never at any time having the opportunity to view the correspondence.
Others found because I was the only one saying it and it is too incredible to believe that it could in fact be true Of course at some point I stop repeating what I know to be true. It's like spitting into the wind.
Like Shirley Valentine, kitchen wall and rock on a beach on an island in the Aegean Sea, I always have Blog for confidences.
Staff knew but it didn't matter a hill of beans what they said. She would do it anyway and they have the inhibiting factor of walking the plank, or more likely, being escorted from the premises.
Traditionally, municipal people have the next election to anticipate relief from change. There's an awareness of that between politicians and public servants. It doesn't always sit easy. Things are even less comfortable with four years in between. It's a long time to hold the fort.
It's ironic. No other level of government has fixed terms of four years. Stephen Harper passed a law to that effect and broke it within months. Both senior levels have the opportunity to caucus out of sight and sound. If they break the law, they can re-write the law to fit. If there's a serious challenge of confidence, they can call an election. If they generate scandal across the land, the opposition and the media go into full cry and judgment rests with the electorate.
Being alone on a particular issue is not unusual. It happened throughout my career. It was never lonesome. There were always people who trusted my judgement .Others who respected the fact I stood my ground. Always as now, they kept me informed of their support and encouragement.
Then of course, there was time. Time to prove I was right.
But I never said "I told you so." For one thing, it was no satisfaction. Being right and not being able to persuade others is failure of sorts in politics.The guys would have been testy if I had gloated over their error and there was always the need to nurture the working relationship.
I could never tell what I thought of their competence which was just as well because they were equally likely to say what they thought of mine.It would have been an undignified exchange at best from which nobody could emerge unscathed.
Not like this term. The Mayor and her coterie, now somewhat shrunken, made it clear from the start there would be no working relationship. Whoever did not fall into line would be punished accordingly. For six months I made the effort to influence that attitude. But all was for nought. Their resolve was unshakable. So and thus, they set me free. It's been bare knuckles ever since.
Last week I spent a number of hours calling every municipality in York Region and one other. I asked the same question of each: What is the process in your municipality for retaining and communicating with legal counsel?
The answer was the same. Administration advises Council when services are needed. Council authorises. Communication from that point is between administrative staff and counsel retained Occasionally, if the situation merits, there may be direct conference with Council.
In NO municipality does a member of Council have unlimited and private communication with lawyers at public expense.
Except in Aurora.
In No municipality does Council retain legal services independent of advice from the administration.
Except Aurora
.
In No municipality does the Council retain legal services for political expediency
Except in Aurora.
Not every municipality has an in house solicitor. Most have a roster of firms to deal with items of specific expertise.
Mayor of King, Margaret Black, who is herself a solicitor, may on occasion consult a lawyer. She pays the bill herself.
In Vaughan , members of Council each have an office expense budget. It's probably the same in Richmond Hill and Markham. Each Councillor exercises judgement about how they use the resource. They don't have to but they publish on line how it's spent..
Over the years, I have served on councils with seven different Mayors, including myself. Our practice of communicating with legal counsel has always been, as it currently is, in neighbouring regional municipalities.
The Administration advises.. Council authorises. Direct communications from that point are between staff and legal counsel with reports submitted from staff to Council when necessary.
Mayor Phylis Morris is the first Mayor in Aurora and the only one in the Region who habitually
retains lawyers for political expediency and converses directly with counsel on corporate legal matters.
There is no indication she pays the costs she generates for legal expenses. In fact, when she retained legal counsel to make a futile case of wrongdoing against the former Mayor, she adamantly stated she had no intention of using her own resources.Two solicitors were involved over a period of two years with council never at any time having the opportunity to view the correspondence.
First Chapter
I gave a lot of thought to presentation of my quest to obtain figures for legal expenditures during this term of office. Then I decided I'm not Agatha Christie , this is not Miss Marple's latest adventure and there is no crime of murder.
The question of how much money has been spent on lawyers during this term is still outstanding. People have been asking for weeks now. I called the solicitor on June 22nd and requested documentation of all bills paid for legal services in 2007/2008/2009.
