Don’t let it bother you that the Charter of Rights says that governments can’t sue for defamation and the town is trying to spin this as never having been a private lawsuit (which clearly doesn’t compute) ! This is scary stuff… and the Advocate and Banner appear to be doing the same thing… turning a blind eye.
LINK: http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion/article/1295187--editorial-dropping-suit-commendable
Feb 09, 2012 - 12:30 PM
EDITORIAL: Dropping suit commendable
You fought city hall and you won. It was a well- deserved victory Now, it’s time to move on.
Council received your message loud and clear that if it makes a decision and doesn’t communicate the reasons why that decision was made until after it is leaked to constituents, they will, most assuredly, have to answer to those footing the bill.
Mayor Rob Grossi and council should be commended for cancelling a lawsuit last Thursday against former leisure services director John McLean.
It was a wise decision to end what could have been an ugly and costly legal battle.
Politicians should be applauded for recognizing they made a collective error in judgment and for appreciating this was clearly an inappropriate use of public funds.
When The Advocate broke the news Jan. 19 that your tax dollars would pay for the town’s legal action against Mr. McLean over letters to the editor he wrote last September, you were angry.
You were angry because you weren’t told about it.
You were angry because you didn’t feel a corporation should sue someone for taking to task its method — right or wrong — of doing business.
But, most of all, you were angry because you didn’t want your hard-earned tax dollars being used to quash a citizen’s right to criticize the municipality.
Within hours of Advocate articles and on social media sites, including yorkregion.com, more than 1,000 comments came flooding in from Georgina residents, business owners and from people across York Region.
Collectively, some of you expressed harsh opinions when you learned the municipality, led by Mayor Grossi as head of the corporation, would sue a citizen for comments he made about the town’s business conduct.
Whether or not Mr. McLean’s letters published in area newspapers were fair comment or libellous seemed to be of little concern to most of you. And we’re not ruling on that.
That decision would have been left to the courts to decide.
It is not the place of a newspaper to try a legal case but to, instead, inform its readers and website users what any such legal action could mean to them and why.
But now that the suit has been cancelled, along with the bylaw to indemnify Mayor Grossi as the corporation’s head of council (this, we are told, is expected to be ratified in the next several weeks), it’s time to move on.
Public officials certainly swallowed a bitter pill.
Clearly, in retrospect, the town felt this particular case wasn’t strong enough or worth playing out in a lengthy court battle.
And while public officials are expected to shoulder a fair amount of public criticism, there should also be recourse to take legal action — with financial backing of the corporation — when citizens make libelous, slanderous or hateful comments.
That’s why it’s an important reminder that we need to take a civilized approach to issues and hold legitimate, thoughtful and productive debates on matters about which we don’t agree or ones that become emotionally charged and heated.
Politicians should be entitled to the same laws as citizens, when and if warranted.
In this case, your actions were the sole reason town council changed its mind about pursuing a lawsuit.
You fought city hall and you won. It was a well- deserved victory Now, it’s time to move on.
Council received your message loud and clear that if it makes a decision and doesn’t communicate the reasons why that decision was made until after it is leaked to constituents, they will, most assuredly, have to answer to those footing the bill
Friday, 10 February 2012
The Just Society ...A Thing Of The Past ?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Tic-Tac-Toe":
"Why don't we support the Food Bank ? That should be a no-brainer. ..."
It is a no brainer. The Town has enought money problems. The last thing we need to do is get involved in the welfare business.
Municipal governments are tasked with stuff like fire, police, roads, water, parks, etc. Welfare is a different level.
*******************
A further point needs to be made. The food bank is a charity. I think it's disgraceful that Canadians should have to depend on charity for basic needs.
But apart from that, giving to charityis one of the few rights left to us to decide for ourselves.
We have a right to decide which charity we will support. Or no charity. Or how much we can give. Widow's mite and all that.
When people have given or not according to their right to decide, why should a Municipal Council feel they have the right to take even more for the same purpose.
The majority of people in Ontario living under the poverty line are children.
The Harris government decided to wipe out the social welfare system in the nineties. They re-named it work-fare and cut the benefits.
Prior to the last municipal election I had a conversation with a social worker from the Region. The McGuinty government has not restored benefits to the level they were when the Harris government made the cuts.
That means the allowances are that much more behind. Other measures of assistance have been implemented which make it hard to compare.
Doctors incomes have doubled.
One thing we know, as housing becomes more expensive, people in need are paying more for inadequate shelter and don't have enough left to feed their children. The demand on food banks continues to grow.
If anyone wants to enjoin a campaign for social justice ,the province and the region are the levels of government who need to hear from you.
In a just society, everyone should have enough to provide for their basic needs.
That is not happening to-day in Ontario.
And we have a Liberal Government.
"Why don't we support the Food Bank ? That should be a no-brainer. ..."
It is a no brainer. The Town has enought money problems. The last thing we need to do is get involved in the welfare business.
Municipal governments are tasked with stuff like fire, police, roads, water, parks, etc. Welfare is a different level.
*******************
A further point needs to be made. The food bank is a charity. I think it's disgraceful that Canadians should have to depend on charity for basic needs.
But apart from that, giving to charityis one of the few rights left to us to decide for ourselves.
We have a right to decide which charity we will support. Or no charity. Or how much we can give. Widow's mite and all that.
When people have given or not according to their right to decide, why should a Municipal Council feel they have the right to take even more for the same purpose.
The majority of people in Ontario living under the poverty line are children.
The Harris government decided to wipe out the social welfare system in the nineties. They re-named it work-fare and cut the benefits.
Prior to the last municipal election I had a conversation with a social worker from the Region. The McGuinty government has not restored benefits to the level they were when the Harris government made the cuts.
That means the allowances are that much more behind. Other measures of assistance have been implemented which make it hard to compare.
Doctors incomes have doubled.
One thing we know, as housing becomes more expensive, people in need are paying more for inadequate shelter and don't have enough left to feed their children. The demand on food banks continues to grow.
If anyone wants to enjoin a campaign for social justice ,the province and the region are the levels of government who need to hear from you.
In a just society, everyone should have enough to provide for their basic needs.
That is not happening to-day in Ontario.
And we have a Liberal Government.
Lawsuit Pending
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Watch The Vote":
Two points...
"The meeting of September 14th 2010 was boycotted by two cuncillors on the basis that "potential defamation' was not an item of business for Council to discuss."
So? These same councillors could have not attended because they were sick or on vacation. Did the remaining members in attendance constitute a quorum?
"A third Councillor attended the meeting . When the decision was reported out he made a definitive
statement of disagreement that the Municipal Act permitted proposed."
Okay... but is this closing the barn door after the "horse" has left? You councillors make statements all of the time after a meeting that you disagree with the decision. Again, majority has won.
We are almost 18 months removed from this event and there is still a pent up anger with a lawfully constituted meeting and decision. If you need to vent your anger, it should be vented toward the councillors that were at the meeting then and are still at that table.
***************
You made the statement the decision was unanimous. A majority is not a unanimous decision.
The third Councillor's voted in opposition to the recommendation. It was not disagreement after the fact.
We are not eighteen months removed from the event.
A lawsuit is pending.
Two points...
"The meeting of September 14th 2010 was boycotted by two cuncillors on the basis that "potential defamation' was not an item of business for Council to discuss."
So? These same councillors could have not attended because they were sick or on vacation. Did the remaining members in attendance constitute a quorum?
"A third Councillor attended the meeting . When the decision was reported out he made a definitive
statement of disagreement that the Municipal Act permitted proposed."
Okay... but is this closing the barn door after the "horse" has left? You councillors make statements all of the time after a meeting that you disagree with the decision. Again, majority has won.
We are almost 18 months removed from this event and there is still a pent up anger with a lawfully constituted meeting and decision. If you need to vent your anger, it should be vented toward the councillors that were at the meeting then and are still at that table.
***************
You made the statement the decision was unanimous. A majority is not a unanimous decision.
The third Councillor's voted in opposition to the recommendation. It was not disagreement after the fact.
We are not eighteen months removed from the event.
A lawsuit is pending.
The Last Post..Conflict Of Interest
Raises some more interesting questions.
They arise from advice of two lawyers retained by the ex-Mayor and paid by the town, who had the temerity to suggest to a member of Council, moi, that I should not attend two council meetings because I would have a conflict of interest as a result of being the subject of discussion. I might hear something in the meeting that would be to my financial advantage.
The rationale was the penalty for being found guilty of a Conflict of Interest would be the pecuniary advantage to myself. The financial penalty is having Council remuneration suspended for three months.
Each time I think about it, the more outrageous it becomes.
How dare they?
What gave them the right to suggest to a duly elected member of Council ,she didn't have the right to attend a meeting of the Council to which she was duly elected?
How many other Councillors in Ontario have they misled in that direction besides the former Mayor of East Gwillimbury and Councillor Marlene Johnstone? They were also told they should retain legal counsel. They did that as well as stay away from Council meetings.
How dare they suggest an entire segment of the community should be deprived of th representation in any deliberation of their local government?
If it was inappropriate that I should hear what was being said, why would it be appropriate for other members of Council to be saying it in a closed meeting on town hall premises with staff resources and legal counsel present to do their bidding.
How could they perceive, these self -styled experts in municipal law, that such business being discussed behind closed doors was appropriate to be discussed there or anywhere, if it was inappropriate for a Council member to participate.
The Conflict of Interest charge against the former Mayor is not the business of the Municipality.No person, except the member, can decide if there is a Conflict of Interest.
Why would these two lawyers take it upon themselves to advise me so?
If the ex=Mayor is found to be in contravention of the Act in this matter, why is it different to all the rest?
The intent was always the same.
It was always about the former Mayor pursuing a private objective with a contrived rationale and the support of the same five members of Council.
What does the Conflict of Interest Act say about aiding and abetting, in the commission of a contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Are the questions relevant?
I would be interested in hosting a discussion.
Of what ethical value is a Code of Ethics or Conduct that can be and has been used as a blunt instrument by an inept gang of thugs to beat up on an honest-to-goodness, rough and ready, politician.
What price any of the pious and righteous legislation prohibiting bullying and harassment ,if the GD legislation itself can be used to bully and harass?
That's the question for the day.
Or the weekend maybe.
They arise from advice of two lawyers retained by the ex-Mayor and paid by the town, who had the temerity to suggest to a member of Council, moi, that I should not attend two council meetings because I would have a conflict of interest as a result of being the subject of discussion. I might hear something in the meeting that would be to my financial advantage.
The rationale was the penalty for being found guilty of a Conflict of Interest would be the pecuniary advantage to myself. The financial penalty is having Council remuneration suspended for three months.
Each time I think about it, the more outrageous it becomes.
How dare they?
What gave them the right to suggest to a duly elected member of Council ,she didn't have the right to attend a meeting of the Council to which she was duly elected?
How many other Councillors in Ontario have they misled in that direction besides the former Mayor of East Gwillimbury and Councillor Marlene Johnstone? They were also told they should retain legal counsel. They did that as well as stay away from Council meetings.
How dare they suggest an entire segment of the community should be deprived of th representation in any deliberation of their local government?
If it was inappropriate that I should hear what was being said, why would it be appropriate for other members of Council to be saying it in a closed meeting on town hall premises with staff resources and legal counsel present to do their bidding.
How could they perceive, these self -styled experts in municipal law, that such business being discussed behind closed doors was appropriate to be discussed there or anywhere, if it was inappropriate for a Council member to participate.
The Conflict of Interest charge against the former Mayor is not the business of the Municipality.No person, except the member, can decide if there is a Conflict of Interest.
Why would these two lawyers take it upon themselves to advise me so?
If the ex=Mayor is found to be in contravention of the Act in this matter, why is it different to all the rest?
The intent was always the same.
It was always about the former Mayor pursuing a private objective with a contrived rationale and the support of the same five members of Council.
What does the Conflict of Interest Act say about aiding and abetting, in the commission of a contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Are the questions relevant?
I would be interested in hosting a discussion.
Of what ethical value is a Code of Ethics or Conduct that can be and has been used as a blunt instrument by an inept gang of thugs to beat up on an honest-to-goodness, rough and ready, politician.
What price any of the pious and righteous legislation prohibiting bullying and harassment ,if the GD legislation itself can be used to bully and harass?
That's the question for the day.
Or the weekend maybe.
Watch The Vote
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "You Were Asking":
At the Council meeting dated September 14, 2010, there was a resolution to move into Closed Session to consider two items, Adena Meadows Limited et al and Potential defamation. When Council reconvened into Open Session more than 1 1/2 hours later there was a motion made, seconded and carried unanimously to the effect that the Town Solicitor "be directed to retain external legal counsel and to take any and all actions to bring resolution to this matter."
This matter was now in the public domain.
In the Agenda of the GC meeting scheduled for February 7, 2012, appearing under Closed Session, Item 2 is "Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees: LGL 12-002 - Waiver of Closed Session Confidentiality."
There was no further reference to this item and if it was discussed, a conclusion reached and a direction given, this all remains closed to the public. When will the public be informed about this?
Is this matter more important than the unanimous decision taken almost 18 months ago that launched what has been described by a Superior Court justice as a failed legal action, one that has cost Aurora taxpayers $55,000, not to speak of the suffering to three of its families?
If our municipal government is to be considered responsible, transparent and accountable, this question must be answered, sooner rather than later.
******************
There's a mis understanding in the last part of your statement. The decision on Sep. 14th 2010 was not unanimous. .
The meeting of September 14th 2010 was boycotted by two councillors on the basis that "potential defamation' was not an item of business for Council to discuss.
