Posts
This blog has been moved to a WordPress platform to provide more functionality.
All future posts will be on http://www.auroracitizen.ca/.
Additionally, no further comments will be transferred to the new site, so please make all future comments on the new site. The old site will no longer be maintained and will be closed down.
Unfortunately, we were not successful in transferring Feedburner and email subscriptions across. Therefore regular readers will need to use the buttons on the left side of the new site/blog to update their subscriptions either through email or RSS Feeds. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Please take a moment to update your subscription now -- it will only take a moment and you won't miss any future posts.
We look forward to contuning the conversation at at http://www.auroracitizen.ca/.
Please let us know if your experience any issues so we can make the necessary adjustment.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Who is Responsible for Farmers Market
If you believe the recent Letters to the Editor there seems to some confusion about who is responsible for the success of the Aurora Farmers Market.
Sher St Kitts, wrote a letter suggesting that Mayor Phyllis Morris and Councillor Granger were responsible for all that is good at the Farmers Market. It seems the only things she didn't credit them with was sunshine and warm weather.
A number of citizens rightly pointed out that the Market was around long before either were involved and that if any Councillor was to be credited with the success, it should be Councillor Kean who was the driving force behind starting the market.
However, former Councillor Kean got it right when he shared the credit with those who are most deserving -- the volunteers and the vendors. Without them there would be no market regardless of any Council involvement.
And of course, the most important people of all? The many people who visit the market to chat, purchase products and just enjoy the opportunity to be part of an event that reminds us all what a community is about.
So maybe folks should be less concerned about giving their political friends credit -- and we should all celebrate the sense of community that activities like a Farmers Market represents -- regardless of what politician you support.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Sher St Kitts, wrote a letter suggesting that Mayor Phyllis Morris and Councillor Granger were responsible for all that is good at the Farmers Market. It seems the only things she didn't credit them with was sunshine and warm weather.
A number of citizens rightly pointed out that the Market was around long before either were involved and that if any Councillor was to be credited with the success, it should be Councillor Kean who was the driving force behind starting the market.
However, former Councillor Kean got it right when he shared the credit with those who are most deserving -- the volunteers and the vendors. Without them there would be no market regardless of any Council involvement.
And of course, the most important people of all? The many people who visit the market to chat, purchase products and just enjoy the opportunity to be part of an event that reminds us all what a community is about.
So maybe folks should be less concerned about giving their political friends credit -- and we should all celebrate the sense of community that activities like a Farmers Market represents -- regardless of what politician you support.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Another Community Based Ad?
The Auroran published what looks like another community ad this past week (w/o Sept 22). On page 4 the following ran.
We are unsure if it was an ad or a creative Letter to the Editor -- but in any case it was just one of a number of people in the community who are expressing their disappointment with the actions of our Council.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Reader wonders about election ...
Remember, remember come next November,
The Council we got, continually fought,
Professional staff left to Aurora's regret ...
Who can possibly save us,
from tax money spent
On lawsuits still pending
With seemingly no ending.
Judy Salmon
Aurora
We are unsure if it was an ad or a creative Letter to the Editor -- but in any case it was just one of a number of people in the community who are expressing their disappointment with the actions of our Council.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Ads More Informative Than Articles
Recently the ads seem to be more interesting than the articles -- and sometimes more telling about what is really happening in our town.
While our local media seems to be taking a "wait and see" attitude that doesn't offend the current slate of politicians, the mainstream media has been more critical.
Then the Coalition for a Better Aurora placed the first of 2 ads that condemned the actions of Council.
Now on Page 15 of The Banner on Sept 22, we see an ad from The Banner that apologizes for running the ad titled "Statement from the Town of Aurora".
It goes on to say "The Ad contained allegations of inappropriate conduct by Councillor Buck relating to her weblog. The Ad did not set out Councillor Buck's position in response to the allegations. Councillor Buck denies the allegations made against her in the Ad and denies that she has acted inappropriately."
Then it formally apologizes with "The Banner regrets any harm that may have been caused by the publication of the Ad."
It would seem to be a logical conclusion that this ad was run in response to the lawsuit filed by Councillor Buck. It is interesting that a sophisticated media publication, with all their lawyers who defend freedom of speech etc, were so quick to see the error of their behaviour.
Even with the rights of Freedom of Speech and integrity of news stories that newspapers rightly champion and fight for, they have written an apology because (we hypothesize) they recognized that allegations without proof are inappropriate.
Council, in their rush to condemn should also have known better. If the news media see that the ad should not have been run, what will the result be for the Town when they have used suspect procedural manipulation to maintain the ad on our Town website simply to prove that they can.
Councillor MacEachern has again demonstrated her feelings towards Councillor Buck have caused her to lose sight of why she was elected. And the rest of the gang have just gone along.
The Banner has accepted responsibility for their inappropriate behaviour. When will Council?
Now we, the taxpayers, have to sit back and watch this Council continue to waste our resources.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
While our local media seems to be taking a "wait and see" attitude that doesn't offend the current slate of politicians, the mainstream media has been more critical.
Then the Coalition for a Better Aurora placed the first of 2 ads that condemned the actions of Council.
Now on Page 15 of The Banner on Sept 22, we see an ad from The Banner that apologizes for running the ad titled "Statement from the Town of Aurora".
It goes on to say "The Ad contained allegations of inappropriate conduct by Councillor Buck relating to her weblog. The Ad did not set out Councillor Buck's position in response to the allegations. Councillor Buck denies the allegations made against her in the Ad and denies that she has acted inappropriately."
Then it formally apologizes with "The Banner regrets any harm that may have been caused by the publication of the Ad."
It would seem to be a logical conclusion that this ad was run in response to the lawsuit filed by Councillor Buck. It is interesting that a sophisticated media publication, with all their lawyers who defend freedom of speech etc, were so quick to see the error of their behaviour.
Even with the rights of Freedom of Speech and integrity of news stories that newspapers rightly champion and fight for, they have written an apology because (we hypothesize) they recognized that allegations without proof are inappropriate.
Council, in their rush to condemn should also have known better. If the news media see that the ad should not have been run, what will the result be for the Town when they have used suspect procedural manipulation to maintain the ad on our Town website simply to prove that they can.
Councillor MacEachern has again demonstrated her feelings towards Councillor Buck have caused her to lose sight of why she was elected. And the rest of the gang have just gone along.
The Banner has accepted responsibility for their inappropriate behaviour. When will Council?
Now we, the taxpayers, have to sit back and watch this Council continue to waste our resources.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Volunteering: Is Respect Earned or Expected?
Thanks to one of our contributors for this very thoughtful post.
Recently there has been some attention drawn to the role volunteers have in Aurora. I’ve been a volunteer in our community for about 15 years so I thought I’d share my perspective.
People recognize us for what we are. There aren’t a lot of interviews for getting a volunteer job in Aurora. We start at the bottom and work our way up. We get the response someone else feels we deserve, whether it is criticism or congratulations. Sometimes we get criticism and congratulations for the same thing, depending on how we affected different people.
Some of the criticism seems unpleasant but it has two very important side effects. First we stop taking ourselves so seriously. Second, we look at what we did and how we did it and decide if that is a good way to go in the future or if we should re-evaluate and change our ways. It’s much like having a job, but without a pay cheque. At least we don’t have to worry about the change in salary if we realise we need a change of career.
The congratulations are lovely and thankfully received with the realization that they should be shared with others, both volunteers and paid staff.
One thing volunteering has taught me is that I can’t do anything on my own. I can volunteer because my family supports my efforts, both in time and finances. I can volunteer because I have earned the trust of people. I can volunteer because people are willing to tell me what they need. If I want to make a change, I have to do it within the community.