He indicated he would provide it but asked would I mind if he spoke to Mr. Garbe about it. I said "No"
Why would I? It was not a secret request for information that I did not have a right to receive. I did indicate however, I would mind if I didn't... receive it that is.
A couple of days went by. I received a call indicating the information was going to be provided but would take a couple of days to put together.
"Was that acceptable?" I was asked. " It was". I responded.
Still more days passed. I called again and left a message .
In response, I received an e-mail from the solicitor informing me of the denial of my request.
A resolution was cited. Passed unanimously by council on June 25th
"That the Director of Finance and the Town Solicitor prepare a report to Council which indicates on an issue by issue basis,the totals of the actual year to date and of projected expenditures for the legal services line under the CAO's office"
One might imagine the resolution was coincidence coming as it did three days after my request for the record of expenditures for the past thirty months. But the substance bore no relevance to my request or anything else for that matter.
Nevertheless, it was the reason given by the Solicitor for a refusal to provide information which is a matter of public record.
Following that, an e-mail was received from Councillor Wilson ,who had moved the resolution seconded by Councillor MacEachern.
The Councillor states his opinion: "request by phone is not only excessive work I would imagine but should be an issue brought to council rather than this way especially since we have a motion currently underway by staff to provide information."
It goes on: "If the councillor wanted more I don't understand why it wasn't debated at the table at the time? Nevertheless I believe the staff response is more than appropriate until we meet again."
In summary:
1. I asked the town solicitor for information which is a matter of public record .
2. A conversation was held with Mr. Garbe, the Town's Chief Administrative Officer.
3. Three days later an Interim Operating Budget Forecast was provided to Council by the Town's Director of Finance.
4. A discussion launched by Councillor Wilson, enjoined by Councillor MacEachern, resulted in an amending resolution,directing the Treasurer to prepare a report on" totals of the actual year to date and of the projected expenditures for legal services line under the CAO's office."
5. From whence came the Solicitor's refusal to provide information that any resident of the town is entitled to access.
6. In a letter, signed by six members of Council, sent to me on the Mayor's stationary, a paragraph reads by way of an informal complaint:
"Our town staff is hardworking,committed and conscientious in carrying out their responsibilities and duties on behalf of the Town. Their efforts are supported and greatly appreciated by Council. Your publications and statements appear to have unjustifiably and unnecessarily disparaged and maligned Town staff and must cease without delay."
It is my understanding this letter was written for the group by a lawyer paid for out of town resources.
Now.... on this matter, you know everything I know. Form your own conclusion.
The question of how much money has been spent on lawyers during this term is still outstanding. People have been asking for weeks now. I called the solicitor on June 22nd and requested documentation of all bills paid for legal services in 2007/2008/2009.
He indicated he would provide it but asked would I mind if he spoke to Mr. Garbe about it. I said "No"
Why would I? It was not a secret request for information that I did not have a right to receive. I did indicate however, I would mind if I didn't... receive it that is.
A couple of days went by. I received a call indicating the information was going to be provided but would take a couple of days to put together.
"Was that acceptable?" I was asked. " It was". I responded.
Still more days passed. I called again and left a message .
In response, I received an e-mail from the solicitor informing me of the denial of my request.
A resolution was cited. Passed unanimously by council on June 25th
"That the Director of Finance and the Town Solicitor prepare a report to Council which indicates on an issue by issue basis,the totals of the actual year to date and of projected expenditures for the legal services line under the CAO's office"
One might imagine the resolution was coincidence coming as it did three days after my request for the record of expenditures for the past thirty months. But the substance bore no relevance to my request or anything else for that matter.
Nevertheless, it was the reason given by the Solicitor for a refusal to provide information which is a matter of public record.
Following that, an e-mail was received from Councillor Wilson ,who had moved the resolution seconded by Councillor MacEachern.
The Councillor states his opinion: "request by phone is not only excessive work I would imagine but should be an issue brought to council rather than this way especially since we have a motion currently underway by staff to provide information."
It goes on: "If the councillor wanted more I don't understand why it wasn't debated at the table at the time? Nevertheless I believe the staff response is more than appropriate until we meet again."
