Last night's agenda for the Council-in-Committee meeting was completed and ended exactly at the hour of adjournment.
First in months.
Councillor Ballard was in the chair. There was no rancour. Which is not to say the meeting was entirely smooth..
At one point, I had the floor. Rules state a member who is recognised by the chair and has the floor "shall speak without interruption".
The rule is essential. Interruptions throw a speaker off stride.
Councillor Gallo interrupted. He said' "on a point of order". But it wasn't.
Councillor Gallo disagreed with the point I was making or how I was making it and simply decided to interrupt.
The problem was exacerbated by the Ruling of the Chair.
The non-point of order was upheld.
Well, you know, rules of order are at one and the same time, simple and complex .
Everyone is responsible for respecting and maintaining the rules. Or no-one is bound by them.
Mutual agreement and unanimous commitment is essential for the Rules to prevail.
They can't be imposed. They must be observed.
Microphones can be shut off. Voices can rise. Tempers can be explode and objects can fly though the air as if by their own volition.
Mayhem can ensue if a council fails to uphold the same set of rules.
I used to have a clear and distinct impression of a particular Councillor zoom in an upward trajectory on a broom , swoosh three times around the vaulted ceiling like a hot air missile before coming back to rest at the table.
Whereupon the presiding member would direct myself to apologize to the Councillor for her behavior
Like that was going to happen.
But it ended up in a phoney- baloney code of conduct and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars being spent on legal fees
Cutting-off a Councillor, with a mission to speak, in mid-sentence
on a point of order that is no more than disagreement with what the councillor is saying, is an act fraught with potential risk.
I know the rules. I respect them. I believe they are the essence of orderly conduct.
They are not tools to disrupt a speaker's thought process. To quell a particular perspective. To undermine an argument. To create disorder where intended.
Rules abused are impediments to order and good will.
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
The D M Was There. He paid
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "And
Whereas":
Sorry. I do not understand. Why should the Mayor have to ask permission to attend a fund-raiser for individuals being held on his own front lawn? Was he also expected to pay the entrance fee at the fence? Was Ballard?
********
The Deputy-Mayor was in attendance. He was not invited to join the official party. He paid admission to enter the town park.
The Mayor was advised by the St Kitts woman,if he wanted to be introduced the the Ontario Minister of Culture, he should have asked her.
Sorry. I do not understand. Why should the Mayor have to ask permission to attend a fund-raiser for individuals being held on his own front lawn? Was he also expected to pay the entrance fee at the fence? Was Ballard?
********
The Deputy-Mayor was in attendance. He was not invited to join the official party. He paid admission to enter the town park.
The Mayor was advised by the St Kitts woman,if he wanted to be introduced the the Ontario Minister of Culture, he should have asked her.
No...I do not know that.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "When
Is A Publication Not a Local Newspaper?":
The Banner is owned by the Toronto Star's parent company. Most communities in the GTA have a version of the The Banner. They use the name of a long defunuct local paper to give it some sort of local cachet.
At lease The Banner has a facility in Aurora... on Industrial Pkwy.
But as a councillor, Evelyn should know that already.
**************
I do not know that. If I make a return call to a Banner reporter,
the number is in Newmarket. Th only familiar address is a Court in Newmarket.
The Banner is owned by the Toronto Star's parent company. Most communities in the GTA have a version of the The Banner. They use the name of a long defunuct local paper to give it some sort of local cachet.
At lease The Banner has a facility in Aurora... on Industrial Pkwy.
But as a councillor, Evelyn should know that already.
**************
I do not know that. If I make a return call to a Banner reporter,
the number is in Newmarket. Th only familiar address is a Court in Newmarket.
Monday, 3 September 2012
When Is A Publication Not a Local Newspaper?
When it doesn't provide local news.
I have two publications on my desk.
One is The Auroran, the little newspaper business started by an Aurora resident against all odds, , with an Aurora address, employing local residents.and consistently consisting of Aurora news.
This week's edition is thirty pages.
It has thirteen news stories related entirely to our town.
Coming community events spill over from one to a second page. In small print.
Several columns are by Aurora personalities.
Six letters to the editor from Aurora residents on local issues
A cartoon on an Aurora situation .
A scattering of generic material of common family interest.
Pages of local sports news.
The second publication is bulky. composed of several sections and pounds of advertising flyers.
The first section is entitled "The Banner"
No news stories from Aurora appear therein.
Editorial page has two lengthy columns. One on provincial. the second on Federal matters.
Of four letters to the editor; three are from Newmarket, one from Keswick.
A cartoon features teachers and their dispute with the Provincial government.
No upcoming community events are featured in this section.
Second section of twelve pages is identified as " Aurora Banner"
Upcoming events number 4; in large print and include a single reference to a historic house.
There's a story about a student in a local school, a small picture of two councillors serving corn, a clip about free fitness offered by the town and a couple of sports references.
A full page in the twelve page section is taken up with the Town's Notice Board, I giess that's why the section is identified as "Aurora Banner" It 's paid for through an annual contract with the Municipality with public funds.
Exposure to the public has been a contentious issue in Council with most Councillors concerned about readership as opposed to circulation.
This week, Council will be asked to renew the contract with the second publication at a price of $30.thousand.
Apparently, in the bids, there was a difference of ten cents a page between the two publications.
Also , a readership audit, was part of the criteria to accompany the bid.
.It occurred to me to wonder how exactly one goes about determining readership.
So...I asked.
What does that look like?
In my own practice, the rubber band is seldom released from the second publication package. Even as a politician I expect to find npthing related to town affairs in the second publication.
It's been like that for many many years.
Rarely do I engage in discussion of a news items that fails to appear in the second publication.
Though, tumult in our political affairs is regularly noted.
Yet never a whisper emerges in the second publication.Closed doors might just as well be the rule of the day.
Consolidated agendas ritually approved without comment.
Reporters come and go to the second publication like moths to a flame. . But not to Council meetings. They watch tapes apparently and are hardly on the job long enough to receive a return call.
Residents regularly complain the town is not communicating as we should.
We ae certainly expending substantial resources to accomplish the same.
Yet here we are, with a recommendation to continue the practice of the past on the basis no doubt. of an obscure instrument such as a "readership audit"
It seems phone calls have solicited information about publication delivery. . Hardly the same as whether the publication has been read.
Recommendation from the town's Executive Leadership Team is to renew the contract for yet another two years with authority to extend annually for a further two.
Thirty days were not long enough for the first publication to organise a "readership audit" The requirement is new.
But the question is not.
Readership has been the concern of Council.
Still is ,as far as I 'm concerned..
I have two publications on my desk.
One is The Auroran, the little newspaper business started by an Aurora resident against all odds, , with an Aurora address, employing local residents.and consistently consisting of Aurora news.
This week's edition is thirty pages.
It has thirteen news stories related entirely to our town.
Coming community events spill over from one to a second page. In small print.
Several columns are by Aurora personalities.
Six letters to the editor from Aurora residents on local issues
A cartoon on an Aurora situation .
A scattering of generic material of common family interest.
Pages of local sports news.
The second publication is bulky. composed of several sections and pounds of advertising flyers.
The first section is entitled "The Banner"
No news stories from Aurora appear therein.
Editorial page has two lengthy columns. One on provincial. the second on Federal matters.
Of four letters to the editor; three are from Newmarket, one from Keswick.
A cartoon features teachers and their dispute with the Provincial government.
No upcoming community events are featured in this section.
Second section of twelve pages is identified as " Aurora Banner"
Upcoming events number 4; in large print and include a single reference to a historic house.
There's a story about a student in a local school, a small picture of two councillors serving corn, a clip about free fitness offered by the town and a couple of sports references.
A full page in the twelve page section is taken up with the Town's Notice Board, I giess that's why the section is identified as "Aurora Banner" It 's paid for through an annual contract with the Municipality with public funds.
Exposure to the public has been a contentious issue in Council with most Councillors concerned about readership as opposed to circulation.
This week, Council will be asked to renew the contract with the second publication at a price of $30.thousand.
Apparently, in the bids, there was a difference of ten cents a page between the two publications.
Also , a readership audit, was part of the criteria to accompany the bid.
.It occurred to me to wonder how exactly one goes about determining readership.
So...I asked.
What does that look like?
In my own practice, the rubber band is seldom released from the second publication package. Even as a politician I expect to find npthing related to town affairs in the second publication.
It's been like that for many many years.
Rarely do I engage in discussion of a news items that fails to appear in the second publication.
Though, tumult in our political affairs is regularly noted.
Yet never a whisper emerges in the second publication.Closed doors might just as well be the rule of the day.
Consolidated agendas ritually approved without comment.
Reporters come and go to the second publication like moths to a flame. . But not to Council meetings. They watch tapes apparently and are hardly on the job long enough to receive a return call.
Residents regularly complain the town is not communicating as we should.
We ae certainly expending substantial resources to accomplish the same.
Yet here we are, with a recommendation to continue the practice of the past on the basis no doubt. of an obscure instrument such as a "readership audit"
It seems phone calls have solicited information about publication delivery. . Hardly the same as whether the publication has been read.
Recommendation from the town's Executive Leadership Team is to renew the contract for yet another two years with authority to extend annually for a further two.
Thirty days were not long enough for the first publication to organise a "readership audit" The requirement is new.
But the question is not.
Readership has been the concern of Council.
Still is ,as far as I 'm concerned..
And Whereas
:Whereas;
Goods and services required by a municipality must be obtained by competition for best price and value.
And whereas;
Opportunities for business in public facilities are similarly governed
And whereas;
Entertainment in a public facility comes under the heading of business opportunity
And whereas;
In order to obtain best price and value for entertainment in a public facility
Now therefore be it resolved
The Director of Recreation and Parks be directed to prepare a form for Expression of Interest from parties interested in providing a Festival of Music in the Town Park for the August holiday week-end of 2013
*********.
Above is first draft of a notice intended for the next meeting.of Council.
In 2010 , 2011 and 12, town facilities including band shell,
washrooms , park and funds were made available to a private business to organise a music festival during the August holiday week-end.
The park was fenced off to charge admission.
Food vendors paid fees to the organiser to ply their wares in the park
A beer garden was operated, adding to the revenues .
An ATM machine was provided , to encourage revenues to stay within the park environs.
A federal Member of Parliament and a Provincial Minister of Culture lent their presence to promote the endeavour.
The Town's Mayor on the other hand, was excluded :personna non grata.
Goodwill pointedly withheld .
Neither benefit, enlightenment nor cultural uplift of the community
can therefore be contemplated in the circumstance.
Establishing, beyond a doubt the event was an endeavour for other than public benefit. .
It is entirely inappropriate public facilities should again be made available for to the organiser of this event.
For a town park and other facilities to be closed off from public access for the purpose of a music festival during a holiday week-end, Council authority is necessary..
Terms of reference need to be established .