As a volunteer, I have to work with other people who see the same problem, but may have different ways of getting to the goal of fixing it. We ask each other questions, and take the time to try to understand why each question was asked. When people start fighting about how to get to the desired end product, they are not serving anyone anymore.
Should volunteers have to stand up and ask for respect? Sure, but they have to earn it. They have to act like professionals, even if they aren’t paid that way.
For the record, my current volunteer activities in the Aurora community are: Convenor of Tyke House League for the AMHA, Co-chair of the School Supporters Association at Lester B. Pearson Public School, and Chair of the Aurora Public Library.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Recently there has been some attention drawn to the role volunteers have in Aurora. I’ve been a volunteer in our community for about 15 years so I thought I’d share my perspective.
People recognize us for what we are. There aren’t a lot of interviews for getting a volunteer job in Aurora. We start at the bottom and work our way up. We get the response someone else feels we deserve, whether it is criticism or congratulations. Sometimes we get criticism and congratulations for the same thing, depending on how we affected different people.
Some of the criticism seems unpleasant but it has two very important side effects. First we stop taking ourselves so seriously. Second, we look at what we did and how we did it and decide if that is a good way to go in the future or if we should re-evaluate and change our ways. It’s much like having a job, but without a pay cheque. At least we don’t have to worry about the change in salary if we realise we need a change of career.
The congratulations are lovely and thankfully received with the realization that they should be shared with others, both volunteers and paid staff.
One thing volunteering has taught me is that I can’t do anything on my own. I can volunteer because my family supports my efforts, both in time and finances. I can volunteer because I have earned the trust of people. I can volunteer because people are willing to tell me what they need. If I want to make a change, I have to do it within the community.
As a volunteer, I have to work with other people who see the same problem, but may have different ways of getting to the goal of fixing it. We ask each other questions, and take the time to try to understand why each question was asked. When people start fighting about how to get to the desired end product, they are not serving anyone anymore.
Should volunteers have to stand up and ask for respect? Sure, but they have to earn it. They have to act like professionals, even if they aren’t paid that way.
For the record, my current volunteer activities in the Aurora community are: Convenor of Tyke House League for the AMHA, Co-chair of the School Supporters Association at Lester B. Pearson Public School, and Chair of the Aurora Public Library.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Changes are on the Way
You will be seeing some changes over the next little while. We will be moving this blog over to a more robust platform that offers improved features. So please stay tuned for the changes and we ask for your patience as the transition is underway.
For those of you who have bookmarked this blog, you will need to update your bookmarks to get the most current posts -- we'll let you know when that is available. For those who subscribed through Feedburner, we are hopeful the transition will be seamless -- but we will let you know when you need to check your feed.
Also, we are very pleased to be welcoming our first guest moderator. We are excited about this because it has always been our desire that this be a community forum for discussion. Stay tuned for more info about that.
As this online conversation continues to grow and build readership we will also continue to publish posts from an expanding group of contributors. So please keep your comments and ideas coming.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
For those of you who have bookmarked this blog, you will need to update your bookmarks to get the most current posts -- we'll let you know when that is available. For those who subscribed through Feedburner, we are hopeful the transition will be seamless -- but we will let you know when you need to check your feed.
Also, we are very pleased to be welcoming our first guest moderator. We are excited about this because it has always been our desire that this be a community forum for discussion. Stay tuned for more info about that.
As this online conversation continues to grow and build readership we will also continue to publish posts from an expanding group of contributors. So please keep your comments and ideas coming.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Politics & Religion
We have received a number of anonymous comments/emails about the Aurora Mayors Prayer Breakfast (Oct 20 @ 7am - DiNardo's) -- intended as a "multi-faith" initiative.
A number of these emails suggest that this initiative does not embrace all faiths -- or non-faith -- and is really an inappropriate blending of politics and religion. This is something that has been observed in the US to varying degrees.
Do you think the Mayor should be engaged in this type of initiative -- regardless of faith issues -- or should Aurora politicians remain separate from anything that could be construed as religious based?
NOTE: Please do not post sections of emails -- we will not post unless we have direct knowledge of the complete email and a source that confirms it's authenticity. Your comment may remain anonymous on the blog, but we must have a copy of the email before posting your comment.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
A number of these emails suggest that this initiative does not embrace all faiths -- or non-faith -- and is really an inappropriate blending of politics and religion. This is something that has been observed in the US to varying degrees.
Do you think the Mayor should be engaged in this type of initiative -- regardless of faith issues -- or should Aurora politicians remain separate from anything that could be construed as religious based?
NOTE: Please do not post sections of emails -- we will not post unless we have direct knowledge of the complete email and a source that confirms it's authenticity. Your comment may remain anonymous on the blog, but we must have a copy of the email before posting your comment.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Guest Post: Ageism and Abuse
"A senior in this town" left the following comment on the post Notice of Reconsideration. We thought it was worth repeating here for its own separate discussion.
This comment does not altogether pertain directly to the topic but I have had something on my mind for quite some time now and Tuesday's council meeting was a blatant illustration of my concern.
What I observed on Tuesday night and have seen occur with increasing frequency is ageism and abuse. It is insidious and sometimes disguised more heavily than at other times but it IS abuse and ageism.
I have witnessed bullying, particularly by Mayor Morris and Councillor MacEachern. The ageism is displayed as sneering, smirking, condescension and patronizing toward Councillor Buck.
The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern use all methods; Councillors Gaertner, Wilson, Granger and Gallo primarily resort to the non-verbal methods but Wilson and Gaertner are not averse to chipping in with comments too.
I have studied and written papers about ageism in today's society and it may be the precursor or may often go hand in hand with elder abuse. Ageism refers to discrimination against any age group. I think it is clear that I am specifically referring to the elder age group.
The behaviour on Tuesday night was particularly shameful. Society used to respect, revere and protect the elders of the community generations. It was very clear that six of the leaders of Aurora have thrown their hats in with the modern view and treatment of our elders. How they disgust me when they have the gall to talk about respect and integrity.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
This comment does not altogether pertain directly to the topic but I have had something on my mind for quite some time now and Tuesday's council meeting was a blatant illustration of my concern.
What I observed on Tuesday night and have seen occur with increasing frequency is ageism and abuse. It is insidious and sometimes disguised more heavily than at other times but it IS abuse and ageism.
I have witnessed bullying, particularly by Mayor Morris and Councillor MacEachern. The ageism is displayed as sneering, smirking, condescension and patronizing toward Councillor Buck.
The Mayor and Councillor MacEachern use all methods; Councillors Gaertner, Wilson, Granger and Gallo primarily resort to the non-verbal methods but Wilson and Gaertner are not averse to chipping in with comments too.
I have studied and written papers about ageism in today's society and it may be the precursor or may often go hand in hand with elder abuse. Ageism refers to discrimination against any age group. I think it is clear that I am specifically referring to the elder age group.
The behaviour on Tuesday night was particularly shameful. Society used to respect, revere and protect the elders of the community generations. It was very clear that six of the leaders of Aurora have thrown their hats in with the modern view and treatment of our elders. How they disgust me when they have the gall to talk about respect and integrity.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Notice of Reconsideration -- Where's the Precedence.
Councillor MacEachern seems to have created another set of rules. See it live starting at 2:52:00. 18 minutes of classic Morris MacEachern.
Decide for yourself if this was a well orchestrated performance. Councillor MacEachern just happened to have her references to the procedural bylaws to support her twisted logic -- and the 5 just fell in line! Imagine a vote of 5 against 3 on the Mayors ruling on her Point of Order.
If this was planned in advance, it also puts comments by Mayor Morris to Mr Hogg about this very topic in a different context.