In summary:
1. I asked the town solicitor for information which is a matter of public record .
2. A conversation was held with Mr. Garbe, the Town's Chief Administrative Officer.
3. Three days later an Interim Operating Budget Forecast was provided to Council by the Town's Director of Finance.
4. A discussion launched by Councillor Wilson, enjoined by Councillor MacEachern, resulted in an amending resolution,directing the Treasurer to prepare a report on" totals of the actual year to date and of the projected expenditures for legal services line under the CAO's office."
5. From whence came the Solicitor's refusal to provide information that any resident of the town is entitled to access.
6. In a letter, signed by six members of Council, sent to me on the Mayor's stationary, a paragraph reads by way of an informal complaint:
"Our town staff is hardworking,committed and conscientious in carrying out their responsibilities and duties on behalf of the Town. Their efforts are supported and greatly appreciated by Council. Your publications and statements appear to have unjustifiably and unnecessarily disparaged and maligned Town staff and must cease without delay."
It is my understanding this letter was written for the group by a lawyer paid for out of town resources.
Now.... on this matter, you know everything I know. Form your own conclusion.
Friday, 10 July 2009
A Quick Note
My garden was neglected last year . It always means double the effort to bring back a semblance of order. It is quite remarkable how quickly a garden can assume the character of wilderness if left unattended.
I like gardening. It's one of those contemplative endeavours that allow thoughts to roam while achieving immediate satisfaction of restoring physical order from chaos one piece at a time.
This year my daughter Heather is giving much of her time and I need to be alongside doing what I can. Even while thinking about how to keep readers up to date on town business. My daughters are both completely involved.
I previously indicated I had been assured that documentation of legal costs for the last three years would be forthcoming. Three times. On Wednesday I received an e-mail indicating my request is being denied due to a council resolution giving precise instructions to the Town Treasurer how to compile his report on legal expenditures.
Town expenditures are a matter of public record. Refusal of my request therefore is simply a matter of refusing to compile the material and provide it. The information cannot be withheld.
I will be dealing with that. Right now I have to hang out my laundry and do some tilling with the garden claw.
Yesterday and today, I've spent several hours on the phone to municipalities within the region and one without, to confirm my understanding, from long experience, how legal services and expenditures are handled.
Now I have to put the information in order , in order to write an orderly presentation .
Gardening will help with that and hanging out the laundry will help too.
Stay tuned.
.
I like gardening. It's one of those contemplative endeavours that allow thoughts to roam while achieving immediate satisfaction of restoring physical order from chaos one piece at a time.
This year my daughter Heather is giving much of her time and I need to be alongside doing what I can. Even while thinking about how to keep readers up to date on town business. My daughters are both completely involved.
I previously indicated I had been assured that documentation of legal costs for the last three years would be forthcoming. Three times. On Wednesday I received an e-mail indicating my request is being denied due to a council resolution giving precise instructions to the Town Treasurer how to compile his report on legal expenditures.
Town expenditures are a matter of public record. Refusal of my request therefore is simply a matter of refusing to compile the material and provide it. The information cannot be withheld.
I will be dealing with that. Right now I have to hang out my laundry and do some tilling with the garden claw.
Yesterday and today, I've spent several hours on the phone to municipalities within the region and one without, to confirm my understanding, from long experience, how legal services and expenditures are handled.
Now I have to put the information in order , in order to write an orderly presentation .
Gardening will help with that and hanging out the laundry will help too.
Stay tuned.
.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Red Tape Tangle
An e-mail went out to members of the Town's Heritage Committee on July 2nd, requesting availability for a special meeting on July 13th. The Committee was not scheduled until September. Fortunately five members are available so a meeting can proceed.
The committee has eight members. Two are Councillors. Five members are needed to form a quorum.
Application has been made to demolish a building on the Willow Farm property. It is listed by the town as "Of Interest" It's not "Designated".
According to the Heritage Act, the Municipality has sixty days to make a decision .If not decided in that time, a permit must be granted.
Last week, I had a call from Martin Paivio a former Councillor and a builder, inquiring about another property. This one I know. Thirty years ago, I learned the interior was in a seriously dilapidated state. Plaster on the walls was bulging and cracked. Old plaster has a bad smell. There is nothing appealing about the exterior either.
The new owner plans to build a School.