A third Councillor attended the meeting . When the decision was reported out he made a definitive
statement of disagreement that the Municipal Act permitted the action proposed. Three Councillors voted in opposition.
The same six Councillors who gave the ex-Mayor a blank cheque for everything undertaken during that notorious term of office, provided authority for this last excess that scandalized the community.
It is also an issue of unfinished business.
A charge of Conflict of Interest has been filed against the former Mayor.
The discussion and decision took place behind closed doors.
Witnesses can be sworn.
I don't know why Tuesday's decision is not public. I would argue it should be. It's too early to ask. The Town Hall isn't open yet
Tuesday's meeting was general committee. The in camera meeting was also committee. The decision made therefore is yet to be ratified in Council.
I think.
Pay attention to the vote in Council.
At the Council meeting dated September 14, 2010, there was a resolution to move into Closed Session to consider two items, Adena Meadows Limited et al and Potential defamation. When Council reconvened into Open Session more than 1 1/2 hours later there was a motion made, seconded and carried unanimously to the effect that the Town Solicitor "be directed to retain external legal counsel and to take any and all actions to bring resolution to this matter."
This matter was now in the public domain.
In the Agenda of the GC meeting scheduled for February 7, 2012, appearing under Closed Session, Item 2 is "Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees: LGL 12-002 - Waiver of Closed Session Confidentiality."
There was no further reference to this item and if it was discussed, a conclusion reached and a direction given, this all remains closed to the public. When will the public be informed about this?
Is this matter more important than the unanimous decision taken almost 18 months ago that launched what has been described by a Superior Court justice as a failed legal action, one that has cost Aurora taxpayers $55,000, not to speak of the suffering to three of its families?
If our municipal government is to be considered responsible, transparent and accountable, this question must be answered, sooner rather than later.
******************
There's a mis understanding in the last part of your statement. The decision on Sep. 14th 2010 was not unanimous. .
The meeting of September 14th 2010 was boycotted by two councillors on the basis that "potential defamation' was not an item of business for Council to discuss.
A third Councillor attended the meeting . When the decision was reported out he made a definitive
statement of disagreement that the Municipal Act permitted the action proposed. Three Councillors voted in opposition.
The same six Councillors who gave the ex-Mayor a blank cheque for everything undertaken during that notorious term of office, provided authority for this last excess that scandalized the community.
It is also an issue of unfinished business.
A charge of Conflict of Interest has been filed against the former Mayor.
The discussion and decision took place behind closed doors.
Witnesses can be sworn.
I don't know why Tuesday's decision is not public. I would argue it should be. It's too early to ask. The Town Hall isn't open yet
Tuesday's meeting was general committee. The in camera meeting was also committee. The decision made therefore is yet to be ratified in Council.
I think.
Pay attention to the vote in Council.
The Mystery Of The Lease
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "You Were Asking":
Let's cut to the chase on this damn thing. Every time you mention that agreement, objections appear. You have asked countless times to see the agreement and I don't know if it has ever been produced. If there is no fire, why do flares go up when you mention that lease ?
This is a new council and they seem to be catching up - some will support you in your quest. It is a rental agreement, not a missile defense system. Let's get rid of this albatross too. It can't be all that bad.
*******************
Eviction of the parks department and cessation of storage for the town made room for a new armouries .
There had been enquiries about leasing the facility from the private sector after Power Stream moved out before their lease was up.There was no penalty. We got thirty days notice and an empty building.
There was no publication of availability for lease. No invitation for best offers.
It was a scramble in the weeks prior to the election.
Council was informed behind closed doors of successful negotiation of a tenancy .Approval of the Minister of National Defense was pending.
On the basis of an election pending, I requested our Honorable Member Lois Brown to ask the MInister to withold approval until the new council was elected.
The member murmured a reference to the Municipal Act and that told me where I stood there.
Days later,the Mayor triumphantly announced Ministerial approval.
The deal was done. I had my doubts.
The following March during budget discussion, I inquired of the treasurer where rental revenue for the building would show. He replied there had been none until February 1st.2011.
I thought the rent was $139.000. It was actually $131.000. More than $200,000 of our money was spent to make the building ready for the tenant . A sprinkler system among other things had to be installed.
The capital construction budget had a couple of hundred thousand in it in 2011 for further works and again this year, yet another couple of hundred thousand. I reckon our money being spent on the building will absorb five years of rent. If in fact, we ever do see any revenue versus expenditures. Because we are the landlord don't you know and responsible for maintenance.of our property.
The building is finally occupied. Lights were on after eleven when I came home from Tuesday's council meeting.
By logic, the day the first rent cheque is paid a lease starts. According to the town treasurer, the cheque was not received until February 1st.2011.
Now you decide whether the town's interest was represented in the machinations. .
I have spoken of the issue to this council.
There's little interest .
Let's cut to the chase on this damn thing. Every time you mention that agreement, objections appear. You have asked countless times to see the agreement and I don't know if it has ever been produced. If there is no fire, why do flares go up when you mention that lease ?
This is a new council and they seem to be catching up - some will support you in your quest. It is a rental agreement, not a missile defense system. Let's get rid of this albatross too. It can't be all that bad.
*******************
Eviction of the parks department and cessation of storage for the town made room for a new armouries .
There had been enquiries about leasing the facility from the private sector after Power Stream moved out before their lease was up.There was no penalty. We got thirty days notice and an empty building.
There was no publication of availability for lease. No invitation for best offers.
It was a scramble in the weeks prior to the election.
Council was informed behind closed doors of successful negotiation of a tenancy .Approval of the Minister of National Defense was pending.
On the basis of an election pending, I requested our Honorable Member Lois Brown to ask the MInister to withold approval until the new council was elected.
The member murmured a reference to the Municipal Act and that told me where I stood there.
Days later,the Mayor triumphantly announced Ministerial approval.
The deal was done. I had my doubts.
The following March during budget discussion, I inquired of the treasurer where rental revenue for the building would show. He replied there had been none until February 1st.2011.
I thought the rent was $139.000. It was actually $131.000. More than $200,000 of our money was spent to make the building ready for the tenant . A sprinkler system among other things had to be installed.
The capital construction budget had a couple of hundred thousand in it in 2011 for further works and again this year, yet another couple of hundred thousand. I reckon our money being spent on the building will absorb five years of rent. If in fact, we ever do see any revenue versus expenditures. Because we are the landlord don't you know and responsible for maintenance.of our property.
The building is finally occupied. Lights were on after eleven when I came home from Tuesday's council meeting.
By logic, the day the first rent cheque is paid a lease starts. According to the town treasurer, the cheque was not received until February 1st.2011.
Now you decide whether the town's interest was represented in the machinations. .
I have spoken of the issue to this council.
There's little interest .
Thursday, 9 February 2012
You Were Asking
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Partly Correct.":
"We took our Oath of Office on December 1st. We had been elected since October. The former Mayor had been active since her defeat. She was in the office until the last day.A lease with the Department of National Defence was amended in November. Again without Council being aware or authorization."
Okay - can you clear something up? Not withstanding that the above statement has nothing to do with the IC....
If the council that was elected in October (let's be fair, it was LATE October) does not assume power until the end of the previous term and then sworn in, how is the former Mayor's actions regarding the DND contract unlawful? There is no requirement in the MA that says the amendments had to be ratified by council. The Mayor as CEO can make the amendments.
************************
The post clearly irritates the commenter on several fronts. I will deal with only one.
The election date was a week earlier than previously. That meant there was a longer spell between the voters' decision to make a change and the new Council taking over. It added nothing to the process.
Reading the quote a second time , I see no reference to an unlawful act.
I know of no section in the Municipal Act that deals with amendments to contracts.
I do know of town policies and a few legalities.
Contracts to be signed require the authority of council. The resolution is familiar. Direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign the agreement. Then the agreement becomes the contract .
If it is Council's authority to sanction the contract and direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign, the same is true of changes to the contract.
If the argument is. the Mayor as CEO had authority to approve and sign an amendment to the contract, who gave the Clerk authority to do the same. He does not have the status of CEO.
Where does the Municipal Act specify the title of CEO over-rides the authority of Council ?
I've never understood why having the title of CEO means more that the Office of Mayor.
From the day of the election.... when the votes have been counted.... the results are known.. and a Chief Magistrate is defeated... with a resounding no.... a person who believes the confidence and trust of the community continues in the office that was lost, is a person refusing to deal with reality.
It is an excruciatingly painful and humiliating experience. Judgement could be flawed by stress.
It can't be shared. There is no lightening of the burden. It must simply be endured...preferably in private... avoiding more approbation.
A decision made when logically the authority to make it. has been withdrawn , becomes unfinished business and unlikely to be forgotten.
That's the harsh reality of politics.
I have to say with all the sympathy I can muster, neither the former mayor nor her chief henchman ever understood. there are limits to the power of elected office.
To anyone who cares to listen I say .... NEVER NEVER NEVER underestimate the attention people pay to how we use their trust.
Abuse it at your peril .... their anger knows no bounds.
"We took our Oath of Office on December 1st. We had been elected since October. The former Mayor had been active since her defeat. She was in the office until the last day.A lease with the Department of National Defence was amended in November. Again without Council being aware or authorization."
Okay - can you clear something up? Not withstanding that the above statement has nothing to do with the IC....
If the council that was elected in October (let's be fair, it was LATE October) does not assume power until the end of the previous term and then sworn in, how is the former Mayor's actions regarding the DND contract unlawful? There is no requirement in the MA that says the amendments had to be ratified by council. The Mayor as CEO can make the amendments.
************************
The post clearly irritates the commenter on several fronts. I will deal with only one.
The election date was a week earlier than previously. That meant there was a longer spell between the voters' decision to make a change and the new Council taking over. It added nothing to the process.
Reading the quote a second time , I see no reference to an unlawful act.
I know of no section in the Municipal Act that deals with amendments to contracts.
I do know of town policies and a few legalities.
Contracts to be signed require the authority of council. The resolution is familiar. Direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign the agreement. Then the agreement becomes the contract .
If it is Council's authority to sanction the contract and direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign, the same is true of changes to the contract.
If the argument is. the Mayor as CEO had authority to approve and sign an amendment to the contract, who gave the Clerk authority to do the same. He does not have the status of CEO.
Where does the Municipal Act specify the title of CEO over-rides the authority of Council ?
I've never understood why having the title of CEO means more that the Office of Mayor.
From the day of the election.... when the votes have been counted.... the results are known.. and a Chief Magistrate is defeated... with a resounding no.... a person who believes the confidence and trust of the community continues in the office that was lost, is a person refusing to deal with reality.
It is an excruciatingly painful and humiliating experience. Judgement could be flawed by stress.
It can't be shared. There is no lightening of the burden. It must simply be endured...preferably in private... avoiding more approbation.
A decision made when logically the authority to make it. has been withdrawn , becomes unfinished business and unlikely to be forgotten.
That's the harsh reality of politics.
I have to say with all the sympathy I can muster, neither the former mayor nor her chief henchman ever understood. there are limits to the power of elected office.
To anyone who cares to listen I say .... NEVER NEVER NEVER underestimate the attention people pay to how we use their trust.
Abuse it at your peril .... their anger knows no bounds.
Partly Correct.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Four Years Is Too Long":
"He received $40,000 from the town before the contract was terminated by the new council."
Didn't he actually resign before you got the chance to give him the push?
*****************
His contract called for a month's notice to terminate. Plenty of indication was given. .He took full advantage of the time and submitted his letter to coincide with the notice. He didn't miss a penny
It was as easy a forty thou as he is ever likely to earn. He was appointed Integrity Commissioner to Richmond Hill Council after that.
I heard about a Richmond Hill Councillor buying golf clubs with his expense account .never heard if that was a Code of Conduct complaint.
Our new Council wasn't too swift either.
We took our Oath of Office on December 1st. We had been elected since October. The former Mayor had been active since her defeat. She was in the office until the last day.A lease with the Department of National Defence was amended in November. Again without Council being aware or authorisation.
An accepted process followed is for a sitting board to continue until the new board takes office.
A Council does not take office until the Oath of Office is sworn. The norm is ceremonial occasion and organized to take place early in December. It never happens on the 1st of December. It was a precaution.
It did that year. Councillors attended individually to swear the Oath of Office. A special meeting could and should, in my opinion, have been called for December 3rd to deal with the legal contract with the ex-Mayor's lawyer and give notice to the Integrity Commissioner.
We missed the boat on that and it cost us several thousand dollars extra.
We paid a lawyer to tell us that we needed to pay the GD legal fees. That cost us an extra $8.500. We immediately fell into the practice of using lawyers to tell us what decisions to make.
The money we spend on consultants and lawyers makes my blood curdle.
It's one of those changes I keep being reminded of. Milksop politicians who need to be advised every step of the way. Tell me that's an improvement . Yeah, right.
We extended the budget process substantially to allow lobbyists and petitioners to come meetings and repeat their spiels of why we should hand over tax revenues to this and that group who have created their own employment with phoney- baloney schemes of the new religion of "conservation".
Councillors even attend upon them to listen to their blandishments and be persuaded to give away money that isn't theirs to give, to people without accountability so that they can be the good guys to this group of voters and that..
"He received $40,000 from the town before the contract was terminated by the new council."
Didn't he actually resign before you got the chance to give him the push?
*****************
His contract called for a month's notice to terminate. Plenty of indication was given. .He took full advantage of the time and submitted his letter to coincide with the notice. He didn't miss a penny
It was as easy a forty thou as he is ever likely to earn. He was appointed Integrity Commissioner to Richmond Hill Council after that.
I heard about a Richmond Hill Councillor buying golf clubs with his expense account .never heard if that was a Code of Conduct complaint.