Further still, making town facilities available for rent ,for the purpose of concert promotion, should be open to invitational competitive bids with conditions and limits to occupancy made clear
As a footnote, the Mayor has apparently been informed by the St Kitts woman, he had only to ask her if he wanted to meet the Provincial Minister of Culture.
I mention it to indicate the level of ridiculosity, we have reached in this entanglement.
Goods and services required by a municipality must be obtained by competition for best price and value.
And whereas;
Opportunities for business in public facilities are similarly governed
And whereas;
Entertainment in a public facility comes under the heading of business opportunity
And whereas;
In order to obtain best price and value for entertainment in a public facility
Now therefore be it resolved
The Director of Recreation and Parks be directed to prepare a form for Expression of Interest from parties interested in providing a Festival of Music in the Town Park for the August holiday week-end of 2013
*********.
Above is first draft of a notice intended for the next meeting.of Council.
In 2010 , 2011 and 12, town facilities including band shell,
washrooms , park and funds were made available to a private business to organise a music festival during the August holiday week-end.
The park was fenced off to charge admission.
Food vendors paid fees to the organiser to ply their wares in the park
A beer garden was operated, adding to the revenues .
An ATM machine was provided , to encourage revenues to stay within the park environs.
A federal Member of Parliament and a Provincial Minister of Culture lent their presence to promote the endeavour.
The Town's Mayor on the other hand, was excluded :personna non grata.
Goodwill pointedly withheld .
Neither benefit, enlightenment nor cultural uplift of the community
can therefore be contemplated in the circumstance.
Establishing, beyond a doubt the event was an endeavour for other than public benefit. .
It is entirely inappropriate public facilities should again be made available for to the organiser of this event.
For a town park and other facilities to be closed off from public access for the purpose of a music festival during a holiday week-end, Council authority is necessary..
Terms of reference need to be established .
Further still, making town facilities available for rent ,for the purpose of concert promotion, should be open to invitational competitive bids with conditions and limits to occupancy made clear
As a footnote, the Mayor has apparently been informed by the St Kitts woman, he had only to ask her if he wanted to meet the Provincial Minister of Culture.
I mention it to indicate the level of ridiculosity, we have reached in this entanglement.
Sunday, 2 September 2012
Thank You For This
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Well I
never":
Jay Leno's monologue on The Tonight Show: "Clint Eastwood said he got the idea earlier in the day when he saw John McCain talking to an empty chaise lounge at the hotel pool."
Jon Stewart's Daily Show: "This is the most joy I've gotten from an old man since Dick Cheney non-fatally shot one in the face."
*******************
I think Clint Eastwood concluded the Republicans wanted him on their platform to do what he does; his unique brand of sardonic humor.Like John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart and other vintage Hollywood stars , he never has played any other role but himself.
Not like Jack Nicholson.
So Mr. Eastwood came through.The Republican audience loved him. They laughed.
Oh My, how they laughed. It made them seem less Republican.
But not their candidates .
They've been stumped.I think.
Mr. Eastwood has been a municipal politician..
Jon Stewart's reference to age reminds me of the late Ronald Reagan's comment to a rival during an earlier election campaign.
"I won't hold your age against you"
If Stewart is lucky, he will still be doing what he's good at and doing it better in another thirty years.He will still be lightening people's lives.
I'm still looking forward to Letterman.
Jay Leno's monologue on The Tonight Show: "Clint Eastwood said he got the idea earlier in the day when he saw John McCain talking to an empty chaise lounge at the hotel pool."
Jon Stewart's Daily Show: "This is the most joy I've gotten from an old man since Dick Cheney non-fatally shot one in the face."
*******************
I think Clint Eastwood concluded the Republicans wanted him on their platform to do what he does; his unique brand of sardonic humor.Like John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart and other vintage Hollywood stars , he never has played any other role but himself.
Not like Jack Nicholson.
So Mr. Eastwood came through.The Republican audience loved him. They laughed.
Oh My, how they laughed. It made them seem less Republican.
But not their candidates .
They've been stumped.I think.
Mr. Eastwood has been a municipal politician..
Jon Stewart's reference to age reminds me of the late Ronald Reagan's comment to a rival during an earlier election campaign.
"I won't hold your age against you"
If Stewart is lucky, he will still be doing what he's good at and doing it better in another thirty years.He will still be lightening people's lives.
I'm still looking forward to Letterman.
Saturday, 1 September 2012
Well I never
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "":
Untitled is a great title for this-
Clint Eastwood has become The Ugly American personified. All these years & I thought he was ' acting'.
Holy Doodle ! [ can't use the words at hand ].
********
If the Republicans lose this election and looking for the moment the campaign came off the rails. they need look no further than their celebrity Hollywood guest.
Last night was a surreal moment.
Politics geared to religion. A candidate and family perfectly suited. Lovely people. Well intentioned. Loving wife, glowing with sincerity.
A Bishop of the church on the roster of speakers.
Five fine sons being interviewed. Does he have no daughters?
Then last on the list, Clint Eastwood.The Icon of Hollywood Taciturn, with his famous quote.
"Make My Day"
What else would he say?
He did indeed make it his day.
We may never know if the dithering prelude was an act.
He didn't seem bewildered.
Acting is his trade. Timing is everything.
So the question is... well I don't know what the question is.
The audience roared appreciation of his off- colour reference
Was it reaction to previous, seemingly endless hours of bland and flavourless tedium?
Or response to the unexpected, the outrageous , the stuff of comedy?.
Whatever it was,the response was positive. But to whose advantage?
I waited for the Letterman treatment. His show was a repeat.So I am left to anticipate what will surely take the place of Romney's Irish Setter travelling on the car roof.
Michelle Obama said, the night before, she never watches speeches lambasting her husband.
I'll bet that one gets replayed .
It will undoubtedly become a classic.
What a gift.!
Better than John Mc Cain's choice of vice-presidential nominee.
Untitled is a great title for this-
Clint Eastwood has become The Ugly American personified. All these years & I thought he was ' acting'.
Holy Doodle ! [ can't use the words at hand ].
********
If the Republicans lose this election and looking for the moment the campaign came off the rails. they need look no further than their celebrity Hollywood guest.
Last night was a surreal moment.
Politics geared to religion. A candidate and family perfectly suited. Lovely people. Well intentioned. Loving wife, glowing with sincerity.
A Bishop of the church on the roster of speakers.
Five fine sons being interviewed. Does he have no daughters?
Then last on the list, Clint Eastwood.The Icon of Hollywood Taciturn, with his famous quote.
"Make My Day"
What else would he say?
He did indeed make it his day.
We may never know if the dithering prelude was an act.
He didn't seem bewildered.
Acting is his trade. Timing is everything.
So the question is... well I don't know what the question is.
The audience roared appreciation of his off- colour reference
Was it reaction to previous, seemingly endless hours of bland and flavourless tedium?
Or response to the unexpected, the outrageous , the stuff of comedy?.
Whatever it was,the response was positive. But to whose advantage?
I waited for the Letterman treatment. His show was a repeat.So I am left to anticipate what will surely take the place of Romney's Irish Setter travelling on the car roof.
Michelle Obama said, the night before, she never watches speeches lambasting her husband.
I'll bet that one gets replayed .
It will undoubtedly become a classic.
What a gift.!
Better than John Mc Cain's choice of vice-presidential nominee.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Choice
Of Words.":
Blame the victim.
*********
A few weeks ago, another grand-daughter agreed to accompany two sisters to York University. The older sister was going to choose courses for her first year.
None of them had any idea how long it would take.
In a coffee shop, a prominent notice warned of risk on campus and advised not to go anywhere alone.
They didn't budge for the next couple of hours.Major downer.
Was there an area of personal judgement to be exercised.?
Was the risk real or imaginary?
It was real.
Did they take responsibility for their own safety"
I think so.
First rule of thumb ..don't be a victim.
Which is not to argue victims of crime are responsible for the crime.
The argument is not about blame or civil rights.
It's about dealing with the reality of our society .
Not what it should be. Not what we would like it to be.
But what it is and how to take care of oneself. .
Blame the victim.
*********
A few weeks ago, another grand-daughter agreed to accompany two sisters to York University. The older sister was going to choose courses for her first year.
None of them had any idea how long it would take.
In a coffee shop, a prominent notice warned of risk on campus and advised not to go anywhere alone.
They didn't budge for the next couple of hours.Major downer.
Was there an area of personal judgement to be exercised.?
Was the risk real or imaginary?
It was real.
Did they take responsibility for their own safety"
I think so.
First rule of thumb ..don't be a victim.
Which is not to argue victims of crime are responsible for the crime.
The argument is not about blame or civil rights.
It's about dealing with the reality of our society .
Not what it should be. Not what we would like it to be.
But what it is and how to take care of oneself. .
A Choice Of Words.
If a street-walker is a whore, is a whore a street walker?
I think so.
A street-walker, in modern terms, is a sex trade worker in the business of soliciting ; a legal term.
How does a street-walker advertise ? Style of dress.
Are street-walkers at risk? Most certainly they are.
Not least to victimization, to torture and to their very lives.
If a young person who is not a street-walker, dresses like a street walker, is she as much at risk as a street-walker.
In the same circumstances, I think so.
She argues she has a right to dress like a slut. Yes she certainly does.
If she argues she has a right to be safe from harm while dressed like a street-walker, she is not dealing with the reality of the world she lives in.
She is young. She is innocent. She is not wise.
Wisdom is not a characteristic of youth.Though it is not necessarily a characteristic of age either.
The world is not ordered the way we think it should be.
Why should a girl who chooses to dress like a street-walker, but isn't, expect to be safer on city streets than a street-walker plying her trade.
It's not a safe option no matter how you look at it.
I finally won the argument with my grand-daughter.
I think so.
A street-walker, in modern terms, is a sex trade worker in the business of soliciting ; a legal term.
How does a street-walker advertise ? Style of dress.
Are street-walkers at risk? Most certainly they are.
Not least to victimization, to torture and to their very lives.
If a young person who is not a street-walker, dresses like a street walker, is she as much at risk as a street-walker.
In the same circumstances, I think so.
She argues she has a right to dress like a slut. Yes she certainly does.
If she argues she has a right to be safe from harm while dressed like a street-walker, she is not dealing with the reality of the world she lives in.
She is young. She is innocent. She is not wise.
Wisdom is not a characteristic of youth.Though it is not necessarily a characteristic of age either.
The world is not ordered the way we think it should be.
Why should a girl who chooses to dress like a street-walker, but isn't, expect to be safer on city streets than a street-walker plying her trade.
It's not a safe option no matter how you look at it.
I finally won the argument with my grand-daughter.
Friday, 31 August 2012
Something You Ought To Know.
I keep meaning to explain.
Council uses a consolidated agenda process.
It means a resolution can be put forward for an entire agenda to be approved without debate
The onus is upon Council members to call items they wish to be discussed.