Imagine having made the decision to invest in a property ,demolish a crumbling ,malodorous old building to build anew and then discover the Heritage Committee will not be meeting for two months so your application can't even be considered for more than sixty days.
Imagine, the finances, the designs, the contractors that had to be lined up to make such a project feasible. Then being told; " Sorry, the committee won't be meeting for two months"
In the case of the second building, the problem could have been avoided. It's been for sale for at least twenty years. It took that long for the right buyer to come along. It's on Yonge Street. It's one of the many blights on that thoroughfare. .
So...how could this be ?
Well, we did it.
We had a heritage planner for a while who, in the heady excitement of the new Heritage Act, recommended listing everything in sight. Former Councillor Ron Wallace, a member of the Heritage Committee told me, when I questioned the practice, they would stick the label on me too if I would just stand still long enough.
We used to be able to take shots like that at each other in a political exchange without Vesuvius erupting and calling in lawyers..
So, why should I care? I didn't support the foolishness.
Well because it's not in the town's interest and it's not in the property owner's interest. If it isn't the function of a politician to see both sides of a situation, then I don't know if we even have a function.
I phoned Martin Paivio this morning and alerted him to the special meeting being held on July 13th.
I e-mailed the Chief Building Official and brought attention to the matter. I may even go to the committee meeting and point out the problem of listing every old bachle of a building as of "Interest" and senselessly delaying renewal for weeks or months as a consequence.Or worse. losing private investment altogether. It has happened. Repeatedly.
I may even quote from the consultant , to whom we paid $75k to study the downtown and made an interim presentation a couple of weeks ago. He talked about giving" bonuses" to developers in return for extra resources to the municipality.
Dear Lord, we can't even give some of them permits in a reasonable time frame.
Saturday, 4 July 2009
The Enclosed
The letter below was delivered to the Town Hall yesterday evening.
My understanding of town business which may be discussed behind closed doors and why, is quite clear.It's not an extensive list.
Strategy by a group of councillors against a single councillor is not within the definition
A correction is needed in the letter below. Mr. Mascarin's report was twenty-three pages not thirty-eight as stated. The number is significant .
I received the Mayor's letter on Tuesday at a Joint Council Fire Committee. An arm came from behind and placed three items on the table before me ; a copy of the contract signed on June 18th with Mr. Nitkin the Town's Integrity Commissioner (requested by me); a bookmark promoting the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast; an envelope of the Mayor's stationery marked "Confidential". The letter was not so marked.
There have been many "firsts" during this term of office. Council retaining legal counsel for purposes separate from the corporation for example:
There was a two year unsuccessful effort to hang a crime on the former Mayor.Letters were exchanged but not shared with Council and there was finally a conference with one of the lawyers retained for that issue.
There was an unproven issue of a leak from an in-camera meeting
Then the question of whether or not the municipality should hold a by-election to fill a vacancy.
It apparently required the assistance of lawyer Mascarin to adroitly shepherd it through the council debate and decision-making process.
An understanding of the phrase "the process was tainted" proved difficult for the Mayor and co-horts to comprehend and required a solicitor to advise and eventually conference with Council.
Further down the road , the question of whether or not a town management team of three had authority to approve payment to a contractor for corrective work he carried out promptly and efficiently to the ARC complex bulkhead;
Now this; a political strategy to discredit a council colleague.
That's just the stuff I know for sure about.
When I asked for a statement of the account for the first matter, it was provided promptly. The amount was $16,200. The Mayor indicated further assistance was provided later by the same solicitor so that account was obviously interim.
In June of 2008, I requested legal costs incurred by the Mayor's office, since the beginning of the term. I received invoices for corporate legal costs from Jan 1st to May's end of 2008. None for specific costs incurred by the Mayor's office.
Being aware of the environment it seemed to me, staff were caught between a rock and a hard place. I decided to await an opportunity which would not compromise staff security. I am
currently assured the information on costs in 2007/8/9 are forthcoming.
Meanwhile, I examined the last invoice I received to see what might be gleaned. It was a Weir and Foulds batch dealing with the proposed Westhill golf course/town house development proposal.
Phone calls are listed by the minute. E-mails by the batch and minutes calculated accordingly .