If Councillor MacEachern was sincere in her statements about working as a team, wouldn't she have raised this with Councillor McRoberts in advance and given him a chance to adjust his motion -- rather than trying to embarrass him.
Since when is a Notice of Reconsideration required to remove anything from the website. Based on this rationale, therefore any item that has been approved by Council to be included on the website, The Notice Board, etc. by motion must run in perpetuity unless it is removed by a formal Notice of Reconsideration -- unless a specific removal date is included in the initial motion.
Wouldn't a Notice of Reconsideration mean that they would not put something up. Since it is already up -- it doesn't make any sense. As Councillor McRoberts said, putting up versus taking down are 2 different issues.
Possibly Councillor MacEachern would provide examples where this has been done in the past. Or where a Notice of Reconsideration was used to remove anything that was deemed to be no longer relevant or was outdated.
How about it Councillor MacEachern? As a regular reader of this blog -- and you must be since you claim it is unbalanced, and we know you would never make a statement this definitive without personal knowledge -- here is a perfect opportunity to provide the balance you desire.
Refer us to the minutes where this has happened in the past.
You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the style and quality of character and leadership on this Council.
If you are real glutton for punishment -- watch the next section where they dissect the motion to have citizens input on the code. Another classic.
FOOT NOTE: The Banner article
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Decide for yourself if this was a well orchestrated performance. Councillor MacEachern just happened to have her references to the procedural bylaws to support her twisted logic -- and the 5 just fell in line! Imagine a vote of 5 against 3 on the Mayors ruling on her Point of Order.
If this was planned in advance, it also puts comments by Mayor Morris to Mr Hogg about this very topic in a different context.
If Councillor MacEachern was sincere in her statements about working as a team, wouldn't she have raised this with Councillor McRoberts in advance and given him a chance to adjust his motion -- rather than trying to embarrass him.
Since when is a Notice of Reconsideration required to remove anything from the website. Based on this rationale, therefore any item that has been approved by Council to be included on the website, The Notice Board, etc. by motion must run in perpetuity unless it is removed by a formal Notice of Reconsideration -- unless a specific removal date is included in the initial motion.
Wouldn't a Notice of Reconsideration mean that they would not put something up. Since it is already up -- it doesn't make any sense. As Councillor McRoberts said, putting up versus taking down are 2 different issues.
Possibly Councillor MacEachern would provide examples where this has been done in the past. Or where a Notice of Reconsideration was used to remove anything that was deemed to be no longer relevant or was outdated.
How about it Councillor MacEachern? As a regular reader of this blog -- and you must be since you claim it is unbalanced, and we know you would never make a statement this definitive without personal knowledge -- here is a perfect opportunity to provide the balance you desire.
Refer us to the minutes where this has happened in the past.
You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the style and quality of character and leadership on this Council.
If you are real glutton for punishment -- watch the next section where they dissect the motion to have citizens input on the code. Another classic.
FOOT NOTE: The Banner article
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Moderator vs Contributor
The recent question by Councillor MacEachern served to illustrate the mis-understanding of how a blog works.
To paraphrase, she asked Mr Hogg if he is the "Moderator". He replied that he is a "Contributor".
Let us explain in case some folks are confused.
Moderators review and approve the comments in response to the original post. Each blog has their own criteria -- as does the Aurora Citizen. Ours are posted.
Contributors write the initial post. These are posted to stimulate reaction and feedback and usually reflect the perspective of the writer. Most blogs -- including the Aurora Citizen -- have numerous contributors.
Clearly Councillor MacEachern is confused about the difference.
We have extended the opportunity to contribute directly to the Mayor and Council -- as well as any citizen. Citizens have responded and submitted -- the Mayor and Council have chosen not to contribute directly thus far. Possibly they are concerned that the comments in response to their post cannot be controlled by them.
Regardless of the initial post, the tone and balance of the blog is driven by the responding comments. Possibly the reason she feels this blog is unbalanced is because so many commenter's are expressing their displeasure with the actions of Council.
By definition, a blog is an online conversation. The value is that you get the real truth as expressed by real citizens. You just might not like what you hear.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
To paraphrase, she asked Mr Hogg if he is the "Moderator". He replied that he is a "Contributor".
Let us explain in case some folks are confused.
Moderators review and approve the comments in response to the original post. Each blog has their own criteria -- as does the Aurora Citizen. Ours are posted.
Contributors write the initial post. These are posted to stimulate reaction and feedback and usually reflect the perspective of the writer. Most blogs -- including the Aurora Citizen -- have numerous contributors.
Clearly Councillor MacEachern is confused about the difference.
We have extended the opportunity to contribute directly to the Mayor and Council -- as well as any citizen. Citizens have responded and submitted -- the Mayor and Council have chosen not to contribute directly thus far. Possibly they are concerned that the comments in response to their post cannot be controlled by them.
Regardless of the initial post, the tone and balance of the blog is driven by the responding comments. Possibly the reason she feels this blog is unbalanced is because so many commenter's are expressing their displeasure with the actions of Council.
By definition, a blog is an online conversation. The value is that you get the real truth as expressed by real citizens. You just might not like what you hear.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
MacEachern Abides By Her Own Set of Rules
The general rule is that Councillors confine their questions to the subject of the delegation. However, last night Councillor MacEachern didn’t feel compelled to adhere to the rules of civility that didn’t work in her favour. And Mayor Morris wasn’t willing or able to stop her.
Historically Council members confine their questions of any delegate to the subject of their delegation. However last night at Council Meeting after Bill Hogg made a presentation in Open Forum Councillor MacEachern challenged him on his relationship with this blog and further charged that this blog is not balanced. (Video here time 23:15 - 27:00)
Mr Hogg took the opportunity to remind Councillor MacEachern that she and any member of Council was welcome to participate -- but they have chosen not to as a named contributor.
You can drawn your own conclusions about whether they participate anonymously based on the comments your read.
Mr Hogg also pointed out that the balance of this and any blog was driven by the participants who chose to make comments versus the moderator who merely starts the thread.
So if you don't like what others have to say, make your own points. Just please make sure your facts are correct and not opinions stated as facts. Such as who owns and moderates this blog.
If the balance is off on this blog -- possibly it is because of the disappointment in the activities of Council. Welcome to the online world of blogs, twitter, facebook, etc. For the first time people have a powerful forum to communicate their perspectives -- good and bad. Wishing it wasn't so won't make it so.
Possibly, Councillor MacEachern should demonstrate some leadership about the balance she wants from this blog at the Council table. Maybe she's not familiar with the concept of "the pot calling the kettle black" ;)
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Historically Council members confine their questions of any delegate to the subject of their delegation. However last night at Council Meeting after Bill Hogg made a presentation in Open Forum Councillor MacEachern challenged him on his relationship with this blog and further charged that this blog is not balanced. (Video here time 23:15 - 27:00)
Mr Hogg took the opportunity to remind Councillor MacEachern that she and any member of Council was welcome to participate -- but they have chosen not to as a named contributor.
You can drawn your own conclusions about whether they participate anonymously based on the comments your read.
Mr Hogg also pointed out that the balance of this and any blog was driven by the participants who chose to make comments versus the moderator who merely starts the thread.
So if you don't like what others have to say, make your own points. Just please make sure your facts are correct and not opinions stated as facts. Such as who owns and moderates this blog.
If the balance is off on this blog -- possibly it is because of the disappointment in the activities of Council. Welcome to the online world of blogs, twitter, facebook, etc. For the first time people have a powerful forum to communicate their perspectives -- good and bad. Wishing it wasn't so won't make it so.