A smooth, well-oiled Council could conceivably and consistently approve entire agendas without ever uttering a word pro or con.
The corporation could function without a ripple.Pretty much like operating behind a screen.
Never a hint of disagreement or anything untoward.Not a clue of what's going on.
Unless of course, residents set themselves to the task of reading and comprehending the agenda each week to satisfy themselves that all is well.
Council hasn't completed an agenda since May.Before June agendas were relatively sparse.
One meeting was held in July and August.
The town hall is closed from December 24th until Jan 2nd or later, depending on week-ends.
Business gets suspended again for the March break .
Then ,there's the family day long week-end and other statutory holidays to be accommodated.
Last year we adopted a customer service plan. Newmarket and Whitchurch-Stouffville had done it already.
A person with expertise in accessibility resources was transferred to the job of manager of the new customer service division.
A youth liaison officer, without experience.of accessibility issues was transferred to manage of accessibility resources.With an increase in pay.
Yesterday Council received the following e-mail:
Mr Mayor and Councillors,
I was dismayed last Friday, August 24th, when I called the Town in order to seek information on a very discouraging situation that has developed in our area of Aurora. Homeowners have not been looking after their properties and/or the Town property in front of their properties. I was told to speak to the By-law Department and the receptionist kindly connected me. I was, in fact, connected to the department's voice-mail. The message stated that my (obviously very unimportant) message would be responded to within two business days!!! Two business days‽‽‽ What if the matter required immediate attention? Unbelievable!
By Wednesday of this week, I was despairing and left a message for Mr.----. No response there either. R----- called ------- and finally managed to speak to her. ----- required specifics. R----- obtained them and gave them to me. I was awaiting the response to my phone call.
The response finally came today, five, yes, FIVE (5) business days after my original call. Who is responsible for this poor service to the citizenry of this town? I gave the information to the person who called and he promised to act on the matter.
Who is responsible for making certain that the town does not look like a slum? Is it the by-law department? the parks department? or who? Does nobody drive around town or notice the unkempt boulevards around town? Are there no inspectors? If not, why not? Please let me know.
I look forward to receiving answers to my queries as soon as possible.
***********
I have no answers .
I have asked the same questions.
Street sweeping is contracted out. It's done twice a year.
We own a street sweeper, relatively new, purchased the year before I asked , at a cost, I believe , of $187,000.
Don't hold me to that figure exactly.
I was told the sweeper might be "down" . That might be the reason catch-basins are filled with litter after a deluge .....left like that until the wind blows the stuff about again ....until the next deluge when everything gathers again in the same locations.
The procedure for me to deal with such matters is to bring them to the attention of the appropriate director.
I did.
Council uses a consolidated agenda process.
It means a resolution can be put forward for an entire agenda to be approved without debate
The onus is upon Council members to call items they wish to be discussed.
A smooth, well-oiled Council could conceivably and consistently approve entire agendas without ever uttering a word pro or con.
The corporation could function without a ripple.Pretty much like operating behind a screen.
Never a hint of disagreement or anything untoward.Not a clue of what's going on.
Unless of course, residents set themselves to the task of reading and comprehending the agenda each week to satisfy themselves that all is well.
Council hasn't completed an agenda since May.Before June agendas were relatively sparse.
One meeting was held in July and August.
The town hall is closed from December 24th until Jan 2nd or later, depending on week-ends.
Business gets suspended again for the March break .
Then ,there's the family day long week-end and other statutory holidays to be accommodated.
Last year we adopted a customer service plan. Newmarket and Whitchurch-Stouffville had done it already.
A person with expertise in accessibility resources was transferred to the job of manager of the new customer service division.
A youth liaison officer, without experience.of accessibility issues was transferred to manage of accessibility resources.With an increase in pay.
Yesterday Council received the following e-mail:
Mr Mayor and Councillors,
I was dismayed last Friday, August 24th, when I called the Town in order to seek information on a very discouraging situation that has developed in our area of Aurora. Homeowners have not been looking after their properties and/or the Town property in front of their properties. I was told to speak to the By-law Department and the receptionist kindly connected me. I was, in fact, connected to the department's voice-mail. The message stated that my (obviously very unimportant) message would be responded to within two business days!!! Two business days‽‽‽ What if the matter required immediate attention? Unbelievable!
By Wednesday of this week, I was despairing and left a message for Mr.----. No response there either. R----- called ------- and finally managed to speak to her. ----- required specifics. R----- obtained them and gave them to me. I was awaiting the response to my phone call.
The response finally came today, five, yes, FIVE (5) business days after my original call. Who is responsible for this poor service to the citizenry of this town? I gave the information to the person who called and he promised to act on the matter.
Who is responsible for making certain that the town does not look like a slum? Is it the by-law department? the parks department? or who? Does nobody drive around town or notice the unkempt boulevards around town? Are there no inspectors? If not, why not? Please let me know.
I look forward to receiving answers to my queries as soon as possible.
***********
I have no answers .
I have asked the same questions.
Street sweeping is contracted out. It's done twice a year.
We own a street sweeper, relatively new, purchased the year before I asked , at a cost, I believe , of $187,000.
Don't hold me to that figure exactly.
I was told the sweeper might be "down" . That might be the reason catch-basins are filled with litter after a deluge .....left like that until the wind blows the stuff about again ....until the next deluge when everything gathers again in the same locations.
The procedure for me to deal with such matters is to bring them to the attention of the appropriate director.
I did.
Quarterly Statement Received
I have tried to copy and print the Quarterly Statement from the Church Street Schoool operationfor you. With no success.
There's a letter to "Dan and Neil" The Mayor is still attending board meetings . He has confided nothing to Council so I assume he is honoring secrecy requirements.
There are a number of pages. I believe all to be of interest .You are entitled to receive them and make your own judgement.
If anyone can advise how to transfer them into the blog, I would be pleased to receive instructions.
There's a letter to "Dan and Neil" The Mayor is still attending board meetings . He has confided nothing to Council so I assume he is honoring secrecy requirements.
There are a number of pages. I believe all to be of interest .You are entitled to receive them and make your own judgement.
If anyone can advise how to transfer them into the blog, I would be pleased to receive instructions.
Councillor Is Not Guilty
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mayor
Rob Ford ponders losing his job in conflict ...":
Please do not forget that Councillor Ballard has signed onto the Morris team and consistently votes to keep information in-house. The Hervey Conflict of Interest suit needed documentation from Aurora and is working without it. Specifically they needed the entire Rusty D'Eye report. It has been termed ' privileged' information, which means that taxpayers do not have access to it either. It is difficult to reach a decision without full disclosure.
******************
Aurora taxpayers paid the fee for George Rust D'Eye to review the circumstances and report to Council how a decision was made to sue three residents of the town.
On receipt, I moved solicitor/client privilege be waived and the report be made public.
Mr. Rust D'Eye suggested a summary as an alternative.
Council has authority to waive solicitor/client privilege at any time. So long as the municipality's interest is protected.
I am not aware a request was made for the report.
If made, I am unaware of a Council refusal..
Councillor Ballard has only one vote .
A single vote does not serve to keep information "in-house"
Councillor Ballard was not a member of the Council that passed a resolution drafted previously that evolved into litigation against three residents during an election campaign when Council was not available to authorize that action.
Councillors Gaertner and Gallo are the only current Councillors
who attended the fateful meeting that gave the solicitor carte blanche ,adjourned after one a.m., and resulted in lurid headlines of three citizens being sued, with their own resources, by people elected to represent their interests.
Like the meeting when they stripped the Integrity Commissioner of his authority after he filed a decision that did not reflect to their credit. It ended after midnight as well.
Please do not forget that Councillor Ballard has signed onto the Morris team and consistently votes to keep information in-house. The Hervey Conflict of Interest suit needed documentation from Aurora and is working without it. Specifically they needed the entire Rusty D'Eye report. It has been termed ' privileged' information, which means that taxpayers do not have access to it either. It is difficult to reach a decision without full disclosure.
******************
Aurora taxpayers paid the fee for George Rust D'Eye to review the circumstances and report to Council how a decision was made to sue three residents of the town.
On receipt, I moved solicitor/client privilege be waived and the report be made public.
Mr. Rust D'Eye suggested a summary as an alternative.
Council has authority to waive solicitor/client privilege at any time. So long as the municipality's interest is protected.
I am not aware a request was made for the report.
If made, I am unaware of a Council refusal..
Councillor Ballard has only one vote .
A single vote does not serve to keep information "in-house"
Councillor Ballard was not a member of the Council that passed a resolution drafted previously that evolved into litigation against three residents during an election campaign when Council was not available to authorize that action.
Councillors Gaertner and Gallo are the only current Councillors
who attended the fateful meeting that gave the solicitor carte blanche ,adjourned after one a.m., and resulted in lurid headlines of three citizens being sued, with their own resources, by people elected to represent their interests.
Like the meeting when they stripped the Integrity Commissioner of his authority after he filed a decision that did not reflect to their credit. It ended after midnight as well.
Have I Got A Deal ...
EB
This
post doesn't really correspond to yours but is actually in response to a
report in the Auroran.
What price heritage?
I wondered exactly how, other than being on the other side of the
street, is the Southeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District
different from the Northeast Aurora Heritage Conservation District.
A small bedroom community with a few older properties has to be DIVIDED
into heritage districts?
What - like we're London or New York?
Then the coin dropped when I saw the idea of tax relief being floated.
"I'm Special and I live in a Special neighbourhood and as such I expect I
should pay Special lower taxes than the rest of you"
As if.
It's time to end this insidious "Special Aurora within Aurora" nonsense.
"We're all Aurorans, but some are more Auroran than others"?
Sure, designated and otherwise officially recognized Heritage properties
are important.
They should be preserved and maintained and it is often very expensive
to do so.
But if you on The End My Friend
**************
It's natural to make the connection. The fact is the last change in the Heritage Act gave municipalities authority to designate homes whether owners liked it or not.
In compensation for interfering with private ownership, The Act permitted mnicipalitiies to take responsibility for maintaining the properties they designated, including entire neighbourhoods.
Like the traffic calming project ,most people in the north-west quadrant weren't paying attention while that was happening.
Some of them knew the financial advantage though. Most likely the people who pushed for change in the legislation.
Even before the Heritage Act changed,Aurora lent money to replace the roof on a house on Wellington Street.
That was before blogs and I wasn't a Council member at the time.
Sweet deal eh1 There it was a beautiful big. home making a huge impression of status and borrowing money from the rest of us to fix the roof to keep the rain out.
The idea of looking for ways to keep an old house in good condition and steal the argument in favor of demolition, came from complaints that the unappealing falling down Browning house on
Yonge Street would not have had to be demolished if the owners had been required to maintain it properly.
I/m not even sure who made the argument.