Mileage and a variety of other interesting details were there.
I found a flat $5k charge for each conference with council. Fifty minute phone "conferences" with the Mayor. An e-mail from Susan Walmer and multiple e-mails from the Mayor. And all the to and fro and back and forth between relevant staff and other parties.
I haven't attempted a calculation. It was after all but a brief glimpse of an issue which has occupied thousands of hours of legal and other expertise in various fields as well as the Mayor and friend Susan Walmer.
If I recall correctly, the 2008 budget included a $250k reserve for legal services. At close of year, the department budget had been fully expended and the reserve went with it.
We are not talking about nickels and dimes . We are talking factors of millions.
Today, I was informed a single page of legal documentation costs $1k
We already know a conference with council costs $5k.
You do the math.
My understanding of town business which may be discussed behind closed doors and why, is quite clear.It's not an extensive list.
Strategy by a group of councillors against a single councillor is not within the definition
A correction is needed in the letter below. Mr. Mascarin's report was twenty-three pages not thirty-eight as stated. The number is significant .
I received the Mayor's letter on Tuesday at a Joint Council Fire Committee. An arm came from behind and placed three items on the table before me ; a copy of the contract signed on June 18th with Mr. Nitkin the Town's Integrity Commissioner (requested by me); a bookmark promoting the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast; an envelope of the Mayor's stationery marked "Confidential". The letter was not so marked.
There have been many "firsts" during this term of office. Council retaining legal counsel for purposes separate from the corporation for example:
There was a two year unsuccessful effort to hang a crime on the former Mayor.Letters were exchanged but not shared with Council and there was finally a conference with one of the lawyers retained for that issue.
There was an unproven issue of a leak from an in-camera meeting
Then the question of whether or not the municipality should hold a by-election to fill a vacancy.
It apparently required the assistance of lawyer Mascarin to adroitly shepherd it through the council debate and decision-making process.
An understanding of the phrase "the process was tainted" proved difficult for the Mayor and co-horts to comprehend and required a solicitor to advise and eventually conference with Council.
Further down the road , the question of whether or not a town management team of three had authority to approve payment to a contractor for corrective work he carried out promptly and efficiently to the ARC complex bulkhead;
Now this; a political strategy to discredit a council colleague.
That's just the stuff I know for sure about.
When I asked for a statement of the account for the first matter, it was provided promptly. The amount was $16,200. The Mayor indicated further assistance was provided later by the same solicitor so that account was obviously interim.
In June of 2008, I requested legal costs incurred by the Mayor's office, since the beginning of the term. I received invoices for corporate legal costs from Jan 1st to May's end of 2008. None for specific costs incurred by the Mayor's office.
Being aware of the environment it seemed to me, staff were caught between a rock and a hard place. I decided to await an opportunity which would not compromise staff security. I am
currently assured the information on costs in 2007/8/9 are forthcoming.
Meanwhile, I examined the last invoice I received to see what might be gleaned. It was a Weir and Foulds batch dealing with the proposed Westhill golf course/town house development proposal.
Phone calls are listed by the minute. E-mails by the batch and minutes calculated accordingly .
Mileage and a variety of other interesting details were there.
I found a flat $5k charge for each conference with council. Fifty minute phone "conferences" with the Mayor. An e-mail from Susan Walmer and multiple e-mails from the Mayor. And all the to and fro and back and forth between relevant staff and other parties.
I haven't attempted a calculation. It was after all but a brief glimpse of an issue which has occupied thousands of hours of legal and other expertise in various fields as well as the Mayor and friend Susan Walmer.
If I recall correctly, the 2008 budget included a $250k reserve for legal services. At close of year, the department budget had been fully expended and the reserve went with it.
We are not talking about nickels and dimes . We are talking factors of millions.
Today, I was informed a single page of legal documentation costs $1k
We already know a conference with council costs $5k.
You do the math.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Letter To The Mayor
Madam Mayor,
I acknowledge your letter of Tuesday June 30th, 2009 and respond herewith:
I note six signatures appended and three pages of content ending with formal demands to be met by a deadline of 4:30pm on July 4th, 2009.
The document presents as an “informal” complaint under the Code of Conduct.