Our new Council wasn't too swift either.
We took our Oath of Office on December 1st. We had been elected since October. The former Mayor had been active since her defeat. She was in the office until the last day.A lease with the Department of National Defence was amended in November. Again without Council being aware or authorisation.
An accepted process followed is for a sitting board to continue until the new board takes office.
A Council does not take office until the Oath of Office is sworn. The norm is ceremonial occasion and organized to take place early in December. It never happens on the 1st of December. It was a precaution.
It did that year. Councillors attended individually to swear the Oath of Office. A special meeting could and should, in my opinion, have been called for December 3rd to deal with the legal contract with the ex-Mayor's lawyer and give notice to the Integrity Commissioner.
We missed the boat on that and it cost us several thousand dollars extra.
We paid a lawyer to tell us that we needed to pay the GD legal fees. That cost us an extra $8.500. We immediately fell into the practice of using lawyers to tell us what decisions to make.
The money we spend on consultants and lawyers makes my blood curdle.
It's one of those changes I keep being reminded of. Milksop politicians who need to be advised every step of the way. Tell me that's an improvement . Yeah, right.
We extended the budget process substantially to allow lobbyists and petitioners to come meetings and repeat their spiels of why we should hand over tax revenues to this and that group who have created their own employment with phoney- baloney schemes of the new religion of "conservation".
Councillors even attend upon them to listen to their blandishments and be persuaded to give away money that isn't theirs to give, to people without accountability so that they can be the good guys to this group of voters and that..
Four Years Is Too Long
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Change Happens":
A slight glitch in Georgina. Seems the by-law isn't fully rescinded until all fees associated with it have been paid.
***********
A Bylaw is rescinded when Council, in a properly constituted meeting, rescinds it.
A contract with a cancellation penalty clause, cancelled, would call for payment to be made to terminate the contract.
We retained an Integrity Commissioner before the clerk's retirement in November of 2006.
The retainer was $1000 a month. The contract wasn't signed until June 2007. It was cancelled early in August, concurrent with his first decision.
The contract called for payment of eighteen months retainer fees to be paid if terminated before the contract expired.
We retained another Integrity Commissioner .He received two complaints against the same councillor .at the same time, from Councillor MacEachern.
There was a moratorium on complaints by the time he delivered a decision. He followed none of the procedures called for in the Code of Conduct. He did exactly what they wanted instead.
He received $40,000 from the town before the contract was terminated by the new council.
I believe the prepared resolution passed in September when the election was already underway, by five members of council in a closed session ,was deliberately worded in a such a way to permit the town solicitor to proceed with litigation without receiving council authority or council having time to re-think the previous decision. .
Ordinarily a municipality does not proceed to litigation without council authority.
Closed session is intended to deal with matters where the municipality's interest would be jeopardised
by public disclosure.
Or the privacy of an individual might be harmed by public reference.
A politician being slagged by a constituent is not a town issue. It's an occupational hazard .
I have never agreed politicians are entitled to close doors behind them in the town hall, to plot and scheme for the political demise of another politician.
The Municipal Act was never intended to provide cover for such miserable, cowardly behaviour.
The election was in full swing. There were no further Council meetings. While some of them could have failed to understand what was afoot, at least two of them knew full well what was intended.
All of them were of a mindset that there was a limit to criticism elected officials, particularly a Mayor, should be expected to endure. No matter how well-deserved..
They could make sly, underhanded, blatantly self-serving decisions. They just couldn't handle the fall out.
Councillor Bob Mc Roberts attended the closed door session. When the resolution was reported out in public, he made it clear advice received behind closed doors was not in accordance with his understanding of the Municipal Act.
I want to make clear, what happened in Aurora during the term 2007/ 2010 had never happened before in all the town's history or in any other town I know in Ontario.
It was two parts malice and four parts unimaginable stupidity. .
It's the reason a four year term of office for municipal council is not a good thing.
The cost of an election is a fraction of the cost and damage a rogue council determined to trample all known principles of public service, can effect in four years.
A slight glitch in Georgina. Seems the by-law isn't fully rescinded until all fees associated with it have been paid.
***********
A Bylaw is rescinded when Council, in a properly constituted meeting, rescinds it.
A contract with a cancellation penalty clause, cancelled, would call for payment to be made to terminate the contract.
We retained an Integrity Commissioner before the clerk's retirement in November of 2006.
The retainer was $1000 a month. The contract wasn't signed until June 2007. It was cancelled early in August, concurrent with his first decision.
The contract called for payment of eighteen months retainer fees to be paid if terminated before the contract expired.
We retained another Integrity Commissioner .He received two complaints against the same councillor .at the same time, from Councillor MacEachern.
There was a moratorium on complaints by the time he delivered a decision. He followed none of the procedures called for in the Code of Conduct. He did exactly what they wanted instead.
He received $40,000 from the town before the contract was terminated by the new council.
I believe the prepared resolution passed in September when the election was already underway, by five members of council in a closed session ,was deliberately worded in a such a way to permit the town solicitor to proceed with litigation without receiving council authority or council having time to re-think the previous decision. .
Ordinarily a municipality does not proceed to litigation without council authority.
Closed session is intended to deal with matters where the municipality's interest would be jeopardised
by public disclosure.
Or the privacy of an individual might be harmed by public reference.
A politician being slagged by a constituent is not a town issue. It's an occupational hazard .
I have never agreed politicians are entitled to close doors behind them in the town hall, to plot and scheme for the political demise of another politician.
The Municipal Act was never intended to provide cover for such miserable, cowardly behaviour.
The election was in full swing. There were no further Council meetings. While some of them could have failed to understand what was afoot, at least two of them knew full well what was intended.
All of them were of a mindset that there was a limit to criticism elected officials, particularly a Mayor, should be expected to endure. No matter how well-deserved..
They could make sly, underhanded, blatantly self-serving decisions. They just couldn't handle the fall out.
Councillor Bob Mc Roberts attended the closed door session. When the resolution was reported out in public, he made it clear advice received behind closed doors was not in accordance with his understanding of the Municipal Act.
I want to make clear, what happened in Aurora during the term 2007/ 2010 had never happened before in all the town's history or in any other town I know in Ontario.
It was two parts malice and four parts unimaginable stupidity. .
It's the reason a four year term of office for municipal council is not a good thing.
The cost of an election is a fraction of the cost and damage a rogue council determined to trample all known principles of public service, can effect in four years.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
More Cockamamie Stuff
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Tic-Tac-Toe":
Stuff from closed meetings has always seeped out over time. We all knew about Evalina's switch from gracious smiling councillor into foul-mouthed harridan as soon as those doors were closed. It likely cost her the election as she had been very careful in publiC
*******************************************
Within the last five years, the Province passed legislation allowing citizens to demand an investigation of what went on in an in camera meeting, if they suspected something was going on that shouldn't be going on
The town was required to retain an investigation team to conform to the legislation We did that Vaughan is one of our partners.We paid a retainer.
I am not aware that any citizen of Aurora has ever filed a demand for an inquiry into a closed session.
I thought it was just more silly stuff coming out of Queen's Park. A knee jerk reaction to some particular situation so that they could appear to be responsive.
Like the Code of Conduct: an entirely inadequate reaction to the Bellamy Public Inquiry into the Toronto computer scandal.
A city official responsible for computer contracts was being wined and dined, flown about and bedded by a computer salesman made wealthy with city contracts. Not to mention the involvement of a city alderman,chairman of a committee with oversight responsibility for spending ,who bought a marvelous mansion and took his family on expensive Walt Dinsey vacations with no apparent means of support other than his alderman's salary.
The official lost her job. The alderman ran for Mayor and got about two votes.
The rest of the Province were permitted by magnanimous provincial assent to pass Codes of Conducts that would allow for a penalty of suspension of three months salary for someone found guilty of a breach of Da Code.
Yesterday I gave a couple of examples of code complaints in the city.
The city has an Integrity Commissioner with an office, staff, and an executive salary.
At the start, Councillors complained about were allowed $5,000 each for a legal defence. After the first year, the Integrity Commissioner who was a Professor of Law at Queen's University in Kingston, reported to Council ,the allowance was not being used because it wasn't enough for the purpose. He recommended it be increased to $20,000.
They did that.
Aurora's Integrity Commissioner said he would not recommended that. It made the process horrendously expensive. And besides, most complaints filed were councillors against councillors.
In conversations he had with other Integrity Commissioners, he had learned that was their common experience.
His mission would be to teach ethics to Councillors and ensure better conduct that way.
His ideas of mission were not shared.
We don't hear too much about Code of Conduct complaints any more.
Stuff from closed meetings has always seeped out over time. We all knew about Evalina's switch from gracious smiling councillor into foul-mouthed harridan as soon as those doors were closed. It likely cost her the election as she had been very careful in publiC
*******************************************
Within the last five years, the Province passed legislation allowing citizens to demand an investigation of what went on in an in camera meeting, if they suspected something was going on that shouldn't be going on
The town was required to retain an investigation team to conform to the legislation We did that Vaughan is one of our partners.We paid a retainer.
I am not aware that any citizen of Aurora has ever filed a demand for an inquiry into a closed session.
I thought it was just more silly stuff coming out of Queen's Park. A knee jerk reaction to some particular situation so that they could appear to be responsive.
Like the Code of Conduct: an entirely inadequate reaction to the Bellamy Public Inquiry into the Toronto computer scandal.
A city official responsible for computer contracts was being wined and dined, flown about and bedded by a computer salesman made wealthy with city contracts. Not to mention the involvement of a city alderman,chairman of a committee with oversight responsibility for spending ,who bought a marvelous mansion and took his family on expensive Walt Dinsey vacations with no apparent means of support other than his alderman's salary.
The official lost her job. The alderman ran for Mayor and got about two votes.
The rest of the Province were permitted by magnanimous provincial assent to pass Codes of Conducts that would allow for a penalty of suspension of three months salary for someone found guilty of a breach of Da Code.
Yesterday I gave a couple of examples of code complaints in the city.
The city has an Integrity Commissioner with an office, staff, and an executive salary.
At the start, Councillors complained about were allowed $5,000 each for a legal defence. After the first year, the Integrity Commissioner who was a Professor of Law at Queen's University in Kingston, reported to Council ,the allowance was not being used because it wasn't enough for the purpose. He recommended it be increased to $20,000.
They did that.
Aurora's Integrity Commissioner said he would not recommended that. It made the process horrendously expensive. And besides, most complaints filed were councillors against councillors.
In conversations he had with other Integrity Commissioners, he had learned that was their common experience.
His mission would be to teach ethics to Councillors and ensure better conduct that way.
His ideas of mission were not shared.
We don't hear too much about Code of Conduct complaints any more.
Tic-Tac-Toe
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "More Than Defamation":
"Several Councillors in the room claimed afterwards they were unaware the resolution passed gave the town solicitor authority to proceed with litigation."
The resolution contained the following words: to "use any and all means to address potential defamation."
The subject of defamation is a very serious and offensive one and an obvious recourses is litigation, a law suit.
Perhaps the Councillors were being disingenuous, or downright stupid, for their post-meeting utterances.
Deputy Mayor McRoberts is the only one whose comments are credible; Gallo and Granger are not.
As to what the CAO and Town Clerk said by way of contribution during the meeting we don't know, and neither do you, since you were not present.
One must seriously assume that neither of these gentlemen would speak either for or against a lawsuit directed toward residents of the town.
But we DO NOT KNOW sine the matter was a closed session, and therefore confidential.
Which leaves us where?
*************************
It leaves you not completely understanding the process.
The two officials in a closed door meeting have the same function they do in an open meeting. They do not speak unless a question relevant to their field is directed to them.
The town solicitor was also in the room. The same rule applies.
Mr. Cooper had already advised Council once verbally and once in writing; Councillors are indemnifiedif they are sued for a decision rendered within their duty and authority as Councillors.
Indemnification does not cover a member of council taking legal action against anyone else.
I did not have to be in the room to know these facts.
I was not in the room because the anonymous comment. severely critical of the Mayor, circulated to Councillors to justify a closed door meeting. Did not.
It was not town business . Using town resources to formally discuss a personal matter is an abuse of public resources .
A clause in the Code of Conduct prohibits that. I could have filed a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner if I believed in the process. I could have filed a complaint after every meeting of that council and produced evidence in an audio-video record. to support it.
It would have been like a game of tic-tac-toe.
"Several Councillors in the room claimed afterwards they were unaware the resolution passed gave the town solicitor authority to proceed with litigation."
The resolution contained the following words: to "use any and all means to address potential defamation."
The subject of defamation is a very serious and offensive one and an obvious recourses is litigation, a law suit.
Perhaps the Councillors were being disingenuous, or downright stupid, for their post-meeting utterances.
Deputy Mayor McRoberts is the only one whose comments are credible; Gallo and Granger are not.
As to what the CAO and Town Clerk said by way of contribution during the meeting we don't know, and neither do you, since you were not present.
One must seriously assume that neither of these gentlemen would speak either for or against a lawsuit directed toward residents of the town.
But we DO NOT KNOW sine the matter was a closed session, and therefore confidential.
Which leaves us where?
*************************
It leaves you not completely understanding the process.
The two officials in a closed door meeting have the same function they do in an open meeting. They do not speak unless a question relevant to their field is directed to them.
The town solicitor was also in the room. The same rule applies.
Mr. Cooper had already advised Council once verbally and once in writing; Councillors are indemnifiedif they are sued for a decision rendered within their duty and authority as Councillors.
Indemnification does not cover a member of council taking legal action against anyone else.
I did not have to be in the room to know these facts.