The result was the current notice of motion to exercise town authority to grant loans to maintain decrepit old bachles like the Yonge Street Browning house.
Of course it means collecting more taxes from people living in ticky-tacky modern boxes , who may be having a hard time maintaining their own homes, to provide loans to people living in the central core, to keep their homes in authentic condition for another hundred years.
The Auroran had a cartoon deriding the idea of taking a free ride on the train to enjoy the sights and sounds of Toronto.
The argument for preserving entire neighborhoods relies on attracting tourism to the town.
The cartoon could just as easily have focused on the likelihood of hordes of touristos invading Aurora by train from Toronto to see streets and houses they could see anywhere else, maintained in pristine condition , at the expense of people in humble abodes living on canned tina to have enough money left to pay the taxes.
Thursday, 30 August 2012
No answer To This Question
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mayor
Rob Ford ponders losing his job in conflict ...":
Oh, and one more question that makes my head spin.
Morris' lawyer argued in her defamation case that her defamation lawsuit was always a private lawsuit and now her lawyer in the conflict of interest hearing is stating the exact opposite; namely that this was always a town initiative and Morris was just a “front person”.
Could someone please clear up the apparent conflict between the two conflicting statements ?
*************
To begin with ,it's not the same lawyer .
Contradictions run amuk throughout.
Council, during that term , were advised more than once,indemnity is provided for a member being sued for an action undertaken in the course of a Councillor's authority.
At the same time, no coverage is available for a Councillor to litigate against anyone else.
Nor can a municipal corporation file for defamation of character and reputation.
That advice was clear. .
Where the contrary information came from is not clear but suspected.
When a majority of Council allow themselves to be persuaded an issue is entitled be discussed in secret , not a lot can be done.
Staff can advise. They cannot enforce.
It's not expected Councillors , under an Oath of Office, will flagrantly disregard the laws they have sworn to uphold.
Conflict of Interest legislation is not expected to be prosecuted. It's expected to be upheld by people who are themselves legislators. Nevertheless weak instruments of law bring the law into disrepute The decision to be made in Newmarket court a few weeks from now is expected to change that.
I hear, Codes of Conduct have fallen into disrepute and abandoned by many municipalities. They proved to generate more problems than they solved.
The case against Mayor Ford may resolve that problem once and for all.
No slew of requests for inquiries into closed door meetingshave been forthcoming since that legislaton passed.
Another piece of provincial legislation that compelled municipalities to retain investigative agencies to carry out investigations that weren't likely to.be requested and wouldn't likely produce information.
An annual retainer fee needs to be paid anyway..
Oh, and one more question that makes my head spin.
Morris' lawyer argued in her defamation case that her defamation lawsuit was always a private lawsuit and now her lawyer in the conflict of interest hearing is stating the exact opposite; namely that this was always a town initiative and Morris was just a “front person”.
Could someone please clear up the apparent conflict between the two conflicting statements ?
*************
To begin with ,it's not the same lawyer .
Contradictions run amuk throughout.
Council, during that term , were advised more than once,indemnity is provided for a member being sued for an action undertaken in the course of a Councillor's authority.
At the same time, no coverage is available for a Councillor to litigate against anyone else.
Nor can a municipal corporation file for defamation of character and reputation.
That advice was clear. .
Where the contrary information came from is not clear but suspected.
When a majority of Council allow themselves to be persuaded an issue is entitled be discussed in secret , not a lot can be done.
Staff can advise. They cannot enforce.
It's not expected Councillors , under an Oath of Office, will flagrantly disregard the laws they have sworn to uphold.
Conflict of Interest legislation is not expected to be prosecuted. It's expected to be upheld by people who are themselves legislators. Nevertheless weak instruments of law bring the law into disrepute The decision to be made in Newmarket court a few weeks from now is expected to change that.
I hear, Codes of Conduct have fallen into disrepute and abandoned by many municipalities. They proved to generate more problems than they solved.
The case against Mayor Ford may resolve that problem once and for all.
No slew of requests for inquiries into closed door meetingshave been forthcoming since that legislaton passed.
Another piece of provincial legislation that compelled municipalities to retain investigative agencies to carry out investigations that weren't likely to.be requested and wouldn't likely produce information.
An annual retainer fee needs to be paid anyway..
Rob Ford...Globe Editorial.,,,.An interesting perspective
Globe Editorial
Rob Ford lets molehill become mountain
The indefatigably controversial Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, will face a moment of truth next Wednesday when he appears before an Ontario Superior Court judge to face allegations that he violated the province’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. If the judge rules against him, Mr. Ford will be summarily thrown out of office. This is a drastic outcome that does not correspond proportionately to the allegations. Furthermore, to unseat a democratically elected mayor so easily would set a terrible precedent.This mess was characteristically brought about by Mr. Ford himself: He puzzlingly did not recuse himself on Feb. 7 during a city council vote that concerned him in his personal capacity. The council had, 18 months earlier, ordered Mr. Ford to pay back $3,150 in improper donations to his charitable football foundation from lobbyists and their clients. Now, council was voting to overturn its previous decision, but not only did Mr. Ford vote for the new motion, he also gave a speech in its defence. A private citizen who worked for one of Mr. Ford’s political opponents seized on this and alleged that the Mayor had violated the conflict of interest rules.
That the Mayor would act so ill-advisedly is no longer a surprise. Mr. Ford has proved to be singularly unmanageable. He has had unnecessary run-ins with reporters, TV comedians and streetcar drivers; most recently he was photographed reading office documents while driving his car
.That the Mayor would act so ill-advisedly is no longer a surprise. Mr. Ford has proved to be singularly unmanageable. He has had unnecessary run-ins with reporters, TV comedians and streetcar drivers; most recently he was photographed reading office documents while driving his car.But he has been a successful mayor in more important ways. He was elected to cut costs, rein in the city’s unions and eliminate the city’s unpopular car registration fee, all of which he has done. And what matters in this case is that the money in question did not benefit him directly; it went to a charity to buy football equipment for under-privileged youths. As well, his vote did nothing to change the outcome; the motion was defeated 22-12. There is nothing here that would justify having a court overturn the democratic will of voters; this is not a criminal matter and should not be perceived as one. One hopes that Mr. Ford, when facing the judge next week, will realize that his intemperate style can have disastrous consequences and resolve to tone it down. But his actions to date do not merit the upending, by a court, of the hallowed primacy of a democratic election result.
******************************
The editorial above shows how it is possible to take the same set of circumstances ,arrive at the same conclusion , but lay the blame in a different location.
Rob Ford has been himself throughout.
"but his actions to date do not merit upending ,by a court, of the hallowed primacy of a democratic election result "
*************************
Exactly my point.
Yet the Province passed legislation giving municipalities authority
to adopt Codes of Conduct with penalties, so as to accomplish the "upending,,the hallowed primacy of a democratic election result"
without any court proceedings.
They opted not to do that themselves. They haven't done it to themselves. Instead they passed half-assed legislation to create the mess and slip-slide responsibility down to the junior level of government.
We have seen how it was used and abused in Aurora.We do not yet know how much it has cost the town's taxpayers.
But we have had the opportunity to throw the responsible rascals out. Court proceedings here are proceeding along different lines.
Rob Ford should face the Judge next Wednesday and tell him straight what he told Council and the people of Toronto.
The money was collected for a good cause, donors received tax receipts, it was used for the purpose it was collected.
Refusal to repay it back out of his own pocket is not about fairness. It's about common sense. Doing that would depict his efforts to help youth in need, as a sleazy, carnival huckster scam to benefit himself. It clearly was not.
He could work himself into a red-faced sweat and use the words apparently understood by Toronto voters,who elected him despite everything the Toronto Star could do to stop it from happening.
Frankly, I was surprised to read Clayton Ruby, champion of the underdog, had agreed to accept the case against Toronto's Mayor.
I will be equally surprised if the Mayor is found guilty of anything but common sense , righteous conviction and responding consistently to the hounds yapping constantly at his ankles.
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Mayor Rob Ford ponders losing his job in conflict of interest case
MIKE STURK/REUTERS
Mayor Rob Ford said he will be grilled on the witness stand next Wednesday by renowned lawyer Clayton Ruby.
Famously combative Mayor Rob Ford
sounds resigned to the possibility he might be kicked out of office over
a conflict-of-interest allegation a lawyer says is consistent with past
actions “as if the rules do not apply to him.”
Appearing on Newstalk 1010 on Tuesday, Ford noted he will be grilled on the witness stand next Wednesday by renowned lawyer Clayton Ruby.
A lawsuit accuses Ford of breaking provincial law in February by speaking and voting on whether he should have to pay back $3,150 in donations to his football foundation from lobbyists and a corporation.
“It really bothers me,” Ford said of the suit brought by Toronto resident Paul Magder. He then lauded his foundation’s work giving equipment to schools to start football programs.
Ruby is “going to cross-examine me and they want me out of office, and if I lose the court case I guess I lose my job and, uh, I don’t know, it really bothers me, it really bothers me, so just hope for the best,” he said.
Ford agreed with host Jim Richards that the conflict suit is a backdoor attempt to force him from office.
“If you don’t like what I’m doing then there’s an election Oct 27, 2014, it’s two years away, then have your say,” the mayor said. “But I don’t think it’s right what’s going on.”
If Ford took part in a debate or vote in which he had a conflict of interest, the province’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act decrees the judge “shall” force him out of office and “may” bar him from rejoining council for up to seven years.
If guilty, Ford could keep his job only if Justice Charles Hackland found he made an “error of judgment or inadvertence” or that the sum involved was “insignificant.”
The mayor talked to the radio station as reporters got court office access to Magder’s “factum” that argues Ford knowingly broke the rules as part of a pattern of defiance, so Hackland must decree the mayor’s seat “vacant.”
Council could then call a mayoral byelection or appoint somebody to replace him for the remainder of his term.
In 2010, city integrity commissioner Janet Leiper recommended council sanction Ford for using council letterhead and city resources to solicit donations for the foundation, and pay back donations from lobbyists and a business representative with whom Ford had met.
Council agreed. Ford voted against the recommendation, although then-speaker Sandra Bussin advised he appeared to be in a conflict.
Ford ignored Leiper’s six subsequent requests for proof he had repaid the $3,150. When the matter came back to council in February, Ford made an impassioned speech about the work of his foundation and said: “To ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket, personally — there’s just no sense to this ... The money’s been spent on football equipment.”
Ruby argues Ford admitted a “pecuniary” interest when he said the cash would come out of his pocket.
As for any argument the millionaire Ford makes about the sum being “insignificant,” Ruby wrote: “It takes a long time and a good deal of hard work for an ordinary Canadian to earn $3,150.00 … the respondent focused on the perceived unfairness of forcing him to reimburse such a sum out of his ‘own pocket.’ It certainly mattered to him.”