Yet once again a solicitor has been retained at a cost of thousands of dollars to provide political justification for your relentless endeavor to pursue the objective that no negative comment or criticism shall be permitted to emanate from a councillor to reflect against decisions made by this council during your term of office.
Three council members including you were delegated to meet with lawyer John Mascarin to instruct him on precise requirements expected.
He was provided with DVDs of council meetings, blog posts, letters to the editor and comments to the Aurora Citizen blog to be examined and report on how my statements may have contravened the Code of Conduct and the Town's Procedural Bylaw.
I have read the thirty-eight page report submitted by Mr. Mascarin. I find it to be without substance. No definitive findings are articulated
Assertions are qualified by the phrase “appears to mean”. No facts are thereby established.
He further asserts that “many” of my statements are “factually incorrect”. Such non-specific references lead to no conclusions.
My sense of propriety suggests, if I provided evidence of your action to a solicitor, there is a distinct possibility, Madam Mayor, that having a councillor investigated in this fashion is not within your authority and is in fact quite outrageous.
At the heart of it, I view the matter as an attack on my right to free expression as a citizen and as a Councillor to communicate with the people I serve. The electorate's right to be informed of my position on issues that come before council is paramount on my list of priorities.
Using public funds to have an elected official investigated to support an issue of strictly political significance is in my view a gross abuse of public resources.
The Code of Conduct and the requirement for each member of council to sign the document by deadline is once again referenced in your letter.
An opinion previously provided to Council by Ms Virginia McLean, acting town solicitor, has advised the requirement cannot be enforced. Therefore it has no validity.
I regard specific wording in the Code as an attempt to restrict freedom and the responsibility of a councillor to disagree or critique the actions of Council for better understanding within the community.
A refusal on my part to accept a staff recommendation on occasion does not signify disrespect. It is my duty to exercise judgment in issues that come before Council and cast my vote accordingly. There is no requirement to provide a rationale yet I regularly do so for the better understanding of the community we both serve.
My appreciation for the role of staff in the daily operation of the corporation and provision of services to the community has been honed by many years of experience.
My ethics are secure.
Onn the other hand,treatment afforded staff by you, Councillors MacEachern, Gaertner, Granger, Gallo and Wilson during this term, does not persuade me I have anything to learn from your perception of the basic principle of fairness.
I do not accept the Corporation can be or is damaged by frank and free exchange of views. Even if a minority of one on occasion, as part of the Corporation. my views are entitled to register.
At considerable expense, and to my mind - questionable purpose, the services of Mr. George Rust-D’Eye were retained early in the term. He recommended the Code of Conduct and an Integrity Commissioner be retained.
In October of 2008 an appointment was made and a Commissioner has been on retainer for the past eight months. On June 18th a contract was signed. Previous offers to provide educational workshops met with opposition and refusal by three members of council including you.
The Commissioner has indicated the Code is in need of review.
I note the expression of frustration made by a Councillor during the meeting with Mr. Mascarin, about how “awkward” it was to be planning strategy against a Councillor with said Councillor present. Incredibly, acknowledgment of what was taking place alerted none of the parties to the unseemliness of the process.
Madam Mayor, given that our political principles are a canyon width apart, it is not exceptional we might find ourselves at odds on many issues.
I submit there is nothing untoward in the situation. Except that your reluctance to accept the reality of politics creates an additional and unnecessary tension within Council.
Continued expenditures for legal services to pound a councillor into submission might be justified if you were using your own resources. It would not likely be more successful.
The day a Councillor of the Town of Aurora is not free to speak and write her mind, is the day I shall lose interest in participating in the governing process.
I shall go down fighting before that happens.
Sadly, the climate you have created within the Administration is tortuous in the extreme. My sympathies are with staff. There can be little professional satisfaction in the obligation to be silent witnesses to regular and degrading public demonstrations of hostility and gamesmanship at the council table.
Or to know their inevitable fate, if they fail to accede to your direction.
You have set the precedent.
In conclusion,I find nothing of merit in your complaint. If nothing changes, regrettably. things will remain the same.
Regards,
I note six signatures appended and three pages of content ending with formal demands to be met by a deadline of 4:30pm on July 4th, 2009.