Possibly, Councillor MacEachern should demonstrate some leadership about the balance she wants from this blog at the Council table. Maybe she's not familiar with the concept of "the pot calling the kettle black" ;)
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Sept 15th Open Forum Comments
The following remarks were delivered by Bill Hogg at the Sept 15 Council meeting. The video can be seen on the Rogers website -- time 17:30 - 23:15. Councillor MacEacherns questions begin at 23:15 - 27:00.
Madame Mayor, members of Council, citizens of Aurora,
My first thought when considering my remarks tonight was to chastise this Council for their recent behaviour -- not unlike the comments made by another person recently who publically took a single member of Council to task.
However, after further reflection, I will not chastise since I hold too much respect for the office of Mayor and Councillor, knowing the difficult job your all perform from personal experience and in respect to those who have sat in those chairs previously.
However, I would like to share some thoughts on the current situation.
Like many resident of Aurora my business brings me in contact with colleagues in the GTA. In all my years living in Aurora, I have never before been embarrassed by my community. I now find myself being regularly questioned about the activities of this Council.
People, both in town and elsewhere, are appalled by what they read about the conduct of this Council relative to the recent events and resultant firing of our Integrity Commissioner after his one and only report.
I am regularly stopped by friends and neighbours who share my concerns about the communication by this Council that questions the abilities of an accomplished individual who has had his good name and reputation smeared -- to the point that he felt the need to issue a cease & desist notice to our Mayor.
We are disturbed by the appearance of a personal vendetta to silence a single Councillor and bully other critics into silence.
Now most of you know that I served for 3 years with Councillor Buck -- in fact we sat side by side in those 2 chairs. With respect to Councillor Buck, she was often opinionated and thoroughly enjoyed a good debate -- but her focus was the welfare of the town and its citizens and she always came well educated about the issues.
And while we often disagreed quite forcefully, we confined our comments to the issues and we tried to remain open-minded to hear what each other had to say.
Even her alleged smiting of Councillor Wallace with his own newspaper was simply an entertaining interplay between 2 passionate Aurorans that has been blown out of proportion. I was there. I'd like to assure everyone, No Councillors were harmed in the making of the video.
In that time, Councillors spoke vigorously about the issues and then often retired to a local restaurant to continue discussions on what was best for the town. A sense of unity was developed. Differing opinions were encouraged and debated at Council meetings in full public view not behind closed doors or before public meetings.
Politics in this town has change -- and not for the better. In my opinion it has sunk to a new low with these most recent attacks.
Even now when the report from the Integrity Commissioner has been returned and declined to address the complaint because it was deemed ill-formed, incomplete and inappropriate in the way it was crafted because it could be seen as wholly political, the complaint is still published on the website as an official Council communication.
Mr Nitkin's report seems quite clear on the issue.
Given these facts how can this Council continue to publish a complaint that has been clearly identified as inappropriate? Councillor McRoberts asked last week about this issue and has been forced to put his request into a formal motion rather than Council just taking the high ground and removing the compliant. I hope tonight's vote will be recorded -- and more importantly, I hope it will make it into the public record as was the custom -- prior to this term.
I endorse Councillor McRoberts motion for a committee to evaluate the existing Code of Conduct. It has been shown that the Code and the processes associated with it as it exists currently are fraught with opportunity for mis-use.
A review by the public would only make sense.
I recall a number of years ago, another code of this nature was implemented in this town -- championed by yourself Madame Mayor when you were a Councillor with ambitions to be Mayor. You included input from the community then. Does it still not make sense to include the community now?
It is time to stop with the politicking and get back to why you were elected -- the business of this community. You need to stop spending our tax dollars on issues that are about Council personalities and personal agendas and work together to provide services at the lowest tax rate possible.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Madame Mayor, members of Council, citizens of Aurora,
My first thought when considering my remarks tonight was to chastise this Council for their recent behaviour -- not unlike the comments made by another person recently who publically took a single member of Council to task.
However, after further reflection, I will not chastise since I hold too much respect for the office of Mayor and Councillor, knowing the difficult job your all perform from personal experience and in respect to those who have sat in those chairs previously.
However, I would like to share some thoughts on the current situation.
Like many resident of Aurora my business brings me in contact with colleagues in the GTA. In all my years living in Aurora, I have never before been embarrassed by my community. I now find myself being regularly questioned about the activities of this Council.
People, both in town and elsewhere, are appalled by what they read about the conduct of this Council relative to the recent events and resultant firing of our Integrity Commissioner after his one and only report.
I am regularly stopped by friends and neighbours who share my concerns about the communication by this Council that questions the abilities of an accomplished individual who has had his good name and reputation smeared -- to the point that he felt the need to issue a cease & desist notice to our Mayor.
We are disturbed by the appearance of a personal vendetta to silence a single Councillor and bully other critics into silence.
Now most of you know that I served for 3 years with Councillor Buck -- in fact we sat side by side in those 2 chairs. With respect to Councillor Buck, she was often opinionated and thoroughly enjoyed a good debate -- but her focus was the welfare of the town and its citizens and she always came well educated about the issues.
And while we often disagreed quite forcefully, we confined our comments to the issues and we tried to remain open-minded to hear what each other had to say.
Even her alleged smiting of Councillor Wallace with his own newspaper was simply an entertaining interplay between 2 passionate Aurorans that has been blown out of proportion. I was there. I'd like to assure everyone, No Councillors were harmed in the making of the video.
In that time, Councillors spoke vigorously about the issues and then often retired to a local restaurant to continue discussions on what was best for the town. A sense of unity was developed. Differing opinions were encouraged and debated at Council meetings in full public view not behind closed doors or before public meetings.
Politics in this town has change -- and not for the better. In my opinion it has sunk to a new low with these most recent attacks.
Even now when the report from the Integrity Commissioner has been returned and declined to address the complaint because it was deemed ill-formed, incomplete and inappropriate in the way it was crafted because it could be seen as wholly political, the complaint is still published on the website as an official Council communication.
Mr Nitkin's report seems quite clear on the issue.
Given these facts how can this Council continue to publish a complaint that has been clearly identified as inappropriate? Councillor McRoberts asked last week about this issue and has been forced to put his request into a formal motion rather than Council just taking the high ground and removing the compliant. I hope tonight's vote will be recorded -- and more importantly, I hope it will make it into the public record as was the custom -- prior to this term.
I endorse Councillor McRoberts motion for a committee to evaluate the existing Code of Conduct. It has been shown that the Code and the processes associated with it as it exists currently are fraught with opportunity for mis-use.
A review by the public would only make sense.
I recall a number of years ago, another code of this nature was implemented in this town -- championed by yourself Madame Mayor when you were a Councillor with ambitions to be Mayor. You included input from the community then. Does it still not make sense to include the community now?
It is time to stop with the politicking and get back to why you were elected -- the business of this community. You need to stop spending our tax dollars on issues that are about Council personalities and personal agendas and work together to provide services at the lowest tax rate possible.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
A Story of Integrity
For folks not familiar with the history of the firing of our Integrity Commissioner, here is a rundown as well as some of the links where we have covered this issue, plus access to comments from your fellow citizens.
After a long search for an Integrity Commissioner, Nov 25 2008, Aurora finally declares David Nitkin is our guy.
After months of wrangling Mr Nitkin's contract is signed June 18, 7 months after announcing his selection. No rationale is provided for the delay.
The first complaint is lodged when 6 members of Council signed a formal complaint against Councillor Buck for alleged comments against staff. Links to the original information on the town website are available through this link.
Report returned from Mr Nitkin However, report is not issued to public, but available internally to certain staff and possibly select Council members.
2 days later Mr Nitkin is fired.
Initial view of report indicates that Mr Nitkin would not respond to the complaint because the issues are deemed political in nature. In his report he indicated "It is the decision of my office that this statement of complaint, as is, is unacceptable and that as is, no investigation or inquiry shall take place."