Rather than being inadvertent or a slip, Ford’s February vote was part of a pattern that saw him warned twice about using council letterhead to solicit donations before he was formally investigated in 2010, and ignore Bussin’s warning at the resulting vote, Ruby argues.
“Mayor Ford has a history on other issues of complying with the Act and a history on this particular issue of flouting the Act,” and also of displaying an “attitude that the rules do not apply to him,” the factum states.
The only conclusion, Ruby argues, is that Ford deliberately flouted the act because he was upset by what he considered an unfair burden, and correctly concluded he could turn councillors around by “speaking from the heart.”
Ford’s defence, according to his lawyer’s factum viewed by the Star on Monday, will be that the Conflict of Interest Act doesn’t apply because Ford’s actions were governed by a council Code of Conduct that falls under another provincial law, the City of Toronto Act.
Alan Lenczner also argues that the donations didn’t affect Ford’s “pecuniary interest” because they went to his football foundation, not his own pocket.
If Ford did breach the Act, Lenczner argues, the judge should deem it an “error of judgment or inadvertence,” because Ford believed the act only came into play if the vote had a financial impact for the city, and the sum involved insignificant.
*********************
Is the object of the exercise to drive Ford out of the office he won in a free and democratic election?
Under Aurora's Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest charges are not accepted as complaints under the Code.
If Rob Ford was breaking a law by using the letterhead and time of staff, public resources, to raise $3,150. for charity, every Mayor in the Province is doing the same when they allow the title of Mayor to be used to raise funds for charity,
Rob Ford didn't argue it wasn't fair for him to repay money already spent to donors. out of his own pocket.
He said it didn't make sense. The money had been spent for the purpose it was collected.People gave it of their own free will.It was a meagre amount in terms of charity fund-raising. It was used to assist people in income brackets who could not provide football equipment for their kids.
Where is common law disrespected?
Where is the logic?
Where is the crime?
Code of Conduct legislation was brought in because the City lost millions in computer contracts and after $13 million had been spent on the Bellamy Inquiry.
No legal action was taken under that circumstance. No refunds ordered. No penalties paid.
In the last term, Ford denied being at a football game after a complaint about his personal conduct at the sports event.
He denied having a doobie in his pocket in Florida years earlier when he had been stopped by police.
All of that was public knowledge and thanks to the Toronto Star,dug up and well- aired during the election campaign for Mayor.
Despite the Toronto Star, or perhaps because eof them, Ford won in a field of eight candidates.
Clayton Ruby, "renowned lawyer" according to The Star, apparently intends using the material in his argument for conviction and, no doubt expulsion from office. Ruby goes for the jugular.
As I see it, in this instance, several laws are on trial.
Permissive legislation that allows each municipality to write it's own rules of conduct. And hire and fire the adjudicator of their choice and at their pleasure.
Provincial Conflict of Interest laws rely on civil litigation by a private citizen at his own expense.
Where' s the logic in that?
In Ford's circumstance the system requires logical arguments to illogical laws.
The justice system is required to make sense of a potential dog's breakfast of arguments.
The challenge in thi instance ,is to the people's right to choose an elected representative in a free and democratic election.
Will a Judge decide the man chosen by a majority of Toronto electors to be their Mayor for the next four years, with all his warts and weaknesses plainly exposed, should not in fact be allowed to serve in that office.
Because he collected funds for a good cause, used them, saw no sense in returning them to willing donors and had the temerity to say so in public, in defiance of an appointed bureaucrat's directive he should give the freely given and tax- receipted money back .
Interesting, isn't it?
None of the facts in Ford's case can be compared to the circumstances of the Aurora Conflict of Interest.
In Toronto, everything done was done out there in the public domain.
The way it's supposed to be ..
Appearing on Newstalk 1010 on Tuesday, Ford noted he will be grilled on the witness stand next Wednesday by renowned lawyer Clayton Ruby.
A lawsuit accuses Ford of breaking provincial law in February by speaking and voting on whether he should have to pay back $3,150 in donations to his football foundation from lobbyists and a corporation.
“It really bothers me,” Ford said of the suit brought by Toronto resident Paul Magder. He then lauded his foundation’s work giving equipment to schools to start football programs.
Ruby is “going to cross-examine me and they want me out of office, and if I lose the court case I guess I lose my job and, uh, I don’t know, it really bothers me, it really bothers me, so just hope for the best,” he said.
Ford agreed with host Jim Richards that the conflict suit is a backdoor attempt to force him from office.
“If you don’t like what I’m doing then there’s an election Oct 27, 2014, it’s two years away, then have your say,” the mayor said. “But I don’t think it’s right what’s going on.”
If Ford took part in a debate or vote in which he had a conflict of interest, the province’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act decrees the judge “shall” force him out of office and “may” bar him from rejoining council for up to seven years.
If guilty, Ford could keep his job only if Justice Charles Hackland found he made an “error of judgment or inadvertence” or that the sum involved was “insignificant.”
The mayor talked to the radio station as reporters got court office access to Magder’s “factum” that argues Ford knowingly broke the rules as part of a pattern of defiance, so Hackland must decree the mayor’s seat “vacant.”
Council could then call a mayoral byelection or appoint somebody to replace him for the remainder of his term.
In 2010, city integrity commissioner Janet Leiper recommended council sanction Ford for using council letterhead and city resources to solicit donations for the foundation, and pay back donations from lobbyists and a business representative with whom Ford had met.
Council agreed. Ford voted against the recommendation, although then-speaker Sandra Bussin advised he appeared to be in a conflict.
Ford ignored Leiper’s six subsequent requests for proof he had repaid the $3,150. When the matter came back to council in February, Ford made an impassioned speech about the work of his foundation and said: “To ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket, personally — there’s just no sense to this ... The money’s been spent on football equipment.”
Ruby argues Ford admitted a “pecuniary” interest when he said the cash would come out of his pocket.
As for any argument the millionaire Ford makes about the sum being “insignificant,” Ruby wrote: “It takes a long time and a good deal of hard work for an ordinary Canadian to earn $3,150.00 … the respondent focused on the perceived unfairness of forcing him to reimburse such a sum out of his ‘own pocket.’ It certainly mattered to him.”
Rather than being inadvertent or a slip, Ford’s February vote was part of a pattern that saw him warned twice about using council letterhead to solicit donations before he was formally investigated in 2010, and ignore Bussin’s warning at the resulting vote, Ruby argues.
“Mayor Ford has a history on other issues of complying with the Act and a history on this particular issue of flouting the Act,” and also of displaying an “attitude that the rules do not apply to him,” the factum states.
The only conclusion, Ruby argues, is that Ford deliberately flouted the act because he was upset by what he considered an unfair burden, and correctly concluded he could turn councillors around by “speaking from the heart.”
Ford’s defence, according to his lawyer’s factum viewed by the Star on Monday, will be that the Conflict of Interest Act doesn’t apply because Ford’s actions were governed by a council Code of Conduct that falls under another provincial law, the City of Toronto Act.
Alan Lenczner also argues that the donations didn’t affect Ford’s “pecuniary interest” because they went to his football foundation, not his own pocket.
If Ford did breach the Act, Lenczner argues, the judge should deem it an “error of judgment or inadvertence,” because Ford believed the act only came into play if the vote had a financial impact for the city, and the sum involved insignificant.
*********************
Is the object of the exercise to drive Ford out of the office he won in a free and democratic election?
Under Aurora's Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest charges are not accepted as complaints under the Code.
If Rob Ford was breaking a law by using the letterhead and time of staff, public resources, to raise $3,150. for charity, every Mayor in the Province is doing the same when they allow the title of Mayor to be used to raise funds for charity,
Rob Ford didn't argue it wasn't fair for him to repay money already spent to donors. out of his own pocket.
He said it didn't make sense. The money had been spent for the purpose it was collected.People gave it of their own free will.It was a meagre amount in terms of charity fund-raising. It was used to assist people in income brackets who could not provide football equipment for their kids.
Where is common law disrespected?
Where is the logic?
Where is the crime?
Code of Conduct legislation was brought in because the City lost millions in computer contracts and after $13 million had been spent on the Bellamy Inquiry.
No legal action was taken under that circumstance. No refunds ordered. No penalties paid.
In the last term, Ford denied being at a football game after a complaint about his personal conduct at the sports event.
He denied having a doobie in his pocket in Florida years earlier when he had been stopped by police.
All of that was public knowledge and thanks to the Toronto Star,dug up and well- aired during the election campaign for Mayor.
Despite the Toronto Star, or perhaps because eof them, Ford won in a field of eight candidates.
Clayton Ruby, "renowned lawyer" according to The Star, apparently intends using the material in his argument for conviction and, no doubt expulsion from office. Ruby goes for the jugular.
As I see it, in this instance, several laws are on trial.
Permissive legislation that allows each municipality to write it's own rules of conduct. And hire and fire the adjudicator of their choice and at their pleasure.
Provincial Conflict of Interest laws rely on civil litigation by a private citizen at his own expense.
Where' s the logic in that?
In Ford's circumstance the system requires logical arguments to illogical laws.
The justice system is required to make sense of a potential dog's breakfast of arguments.
The challenge in thi instance ,is to the people's right to choose an elected representative in a free and democratic election.
Will a Judge decide the man chosen by a majority of Toronto electors to be their Mayor for the next four years, with all his warts and weaknesses plainly exposed, should not in fact be allowed to serve in that office.
Because he collected funds for a good cause, used them, saw no sense in returning them to willing donors and had the temerity to say so in public, in defiance of an appointed bureaucrat's directive he should give the freely given and tax- receipted money back .
Interesting, isn't it?
None of the facts in Ford's case can be compared to the circumstances of the Aurora Conflict of Interest.
In Toronto, everything done was done out there in the public domain.
The way it's supposed to be ..
Challenge Is Required...By More than One.
Anonymous has left a new comment on my post "Answers":
6:41 PM.....
Stop with the G.D. Park!! They did it, they did it again, they did it again. More than one council has allowed it. No one in authority has challenged it. No one with authority will challenge it because of the s**t storm it would generate for their personal political goals
************
The comment is right and not right at the same time It is a fundamental but incomplete view of politics.
I have been challenging consistently. Even now, in my own blog, without acknowledgement but not without support.
From comments here and elsewhere, it seems a substantial body of opinion is scandalized by the deportment of the St Kitts Cabal..
It happens that way. Obnoxious and outrageous aggressors force themselves to attention of the general public with bold, assertive and insulting statements.
Nobody does it to them. They do it to themselves.
Meek and mild disproportionate reaction from the governing body is brought into perspective in contrast.
The issue becomes full-blown controversy.
Actually, This one has taken years to arrive at this stage.
Since a fund-raiser by a town sub-committee,for a July1st Parade, produced neither funds nor accounting of same in 2009.
Disgruntlement no longer simmers ,waiting for the cook to take it off the fire. Like jam, it has reached full boil, foaming over the jelly pan, making a big mess all over the stove.