The document presents as an “informal” complaint under the Code of Conduct.
Yet once again a solicitor has been retained at a cost of thousands of dollars to provide political justification for your relentless endeavor to pursue the objective that no negative comment or criticism shall be permitted to emanate from a councillor to reflect against decisions made by this council during your term of office.
Three council members including you were delegated to meet with lawyer John Mascarin to instruct him on precise requirements expected.
He was provided with DVDs of council meetings, blog posts, letters to the editor and comments to the Aurora Citizen blog to be examined and report on how my statements may have contravened the Code of Conduct and the Town's Procedural Bylaw.
I have read the thirty-eight page report submitted by Mr. Mascarin. I find it to be without substance. No definitive findings are articulated
Assertions are qualified by the phrase “appears to mean”. No facts are thereby established.
He further asserts that “many” of my statements are “factually incorrect”. Such non-specific references lead to no conclusions.
My sense of propriety suggests, if I provided evidence of your action to a solicitor, there is a distinct possibility, Madam Mayor, that having a councillor investigated in this fashion is not within your authority and is in fact quite outrageous.
At the heart of it, I view the matter as an attack on my right to free expression as a citizen and as a Councillor to communicate with the people I serve. The electorate's right to be informed of my position on issues that come before council is paramount on my list of priorities.
Using public funds to have an elected official investigated to support an issue of strictly political significance is in my view a gross abuse of public resources.
The Code of Conduct and the requirement for each member of council to sign the document by deadline is once again referenced in your letter.
An opinion previously provided to Council by Ms Virginia McLean, acting town solicitor, has advised the requirement cannot be enforced. Therefore it has no validity.
I regard specific wording in the Code as an attempt to restrict freedom and the responsibility of a councillor to disagree or critique the actions of Council for better understanding within the community.
A refusal on my part to accept a staff recommendation on occasion does not signify disrespect. It is my duty to exercise judgment in issues that come before Council and cast my vote accordingly. There is no requirement to provide a rationale yet I regularly do so for the better understanding of the community we both serve.
My appreciation for the role of staff in the daily operation of the corporation and provision of services to the community has been honed by many years of experience.
My ethics are secure.
Onn the other hand,treatment afforded staff by you, Councillors MacEachern, Gaertner, Granger, Gallo and Wilson during this term, does not persuade me I have anything to learn from your perception of the basic principle of fairness.
I do not accept the Corporation can be or is damaged by frank and free exchange of views. Even if a minority of one on occasion, as part of the Corporation. my views are entitled to register.
At considerable expense, and to my mind - questionable purpose, the services of Mr. George Rust-D’Eye were retained early in the term. He recommended the Code of Conduct and an Integrity Commissioner be retained.
In October of 2008 an appointment was made and a Commissioner has been on retainer for the past eight months. On June 18th a contract was signed. Previous offers to provide educational workshops met with opposition and refusal by three members of council including you.
The Commissioner has indicated the Code is in need of review.
I note the expression of frustration made by a Councillor during the meeting with Mr. Mascarin, about how “awkward” it was to be planning strategy against a Councillor with said Councillor present. Incredibly, acknowledgment of what was taking place alerted none of the parties to the unseemliness of the process.
Madam Mayor, given that our political principles are a canyon width apart, it is not exceptional we might find ourselves at odds on many issues.
I submit there is nothing untoward in the situation. Except that your reluctance to accept the reality of politics creates an additional and unnecessary tension within Council.
Continued expenditures for legal services to pound a councillor into submission might be justified if you were using your own resources. It would not likely be more successful.
The day a Councillor of the Town of Aurora is not free to speak and write her mind, is the day I shall lose interest in participating in the governing process.
I shall go down fighting before that happens.
Sadly, the climate you have created within the Administration is tortuous in the extreme. My sympathies are with staff. There can be little professional satisfaction in the obligation to be silent witnesses to regular and degrading public demonstrations of hostility and gamesmanship at the council table.
Or to know their inevitable fate, if they fail to accede to your direction.
You have set the precedent.
In conclusion,I find nothing of merit in your complaint. If nothing changes, regrettably. things will remain the same.
Regards,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