I was not in the room because the anonymous comment. severely critical of the Mayor, circulated to Councillors to justify a closed door meeting. Did not.
It was not town business . Using town resources to formally discuss a personal matter is an abuse of public resources .
A clause in the Code of Conduct prohibits that. I could have filed a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner if I believed in the process. I could have filed a complaint after every meeting of that council and produced evidence in an audio-video record. to support it.
It would have been like a game of tic-tac-toe.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Who Is Doug Holyday
Councillor Doug Holyday mentioned in the previous post was Mayor of Etobicoke before the city's amalgamation
.
He is a frequent spokesperson for Mayor Ford. He is securely in the Mayor's corner and is undoubtedly a valuable resource to the Ford brothers.
A complaint was filed against him and Rob Ford , I think ,because they routinely did not declare expenses against the Councillors $75,000 expense allowance,
The complainant, who spent all of his allowance, complained the two made the other Councillors look bad.
They said they had few expenses and paid for them themselves.
The Integrity Commissioner decided for the complainant. He ordered the pair to declare expenses.
The people of Etobicoke must feel confident the Ford administration will not do anything outrageous as long as Councillor Holyday has an influence. He was Mayor when Etobicoke privatised garbage collection. He knows how to negotiate.
A union organiser told me once, the reason management have problems negotiation contracts is because they have no respect for the process so they don't think they need expertise.
Private business can close down the operation and walk away. The public sector cannot do that.
At the week-end ,Councillor Holyday was the calm and deliberate spokesperson for the administration explaining to the people of Toronto why management rights need to be protected.
He is impressive.
.
He is a frequent spokesperson for Mayor Ford. He is securely in the Mayor's corner and is undoubtedly a valuable resource to the Ford brothers.
A complaint was filed against him and Rob Ford , I think ,because they routinely did not declare expenses against the Councillors $75,000 expense allowance,
The complainant, who spent all of his allowance, complained the two made the other Councillors look bad.
They said they had few expenses and paid for them themselves.
The Integrity Commissioner decided for the complainant. He ordered the pair to declare expenses.
The people of Etobicoke must feel confident the Ford administration will not do anything outrageous as long as Councillor Holyday has an influence. He was Mayor when Etobicoke privatised garbage collection. He knows how to negotiate.
A union organiser told me once, the reason management have problems negotiation contracts is because they have no respect for the process so they don't think they need expertise.
Private business can close down the operation and walk away. The public sector cannot do that.
At the week-end ,Councillor Holyday was the calm and deliberate spokesperson for the administration explaining to the people of Toronto why management rights need to be protected.
He is impressive.
Change Happens
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "More Than Defamation":
The past few days have been heavy going and the Culture Vulture will be realizing they under-estimated the town and its council. Since you are the only visible target for their fury, your comments will likely be worse than usual. Weed them out and, if necessary, have a slow day on your Blog. You have better things to do than sort garbage.
******************
I don't receive comments from the culture vultures.They write Letters to the Editor.
Abusive comments are usually personal.
They make no contribution to any discernible topic.
They are immediately recognisable.as from the Mormac cult. When they appear, I know I've landed a good one.
A comment this morning referred to Georgina's lawyers and how they might have advised
Council. Georgina Council may not have asked for advice..
The debate over covering litigation costs for Councillors started in Toronto in the last term. Councillor Heap was sued by a candidate in the previous election. He chose to defend the action. Council voted to pay his bills.
It was done in open Council.
The city solicitor informed Council they had no authority to do it
At some point Councillor Heap stated he had to settle out of court because to continue would have put him into bankruptcy..
The Council voted to pay his legal bills.
Councillor Doug Holyday took the matter to court at his own expense and the city's decision was reversed.
About the same time the Councillor who acts as Chairman of the Council became involved in litigation. She was successful.
I think that may be the case lawyers use to persuade councillors they can sue citizens.
My recollection of particulars is hazy. I don't have time to go back and dig it all up again.
But there's a difference between the Presiding Member of Toronto Council and other members
A chairperson surrenders the right to participate and vote when the role of Presiding member is accepted. The only time they vote is when Council is deadlocked. The Speaker casts the deciding vote.
In theory it could be powerful . In practice, not. A tie vote may never happen.
The higher levels of government emphasize the principle with a ritua
When the Speaker is chosen, party leaders drag the reluctant member to the Speaker's chair.
It may be, the argument defending the Presiding Member's entitlement to protection from litigationwas because of not having the right to participate in the political process
I don't know that for sure. I suspect it may be the case cited by lawyers or politicians to argue that governments can take legal actions against citizens.
I could be wrong but it's all I can think of that would allow them to imagine they have a right.
Of course the fact is they risk nothing by trying if they are not using their own resources.
Georgina can take some comfort from the situation.
1. they stopped it.
2. It may prove to be the catalyst that brought them to-gether.
The next election should be lively.
It was in Aurora.
Changes were made
The past few days have been heavy going and the Culture Vulture will be realizing they under-estimated the town and its council. Since you are the only visible target for their fury, your comments will likely be worse than usual. Weed them out and, if necessary, have a slow day on your Blog. You have better things to do than sort garbage.
******************
I don't receive comments from the culture vultures.They write Letters to the Editor.
Abusive comments are usually personal.
They make no contribution to any discernible topic.
They are immediately recognisable.as from the Mormac cult. When they appear, I know I've landed a good one.
A comment this morning referred to Georgina's lawyers and how they might have advised
Council. Georgina Council may not have asked for advice..
The debate over covering litigation costs for Councillors started in Toronto in the last term. Councillor Heap was sued by a candidate in the previous election. He chose to defend the action. Council voted to pay his bills.
It was done in open Council.
The city solicitor informed Council they had no authority to do it
At some point Councillor Heap stated he had to settle out of court because to continue would have put him into bankruptcy..
The Council voted to pay his legal bills.
Councillor Doug Holyday took the matter to court at his own expense and the city's decision was reversed.
About the same time the Councillor who acts as Chairman of the Council became involved in litigation. She was successful.
I think that may be the case lawyers use to persuade councillors they can sue citizens.
My recollection of particulars is hazy. I don't have time to go back and dig it all up again.
But there's a difference between the Presiding Member of Toronto Council and other members
A chairperson surrenders the right to participate and vote when the role of Presiding member is accepted. The only time they vote is when Council is deadlocked. The Speaker casts the deciding vote.
In theory it could be powerful . In practice, not. A tie vote may never happen.
The higher levels of government emphasize the principle with a ritua
When the Speaker is chosen, party leaders drag the reluctant member to the Speaker's chair.
It may be, the argument defending the Presiding Member's entitlement to protection from litigationwas because of not having the right to participate in the political process
I don't know that for sure. I suspect it may be the case cited by lawyers or politicians to argue that governments can take legal actions against citizens.
I could be wrong but it's all I can think of that would allow them to imagine they have a right.
Of course the fact is they risk nothing by trying if they are not using their own resources.
Georgina can take some comfort from the situation.
1. they stopped it.
2. It may prove to be the catalyst that brought them to-gether.
The next election should be lively.
It was in Aurora.
Changes were made
Monday, 6 February 2012
More Than Defamation
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Network Has More Work To do":
7:42 PM
The CAO and the Town Clerk were at the closed meeting that launched the defamation suit against residents so we will be finding out if they supported the idea or not.
*********
I can assure you, neither the CAO or the Town Clerk would be in the position of offering or withholding support for a lawsuit to be launched against residents of the community.
Several Councillors in the room claimed afterwards they were unaware the resolution passed gave the town solicitor authority to proceed with litigation.
I believe them .
On the other hand, Councillor Collins Mrakas and myself did not attend the meeting because the issue was not the town's affair..
Another comment suggests litigation undertaken by myself against six individuals is being funded by tax dollars.
That is not the case.
7:42 PM
The CAO and the Town Clerk were at the closed meeting that launched the defamation suit against residents so we will be finding out if they supported the idea or not.
*********
I can assure you, neither the CAO or the Town Clerk would be in the position of offering or withholding support for a lawsuit to be launched against residents of the community.
Several Councillors in the room claimed afterwards they were unaware the resolution passed gave the town solicitor authority to proceed with litigation.
I believe them .
On the other hand, Councillor Collins Mrakas and myself did not attend the meeting because the issue was not the town's affair..
Another comment suggests litigation undertaken by myself against six individuals is being funded by tax dollars.
That is not the case.
We Are Not Talking Genius Here
You will note that Georgina’s press release regarding the Grossi lawsuit. They say that this was not a private lawsuit and that Mayor Grossi was effectively a front man for the town’s initiative.
Council appears to be admitting the it’s trying to circumvent the law because government’s can’t legally sue. The town needs to clarify why it used public funds in order to fund a private lawsuit in light of the fact that it’s illegal for governments to sue for defamation.
Apparently it’s not just the weather this winter that is creating thin ice.
Aurora and Halton Hills made the same mistake, but who’s counting ?
See below
**************
Doesn't matter how they spin it, Georgina discovered they can't put it over . So they rescinded it.
They still have questions to answer.
The Municipal Act is specific about which items can be discussed behind closed doors.
It's a limited list.
It can't be expanded to allow Councillors to plot revenge against a citizen using public resources to that end. To distract attention from the real controversy.
That is not the litigation anticipated in the Act that requires "confidentiality",so that peoplewon't find out what they're up to. .
Or in the case of a Council colleague, instruct a lawyer to suggest the target of the vendetta should not attend the closed door meeting because it might be to his/her financial advantage, to hear how the rest of council is plotting to even up the political score with hundreds of thousands of dollars of public resources.
I kid you not. It has been done..
When I did the tally last week of how much was spent in Aurora , I forgot the $24,000 paid to the First Integrity Commissioner.
$6,000 for six months before the contract was signed and $18,000 for after .
It was a two year contract. It wasn't signed until June. On August 5th ,when he ruled on the complaint that they paid a lawyer $70,000 to prepare for them, they "stripped him (the director)of his authority".
A day too late to say he didn't have authority to make the decision.
It reminds me of a court case I sat in on once.
Two ne'er-do-wells were paid to set a building on fire by its owner. They took a couple of gallon cans of gasoline into the basement and splashed it about liberally
Then they struck a match.
The trial had to be delayed for months until they were released from hospital.
It was actually quite remarkable they were still alive to tell the tale.
For Your Information
Government Can’t Sue for Defamation
Published in the May 2006 issue of Litigation Notes - View Article
The Town of Halton Hills and its Director of Parks and Recreation sued a local internet-based news provider in defamation. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had called the Director “corrupt” in connection with his work for the Town. The defendant brought a motion to strike the Town’s claim. He argued that the statements complained of did not defame the Town, and also argued that the Town could not sue for defamation.
The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario struck the claim asserted by the Town, finding that no government may bring an action in defamation. Canadian cases that did allow for this cause of action were found to be no longer the law of Canada, as they pre-dated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and relied on English authority that had been expressly overruled.
Justice Corbett noted that the Town was a corporation, and may have a “business reputation” to protect, as do other corporations. He also noted that a local government, as created by the Municipal Act, has the powers and rights of a natural person – and a natural person may sue in defamation. Prior to the Charter, Canadian courts held that government bodies could sue in defamation. The defendant argued that, with the advent of the guaranteed right to freedom of expression in the Charter, “everyone should be free to criticize democratically elected governments . . . without risking a defamation action.”
The plaintiffs argued that this issue could not be considered on a motion to strike, but would require a full trial record. Justice Corbett found that the matter could be argued on a motion to strike and without a full record, as it was a pure question of law.
Justice Corbett considered the importance of freedom of speech and its existing limits, concluding that the right to freedom of speech is “a pillar of democracy”, to be limited only to recognize other important rights.
Local governments, while possessing a “business reputation” do not possess a “private” reputation, as “their sole existence is public.” In this way they are unlike other corporations and natural persons. Justice Corbett differentiated between public officials, who maintain private reputations which may be damaged, and governments. Where a defamatory statement about a public body is properly understood to refer to a specific individual, that person may have a right to sue in defamation. However, where the public official is defamed, the government body he represents does not gain a right of action.
Justice Corbett framed the issue as involving the restriction of freedom of speech, specifically any speech of and about government, as being inimical to the basic tenets of democracy. He concluded that the unavailability of defamation actions for governments did not rest on the power imbalance involved in a government suing a citizen, nor did it rest with the identity of the alleged defamer as a “citizen” or taxpayer:
“It is in the very nature of a democratic government itself that precludes government from responding to criticism by means of defamation actions. . . Governments are accountable to the people through the ballot box, and to judges or juries in courts of law. When a government is criticized, its recourse is in the public domain, not the court. . . . Litigation is a form of force, and the government must not silence its critics by force.”
He listed the public methods by which government may protect its reputation, including convening meetings, publishing press releases and setting up public investigations or boards of inquiry.
Justice Corbett concluded by finding that statements made about government were protected by absolute privilege under the common law.
The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario struck the claim asserted by the Town, finding that no government may bring an action in defamation. Canadian cases that did allow for this cause of action were found to be no longer the law of Canada, as they pre-dated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and relied on English authority that had been expressly overruled.
Justice Corbett noted that the Town was a corporation, and may have a “business reputation” to protect, as do other corporations. He also noted that a local government, as created by the Municipal Act, has the powers and rights of a natural person – and a natural person may sue in defamation. Prior to the Charter, Canadian courts held that government bodies could sue in defamation. The defendant argued that, with the advent of the guaranteed right to freedom of expression in the Charter, “everyone should be free to criticize democratically elected governments . . . without risking a defamation action.”