The question now is how has public outrage been expressed to Council?
Will they be the last to know?
Will this snail's pace reacting Council act without a shove?
Is the indignation being felt where it can make a difference ?
How much will it take for this Council to understand, no matter how much they cater to St Kitts et al , they will never curry favour. That place is taken.
It's all about cold, calculated exploitation.
Instead, Council loses with people who elected them to put these things right.
Politics has many actors.
When it finally comes to a gell, public opinion is the principal. The warning knell to a final decision.
So don't be waiting for the neophytes to interpret the notes;
Take a hammer to the bell.
Knock them out of their socks.
Mix metaphors galore and do whatever it takes.
6:41 PM.....
Stop with the G.D. Park!! They did it, they did it again, they did it again. More than one council has allowed it. No one in authority has challenged it. No one with authority will challenge it because of the s**t storm it would generate for their personal political goals
************
The comment is right and not right at the same time It is a fundamental but incomplete view of politics.
I have been challenging consistently. Even now, in my own blog, without acknowledgement but not without support.
From comments here and elsewhere, it seems a substantial body of opinion is scandalized by the deportment of the St Kitts Cabal..
It happens that way. Obnoxious and outrageous aggressors force themselves to attention of the general public with bold, assertive and insulting statements.
Nobody does it to them. They do it to themselves.
Meek and mild disproportionate reaction from the governing body is brought into perspective in contrast.
The issue becomes full-blown controversy.
Actually, This one has taken years to arrive at this stage.
Since a fund-raiser by a town sub-committee,for a July1st Parade, produced neither funds nor accounting of same in 2009.
Disgruntlement no longer simmers ,waiting for the cook to take it off the fire. Like jam, it has reached full boil, foaming over the jelly pan, making a big mess all over the stove.
The question now is how has public outrage been expressed to Council?
Will they be the last to know?
Will this snail's pace reacting Council act without a shove?
Is the indignation being felt where it can make a difference ?
How much will it take for this Council to understand, no matter how much they cater to St Kitts et al , they will never curry favour. That place is taken.
It's all about cold, calculated exploitation.
Instead, Council loses with people who elected them to put these things right.
Politics has many actors.
When it finally comes to a gell, public opinion is the principal. The warning knell to a final decision.
So don't be waiting for the neophytes to interpret the notes;
Take a hammer to the bell.
Knock them out of their socks.
Mix metaphors galore and do whatever it takes.
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
The End My Friend
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Answers":
"The traditional colour of green used for parks trucks is a no-brainer and a non-issue as far as I am concerned."
This is where you are wrong (again). The "traditional" green issue came from the long-since retired former staffer who felt that his legacy was being lost, so he wrote the editors, wrote the council and Ms Buck, always looking for a fight, took up the challenge.
Had he not said anything, no one would have cared and the time spent by staff to write those reports would have been saved to do other more meaningful work.
I am a firm believer that Police cars should be yellow. Can you please take up my cause and get the Region to go to yellow police cars?
************
This will be the last of the yes you did,no I didn't, back and forth , scratching and clawing , hissing an spitting, pointless yowling.
If you think police cars should be yellow, you go to bat for it.
It will better occupy your time, entertain you just as well and clear the books at this end.
"The traditional colour of green used for parks trucks is a no-brainer and a non-issue as far as I am concerned."
This is where you are wrong (again). The "traditional" green issue came from the long-since retired former staffer who felt that his legacy was being lost, so he wrote the editors, wrote the council and Ms Buck, always looking for a fight, took up the challenge.
Had he not said anything, no one would have cared and the time spent by staff to write those reports would have been saved to do other more meaningful work.
I am a firm believer that Police cars should be yellow. Can you please take up my cause and get the Region to go to yellow police cars?
************
This will be the last of the yes you did,no I didn't, back and forth , scratching and clawing , hissing an spitting, pointless yowling.
If you think police cars should be yellow, you go to bat for it.
It will better occupy your time, entertain you just as well and clear the books at this end.
Vengeance is mine ,saith The Lord.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Against The Law
???":
On August 24th at 4:46pm Anonymous said.... "She is surely guilty of various crimes and misdemeanors..."
OK... I replied. If you believe this to be true, call the cops. Stop pussy-footing around if you think she did something wrong. Regardless of how many were in attendance, COUNCIL APPROVED IT.
Stop with the civil suits, press criminal charges or stop saying that she is guilty of crimes and misdemeanors.
***************
Politics is a harsh taskmaster. It was true before the advent of social media. It is more true today.
When the last Council was straining at the bit to adopt a Code of Conduct, after appointing an Integrity Commissioner, I cautioned against.
They didn't hear. They had received privileged legal advice that a penalty clause inserted into legislation by the province provided a foolproof method of punishing a recalcitrant Councillor and enforcing Da Code.
The decision on charges against Mayor Ford of Toronto should engage all GTA politicians.
The Mayor is charged with voting against a resolution requiring return of $3,800. to "lobbyists" who contributed to a fund to provide football equipment to a high school for students in need. .
Mayors in the GTA should have a special interest.
Golf tournaments organised annually raise funds in the Mayor's names, to be distributed to various charities.
The Mayor of Markham has a Foundation in his name.
A Mayor in Halton Region exercises complete control of funds
raised in her name without disclosure.
In Aurora, proceeds are about forty-five thousand dollars a year.
Positive publicity results. Funds are disbursed with fanfare.
Recipients are extremely appreciative. Good causes are served.
I alone have reservations.
Generally speaking, the funds come from contractors doing business with the town, obviously grateful and wishing to show appreciation.
Nothing wrong with that, eh ?
Except how it might be perceived.
The term " lobbyist" is not used in Aurora. Only in Toronto.
I am told the tournament in Aurora is not organised in the Mayor's office. Town resources are not used.
Still, it is The Mayor's Tournament. It generates funds.
It would be hard to separate donations to the cause from influence of the office.
My attention to fine detail is a definite irritant to some.
My impression is participants are politicians, staff and contractors doing business with the town.
No doubt the Mayor generates good relations with business and picks up kudos from fund recipients.
None of it is secret. I am not telling anything you wouldn't know from paying attention to town affairs.
But here's the point; If the Mayor of Aurora can generate charitable funds in an amount of $45,000 annually from people who do business with the town? ( we are pikers at the game) Why can't the Mayor of Toronto solicit a piddling amount of $3,800 to provide football equipment to a high school for students in need, Why should his good intentions be viewed differently.
Toronto's Integrity Commissioner recommended the donations be returned because the Mayor's office staff and stationary were used to generate the funds.
The Mayor's Office is a resource.
If Toronto's Integrity Commissioner's judgement is sound, every Mayor in the GTA should be shaking in their shoes for fear of being accused of dark villainy under Codes of Conducts
Clayton Ruby's legal argument in support of Toronto's Code of Conduct should interest all Ontario politicians who aspire to righteousness and virtue and proclaim the same from town hall steps while organising big-money fund-raisers behind closed doors in warrens and back rooms.
On August 24th at 4:46pm Anonymous said.... "She is surely guilty of various crimes and misdemeanors..."
OK... I replied. If you believe this to be true, call the cops. Stop pussy-footing around if you think she did something wrong. Regardless of how many were in attendance, COUNCIL APPROVED IT.
Stop with the civil suits, press criminal charges or stop saying that she is guilty of crimes and misdemeanors.
***************
Politics is a harsh taskmaster. It was true before the advent of social media. It is more true today.
When the last Council was straining at the bit to adopt a Code of Conduct, after appointing an Integrity Commissioner, I cautioned against.
They didn't hear. They had received privileged legal advice that a penalty clause inserted into legislation by the province provided a foolproof method of punishing a recalcitrant Councillor and enforcing Da Code.
The decision on charges against Mayor Ford of Toronto should engage all GTA politicians.
The Mayor is charged with voting against a resolution requiring return of $3,800. to "lobbyists" who contributed to a fund to provide football equipment to a high school for students in need. .
Mayors in the GTA should have a special interest.
Golf tournaments organised annually raise funds in the Mayor's names, to be distributed to various charities.
The Mayor of Markham has a Foundation in his name.
A Mayor in Halton Region exercises complete control of funds
raised in her name without disclosure.
In Aurora, proceeds are about forty-five thousand dollars a year.
Positive publicity results. Funds are disbursed with fanfare.
Recipients are extremely appreciative. Good causes are served.
I alone have reservations.
Generally speaking, the funds come from contractors doing business with the town, obviously grateful and wishing to show appreciation.
Nothing wrong with that, eh ?
Except how it might be perceived.
The term " lobbyist" is not used in Aurora. Only in Toronto.
I am told the tournament in Aurora is not organised in the Mayor's office. Town resources are not used.
Still, it is The Mayor's Tournament. It generates funds.
It would be hard to separate donations to the cause from influence of the office.
My attention to fine detail is a definite irritant to some.
My impression is participants are politicians, staff and contractors doing business with the town.
No doubt the Mayor generates good relations with business and picks up kudos from fund recipients.
None of it is secret. I am not telling anything you wouldn't know from paying attention to town affairs.
But here's the point; If the Mayor of Aurora can generate charitable funds in an amount of $45,000 annually from people who do business with the town? ( we are pikers at the game) Why can't the Mayor of Toronto solicit a piddling amount of $3,800 to provide football equipment to a high school for students in need, Why should his good intentions be viewed differently.
Toronto's Integrity Commissioner recommended the donations be returned because the Mayor's office staff and stationary were used to generate the funds.
The Mayor's Office is a resource.
If Toronto's Integrity Commissioner's judgement is sound, every Mayor in the GTA should be shaking in their shoes for fear of being accused of dark villainy under Codes of Conducts
Clayton Ruby's legal argument in support of Toronto's Code of Conduct should interest all Ontario politicians who aspire to righteousness and virtue and proclaim the same from town hall steps while organising big-money fund-raisers behind closed doors in warrens and back rooms.
What Counts ??????
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "When
Is An Issue Not An Issue??":
Who pursued the issue of the colour of Parks Dept. vehicles? Who wanted a return to the traditional green?
You (and Norm Weller, of course).
Who else really cared?
*crickets*
****************
It seems to matter to you quite a bit and others who keep bringing it up.
And by the way, Council voted, I believe unanimously, in favor of
being green in parks.
Surely that counts for something.
Who pursued the issue of the colour of Parks Dept. vehicles? Who wanted a return to the traditional green?
You (and Norm Weller, of course).
Who else really cared?
*crickets*
****************
It seems to matter to you quite a bit and others who keep bringing it up.
And by the way, Council voted, I believe unanimously, in favor of
being green in parks.
Surely that counts for something.
Monday, 27 August 2012
When Is An Issue Not An Issue??
When a resolution is moved and seconded , tabled for debate. No debate ensues. Unanimous support is indicated.