Mainstream media picks up the issue. CBC News, Toronto Sun, Era Banner
Latest activity is the report is published at a General Committee meeting -- which conveniently is not televised -- versus the required Council Meeting and Mayor Morris is planning a statement on "behalf of Council" which she wrote and published in the agenda for the same meeting the report from Nitkin was tabled.
This tactic handily published "her statement" (Item 23 on General Committee agenda) before anyone on Council saw it and avoided having to solicit Council approval before her statement was made public -- effectively preventing even her faithful disciples from having any influence on her message. A real team player!
If you are available, try to make the meeting Tuesday evening. It should be interesting.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
After a long search for an Integrity Commissioner, Nov 25 2008, Aurora finally declares David Nitkin is our guy.
After months of wrangling Mr Nitkin's contract is signed June 18, 7 months after announcing his selection. No rationale is provided for the delay.
The first complaint is lodged when 6 members of Council signed a formal complaint against Councillor Buck for alleged comments against staff. Links to the original information on the town website are available through this link.
Report returned from Mr Nitkin However, report is not issued to public, but available internally to certain staff and possibly select Council members.
2 days later Mr Nitkin is fired.
Initial view of report indicates that Mr Nitkin would not respond to the complaint because the issues are deemed political in nature. In his report he indicated "It is the decision of my office that this statement of complaint, as is, is unacceptable and that as is, no investigation or inquiry shall take place."
Mainstream media picks up the issue. CBC News, Toronto Sun, Era Banner
Latest activity is the report is published at a General Committee meeting -- which conveniently is not televised -- versus the required Council Meeting and Mayor Morris is planning a statement on "behalf of Council" which she wrote and published in the agenda for the same meeting the report from Nitkin was tabled.
This tactic handily published "her statement" (Item 23 on General Committee agenda) before anyone on Council saw it and avoided having to solicit Council approval before her statement was made public -- effectively preventing even her faithful disciples from having any influence on her message. A real team player!
If you are available, try to make the meeting Tuesday evening. It should be interesting.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Changing Priorities
The recent Banner article captures a number of thoughts shared by Councillor McRoberts at the latest Council meeting. They seemed worthy of consideration -- possibly the balance of Council should give them consideration before dismissing as quickly as Mayor Morris did Tuesday night.
McRoberts questioned why Mr. Nitkin’s report appeared on a non-televised General Committee meeting when when the code of conduct clearly stipulates it should have appeared on the first council meeting following its receipt. Two such meetings have occurred prior to the Tuesday meeting -- including on that very evening.
Mayor Morris accepted no responsibility for the decision and placed the blame squarely on departing Director of Corporate Service Ms. King.
He further suggested it would make sense to re-evaluate the code and look for opportunities for improvement. He also suggested an accountability and transparency committee -- not made up of Councillors -- be formed to review the code of conduct to determine if there are sections that conflict with the Ontario Municipal Act. Such a committee should also be charged with finding a new integrity commissioner.
Councillor Collins-Mrakas has also previously suggested that a province wide approach makes sense. Since having each municipality craft their own has clearly been a disaster, this would make sense. It would also make sense to have the Integrity Commissioner be independent from municipalities (like the OMB) to prevent exactly what has happened in Aurora from repeating itself.
McRoberts also suggested that since the complaint against Councillor Buck had been declined by Nitkin, that it would make sense to remove the complaint against her from the Town website since there was “an assumption of guilt instead of a presumption of innocence”.
Not surprising, Mayor Morris quickly disagreed on all aspects. She indicated that at this point (i.e. since they were not successful), more time should be focused on doing the town’s business than on wrangling with technicalities. How convenient. Now that the Mayor et al have not accomplished their objective, they want to refocus on "town business".
For example, Monday, she will be ramping up the PR to promote herself for her role in Right to Dry.
A Press Release was posted on the Town website on Wed Sept 9 announcing "As a result of their leadership role in the successful Right to Dry campaign, Mayor Phyllis Morris, Council and the Town of Aurora will be profiled as a Canadian leader in a movement to allow people the freedom to make more environmentally conscious choices."
This must be the important town business she refers to. More media coverage for herself.
It's more like a ploy to distract people from the real issues in the town. Plus, another opportunity to increase her profile.
Well, rest assured Mayor Morris, your profile is front and centre. You have generated more media from your recent leadership on the handling of the firing of our Integrity Commissioner than through the clothesline debate. Your place in history in Aurora and the province is assured.
We should all be careful what we wish for ;)
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
McRoberts questioned why Mr. Nitkin’s report appeared on a non-televised General Committee meeting when when the code of conduct clearly stipulates it should have appeared on the first council meeting following its receipt. Two such meetings have occurred prior to the Tuesday meeting -- including on that very evening.
Mayor Morris accepted no responsibility for the decision and placed the blame squarely on departing Director of Corporate Service Ms. King.
He further suggested it would make sense to re-evaluate the code and look for opportunities for improvement. He also suggested an accountability and transparency committee -- not made up of Councillors -- be formed to review the code of conduct to determine if there are sections that conflict with the Ontario Municipal Act. Such a committee should also be charged with finding a new integrity commissioner.
Councillor Collins-Mrakas has also previously suggested that a province wide approach makes sense. Since having each municipality craft their own has clearly been a disaster, this would make sense. It would also make sense to have the Integrity Commissioner be independent from municipalities (like the OMB) to prevent exactly what has happened in Aurora from repeating itself.
McRoberts also suggested that since the complaint against Councillor Buck had been declined by Nitkin, that it would make sense to remove the complaint against her from the Town website since there was “an assumption of guilt instead of a presumption of innocence”.
Not surprising, Mayor Morris quickly disagreed on all aspects. She indicated that at this point (i.e. since they were not successful), more time should be focused on doing the town’s business than on wrangling with technicalities. How convenient. Now that the Mayor et al have not accomplished their objective, they want to refocus on "town business".
For example, Monday, she will be ramping up the PR to promote herself for her role in Right to Dry.
A Press Release was posted on the Town website on Wed Sept 9 announcing "As a result of their leadership role in the successful Right to Dry campaign, Mayor Phyllis Morris, Council and the Town of Aurora will be profiled as a Canadian leader in a movement to allow people the freedom to make more environmentally conscious choices."
This must be the important town business she refers to. More media coverage for herself.
It's more like a ploy to distract people from the real issues in the town. Plus, another opportunity to increase her profile.
Well, rest assured Mayor Morris, your profile is front and centre. You have generated more media from your recent leadership on the handling of the firing of our Integrity Commissioner than through the clothesline debate. Your place in history in Aurora and the province is assured.
We should all be careful what we wish for ;)
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Mayor Morris Faces Legal Action on 2 Fronts
Mayor Phyllis Morris is being held to account for her statements on 2 separate fronts according to The Banner.
First, Councillor Buck has taken legal action to demand an apology from Morris and Councillors Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson, about the ads published in 2 papers which she described as "libelous", "unfounded and unsubstantiated".
She very clearly states that the suit is against the 6 specific people versus the Town or the Council as a whole. For example, contrary to the much discussed Town Code of Conduct, the matter was not handled confidentially, but was promoted through every vehicle at their disposal.
Mayor Morris indicated the suit "contains a number of unfounded allegations and it is wholly without merit and cannot be taken seriously.” We suggest she does take it seriously, since the legal system is not quite so easy hoodwinked as she feels citizens of Aurora can be.
However, it will be interesting to see if Mayor Morris and her supporters will still try to use Town funds to fund their personal war. This is a personal suit -- let them start to accept financial responsibility for their actions rather than using Town funds for everything.
Secondly, and of special note, in the same article Mayor Morris indicated David Nitkin, through his lawyer, has also sent a letter to the Mayor demanding she cease making negative comments about his performance.