The plaintiffs argued that this issue could not be considered on a motion to strike, but would require a full trial record. Justice Corbett found that the matter could be argued on a motion to strike and without a full record, as it was a pure question of law.
Justice Corbett considered the importance of freedom of speech and its existing limits, concluding that the right to freedom of speech is “a pillar of democracy”, to be limited only to recognize other important rights.
Local governments, while possessing a “business reputation” do not possess a “private” reputation, as “their sole existence is public.” In this way they are unlike other corporations and natural persons. Justice Corbett differentiated between public officials, who maintain private reputations which may be damaged, and governments. Where a defamatory statement about a public body is properly understood to refer to a specific individual, that person may have a right to sue in defamation. However, where the public official is defamed, the government body he represents does not gain a right of action.
Justice Corbett framed the issue as involving the restriction of freedom of speech, specifically any speech of and about government, as being inimical to the basic tenets of democracy. He concluded that the unavailability of defamation actions for governments did not rest on the power imbalance involved in a government suing a citizen, nor did it rest with the identity of the alleged defamer as a “citizen” or taxpayer:
“It is in the very nature of a democratic government itself that precludes government from responding to criticism by means of defamation actions. . . Governments are accountable to the people through the ballot box, and to judges or juries in courts of law. When a government is criticized, its recourse is in the public domain, not the court. . . . Litigation is a form of force, and the government must not silence its critics by force.”
He listed the public methods by which government may protect its reputation, including convening meetings, publishing press releases and setting up public investigations or boards of inquiry.
Justice Corbett concluded by finding that statements made about government were protected by absolute privilege under the common law.
Halton Hills v. Kerouac, [2006] O.J. No. 1473 (S.C.J.)
A Singular Episode
I've been reading for days. Slogging through miles of verbiage purporting to prove my perfidy.
How base,How shameful,How critical am I.
The modern mantra for municipal politics is obsequiousness. Subservient,submissive,servile, slavish and nauseatingly cloy.
Prayerful righteousness is de rigeur.
Codes of Ethics. Codes of Conduct are the modern form of puritanism.A declaration of "Holier Than Thou"
Generally speaking , a poor excuse for a man and still less for any self-respecting female.
I believe it's a legacy of the class system in the U.K. Everyone expected to know his place.
Not so much in Scotland. The natives there are notoriously independent of thought and stubbornly egalitarian. They are at their most dangerous when calm and polite.
It has to do with harsh climate, I think. The lashing rain The force of winds that literally blow a person backwards or drive a river against the flow, back to it's source. The cold that seeps into your bones and takes hours to leave. The lowering ever- threatening sky that breaks occasionally to let a shaft of sunlight slice through like a shining spear; to momentarily light the hills that rise to peaks wherever your gaze falls.
I'm convinced, the craggy, rugged, sometimes barren ,magnificent nature of the place and its location, close to the top of the world, have an influence on a people's character.
Centuries of hardship have shaped us. A crust has formed.
Scottish folk take nothing for granted.They need to know why. They can be persuaded. But not easily.
They never give up the fight. Never lay down the sword. It runs in their veins.It's a matter of survival. It's a life force.
Rabbie Burns wrote a bitter epic called Holy Wullie's Prayer. It wasn't chosen for classroom study. Rab was a genius. That was accorded. But he was nobody's idea of a saint. Certainly Sister Eugenius and Sister Alphonsus did not approve. Although to tell the truth, the subject was never raised.
To be sure, villainy and excess permeates society in any age.
Once there was an occasion, at the council table, when the two women, side by side, at the head of the table chatted comfortably together about town business at hand. They chatted and chatted. Council and a phalanx of directors present were a captive audience with no lapse in the requirement for order and decorum
Any attempt to interrupt the flow would inevitably be greeted with the ferocious glower and the long-suffering deprecating tone familiar to all
"Councillor Buck, you are interrupting"
The situation reached the point where, in a purely instinctive and spontaneous gesture, I slid down to a reclining position in my chair and pulled my jacket over my head. It caused a stir on the opposite side of the table and eventually broke up the tete-a-tete at the head.
Wayne Jackson, the public works director told me later of a practice by fans of a rugger team in the U.K. When the team was playing badly, the fans pulled paper bags over their heads.
It was a minor episode. Hardly worth mentioning. Except I remember it with fondness.
It's often used as an example of my lack of respect for the Office of Mayor and the obligation of Councillors to respect each others difference.
How base,How shameful,How critical am I.
The modern mantra for municipal politics is obsequiousness. Subservient,submissive,servile, slavish and nauseatingly cloy.
Prayerful righteousness is de rigeur.
Codes of Ethics. Codes of Conduct are the modern form of puritanism.A declaration of "Holier Than Thou"
Generally speaking , a poor excuse for a man and still less for any self-respecting female.
I believe it's a legacy of the class system in the U.K. Everyone expected to know his place.
Not so much in Scotland. The natives there are notoriously independent of thought and stubbornly egalitarian. They are at their most dangerous when calm and polite.
It has to do with harsh climate, I think. The lashing rain The force of winds that literally blow a person backwards or drive a river against the flow, back to it's source. The cold that seeps into your bones and takes hours to leave. The lowering ever- threatening sky that breaks occasionally to let a shaft of sunlight slice through like a shining spear; to momentarily light the hills that rise to peaks wherever your gaze falls.
I'm convinced, the craggy, rugged, sometimes barren ,magnificent nature of the place and its location, close to the top of the world, have an influence on a people's character.
Centuries of hardship have shaped us. A crust has formed.
Scottish folk take nothing for granted.They need to know why. They can be persuaded. But not easily.
They never give up the fight. Never lay down the sword. It runs in their veins.It's a matter of survival. It's a life force.
Rabbie Burns wrote a bitter epic called Holy Wullie's Prayer. It wasn't chosen for classroom study. Rab was a genius. That was accorded. But he was nobody's idea of a saint. Certainly Sister Eugenius and Sister Alphonsus did not approve. Although to tell the truth, the subject was never raised.
To be sure, villainy and excess permeates society in any age.
Once there was an occasion, at the council table, when the two women, side by side, at the head of the table chatted comfortably together about town business at hand. They chatted and chatted. Council and a phalanx of directors present were a captive audience with no lapse in the requirement for order and decorum
Any attempt to interrupt the flow would inevitably be greeted with the ferocious glower and the long-suffering deprecating tone familiar to all
"Councillor Buck, you are interrupting"
The situation reached the point where, in a purely instinctive and spontaneous gesture, I slid down to a reclining position in my chair and pulled my jacket over my head. It caused a stir on the opposite side of the table and eventually broke up the tete-a-tete at the head.
Wayne Jackson, the public works director told me later of a practice by fans of a rugger team in the U.K. When the team was playing badly, the fans pulled paper bags over their heads.
It was a minor episode. Hardly worth mentioning. Except I remember it with fondness.
It's often used as an example of my lack of respect for the Office of Mayor and the obligation of Councillors to respect each others difference.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
The Network Has More Work To do
Broderick Epps has left a new comment on your post "Somebody asked":
Evelyn
You mention the 50K salary of the Regional Councillors.
Don't forget their added pay as Committee members, more if you are the Chair of said committee ie Wayne Emmerson of Transportation or John Taylor Planning and Development.
What is really sad is how few people know who Regional Council is what issues they face and HOW THEY SPEND OUR MONEY!!!
*****************
I didn't forget. I never knew committee members.received extra The Region didn't start out that way.There was no extra pay ro serve on a board or committee.
In the last term ,the former Mayor had former Councillor MacEachern appointed to the South Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority . The Councillor was paid extra. I understood that was because she was not a regional councillor.
As for knowing how they spend our money, we embarked on a course in Aurora last term which will accomplish the same objective.
On September 10th 2010. Report NO. CFS10-017 was presented to Council nad approved. If reading this, the report is on the Town's web site under Council, Agendas and Minutes.
Sum and substance is that of a Set of 63 policies that required Council authority all but seventeen were transferred to the CAO..
The report was presented as housekeeping. Tidying things up so to speak.
I suggested it would be a good exeroice for the incoming Council, taking office on Deember 1st.
Council would receive a grounding on what was and what wasn't withing their authority and why.
It was no go. Without further ado or discussion, council gave away the store.
I had no illusions. Not for a minute did I believe our former Mayor was giving up power.
Like so many changes in the last three years ,the model is probably regional.
Councillors hear about stuff that perplex. Can't even ask about because the last council fixed it that way.
I've told the Mayor of my concerns. He asked for the report.
It' s why I have it in my hand ready to call the Clerk in the morning and request circulation.
The report recommends staff undertake a review and update of all corporate policies and procedures;
The CAO be delegated approval authority for administrative policy matters as identified in Attachment #2 of Report CFS10_917 with all other policies remaining subject to Council approval.
Purpose of the report is have Council authorise staff to undertake a review of Administrative procedures and to transfer accountability and authority for most of them to the CAO to facilitate the review process while maintaining Council's authority on key matters.
And if that sounds like duplication, that's because it is and how it appears in the report.
A few "key matters' for council to deal with, are Flag-raising. Media relations, employment of relatives, council expense policies and really really big stuff like that.
Once again, the deed was done without a murmur of protest. With of course the exception of myself, Mary, Mary, quite contrary.
At the time, candidates were already registered for the upcoming election. in October.Some of them were attending council meetings.
I know current councillors have been wondering why there seems to be so little to do
There is concern about stuff they hear that they had no say in.
Maybe having the report in their hand will help them to understand why.
***********
I think election rather than appointment of Regional Chairman might bring a new awareness to the community about what the Region is about. Nothing like an election to stir things up.
I attended the regional inaugural last year, to support Aurora's Mayor.
Each regional councillor had an opportunity to speak.
Oh My Gawd...
THEY appointed the Chairman that night.
Had they appointed one of their own, there would have had to be an immediate by-election to fill his or her seat, with the local municipality paying the tab.
I have heard a couple of other regions have voted for direct election of the Chairperson.
It's time for us to talk about that. Now that we know what social media can accomplish.
Let the network do its job.
Evelyn
You mention the 50K salary of the Regional Councillors.
Don't forget their added pay as Committee members, more if you are the Chair of said committee ie Wayne Emmerson of Transportation or John Taylor Planning and Development.
What is really sad is how few people know who Regional Council is what issues they face and HOW THEY SPEND OUR MONEY!!!
*****************
I didn't forget. I never knew committee members.received extra The Region didn't start out that way.There was no extra pay ro serve on a board or committee.
In the last term ,the former Mayor had former Councillor MacEachern appointed to the South Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority . The Councillor was paid extra. I understood that was because she was not a regional councillor.
As for knowing how they spend our money, we embarked on a course in Aurora last term which will accomplish the same objective.
On September 10th 2010. Report NO. CFS10-017 was presented to Council nad approved. If reading this, the report is on the Town's web site under Council, Agendas and Minutes.
Sum and substance is that of a Set of 63 policies that required Council authority all but seventeen were transferred to the CAO..
The report was presented as housekeeping. Tidying things up so to speak.
I suggested it would be a good exeroice for the incoming Council, taking office on Deember 1st.
Council would receive a grounding on what was and what wasn't withing their authority and why.
It was no go. Without further ado or discussion, council gave away the store.
I had no illusions. Not for a minute did I believe our former Mayor was giving up power.
Like so many changes in the last three years ,the model is probably regional.
Councillors hear about stuff that perplex. Can't even ask about because the last council fixed it that way.
I've told the Mayor of my concerns. He asked for the report.
It' s why I have it in my hand ready to call the Clerk in the morning and request circulation.
The report recommends staff undertake a review and update of all corporate policies and procedures;
The CAO be delegated approval authority for administrative policy matters as identified in Attachment #2 of Report CFS10_917 with all other policies remaining subject to Council approval.
Purpose of the report is have Council authorise staff to undertake a review of Administrative procedures and to transfer accountability and authority for most of them to the CAO to facilitate the review process while maintaining Council's authority on key matters.
And if that sounds like duplication, that's because it is and how it appears in the report.
A few "key matters' for council to deal with, are Flag-raising. Media relations, employment of relatives, council expense policies and really really big stuff like that.
Once again, the deed was done without a murmur of protest. With of course the exception of myself, Mary, Mary, quite contrary.
At the time, candidates were already registered for the upcoming election. in October.Some of them were attending council meetings.
I know current councillors have been wondering why there seems to be so little to do
There is concern about stuff they hear that they had no say in.
Maybe having the report in their hand will help them to understand why.
***********
I think election rather than appointment of Regional Chairman might bring a new awareness to the community about what the Region is about. Nothing like an election to stir things up.
I attended the regional inaugural last year, to support Aurora's Mayor.
Each regional councillor had an opportunity to speak.
Oh My Gawd...
THEY appointed the Chairman that night.
Had they appointed one of their own, there would have had to be an immediate by-election to fill his or her seat, with the local municipality paying the tab.
I have heard a couple of other regions have voted for direct election of the Chairperson.
It's time for us to talk about that. Now that we know what social media can accomplish.
Let the network do its job.
Friday, 3 February 2012
Ce N'est pas moi !!!!
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Georgina Way":
Why are you talking about Nigel? Isn't he the one that contacted Mormac to help in their defamation case by supplying some old press release he has 'saved, knowing it would one day be useful'?
****************
I was not talking about Mr. Kean. One of my readers made the reference
Don't know which defamation is being reference or what assistance he offered or who his friends are.
Mea Culpa....NOT
In this .... I am but the messenger.
Why are you talking about Nigel? Isn't he the one that contacted Mormac to help in their defamation case by supplying some old press release he has 'saved, knowing it would one day be useful'?