It's Council's decision to make.
*************
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Answers":
"...and a non-issue as far as I am concerned."
But, YOU made green trucks an issue!?!
****************
Did not.
Council was informed green trucks cost more than white.
Did not. .
I did my homework. I knew they didn't..
Returning to green parks trucks seemed entirely logical.
Acting on factual information and respecting Council's authority became problematic.
Why should that be?
Six pages of bafflegab was presented by staff to defeat the motion.
All other municipalities have white vehicles. As does the Region.
Powerstream has them
Also Enbridge Gas.
Putting one's brand on the fleet is important.
A study from California suggests light-coloured vehicles produce less pollution.
A better deal can be obtained at the end of a season. White is the colour most likely left on the lot.
If it's a fancy green, it costs more.
If it's a van or a passenger vehicle it costs more.
So here's the thing:
The parks department do not use vans or passenger vehicles.
Fancy greens are not proposed.
Vehicles are purchased by tender.. The best bid gets the business.
A California study suggesting less pollution from a combustible engine clad in a light painted body, was most likely written through a pleasurable haze by a happy chappy smoking Caifornia Gold.
If everyone is driving white, how is a brand distinguished?
Tim is right. What is significant about the colour of the parks trucks.
Nothing much except they are parks vehicles. Parks are green.Why should the trucks be white?
The point of dispute lies in entirely spurious arguments, presented in writing, to prevent Council from making the decision.
It took weeks for a notice of motion to reach the table.When it did, the question was deferred for more weeks for accurate information to be provided about cost.
I already did that. My word was not accepted.
A six page staff report was presented to negate the fact.
Finally the air was cleared. The decision was made. Still the issue is harked back upon in comments.
Like the point went right over the heads of readers.
Complaints are made about Council not exercising authority
Then Council does, even on a relatively trivial issue, complaints are made about that too.
Perhaps if I nodded my head and baad repeatedly ?
"Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Three bags full"
Not wool.
Answers
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Against The Law
???":
Apart from being members of the tax-paying public, what exactly do Susan Walmer and Jan Freedman have to do with the "Culture (sic) Centre" (you'll get it right one of these days)?
**************
Susan Walmer is a person of extraordinary organizing skills.She is responsible for Phyllis Morris elections along with part of her slate of candidates.
Jan Freedman is part of the loyal opposition.
The occupying force at Church Street School is interlinked with the pair of them
Except for St Kitts cabal, they are residents and taxpayers of the town . That gives them rights and freedoms to pursue their objectives.
They should not be underestimated.
The traditional colour of green used for parks trucks is a no-brainer and a non-issue as far as I am concerned.
Dispute came from the administration.
Not the Council.
I believe the bylaw prohibiting the Mayor or any Councillor from retaining and have uncontrolled access to outside solicitors is already in place.
It would never have reached the table in the last Council.
Apart from being members of the tax-paying public, what exactly do Susan Walmer and Jan Freedman have to do with the "Culture (sic) Centre" (you'll get it right one of these days)?
**************
Susan Walmer is a person of extraordinary organizing skills.She is responsible for Phyllis Morris elections along with part of her slate of candidates.
Jan Freedman is part of the loyal opposition.
The occupying force at Church Street School is interlinked with the pair of them
Except for St Kitts cabal, they are residents and taxpayers of the town . That gives them rights and freedoms to pursue their objectives.
They should not be underestimated.
The traditional colour of green used for parks trucks is a no-brainer and a non-issue as far as I am concerned.
Dispute came from the administration.
Not the Council.
I believe the bylaw prohibiting the Mayor or any Councillor from retaining and have uncontrolled access to outside solicitors is already in place.
It would never have reached the table in the last Council.
Against The Law ???
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Closed
Meetings":
To Anonymous 4:46pm August 24....
"She is surely guilty of various crimes and misdemeanors as she threatened our staff with her monstrous statement "If you work for the town, you work for me. Be careful who you choose as friends."
I have said this many times before. If you truly believe what you stated here, why don't YOU go to York Regional Police HQ and request an investigation into the criminal acts?
All of the court nonsense going on now (both Morris and Buck as plaintiffs) is all civil stuff, there are no charges levied and the results will not be jail sentences but "Damages" which equal cash.
If you really think something illegal went down, press charges!
***********************
The comment is a quote. I read it as an expression of righteous anger. Canadians have that right.
Bad things happened to employees during the last term of office. Compensation for lost employment was no small part of the expense to the municipality. .
But money wasn't the greatest loss.
Many benefits are derived from municipal employment There are also disadvantages.
A job ended, through no fault of the employee, means theoption for new employment is another municipality or a different level of government.
It calls for a record of employment.
Politicians tend to be skittish.
An employee,taking legal action against a municipal employer, does not have a future in municipal government. .
Stuff like that tends to be noticed.
Generous settlements are generally accepted with silent departure amenable to all parties.
Legal action would be a last resort seldom resorted.
A law on the books is not worth two in the bushes.
*******.
Continuing dialogue:
"How does one determine if something qualifies for the G. Book of Records? Most people know about the 3 large lawsuits involving Morris & Company. If you add in all the suits against perceived enemies, former staff, the Region and other assorted victims, the number is quite amazing. It could be a cautionary tale to small towns who find themselves with such an individual in charge of litigation"
The last sentence is telling.
Small towns do not "find themselves with such an individual in charge of litigation"
A small town is highly unlikely to have such an individual in office. Word tends to get around because it doesn't have so far to travel. .
Secondly, no single elected member has that authority in any municipality. .
Both the Code of Conduct and a policy statement deal with the subject.
As well, a majority of Council is far less likely to be elected in a slate.What kind of a perfidious notion is that in the context of democracy?
People in small communities are not so easily diverted from reality.
Lastly, no town large or small, outside Aurora, allows a Mayor or any other member of Council unlimited access or communication with outside legal services.
It's insane.
Our experience during the last term is all one needs to understand why.
********
Continuing the discussion:
"7:00 PM Please do not forget to include on your list Ms. Walmer & Associates. Do not let her get the keys to the town hall with another candidate."
Ms. Walmer's group flourishes still. One need look no further than the Culture Centre , the Farmer's Market and the Jazz Cabal.
Coupled with ingratiating strategy from current Councillors without enough wit to come in out of the cold,while they try to win over this bunch, the community continues to be insulted and denigrated.
On Saturday, three members of Council and Theresa Buck
manned a booth for a fund-raising corn roast at the Farmer's Market.
Two days before, Councillor Humphreys was informed organisation was her job.
On the day, the event was relegated to an out of the way location.
Jan the Jam Lady chair of the market, friend of culture centre and jazz cabal but not Council, failed to announce the event.
Market patrons had to discover it for themselves.
It seems Humphrey was being punished by Jam Lady for failing to acquiesce with market intent not to allow anyone other than protegees of Mr Bob Leonard, other half of Susan Morton-Leonard, to use the town's band shell free of charge..
Mr. Leonard, I am told has a music school in another municipality.
The final occupied post of the enemy, is Church Street School .
A recent announcement by town staff offers opportunity for input about the future of the museum collection.
How should it be accommodated?
In one location?
Or broken up and scattered about?
Any place but Church Street School.
How hard could it be to stack the joint with culture fiends in favor of preserving the status quo?
Wherein lay the genius for that idea?
To Anonymous 4:46pm August 24....
"She is surely guilty of various crimes and misdemeanors as she threatened our staff with her monstrous statement "If you work for the town, you work for me. Be careful who you choose as friends."
I have said this many times before. If you truly believe what you stated here, why don't YOU go to York Regional Police HQ and request an investigation into the criminal acts?
All of the court nonsense going on now (both Morris and Buck as plaintiffs) is all civil stuff, there are no charges levied and the results will not be jail sentences but "Damages" which equal cash.
If you really think something illegal went down, press charges!
***********************
The comment is a quote. I read it as an expression of righteous anger. Canadians have that right.
Bad things happened to employees during the last term of office. Compensation for lost employment was no small part of the expense to the municipality. .
But money wasn't the greatest loss.
Many benefits are derived from municipal employment There are also disadvantages.
A job ended, through no fault of the employee, means theoption for new employment is another municipality or a different level of government.
It calls for a record of employment.
Politicians tend to be skittish.
An employee,taking legal action against a municipal employer, does not have a future in municipal government. .
Stuff like that tends to be noticed.
Generous settlements are generally accepted with silent departure amenable to all parties.
Legal action would be a last resort seldom resorted.
A law on the books is not worth two in the bushes.
*******.
Continuing dialogue:
"How does one determine if something qualifies for the G. Book of Records? Most people know about the 3 large lawsuits involving Morris & Company. If you add in all the suits against perceived enemies, former staff, the Region and other assorted victims, the number is quite amazing. It could be a cautionary tale to small towns who find themselves with such an individual in charge of litigation"
The last sentence is telling.
Small towns do not "find themselves with such an individual in charge of litigation"
A small town is highly unlikely to have such an individual in office. Word tends to get around because it doesn't have so far to travel. .
Secondly, no single elected member has that authority in any municipality. .
Both the Code of Conduct and a policy statement deal with the subject.
As well, a majority of Council is far less likely to be elected in a slate.What kind of a perfidious notion is that in the context of democracy?
People in small communities are not so easily diverted from reality.
Lastly, no town large or small, outside Aurora, allows a Mayor or any other member of Council unlimited access or communication with outside legal services.
It's insane.
Our experience during the last term is all one needs to understand why.
********
Continuing the discussion:
"7:00 PM Please do not forget to include on your list Ms. Walmer & Associates. Do not let her get the keys to the town hall with another candidate."
Ms. Walmer's group flourishes still. One need look no further than the Culture Centre , the Farmer's Market and the Jazz Cabal.
Coupled with ingratiating strategy from current Councillors without enough wit to come in out of the cold,while they try to win over this bunch, the community continues to be insulted and denigrated.
On Saturday, three members of Council and Theresa Buck
manned a booth for a fund-raising corn roast at the Farmer's Market.
Two days before, Councillor Humphreys was informed organisation was her job.
On the day, the event was relegated to an out of the way location.
Jan the Jam Lady chair of the market, friend of culture centre and jazz cabal but not Council, failed to announce the event.
Market patrons had to discover it for themselves.
It seems Humphrey was being punished by Jam Lady for failing to acquiesce with market intent not to allow anyone other than protegees of Mr Bob Leonard, other half of Susan Morton-Leonard, to use the town's band shell free of charge..
Mr. Leonard, I am told has a music school in another municipality.
The final occupied post of the enemy, is Church Street School .
A recent announcement by town staff offers opportunity for input about the future of the museum collection.
How should it be accommodated?
In one location?
Or broken up and scattered about?
Any place but Church Street School.
How hard could it be to stack the joint with culture fiends in favor of preserving the status quo?
Wherein lay the genius for that idea?