Apparently Mr Nitkin is fed up with the comments that Mayor Morris has made about his abilities and denigrating his reputation.
If you haven't already done so, take the opportunity to review Mr Nitkin's credentials. Among other things he is past president of the Ethics Practitioners' Association of Canada and is a Business Ethics instructor at Schulich School of Business, York University. His credentials are impressive to say the least.
The Banner also did an article back in July.
But it seems Mayor Morris felt he was unqualified for the job and resultant he was fired. What qualifications were missing -- possibly the willingness to follow her direction without question?
Stay tuned. This will only get more interesting as the stories unfold.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
First, Councillor Buck has taken legal action to demand an apology from Morris and Councillors Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson, about the ads published in 2 papers which she described as "libelous", "unfounded and unsubstantiated".
She very clearly states that the suit is against the 6 specific people versus the Town or the Council as a whole. For example, contrary to the much discussed Town Code of Conduct, the matter was not handled confidentially, but was promoted through every vehicle at their disposal.
Mayor Morris indicated the suit "contains a number of unfounded allegations and it is wholly without merit and cannot be taken seriously.” We suggest she does take it seriously, since the legal system is not quite so easy hoodwinked as she feels citizens of Aurora can be.
However, it will be interesting to see if Mayor Morris and her supporters will still try to use Town funds to fund their personal war. This is a personal suit -- let them start to accept financial responsibility for their actions rather than using Town funds for everything.
Secondly, and of special note, in the same article Mayor Morris indicated David Nitkin, through his lawyer, has also sent a letter to the Mayor demanding she cease making negative comments about his performance.
Apparently Mr Nitkin is fed up with the comments that Mayor Morris has made about his abilities and denigrating his reputation.
If you haven't already done so, take the opportunity to review Mr Nitkin's credentials. Among other things he is past president of the Ethics Practitioners' Association of Canada and is a Business Ethics instructor at Schulich School of Business, York University. His credentials are impressive to say the least.
The Banner also did an article back in July.
But it seems Mayor Morris felt he was unqualified for the job and resultant he was fired. What qualifications were missing -- possibly the willingness to follow her direction without question?
Stay tuned. This will only get more interesting as the stories unfold.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Toronto Star: Council spat gets uglier
Council spat gets uglier in Aurora
Sep 09, 2009 04:30 AM
Gail Swainson - Staff Reporter
Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris is planning on taking her version of events surrounding the firing of the town's integrity commissioner directly to the citizens.
David Nitkin was fired in July, a day after issuing a report on a complaint lodged by five members of the council, plus the mayor, against a fellow politician.
The complaint, over Councillor Evelyn Buck's outspoken blog, was "unacceptable" and perhaps sparked by political interference, Nitkin said in his report, which council released and dealt with publicly for the first time last night.
Nitkin didn't rule on the merits of the code of conduct complaint against Buck, saying it was "ill formed, incomplete and inappropriate." But he was otherwise blunt in his assessment of the reasons behind the complaint, using words such as "vexatious" and "frivolous."
The complaint was filed after posts on Buck's blog, called "Our Town and its Business," criticized staff for not following council procedures, something Morris says is untrue.
The sordid public spat has caused a deep rift on council and sparked a public debate in sleepy Aurora.
Morris had issued a statement saying the town's conduct code states council members should "refrain" from criticizing staff.
But after a committee backed her plan last night, she said "it's time council put out a statement."
Sep 09, 2009 04:30 AM
Gail Swainson - Staff Reporter
Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris is planning on taking her version of events surrounding the firing of the town's integrity commissioner directly to the citizens.
David Nitkin was fired in July, a day after issuing a report on a complaint lodged by five members of the council, plus the mayor, against a fellow politician.
The complaint, over Councillor Evelyn Buck's outspoken blog, was "unacceptable" and perhaps sparked by political interference, Nitkin said in his report, which council released and dealt with publicly for the first time last night.
Nitkin didn't rule on the merits of the code of conduct complaint against Buck, saying it was "ill formed, incomplete and inappropriate." But he was otherwise blunt in his assessment of the reasons behind the complaint, using words such as "vexatious" and "frivolous."
The complaint was filed after posts on Buck's blog, called "Our Town and its Business," criticized staff for not following council procedures, something Morris says is untrue.
The sordid public spat has caused a deep rift on council and sparked a public debate in sleepy Aurora.
Morris had issued a statement saying the town's conduct code states council members should "refrain" from criticizing staff.
But after a committee backed her plan last night, she said "it's time council put out a statement."
If Mayor Morris is so concerned about openness and transparency and putting out a statement -- why doesn't Council publish the full Nitkin report so everyone can see his full response?Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
They published the full complaint and will be publishing her version -- doesn't Nitkin's report deserve the same coverage?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
An Interesting Turn of Phrase
A recent article in The Banner, indicated Mayor Phyllis Morris met with Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry staff and offered input on the town’s experiences with creating a code of conduct and selecting an integrity commissioner.
Mayor Morris also stated,“They asked for my input also.” Does that imply that the Ministry initiated contact?
However, Municipal Affairs spokesperson Andrea Kelly said,“Municipal government is a mature level of government, but we’re always open and willing to listen to new ideas.”
Mayor Morris indicated they asked. The Municipal Affairs spokesperson indicated they listened.
For those who really care about openness and transparency, Andrea Kelly is the Media Relations Coordinator within Issues Management of the Communications Branch of Municipal Affairs.
Did Municipal Affairs really solicit her advice as implied, or did she contact them herself and they simply listened politely?
Wouldn't it be interesting to know what senior policy advisor she actually met with that was so interested in her advice on hiring and firing Integrity Commissioners. Or was someone just being polite to a local politician?
We wonder if you could get a straight yes or no from Mayor Morris on who called who, and who she spoke to. Or is she twisting words and facts to lead people to inaccurate conclusions?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Mayor Morris also stated,“They asked for my input also.” Does that imply that the Ministry initiated contact?
However, Municipal Affairs spokesperson Andrea Kelly said,“Municipal government is a mature level of government, but we’re always open and willing to listen to new ideas.”
Mayor Morris indicated they asked. The Municipal Affairs spokesperson indicated they listened.
For those who really care about openness and transparency, Andrea Kelly is the Media Relations Coordinator within Issues Management of the Communications Branch of Municipal Affairs.
Did Municipal Affairs really solicit her advice as implied, or did she contact them herself and they simply listened politely?
Wouldn't it be interesting to know what senior policy advisor she actually met with that was so interested in her advice on hiring and firing Integrity Commissioners. Or was someone just being polite to a local politician?
We wonder if you could get a straight yes or no from Mayor Morris on who called who, and who she spoke to. Or is she twisting words and facts to lead people to inaccurate conclusions?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Spin Continues
What a week; an ad in local papers, the release of the Integrity Commissioners report, a response from the Mayor and even articles from the ever friendly Banner about Mayor Morris and her leadership and influence with provincial staff. The spin continues.
The agenda for the next General Committee meeting on Sept 8 finally contains the full report from the Integrity Commissioner -- as well as a well spun response from Mayor Morris.
Please take the opportunity to read both and form your own opinions. They can be found on the Town website here.
You will need to scroll down to the last 2 agenda items 22 & 23 to see the full text.
He also covered the issues of privacy and confidentiality -- advising against the direction taken by Council. Lastly he was very clear about following "Due Process in Law" -- something he may have some knowledge since EthicsScan wrote the Resource Guide for Municipality Integrity Officers for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario’s 444 municipal governments and provides a variety of services and products to members and non-members. Aurora is a member.)
However, providing an altogether different perspective is the response from Mayor Phyllis Morris.