****************
I was not talking about Mr. Kean. One of my readers made the reference
Don't know which defamation is being reference or what assistance he offered or who his friends are.
Mea Culpa....NOT
In this .... I am but the messenger.
The Georgina Way
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Somebody asked":
The next regular Council meeting in Georgina is scheduled for Feb.13th. It will be interesting to see if the residents go back to being complacent or follow up with questions. Either way, Mayor Grossi has taken a hit.
***************
I don't know the Mayor of Georgina. I've never spoken to the man. I do know the Mayor's job is not easy. A Mayor who believes he/she has the last word is living in a Fool's Paradise.
There are still serious questions to be answered about what happened in Georgina:.
Did the Mayor participate and vote on the Bylaw?
Was it passed during a closed meeting ?
What is the understanding of the purpose of closed meetings?
Do they really believe planning strategy, using public resources, to destroy a political adversary,comes under the heading of protecting the privacy of someone who can be identified? Like who?
It certainly was not John Maclean's arse they were concerned about protecting.
Who told them such a thing? In God's name, where did they get such an idea?
Did anyone advise before they did it that they couldn't?
Has such a thing happened in Georgina before?
People need to know the answers.
Having said that,it must also be noted Council changed its mind. They listened. There's no shame in acknowledging a mistake was made and corrected. Public funds expended can and should be recovered.
The community now has to turn its attention to correcting whatever faults there are in what certainly appears to be a beautiful and exciting family facility.
If it cost an arm and a leg and potentially a political career or two& to build , at least it should be made worthwhile.
What happened in Georgina was the way things should happen. People reacted to a Council decision They organised to ensure they were heard.
Council listened and responded.
That's not the way it was in Aurora for a while.
The next regular Council meeting in Georgina is scheduled for Feb.13th. It will be interesting to see if the residents go back to being complacent or follow up with questions. Either way, Mayor Grossi has taken a hit.
***************
I don't know the Mayor of Georgina. I've never spoken to the man. I do know the Mayor's job is not easy. A Mayor who believes he/she has the last word is living in a Fool's Paradise.
There are still serious questions to be answered about what happened in Georgina:.
Did the Mayor participate and vote on the Bylaw?
Was it passed during a closed meeting ?
What is the understanding of the purpose of closed meetings?
Do they really believe planning strategy, using public resources, to destroy a political adversary,comes under the heading of protecting the privacy of someone who can be identified? Like who?
It certainly was not John Maclean's arse they were concerned about protecting.
Who told them such a thing? In God's name, where did they get such an idea?
Did anyone advise before they did it that they couldn't?
Has such a thing happened in Georgina before?
People need to know the answers.
Having said that,it must also be noted Council changed its mind. They listened. There's no shame in acknowledging a mistake was made and corrected. Public funds expended can and should be recovered.
The community now has to turn its attention to correcting whatever faults there are in what certainly appears to be a beautiful and exciting family facility.
If it cost an arm and a leg and potentially a political career or two& to build , at least it should be made worthwhile.
What happened in Georgina was the way things should happen. People reacted to a Council decision They organised to ensure they were heard.
Council listened and responded.
That's not the way it was in Aurora for a while.
Somebody asked
Regional Councillors, at last inquiry, are paid $50 thousand a year. Benefits to the value of $10 thousand are paid at the municipal level on their behalf .
I gather it's an arrangement made between Region and Municipality to allow benefits to be paid.
The Mayor/ regional councillor is classified as an employee at the municipal level. There may be a reason they can't do it at the Region. I don't know what that might be.
The Region compensates the Municipality for the expenditure. Sounds needlessly complicated
It's a bit odd for a regional councillor ,who is also a municipal councillor, to be classified as an employee in order to be included in the municipal benefits plan.
A municipal councillor is not classified as an employee doesn't pay unemployment premiums and doesn't receive benefits if defeated. Can unemployment benefits be claimed if you quit the job. Isn't there a penalty if you get fired?
There's no severance pay at the municipal level. At least, not in Aurora. Can't speak for the rest.
I understand severance is paid to a defeated councillor and one who retires voluntarily. I believe it's a month's salary for every year served.
Or maybe it's one for each term. Na....it's probably a year. That's the standard severance settlement.. Of course it's usually paid if termination is without cause. I don't know where that fits in a situation where a candidate is defeated for cause.
Mind you, a candidate could lose an election because a challenger fought a better campaign or had more money or something equally innocuous.
If a judgement had to be made about such things to determine if severance pay was due or not, who might be the right person to make it ?
Probably the CAO.
We have given Aurora's CAO that kind of authority.
Obviously it's simpler just to give severance pay to all erstwhile regional councillors..
I wonder how the decision about severance was made. A public debate or like that? Don't remember ever hearing about it.
It occurred to me this minute to wonder also , what would Regional Council do if they ever got a petition of thousands from several municipalities with a demand for election of chairperson?
Like Georgina got a petition. Georgina has two regional Councillors. Newmarket has as well
The southern three municipalities have more members than all six in the north.
But maybe residents in the south might feel the same way about electing a Regional Chairperson.
I gather it's an arrangement made between Region and Municipality to allow benefits to be paid.
The Mayor/ regional councillor is classified as an employee at the municipal level. There may be a reason they can't do it at the Region. I don't know what that might be.
The Region compensates the Municipality for the expenditure. Sounds needlessly complicated
It's a bit odd for a regional councillor ,who is also a municipal councillor, to be classified as an employee in order to be included in the municipal benefits plan.
A municipal councillor is not classified as an employee doesn't pay unemployment premiums and doesn't receive benefits if defeated. Can unemployment benefits be claimed if you quit the job. Isn't there a penalty if you get fired?
There's no severance pay at the municipal level. At least, not in Aurora. Can't speak for the rest.
I understand severance is paid to a defeated councillor and one who retires voluntarily. I believe it's a month's salary for every year served.
Or maybe it's one for each term. Na....it's probably a year. That's the standard severance settlement.. Of course it's usually paid if termination is without cause. I don't know where that fits in a situation where a candidate is defeated for cause.
Mind you, a candidate could lose an election because a challenger fought a better campaign or had more money or something equally innocuous.
If a judgement had to be made about such things to determine if severance pay was due or not, who might be the right person to make it ?
Probably the CAO.
We have given Aurora's CAO that kind of authority.
Obviously it's simpler just to give severance pay to all erstwhile regional councillors..
I wonder how the decision about severance was made. A public debate or like that? Don't remember ever hearing about it.
It occurred to me this minute to wonder also , what would Regional Council do if they ever got a petition of thousands from several municipalities with a demand for election of chairperson?
Like Georgina got a petition. Georgina has two regional Councillors. Newmarket has as well
The southern three municipalities have more members than all six in the north.
But maybe residents in the south might feel the same way about electing a Regional Chairperson.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
Does Any Of This Sound Familiar
As much as I would give this idea a chance, I do like this quote…
“Friction’s a good thing, as long as everybody’s intention is to create a better city, then that’s all fair enough.”
Calgary mayor turns to psychologist to help city council get along
Tristin Hopper Feb 1, 2012 – 12:28 AM ET
Lorraine Hjalte / Postmedia News
During his 2010 campaign, Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi described the city’s council as “broken.”
By Jason Markusoff and Tristin Hopper
Calgary • Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s bid to smooth out the “dysfunction” of Calgary city council with a closed-door psychology session has been met with charges of silliness from critics.
Over the weekend, Mr. Nenshi broached the idea in a confidential email to colleagues. Ivan Zendel, a Calgary psychologist, then followed up with a message asking council members how they felt they worked together and how this could be improved.
Citing discomfort with the plan, Alderman Gord Lowe said Monday he was considering skipping the meeting.
“I would find it extraordinary if any member of council did not want to attend a meeting on how council can work together better,” Mr. Nenshi said, adding if members were interested “in a dysfunctional group that is not working well together, it was absolutely their prerogative.”
When Alderman Andre Chabot tried to alter the agenda for the closed-door session, the Mayor shot back, “You can’t.” A six-member voting block of veteran council members also failed to shoot down his plan.
Mr. Zendel, a 20-year veteran of clinical psychology and psychotherapy, usually works with companies. His online profile says he has “a conviction to assist individuals and organizations to become more productive.”
“It looks extremely silly,” said Ric McIver, a former alderman who ran against Mr. Nenshi for mayor in 2010. “Friction’s a good thing, as long as everybody’s intention is to create a better city, then that’s all fair enough.”
Joe Ceci, another former alderman with Mr. Nenshi’s predecessors Dave Bronconnier and Al Duerr, was baffled by the decision. “Exsqueeze me?” he said when asked if a psychologist had visited city hall during his 15 years on council.
Alderman Diane Colley-Urquhart said Mr. Nenshi himself can do a better job of cooling any passions. “It’s not that we don’t get along,” she said. “It’s about leadership and how you chair a meeting.”
The Mayor says some council members asked for a special meeting to discuss getting along in meetings behaviour after some stormy sessions.
Several contentious votes have been razor-close.
The decision on the $300-million airport tunnel, for example, was passed by eight votes to seven.
“I don’t consider 8-7 votes as being any sign of a dysfunctional council, in fact, just the opposite,” said Mr. Lowe, noting a contentious council makes for “well-canvassed” issues.
After the closed-door session with Mr. Zendel — details of which no one would discuss — Mr. Nenshi reported it was “non-dramatic.”
“A couple of members made what was actually a routine meeting into a big deal,” he tweeted.
“Having gone through the process, I thought it was interesting,” Alderman Gian-Carlo Carra said.
Civility has been a top priority for Mr. Nenshi, who often said during his 2010 election campaign Calgary city council was “broken.”
The 38-year-old political newcomer also refused to run attack ads. “[Attack ads] work not to convince people to vote for you, they work to convince your opponents not to vote. And I think that’s deeply cynical,” he told CTV News in March.
Nevertheless, the Mayor has not been above the occasional catty indulgence, at least online.
In November, after blogger Werner Patels accused him of being an extreme leftist, the mayor reposted on Twitter, Mr. Patels was “off [his] meds.”
National Post
thopper@nationalpost.
thopper@nationalpost.
David Nitkin, Aurora's First Integrity Commissioner, said he had "Worked with governments with blood on their hands"
My guess is he never encountered anything like the Momac Regime in Aurora.
The Gremilns Are Furiously Active
They have hatched an evil plot and joined forces to deluge my blog with abuse designed to undermine my credibility.
One comments. "I don't see you in church. What about your five children?"
I have seven children.
One comments. "I don't see you in church. What about your five children?"
I have seven children.
The Value Of HIstory
"Anonymous" said...
Now cut that out you knuckleheads. What exactly does anything you wrote here have to do with taking a commodity (like water) and remove one layer of the supply chain? I believe, I am sure to stir up s**t with is this, that amalgamation in Toronto was a good thing. The failure has been in completing the process - no one has the balls to reduce the overlap until Ford.To those that find my namesake "cheap Saturday afternoon trash".... knock it off you numbskull!
Moe Howard
**********************
It's hardly worth observing but I will anyway. Seen often enough,a style of thinking and attitude expressed in writing becomes familiar. The monicker has changed but I believe the author is no stranger to this blog.
Reference to Toronto's amalgamation is worth a response.
Success of the Toronto experiment awaits. But there is no turning back. The most significant aspect was dissolution of Metro. Yet it was barely noted.
When Metro was created, Toronto and York Roads Commission remained.I was Reeve in the last term of York County Council. The late Jack Rettie was the Commissioner.He became First C.A.O. of the Region.
1969, was the year County Boards of Education were formed.
First solicitor appointed to the Region of York, two years later, was Ted Oakes, former Assistant solicitor at Metro Toronto. History was at his fingertips. He shared generously. I was eager to learn.
Metro was created in 1954 for the purpose of managing growth and development.
Several boroughs, previously part of York County, were taken into its boundary
Former Reeves, the late Marie Curtis of Long Branch and True Davidson of East York were legendary figures. Women have always been prominent in Municipal government. Both were warmly received at County Council meetings on different occasions.
Their boroughs subsequently disappeared in a succession of amalgamations. As areas developed, boundaries disappeared and political boundaries no longer served a purpose.
I remember the epic battle between True Davidson and Beth Neilson for Mayor of the single borough created out of York and East York.True Davidson was the victor. She was hospitalized with exhaustion before the campaign endedand held a press conference in her hospital room to prove that "rumours of her demise had been vastly exaggerated"
Finally, in the late nineties, Metro's purpose also ended and the monolith itself vanished along with political boundaries between remaining boroughs.
York Region was created forty-one years ago. In haste. Metro was the model.
Plans are afoot to use Lake Simcoe to service the fields of the Northern half of the region. Urbanization of the entire region moves forward like a juggernaut. Separation between Toronto and York had already disappeared at the time the Region was created.
Currently, unbeknownst until now to Aurora, we are taking seventy- five per cent of our water from Lake Ontario on the west. A trunk sewer carries waste to Lake Ontario in the east. We have a linked transit system.
To reduce financial impact when Toronto was created, the burden of cost for housing and social services were transferred to the surrounding regions. York's share was $75 million each year.
Toronto's property taxes had been hundreds of dollars LESS than surrounding boroughs and Regional municipalities since market value assessment was introduced. The city refused to adopt it and no provincial government of any stripe ever had the intestinal fortitude to force the issue.
Market value assessment was supposed to be the tool that would even the playing field throughout the Province.
Toronto has been the tail that wagged hound Ontario for more than half a century.
Rob Ford, as true a Torontonian as the city has had as Mayor in the last half century,may,in his own lack of sophistication, be the only Mayorto attempt to create order and control costs in essentially a sprawling ungovernable mass. As was anticipated, when plans were made by John Robart's government in the sixties to prevent it from happening.