Sunday, 26 August 2012
Closed Meetings
Last week's news story on court proceedings on Conflict of Interest charges against the former Mayor brought back bad memories of the previous Council term. From the outset they began. Like a floodgate opened.
An early meeting was called to discuss what the new Mayor considered an invasion of her privacy and subject to litigation.
Under the Municipal Act, the imperative is the public's business shall be conducted in public.
Exceptions are precise and specific .
Litigation between the town and other parties: real estate negotiations on behalf of the town;privacy of an individual is the third.
Elected officials are not private. They are public .
At the time of the election, the town solicitor was on leave. An interim solicitor was retained when needed .
In this instance, need had not apparently been determined.
The scene. like many others, is etched clearly in my memory.
We used the Councillor's lounge for in-camera meetings. The Mayor occupied a couch..
A visual image of domination and control had already been adopted.
A gaping red shiny handbag at her feet. A file folder crammed so full, two arms were needed to hold it. A bunch of keys, twice as big as her fist and an impression of white legs and red vinyl high heeled shoes. A mouth crammed with food sometimes completed the picture.
Council were informed telephones in the Councillors' room had been monitored during the previous term. The position was her privacy had been invaded. That was cause for litigation for damages against her predecessor and she had "no intention of spending my money" to pursue the matter.
To cut a long story short, the new Council voted, eight to one, to authorize legal counsel to be retained.
The municipal clerk was present. He had two years to serve before retirement. He offered no advice.
Two years and at least two solicitors later. I can't be sure.in a legal conference, again behind closed doors, the matter was finalized.
There was no case to answer.Taking the matter to court would not result in damages being awarded, The solicitor was surprised to discover Council members had not been privy to various communications on the issue.
It was the former Mayor's practice to read to Council excerpts from letters only she had apparently received. Copies were not circulated.
Thinking back, the purpose of the final conference seems clear. The solicitor was being leaned upon heavily for different advice.
Present at the meeting were the CAO, town solicitor returned from leave and the municipal clerk,
As I recall , advice to Council from staff was in the form of support for the outside solicitor present for the conference.
It was decided there was no merit in pursuing legal action against the former Mayor's predecessor.
How much was expended ? Heaven knows. How many lawyers? At that time, at least two..Switching lawyers became a familiar pattern over the years If one failed to deliver the desired objective. they were not used again.
The Council of the day had five new members .
All of the Morris slate had not been elected, Just enough to create obligation and a majority.
Lawyers, and public resources were not the only tools used to wreak vengeance against anyone who dared to oppose.
After his defeat, town hall staff had posed for a photo with the outgoing Mayor.
We immediately heard of the repercussion.
Staff it seems ,were informed individually:
"If you work for the town,you work for me Be careful who you choose as friends. There's a list"
I have made the point; the Municipal Act is not intended to cover for politicians plots against opponents at public expense.
It is unthinkable.
Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars were expended .Staff were eventually complicit in obscuring the numbers .
All of it was cloaked in secrecy.
It had never happened before.
The current Council has passed a bylaw making it impossible ever to happen again.
At the time though ,during that one and only term, everyone, particularly staff, knew their fate if they dared cross the dreadful duo's determination to wreak terrible vengeance on their foes; real and imagined.
It started before the ink was dry on Certification of the 2006 election.
The slide continued downhill all the way until litigation again at town expense was processed against town residents during the 2010 election.
It's 2012 and we are not done yet.
An early meeting was called to discuss what the new Mayor considered an invasion of her privacy and subject to litigation.
Under the Municipal Act, the imperative is the public's business shall be conducted in public.
Exceptions are precise and specific .
Litigation between the town and other parties: real estate negotiations on behalf of the town;privacy of an individual is the third.
Elected officials are not private. They are public .
At the time of the election, the town solicitor was on leave. An interim solicitor was retained when needed .
In this instance, need had not apparently been determined.
The scene. like many others, is etched clearly in my memory.
We used the Councillor's lounge for in-camera meetings. The Mayor occupied a couch..
A visual image of domination and control had already been adopted.
A gaping red shiny handbag at her feet. A file folder crammed so full, two arms were needed to hold it. A bunch of keys, twice as big as her fist and an impression of white legs and red vinyl high heeled shoes. A mouth crammed with food sometimes completed the picture.
Council were informed telephones in the Councillors' room had been monitored during the previous term. The position was her privacy had been invaded. That was cause for litigation for damages against her predecessor and she had "no intention of spending my money" to pursue the matter.
To cut a long story short, the new Council voted, eight to one, to authorize legal counsel to be retained.
The municipal clerk was present. He had two years to serve before retirement. He offered no advice.
Two years and at least two solicitors later. I can't be sure.in a legal conference, again behind closed doors, the matter was finalized.
There was no case to answer.Taking the matter to court would not result in damages being awarded, The solicitor was surprised to discover Council members had not been privy to various communications on the issue.
It was the former Mayor's practice to read to Council excerpts from letters only she had apparently received. Copies were not circulated.
Thinking back, the purpose of the final conference seems clear. The solicitor was being leaned upon heavily for different advice.
Present at the meeting were the CAO, town solicitor returned from leave and the municipal clerk,
As I recall , advice to Council from staff was in the form of support for the outside solicitor present for the conference.
It was decided there was no merit in pursuing legal action against the former Mayor's predecessor.
How much was expended ? Heaven knows. How many lawyers? At that time, at least two..Switching lawyers became a familiar pattern over the years If one failed to deliver the desired objective. they were not used again.
The Council of the day had five new members .
All of the Morris slate had not been elected, Just enough to create obligation and a majority.
Lawyers, and public resources were not the only tools used to wreak vengeance against anyone who dared to oppose.
After his defeat, town hall staff had posed for a photo with the outgoing Mayor.
We immediately heard of the repercussion.
Staff it seems ,were informed individually:
"If you work for the town,you work for me Be careful who you choose as friends. There's a list"
I have made the point; the Municipal Act is not intended to cover for politicians plots against opponents at public expense.
It is unthinkable.
Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars were expended .Staff were eventually complicit in obscuring the numbers .
All of it was cloaked in secrecy.
It had never happened before.
The current Council has passed a bylaw making it impossible ever to happen again.
At the time though ,during that one and only term, everyone, particularly staff, knew their fate if they dared cross the dreadful duo's determination to wreak terrible vengeance on their foes; real and imagined.
It started before the ink was dry on Certification of the 2006 election.
The slide continued downhill all the way until litigation again at town expense was processed against town residents during the 2010 election.
It's 2012 and we are not done yet.
Saturday, 25 August 2012
Take A Gander At This
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another
FYI":
I also note that Oakvilles Jazz fest is free to all as well -- perhaps Markham and Oakville don't have a sitting councillor that has such a personal vendetta again the organizing committee or a blog constantly complaining about volunteers that bring something of value the community -- I don't hear them complaining about fences or wishing for rain on some one else's parade -- Other communities welcome their music festivals small minded Aurorans wish for rain on theirs!
**************
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "FYI...Copied From Elsewhere":
"Feel free not to post this if it is a problem."
Why would it be a problem? You just took shots at three of Cllr Buck's favourite 'punching bags'.
***************
Above were the sum and substance of incoming comments this morning. My finger was poised to delete . Then I thought; sometimes it's interesting to peruse another person's mind.
Coming on the heels of the letter to the editor justifying why the Mayor of the Town was not invited to be part of the Dignatory
Ceremonial Procession at the St. Kitts Jazz Festival and market operation, occupying the Aurora Town Park over a holiday week-end.
Sentiments expressed are singularly contradictory. .
Why would an entertainment business displaying so much hostility towards owners of a particular venue even want to be here?
Isn't goodwillthe essence of good business?
How much does it take before exploitation, disrespect and abuse is recognized?
Certainly Council and the Mayor and administration have been slow.
But not,I think, the community.
It is interesting to contemplate the rational Council and the administration might offer in future for extending services to this crude and rude operation from out of town which has enjoyed munificent opportunity to fill their pockets by way of town resources and facilities.
Bending over repeatedly and inviting yet another kick does little to engender respect for the institution.
Neither is it a particularly astute political maneouvering.
I thought that lesson might have been learned.
I also note that Oakvilles Jazz fest is free to all as well -- perhaps Markham and Oakville don't have a sitting councillor that has such a personal vendetta again the organizing committee or a blog constantly complaining about volunteers that bring something of value the community -- I don't hear them complaining about fences or wishing for rain on some one else's parade -- Other communities welcome their music festivals small minded Aurorans wish for rain on theirs!
**************
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "FYI...Copied From Elsewhere":
"Feel free not to post this if it is a problem."
Why would it be a problem? You just took shots at three of Cllr Buck's favourite 'punching bags'.
***************
Above were the sum and substance of incoming comments this morning. My finger was poised to delete . Then I thought; sometimes it's interesting to peruse another person's mind.
Coming on the heels of the letter to the editor justifying why the Mayor of the Town was not invited to be part of the Dignatory
Ceremonial Procession at the St. Kitts Jazz Festival and market operation, occupying the Aurora Town Park over a holiday week-end.
Sentiments expressed are singularly contradictory. .
Why would an entertainment business displaying so much hostility towards owners of a particular venue even want to be here?
Isn't goodwillthe essence of good business?
How much does it take before exploitation, disrespect and abuse is recognized?
Certainly Council and the Mayor and administration have been slow.
But not,I think, the community.
It is interesting to contemplate the rational Council and the administration might offer in future for extending services to this crude and rude operation from out of town which has enjoyed munificent opportunity to fill their pockets by way of town resources and facilities.
Bending over repeatedly and inviting yet another kick does little to engender respect for the institution.
Neither is it a particularly astute political maneouvering.
I thought that lesson might have been learned.
Friday, 24 August 2012
Another FYI
Hi Ev -
Here's a link to a yorkregion.com story posted today, about the upcoming Markham Jazz Festival. Runs this weekend from Aug 16 - 19, multiple stages, workshops, clinics, beer & wine garden, and a huge line-up of big-name artists including several Juno and Grammy award winners. Huge list of sponsors including the City of Markham, Province of Ontario, Canadian Heritage Foundation, Trillium Ontario, Ontario Arts Council, etc, etc.
And one other thing...IT'S COMPLETELY FREE!
You gotta shake your head sometimes at the things Aurora lets some folks get away with...
Here's a link to a yorkregion.com story posted today, about the upcoming Markham Jazz Festival. Runs this weekend from Aug 16 - 19, multiple stages, workshops, clinics, beer & wine garden, and a huge line-up of big-name artists including several Juno and Grammy award winners. Huge list of sponsors including the City of Markham, Province of Ontario, Canadian Heritage Foundation, Trillium Ontario, Ontario Arts Council, etc, etc.
And one other thing...IT'S COMPLETELY FREE!
You gotta shake your head sometimes at the things Aurora lets some folks get away with...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