Plans no doubt mouldering lost and forgotten on a shelf in a basement at Queen's Park.
If Toronto is ungovernable,think how much greater the problems, when the Regions around Toronto fill every nook and cranny with urbanization.
Does anyone think of Bill Fisch in terms of leadership?
Is there a sense in Aurora, we have a strong hand on the rudder of our small boat?
Only a Stooge would believe Toronto's amalgamation lacks only "balls" to succeed.
Megalopolis history the world over would indicate otherwise.
What we have in Aurora is precious.
Remnants of a simpler time.
We should treasure and enjoy it.
While it lasts.
Now cut that out you knuckleheads. What exactly does anything you wrote here have to do with taking a commodity (like water) and remove one layer of the supply chain? I believe, I am sure to stir up s**t with is this, that amalgamation in Toronto was a good thing. The failure has been in completing the process - no one has the balls to reduce the overlap until Ford.To those that find my namesake "cheap Saturday afternoon trash".... knock it off you numbskull!
Moe Howard
**********************
It's hardly worth observing but I will anyway. Seen often enough,a style of thinking and attitude expressed in writing becomes familiar. The monicker has changed but I believe the author is no stranger to this blog.
Reference to Toronto's amalgamation is worth a response.
Success of the Toronto experiment awaits. But there is no turning back. The most significant aspect was dissolution of Metro. Yet it was barely noted.
When Metro was created, Toronto and York Roads Commission remained.I was Reeve in the last term of York County Council. The late Jack Rettie was the Commissioner.He became First C.A.O. of the Region.
1969, was the year County Boards of Education were formed.
First solicitor appointed to the Region of York, two years later, was Ted Oakes, former Assistant solicitor at Metro Toronto. History was at his fingertips. He shared generously. I was eager to learn.
Metro was created in 1954 for the purpose of managing growth and development.
Several boroughs, previously part of York County, were taken into its boundary
Former Reeves, the late Marie Curtis of Long Branch and True Davidson of East York were legendary figures. Women have always been prominent in Municipal government. Both were warmly received at County Council meetings on different occasions.
Their boroughs subsequently disappeared in a succession of amalgamations. As areas developed, boundaries disappeared and political boundaries no longer served a purpose.
I remember the epic battle between True Davidson and Beth Neilson for Mayor of the single borough created out of York and East York.True Davidson was the victor. She was hospitalized with exhaustion before the campaign endedand held a press conference in her hospital room to prove that "rumours of her demise had been vastly exaggerated"
Finally, in the late nineties, Metro's purpose also ended and the monolith itself vanished along with political boundaries between remaining boroughs.
York Region was created forty-one years ago. In haste. Metro was the model.
Plans are afoot to use Lake Simcoe to service the fields of the Northern half of the region. Urbanization of the entire region moves forward like a juggernaut. Separation between Toronto and York had already disappeared at the time the Region was created.
Currently, unbeknownst until now to Aurora, we are taking seventy- five per cent of our water from Lake Ontario on the west. A trunk sewer carries waste to Lake Ontario in the east. We have a linked transit system.
To reduce financial impact when Toronto was created, the burden of cost for housing and social services were transferred to the surrounding regions. York's share was $75 million each year.
Toronto's property taxes had been hundreds of dollars LESS than surrounding boroughs and Regional municipalities since market value assessment was introduced. The city refused to adopt it and no provincial government of any stripe ever had the intestinal fortitude to force the issue.
Market value assessment was supposed to be the tool that would even the playing field throughout the Province.
Toronto has been the tail that wagged hound Ontario for more than half a century.
Rob Ford, as true a Torontonian as the city has had as Mayor in the last half century,may,in his own lack of sophistication, be the only Mayorto attempt to create order and control costs in essentially a sprawling ungovernable mass. As was anticipated, when plans were made by John Robart's government in the sixties to prevent it from happening.
Plans no doubt mouldering lost and forgotten on a shelf in a basement at Queen's Park.
If Toronto is ungovernable,think how much greater the problems, when the Regions around Toronto fill every nook and cranny with urbanization.
Does anyone think of Bill Fisch in terms of leadership?
Is there a sense in Aurora, we have a strong hand on the rudder of our small boat?
Only a Stooge would believe Toronto's amalgamation lacks only "balls" to succeed.
Megalopolis history the world over would indicate otherwise.
What we have in Aurora is precious.
Remnants of a simpler time.
We should treasure and enjoy it.
While it lasts.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Passed On For Information
Lawsuit launched. Georgina Mayor Rob Grossi has launched a lawsuit against former leisure services director John McLean over a series of letters published in Georgina area newspapers last year. File Photo
ON THE WEB
Visit our lawsuit hot topic for reader reaction and more stories on the issue.
Visit our lawsuit hot topic for reader reaction and more stories on the issue.
Georgina Mayor Rob Grossi has requested an impromptu special council meeting tomorrow.
Media received an e-mail from the clerk’s office yesterday with an agenda for a meeting Thursday at 12:30 p.m., indicating council will go directly in private session to enact a bylaw regarding a “legal matter” after preliminary procedural items.
Under the Municipal Act, the meeting is closed to the public since it deals with “advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege”.
Roland Chenier, the town’s clerk, said this is not the first time a special council meeting has been called 48 hours after a committee of the whole meeting, but added it does not happen often.
He was also “not at liberty” to answer if the special meeting involved the defamation lawsuit against former leisure services director John McLean or the Nov. 21 bylaw indemnifying the mayor against legal costs.
Details of the closed meeting will be released, as well as any confirming bylaws effective on that day.
Attempts to reach Mayor Grossi and John McLean have been unsuccessful.
Check yorkregion.com and tomorrow’s Advocate for more details.
Media received an e-mail from the clerk’s office yesterday with an agenda for a meeting Thursday at 12:30 p.m., indicating council will go directly in private session to enact a bylaw regarding a “legal matter” after preliminary procedural items.
Under the Municipal Act, the meeting is closed to the public since it deals with “advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege”.
Roland Chenier, the town’s clerk, said this is not the first time a special council meeting has been called 48 hours after a committee of the whole meeting, but added it does not happen often.
He was also “not at liberty” to answer if the special meeting involved the defamation lawsuit against former leisure services director John McLean or the Nov. 21 bylaw indemnifying the mayor against legal costs.
Details of the closed meeting will be released, as well as any confirming bylaws effective on that day.
Attempts to reach Mayor Grossi and John McLean have been unsuccessful.
Check yorkregion.com and tomorrow’s Advocate for more details.
Looking For Logic In All The Wrong Places
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "All In Favour Of A Commissar?":
Give me the job.....
I am quite aware of how the Province dictates how municipalities are run. My sarcastic tone is not easy to pick up in print.
"Why would you imagine a reduction in staff at the municipal level and transfer to the regional level would cost less money?"
Well.. If each town had 10 people (not sure if that is accurate but for argument's sake) that dealt with water, you may only need 20 at a regional level. That is 10 salaries/benefits that a Town would not need to pay.
"Bless Your Heart Child, What makes you think transferring staff from towns to the regions would result in a smaller payroll in Aurora? Or improved service?"
Again the condescending attitude... I think the math is clear. If the Town has 100 employees and 10 are removed, the cost is less. Do you know something about payroll that I don't?
"Why do you feel the debate about water rates is endless? Is it because you just don't want to hear it any more.? Poor baby!"
Nice.... What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
****************
Mr. Moe Stoogie or Stoogie Moe or just plain Stoogie ..However you wish to be known
The definition of insanity is making the same MISTAKE over and over and expecting a different result.
Repeating the same message over and over has a different aim. The community starts to notice and understand. If I can't persuade colleagues I am something other than a contrarian, perhaps our supporters can.
I'm sorry I was condescending. Nothing makes me angrier.
I probably don't know more than you about simple math.
I do know more about how the municipality is functioning. I am not confident that all is well.
I believe Council's authority has been substantially diminished. A huge turnover in an election means new,unsure Councillors are more inclined to accept staff advice and less inclined to realise its influence on their personal judgement. They are naturally conscious of the fishbowl environment.
I offer a snippet from the budget to prove my point.
The town has eight contract seasonal employees.The policy allows for flexibility in the work program. When the program is less in a given year, man hours can be reduced accordingly. The difference in cost is substantial. Benefits and wages are the main saving. $29,100 each contract.
User fees are impacted by cost of facility operation. The higher cost memans higher user fees needed to recover cost.
In this budget, three contract positions are recommended to become permanent staff complement. Increased cost... $77,300
There will be no increase in service.
The connection between higher cost of operating was not made to user fees.The reason is simple.
In the last term the adminstration was re-organised. Responsibility for facilities management was transferred from the department with responsibility for programs to a department with no such responsibility.
I saw no merit in the re-organisation. The above disconnect is a sample of dis-organisation.My initial judgement is confirmed.It was bad advice.Given by people who had not been in the administration long enough to understand how it worked before they set about changing it.
It was not undertaken in the interest of the community.
Last week we learned of a Trillium grant awarded to Sport Aurora. A spokesperson said it would mean all children in Aurora would be able to participate in sports programs regardless of means.
How does needless jacking-up of operating cost leading to higher user fees contribute to that worthy objective?
What stakeholders, clients or investors are served.?
The budget has received approval in principle with that and many other increases in spending that contribute nothing whatsoever to an improvement of service or efficient use of resources.
What pray you, Stoogie ,would you do in the circumstances?
Give me the job.....
I am quite aware of how the Province dictates how municipalities are run. My sarcastic tone is not easy to pick up in print.
"Why would you imagine a reduction in staff at the municipal level and transfer to the regional level would cost less money?"
Well.. If each town had 10 people (not sure if that is accurate but for argument's sake) that dealt with water, you may only need 20 at a regional level. That is 10 salaries/benefits that a Town would not need to pay.
"Bless Your Heart Child, What makes you think transferring staff from towns to the regions would result in a smaller payroll in Aurora? Or improved service?"
Again the condescending attitude... I think the math is clear. If the Town has 100 employees and 10 are removed, the cost is less. Do you know something about payroll that I don't?
"Why do you feel the debate about water rates is endless? Is it because you just don't want to hear it any more.? Poor baby!"
Nice.... What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
****************
Mr. Moe Stoogie or Stoogie Moe or just plain Stoogie ..However you wish to be known
The definition of insanity is making the same MISTAKE over and over and expecting a different result.
Repeating the same message over and over has a different aim. The community starts to notice and understand. If I can't persuade colleagues I am something other than a contrarian, perhaps our supporters can.
I'm sorry I was condescending. Nothing makes me angrier.
I probably don't know more than you about simple math.
I do know more about how the municipality is functioning. I am not confident that all is well.
I believe Council's authority has been substantially diminished. A huge turnover in an election means new,unsure Councillors are more inclined to accept staff advice and less inclined to realise its influence on their personal judgement. They are naturally conscious of the fishbowl environment.
I offer a snippet from the budget to prove my point.
The town has eight contract seasonal employees.The policy allows for flexibility in the work program. When the program is less in a given year, man hours can be reduced accordingly. The difference in cost is substantial. Benefits and wages are the main saving. $29,100 each contract.
User fees are impacted by cost of facility operation. The higher cost memans higher user fees needed to recover cost.
In this budget, three contract positions are recommended to become permanent staff complement. Increased cost... $77,300
There will be no increase in service.
The connection between higher cost of operating was not made to user fees.The reason is simple.
In the last term the adminstration was re-organised. Responsibility for facilities management was transferred from the department with responsibility for programs to a department with no such responsibility.
I saw no merit in the re-organisation. The above disconnect is a sample of dis-organisation.My initial judgement is confirmed.It was bad advice.Given by people who had not been in the administration long enough to understand how it worked before they set about changing it.
It was not undertaken in the interest of the community.
Last week we learned of a Trillium grant awarded to Sport Aurora. A spokesperson said it would mean all children in Aurora would be able to participate in sports programs regardless of means.
How does needless jacking-up of operating cost leading to higher user fees contribute to that worthy objective?
What stakeholders, clients or investors are served.?
The budget has received approval in principle with that and many other increases in spending that contribute nothing whatsoever to an improvement of service or efficient use of resources.
What pray you, Stoogie ,would you do in the circumstances?
A Milestone
My site meter shows the average daily visits to my blog at 200. That's a milestone.
Page views are showing at 474.
Visits are recorded at 5.59 minutes. Views 2.4 minutes.
I am trying not to be excited by the rapid growth. I googled to query the difference between pages and views. I did receivean answer but I'm not sufficiently literate to understand it.
I know the numbers are increasing. I also know some logins are hostile. It's hard to guess how many. Sometimes, when three jabs are within minutes of each other,it would appear they are from the same very angry person. I think I know who. Some comments I don't understand. If they don't appear hostile,I publish hoping the person they are directed to will get it.
My blog has been used to take shots at Chris. I know he can defend himself very well but I don't want this blog to be the conduit. Rather than having to reject the comments, I would rather they not be made here. Chris is my friend.
The Georgina issue has spiked the numbers. The biggest jump in the shortest time since blog began. Keswickians are definitely an appreciative bunch and there's a wholehearted welcome on this mat.
I'm aware my posts are a great thorn in the sides of known Aurora suspects. They are not written with that objective.
I don't get up in the morning thinking how many of my enemies can I piss off today.
That's a side reward for the time I put in.
I don't expect the blog's topics to appeal to everyone. There has to be aninterest in the town's affairs. My hope is to encourage more people to become interested.
If I accomplish that in the smallest degree, I will be content.
That's why the numbers matter.
If they're going up,that can only be good. Right?
Page views are showing at 474.
Visits are recorded at 5.59 minutes. Views 2.4 minutes.
I am trying not to be excited by the rapid growth. I googled to query the difference between pages and views. I did receivean answer but I'm not sufficiently literate to understand it.
I know the numbers are increasing. I also know some logins are hostile. It's hard to guess how many. Sometimes, when three jabs are within minutes of each other,it would appear they are from the same very angry person. I think I know who. Some comments I don't understand. If they don't appear hostile,I publish hoping the person they are directed to will get it.
My blog has been used to take shots at Chris. I know he can defend himself very well but I don't want this blog to be the conduit. Rather than having to reject the comments, I would rather they not be made here. Chris is my friend.
The Georgina issue has spiked the numbers. The biggest jump in the shortest time since blog began. Keswickians are definitely an appreciative bunch and there's a wholehearted welcome on this mat.
I'm aware my posts are a great thorn in the sides of known Aurora suspects. They are not written with that objective.
I don't get up in the morning thinking how many of my enemies can I piss off today.
That's a side reward for the time I put in.
I don't expect the blog's topics to appeal to everyone. There has to be aninterest in the town's affairs. My hope is to encourage more people to become interested.
If I accomplish that in the smallest degree, I will be content.
That's why the numbers matter.
If they're going up,that can only be good. Right?
All In Favour Of A Commissar?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "To-day's The Day":
Clearly reading how many layers are involved in the water supply in Aurora I think we can save ourselves money by eliminating one of them.
I propose that since the Region is responsible for the supply and treatment, let's make them responsible for the delivery too. Let's get Aurora out of the picture entirely. We can save tax dollars by getting rid of the people at the Town office that read meters, prepare bills, and process payments. The Region can pick up a few of the clerks for their water department, clearly they would not need as many as exist in all of the various cities and Towns in York. Same for the people that repair the water mains.
Aurora will have a smaller payroll, they would not have to worry about the endless debate about water rates and they might be able to get a budget approved before the end of a fiscal year.
Moe Howard
**************
Mr. Howard
In case I have created a false impression,I am compelled to correct it.
It is not within our power to alter the separate responsibilities of region and municipality.The Province of Ontario is Grand Poo Bah in these matters
Conflict of interest in municipal treasurers fixing the price to be charged for water is not the problem I worry about.
A treasurer's role is very much more than once a year reporting to Council about how to raise sufficient revenues to pay the region's ever- swelling water bill.
The ever-taxing task of nurturing and growing $69 million dollar in reserve funds is far more daunting and significant.
Why would you imagine a reduction in staff at the municipal level and transfer to the regional level would cost less money?
If you know something I don't about how government works, why not share with therest of us.
We have nine water breaks a year and the job is contracted out.
We spend about a million a year cutting and lining perfectly fine pipes with plastic.
That's a fat contract to the private sector of questionable value since figures for water losses are complacently increased from 8% to 12% in a single year.
Bless Your Heart Child, What makes you think transferring staff from towns to the regions would result in a smaller payroll in Aurora? Or improved service?
Why do you feel the debate about water rates is endless? Is it because you just don't want to hear it any more?
Are you one who believes no debate is good debate? All debate is tedious debate? If politicians would just swallow will nilly, whatever staff advise, to provide you with complete assurance all is well?
Forgive me but you sound like the ideal modern-day candidate for public office. A Mayor perhaps.
And rubber-stamping a budget with great aplomb and vigour, would be a good thing and well worth the peace and contentment of getting a budget approved before the end of a fiscal year.
Let's hear it for the merits.
Do you by any chance work for a local government? A treasurer perhaps?
Clearly reading how many layers are involved in the water supply in Aurora I think we can save ourselves money by eliminating one of them.
I propose that since the Region is responsible for the supply and treatment, let's make them responsible for the delivery too. Let's get Aurora out of the picture entirely. We can save tax dollars by getting rid of the people at the Town office that read meters, prepare bills, and process payments. The Region can pick up a few of the clerks for their water department, clearly they would not need as many as exist in all of the various cities and Towns in York. Same for the people that repair the water mains.
Aurora will have a smaller payroll, they would not have to worry about the endless debate about water rates and they might be able to get a budget approved before the end of a fiscal year.
Moe Howard
**************
Mr. Howard
In case I have created a false impression,I am compelled to correct it.
It is not within our power to alter the separate responsibilities of region and municipality.The Province of Ontario is Grand Poo Bah in these matters
Conflict of interest in municipal treasurers fixing the price to be charged for water is not the problem I worry about.
A treasurer's role is very much more than once a year reporting to Council about how to raise sufficient revenues to pay the region's ever- swelling water bill.
The ever-taxing task of nurturing and growing $69 million dollar in reserve funds is far more daunting and significant.
Why would you imagine a reduction in staff at the municipal level and transfer to the regional level would cost less money?
If you know something I don't about how government works, why not share with therest of us.
We have nine water breaks a year and the job is contracted out.
We spend about a million a year cutting and lining perfectly fine pipes with plastic.
That's a fat contract to the private sector of questionable value since figures for water losses are complacently increased from 8% to 12% in a single year.
Bless Your Heart Child, What makes you think transferring staff from towns to the regions would result in a smaller payroll in Aurora? Or improved service?
Why do you feel the debate about water rates is endless? Is it because you just don't want to hear it any more?
Are you one who believes no debate is good debate? All debate is tedious debate? If politicians would just swallow will nilly, whatever staff advise, to provide you with complete assurance all is well?
Forgive me but you sound like the ideal modern-day candidate for public office. A Mayor perhaps.
And rubber-stamping a budget with great aplomb and vigour, would be a good thing and well worth the peace and contentment of getting a budget approved before the end of a fiscal year.
Let's hear it for the merits.
Do you by any chance work for a local government? A treasurer perhaps?
To-day's The Day
Georgina Council is having another Special Council Meeting today at 12.30 p.m.
The plan is to open the meeting in public and recess into a closed meeting. If they choose, they can emerge and report in public a decision made behind closed doors.
The agenda states the purpose of the meeting is to receive advice from a solicitor, They won't report the advice. That's subject to solicitor/client privilege. But they might report a decision they made as a result of the advice they received.
The deluge of information that poured into this blog in the last couple of days indicated the Mayor had talked about legal action against the R.O.C. project consultant.
That was odd. Quite unusual.It may not be a fact. Or, it could be the subject of solicitor/client advice at the meeting. Or it could be about the Mayor's personal law suit against a resident being paid for with public money.. Or it could be about something completely different that nobody outside Council and staff knows anything about.
Council can schedule a special meeting , have a discussion behind closed doors and come out and report a decision made in private without providing any reason for the decision and with no hint of what they planned to discuss and decide beforehand.
I don't know what will happen. Only what could. When you listen to the claptrap from government about openness and transparency, you will know it is.what it is.
I learned in a budget note this year that all treasurers in York Region meet to discuss how they're going to fix the price of water. None of those meetings are open.I didn't know till now they were doing that.I couldn't attend the meetings.
In 2010, they reported a 10% increase in the price of water every year for the next five. Councillors accepted that. The Supreme Authority had decreed. No questions were asked. Well some.... but nobody pays attention to the old girl..
Except, we are told the Region is planning to have an audit . It's not clear whether it's a financial audit. It may be a water audit because part of the reason presented for increased water charges is water loss.
It's not clear why the region would have water loss. They are responsible for water supply.Municipalities are responsible for distribution. It used to mean the region pumped it out of the ground into reservoirs and the municipality distributed it throughout the urban areas.
I discovered something else from the notes. Only twenty-five per cent of the water we use comes from the ground supply. The rest we buy from Toronto and Peel Region.
It's about four years since the Region constructed a standpipe on Bloomington Road near Bathurst Street to receive water through Richmond Hill from Peel Region. We were told a minimal amount would be drawn to augment our own supply in periods of hot dry weather when the demand for water peaks.
At some point in time apparently that ceased to be a fact. Nobody told us. Implications from the new information are not immediately apparent. Except one.
It means treasurers in Peel Region likely have meetings together to determine how to fix the price of water. Toronto probably has half a dozen treasurers who huddle to do the same thing.
Then , maybe, they inform the Region of York. which in turn meets with all local treasurers to determine what the new rates will be and finally Councils are informed and a Bylaw is struck to fix the new rates.
In 2010 in Aurora the increase was 12.2% and in 2011 another 12%.
We are told the Province has decreed water must be self-sufficient. As if it was ever anything else.The Province certainly never at any time subsidized the price of water.
A reason offered by Aurora's treasurer for increased price of water is the Provincial edict that all kinds of new chemicals must be added to water to prevent another Walkerton tragedy.
If anything happens and water becomes dangerous,municipal Councillors can be held liable and sent to jail.
Now there's another implication The threat has hung over our heads like a noose for several years. Yet at some point in the last four years, we know not when, we ceased to be responsible for seventy-five per cent of the water we use. We buy it from Toronto and Peel. They are responsible.
And there's anotherimplication. Development only happens if a municipality can provide hard services which are water and sewers.
Now we find we do not in fact have the hard services.. We hauling water from Toronto and Peel and trunk waste water to Lake Ontario.
We've been sending waste water to Lake Ontario for the past thirty years.
We've been living a lie.
The Region is responsible for the water supply and treatment of waste water/. They inform municipalities of their allocation and how many building permits can be granted.
The Region is two billion dollars in debt.They collect billions in development charges from developers. which are supposed to cover the cost of providing hard services.
How did they get into that amount of debt? What portion of that debt is being charged to metered water users in Aurora. People are using less water from the tap than ever before and prices are rocketing.
Aurora's Mayor is our solitary Regional representative His contribution to the Aurora debate on the price was "water is the best bargain we get"
It must be nice to be so easily assured. I am not.
The plan is to open the meeting in public and recess into a closed meeting. If they choose, they can emerge and report in public a decision made behind closed doors.
The agenda states the purpose of the meeting is to receive advice from a solicitor, They won't report the advice. That's subject to solicitor/client privilege. But they might report a decision they made as a result of the advice they received.
The deluge of information that poured into this blog in the last couple of days indicated the Mayor had talked about legal action against the R.O.C. project consultant.
That was odd. Quite unusual.It may not be a fact. Or, it could be the subject of solicitor/client advice at the meeting. Or it could be about the Mayor's personal law suit against a resident being paid for with public money.. Or it could be about something completely different that nobody outside Council and staff knows anything about.
Council can schedule a special meeting , have a discussion behind closed doors and come out and report a decision made in private without providing any reason for the decision and with no hint of what they planned to discuss and decide beforehand.
I don't know what will happen. Only what could. When you listen to the claptrap from government about openness and transparency, you will know it is.what it is.
I learned in a budget note this year that all treasurers in York Region meet to discuss how they're going to fix the price of water. None of those meetings are open.I didn't know till now they were doing that.I couldn't attend the meetings.
In 2010, they reported a 10% increase in the price of water every year for the next five. Councillors accepted that. The Supreme Authority had decreed. No questions were asked. Well some.... but nobody pays attention to the old girl..
Except, we are told the Region is planning to have an audit . It's not clear whether it's a financial audit. It may be a water audit because part of the reason presented for increased water charges is water loss.
It's not clear why the region would have water loss. They are responsible for water supply.Municipalities are responsible for distribution. It used to mean the region pumped it out of the ground into reservoirs and the municipality distributed it throughout the urban areas.
I discovered something else from the notes. Only twenty-five per cent of the water we use comes from the ground supply. The rest we buy from Toronto and Peel Region.
It's about four years since the Region constructed a standpipe on Bloomington Road near Bathurst Street to receive water through Richmond Hill from Peel Region. We were told a minimal amount would be drawn to augment our own supply in periods of hot dry weather when the demand for water peaks.
At some point in time apparently that ceased to be a fact. Nobody told us. Implications from the new information are not immediately apparent. Except one.
It means treasurers in Peel Region likely have meetings together to determine how to fix the price of water. Toronto probably has half a dozen treasurers who huddle to do the same thing.
Then , maybe, they inform the Region of York. which in turn meets with all local treasurers to determine what the new rates will be and finally Councils are informed and a Bylaw is struck to fix the new rates.
In 2010 in Aurora the increase was 12.2% and in 2011 another 12%.
We are told the Province has decreed water must be self-sufficient. As if it was ever anything else.The Province certainly never at any time subsidized the price of water.
A reason offered by Aurora's treasurer for increased price of water is the Provincial edict that all kinds of new chemicals must be added to water to prevent another Walkerton tragedy.
If anything happens and water becomes dangerous,municipal Councillors can be held liable and sent to jail.
Now there's another implication The threat has hung over our heads like a noose for several years. Yet at some point in the last four years, we know not when, we ceased to be responsible for seventy-five per cent of the water we use. We buy it from Toronto and Peel. They are responsible.
And there's anotherimplication. Development only happens if a municipality can provide hard services which are water and sewers.
Now we find we do not in fact have the hard services.. We hauling water from Toronto and Peel and trunk waste water to Lake Ontario.
We've been sending waste water to Lake Ontario for the past thirty years.
We've been living a lie.
The Region is responsible for the water supply and treatment of waste water/. They inform municipalities of their allocation and how many building permits can be granted.
The Region is two billion dollars in debt.They collect billions in development charges from developers. which are supposed to cover the cost of providing hard services.
How did they get into that amount of debt? What portion of that debt is being charged to metered water users in Aurora. People are using less water from the tap than ever before and prices are rocketing.
Aurora's Mayor is our solitary Regional representative His contribution to the Aurora debate on the price was "water is the best bargain we get"
It must be nice to be so easily assured. I am not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