Mayor Morris claims that "The Former Integrity Commissioner did NOT in any way rule on the merits of the complaint." Of course she is right.
What the Integrity Commissioner did was throw the complaint out based on lack of merit -- as stated clearly in his response.
Mayor Morris goes on to state "her belief" that the complaint was well formed, complete and appropriate.
One must wonder what her basis for this belief is based on -- versus Mr Nitkin's years of experience.
Possibly the much vaunted HR experience gives her this expertise. Or perhaps her work as a Paralegal. None of these qualify her as having any knowledge about the subject of integrity -- and it continues to show.
The other question that should be answered is why does the Mayor get to publish her own report on the situation? Shouldn't there be an official Council Report duly moved and agreed by the majority of Council after discussion -- or is this another example of Mayor Morris knowing that she has 5 votes in her pocket so there is no need to follow process?
Lastly, why is this coming before General Committee instead of Council directly? Isn't that the stated process -- and we all know that Mayor Morris is a stickler for process. Isn't that why they fired the Integrity Commissioner, for not following the process?
Consider attending the meeting on Tuesday. It will be worth the price of admission.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
The agenda for the next General Committee meeting on Sept 8 finally contains the full report from the Integrity Commissioner -- as well as a well spun response from Mayor Morris.
Please take the opportunity to read both and form your own opinions. They can be found on the Town website here.
You will need to scroll down to the last 2 agenda items 22 & 23 to see the full text.
The Commissioner sets up his decision with 4 points:
- The commissioner will not conduct an inquiry if the matter is frivolous, vexatious, not made in good faith or insufficient grounds.
- In addition to the above, the commissioner may dismiss a complaint if it is seen as an abuse of power
- The complaint was ill-formed, incomplete and inappropriate
- The Commissioner gave the proponents the opportunity to provide additional information respecting the complaint, which they chose not to do.
He also covered the issues of privacy and confidentiality -- advising against the direction taken by Council. Lastly he was very clear about following "Due Process in Law" -- something he may have some knowledge since EthicsScan wrote the Resource Guide for Municipality Integrity Officers for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario’s 444 municipal governments and provides a variety of services and products to members and non-members. Aurora is a member.)
However, providing an altogether different perspective is the response from Mayor Phyllis Morris.
Mayor Morris claims that "The Former Integrity Commissioner did NOT in any way rule on the merits of the complaint." Of course she is right.
What the Integrity Commissioner did was throw the complaint out based on lack of merit -- as stated clearly in his response.
Mayor Morris goes on to state "her belief" that the complaint was well formed, complete and appropriate.
One must wonder what her basis for this belief is based on -- versus Mr Nitkin's years of experience.
Possibly the much vaunted HR experience gives her this expertise. Or perhaps her work as a Paralegal. None of these qualify her as having any knowledge about the subject of integrity -- and it continues to show.
The other question that should be answered is why does the Mayor get to publish her own report on the situation? Shouldn't there be an official Council Report duly moved and agreed by the majority of Council after discussion -- or is this another example of Mayor Morris knowing that she has 5 votes in her pocket so there is no need to follow process?
Lastly, why is this coming before General Committee instead of Council directly? Isn't that the stated process -- and we all know that Mayor Morris is a stickler for process. Isn't that why they fired the Integrity Commissioner, for not following the process?
Consider attending the meeting on Tuesday. It will be worth the price of admission.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Anonymous is Upset
Some commenter's are upset that we have not published every negative comment they have posted about Councillor Buck -- usually without making any reference to the actual post that everyone else is discussing. They call it censorship.
They will continue to be disappointed. This is not a vehicle for them to tell everyone how much they dislike Councillor Buck. That is not the purpose of the blog. It is and will continue to be a discussion.
We will continue to publish both positive or negative comments that are about the posts.
So feel free to disagree, just don't make the sum of your comment "We/I hate Councillor Buck".
Or, if you feel that strongly, we invite you to submit an article to be posted. Then that entire post will be about your topic and others can comment as they see fit -- on that topic.
We will continue to try and keep comments related to the subject of the original post. We ask that commenter's try to as well.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
They will continue to be disappointed. This is not a vehicle for them to tell everyone how much they dislike Councillor Buck. That is not the purpose of the blog. It is and will continue to be a discussion.
We will continue to publish both positive or negative comments that are about the posts.
So feel free to disagree, just don't make the sum of your comment "We/I hate Councillor Buck".
Or, if you feel that strongly, we invite you to submit an article to be posted. Then that entire post will be about your topic and others can comment as they see fit -- on that topic.
We will continue to try and keep comments related to the subject of the original post. We ask that commenter's try to as well.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Community Corner: Sense of Community Missing in Aurora
To the Blog editor:
I’ve lived in three different provinces, in towns and cities of several different sizes, but having resided in Aurora for seven years now, I have decided that this must be the most backwards town in the country.
I’ve never seen such a poorly organized town, run by an incestuous group of buffoons. We’ve got major traffic problems, but can only deal with them by installing ridiculous chicanes on the side streets. We’ve got a good number of green spaces and, despite a high tax base --- under the guise of being “green” --- we can’t bear to spend the money to keep them groomed and weed-free. Our so-called “downtown” is little more than a street-side of vacant lots, empty buildings and “for lease” signs.
The latest antics of our Mayor and town Council are only more symptoms of some deep infection that plagues this town. What passes itself as a "community newspaper" is simply more of the same sycophants, a sort of newsletter for a group that considers itself the "in" crowd. (Could we possibly see any more pictures of Belinda Stronach flipping pancakes and cutting ribbons???)
I suspect there was a time when Aurora was a true community --- the small town of yesteryear --- but more and more, I find Aurora to be little more than a “bedroom” town --- a place where people sleep in their homes until they can work elsewhere, dine elsewhere and shop elsewhere. Even after all these years, I find no underlying sense of community here. I just bide my time until my children finish school so we can move out of Aurora and find a normal place to live again.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
I’ve lived in three different provinces, in towns and cities of several different sizes, but having resided in Aurora for seven years now, I have decided that this must be the most backwards town in the country.
I’ve never seen such a poorly organized town, run by an incestuous group of buffoons. We’ve got major traffic problems, but can only deal with them by installing ridiculous chicanes on the side streets. We’ve got a good number of green spaces and, despite a high tax base --- under the guise of being “green” --- we can’t bear to spend the money to keep them groomed and weed-free. Our so-called “downtown” is little more than a street-side of vacant lots, empty buildings and “for lease” signs.
The latest antics of our Mayor and town Council are only more symptoms of some deep infection that plagues this town. What passes itself as a "community newspaper" is simply more of the same sycophants, a sort of newsletter for a group that considers itself the "in" crowd. (Could we possibly see any more pictures of Belinda Stronach flipping pancakes and cutting ribbons???)
I suspect there was a time when Aurora was a true community --- the small town of yesteryear --- but more and more, I find Aurora to be little more than a “bedroom” town --- a place where people sleep in their homes until they can work elsewhere, dine elsewhere and shop elsewhere. Even after all these years, I find no underlying sense of community here. I just bide my time until my children finish school so we can move out of Aurora and find a normal place to live again.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
What Lessons from Senator Kennedy
Whether you agree with Ted Kennedy’s political views or not, there’s something that can be learned from his leadership approach. Here are some comments made by a few of his colleagues.
This spirit of working together is sorely missed here in Aurora. Last term Councillor Phyllis Morris used a confrontational style battle with Mayor Tim Jones to campaign on the need for change.
Most informed voters now see what type of change she meant. Much can be learned from the comments about Senator Kennedy.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Vice President Joe Biden said Kennedy's secret as a legislator was "his lack of vitriol, his lack of pettiness forced some of the less generous members of our community to act bigger than they were. It was remarkable to watch."Could the same be said for Mayor Morris?
Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, recounted that when he came to the Senate in 1977 he had told his constituents that he was going to fight Kennedy. "I hadn't the slightest idea that I would eventually have a strong working relationship with, and love for, the man that I came to fight," he said.
Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, said, "We disagreed on most issues, but but I admired his passion for his convictions … and his uncanny sense for when differences could be bridged and his cause advanced by degrees."
This spirit of working together is sorely missed here in Aurora. Last term Councillor Phyllis Morris used a confrontational style battle with Mayor Tim Jones to campaign on the need for change.
Most informed voters now see what type of change she meant. Much can be learned from the comments about Senator Kennedy.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Mystery Ad Sparks More Toronto Star Coverage
Mystery ad blasts town council
Anonymous `coalition for a better Aurora' urges residents to turf mayor and five councillors
Aug 27, 2009 04:30 AM -- Gail Swainson - Staff Reporter
A nasty spat within Aurora council that sparked the firing of the town's integrity commissioner has taken a curious turn: a bluntly worded ad in a local newspaper calls on residents to turf Mayor Phyllis Morris and five of the eight sitting councillors in the 2010 municipal election.
"In our opinion, individually and jointly, the group has made a mockery of the concept of public service," says the large display ad that ran in Tuesday's Auroran, which follows a months-long feud between Morris and outspoken councillor Evelyn Buck.
Five councillors, Wendy Gaertner, John Gallo, Stephen Granger, Evelina MacEachern and Al Wilson – all considered staunch supporters of Morris – are said to be tagging "meekly behind" Morris.
The ad calls on potential candidates willing to run against them to step up to the plate in next fall's election.
Sponsored by an anonymous "coalition for a better Aurora," the ad castigates Morris for allegedly "trampling and denigrating almost to the point of blasphemy" her campaign promises, and claims that she has a "manic ego."
It accuses the councillors of demoralizing the town's staff and forcing several senior civil servants from office, and alleges they "engaged in legal and other entanglements detrimental to the best interests of the town."
Gaertner called the ad disappointing. "I believe I went into this for the right reason: to do what is right for the residents of Aurora," she said.
Morris is out of town on vacation and, along with the other named councillors, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Buck and fellow councillors Alison Collins-Mrakas and Bob McRoberts are not named in the ad, which lists no contact number, email address or website, but promises to be the first in a continuing series.
"I think it's a terrible reflection on our town affairs," said Buck. "For the sake of the community, I feel bad that it's come to this, but it's a sign of people's opinion."
Buck denied having anything to do with the ad.
She pointed out she has already had ample opportunity to express her controversial views in a public blog.
She and Gaertner both hinted they had some idea who might be at the root of the ad campaign, but refused to say.
An ongoing war of words between Buck and the six councillors came to a head earlier this month when the town's integrity commissioner was fired after just two months on the job, over his handling of complaints by councillors about Buck's blog, titled "Our Town and its Business."
David Nitkin, president of EthicScan Canada, was dumped the day after he ruled that the councillors' formal complaint against Buck – for slagging city staff on the blog – didn't have enough information to go forward.
Nitkin said pointedly that he thought the whole affair "raised concerns of political interference."
The sordid infighting on council is the talk of the town, with each side accusing the other of abuse of process and playing fast and loose with the facts.
Just days after Nitkin's abrupt departure, town clerk Lucille King, who went to work for the town last November, announced she was retiring after 30 years of municipal service, sparking another round of finger-pointing and blame-laying.
Last year, rookie councillor Grace Marsh quit, telling a local newspaper in a letter that she'd been subjected to "anger, threats and insults" by a deeply divided council.
Her resignation was followed by a heated debate and a 5-3 vote to appoint a replacement rather than conduct a by-election.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Anonymous `coalition for a better Aurora' urges residents to turf mayor and five councillors
Aug 27, 2009 04:30 AM -- Gail Swainson - Staff Reporter
A nasty spat within Aurora council that sparked the firing of the town's integrity commissioner has taken a curious turn: a bluntly worded ad in a local newspaper calls on residents to turf Mayor Phyllis Morris and five of the eight sitting councillors in the 2010 municipal election.
"In our opinion, individually and jointly, the group has made a mockery of the concept of public service," says the large display ad that ran in Tuesday's Auroran, which follows a months-long feud between Morris and outspoken councillor Evelyn Buck.
Five councillors, Wendy Gaertner, John Gallo, Stephen Granger, Evelina MacEachern and Al Wilson – all considered staunch supporters of Morris – are said to be tagging "meekly behind" Morris.
The ad calls on potential candidates willing to run against them to step up to the plate in next fall's election.
Sponsored by an anonymous "coalition for a better Aurora," the ad castigates Morris for allegedly "trampling and denigrating almost to the point of blasphemy" her campaign promises, and claims that she has a "manic ego."
It accuses the councillors of demoralizing the town's staff and forcing several senior civil servants from office, and alleges they "engaged in legal and other entanglements detrimental to the best interests of the town."
Gaertner called the ad disappointing. "I believe I went into this for the right reason: to do what is right for the residents of Aurora," she said.
Morris is out of town on vacation and, along with the other named councillors, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Buck and fellow councillors Alison Collins-Mrakas and Bob McRoberts are not named in the ad, which lists no contact number, email address or website, but promises to be the first in a continuing series.
"I think it's a terrible reflection on our town affairs," said Buck. "For the sake of the community, I feel bad that it's come to this, but it's a sign of people's opinion."
Buck denied having anything to do with the ad.
She pointed out she has already had ample opportunity to express her controversial views in a public blog.
She and Gaertner both hinted they had some idea who might be at the root of the ad campaign, but refused to say.
An ongoing war of words between Buck and the six councillors came to a head earlier this month when the town's integrity commissioner was fired after just two months on the job, over his handling of complaints by councillors about Buck's blog, titled "Our Town and its Business."
David Nitkin, president of EthicScan Canada, was dumped the day after he ruled that the councillors' formal complaint against Buck – for slagging city staff on the blog – didn't have enough information to go forward.
Nitkin said pointedly that he thought the whole affair "raised concerns of political interference."
The sordid infighting on council is the talk of the town, with each side accusing the other of abuse of process and playing fast and loose with the facts.
Just days after Nitkin's abrupt departure, town clerk Lucille King, who went to work for the town last November, announced she was retiring after 30 years of municipal service, sparking another round of finger-pointing and blame-laying.
Last year, rookie councillor Grace Marsh quit, telling a local newspaper in a letter that she'd been subjected to "anger, threats and insults" by a deeply divided council.
Her resignation was followed by a heated debate and a 5-3 vote to appoint a replacement rather than conduct a by-election.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Citizens Speak Out
Dissatisfaction continues to grow with the conduct of our Council. This ad was published in the August 25, 2009 edition of The Auroran -- as well a number of Letters to the Editor.
Click on visual above for clearer picture
It may be another year until the next election, but the campaign to replace our current Council continues to heat up.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Aurora Makes Wikipedia
The controversy in Aurora has now available on Wikipedia.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
2009 Council ControversyIt will be interesting to see how long before someone tries to remove these factual links from the site.
In August 2009 a controversy erupted when the Aurora town council fired its integrity commissioner in a special meeting after receiving his first decision on a contentious issue. Three of eight councillors were absent from the special meeting. The mayor and five councillors who were present at the special meeting had filed a complaint with the integrity commissioner against councillor Evelyn Buck for comments made in her blog. Although the integrity commissioner's report has not been released to the public, it is believed that he dismissed the complaint.[6][7] The council was criticized for the decision to fire the integrity commissioner.[8]
Links 6 - 8 refer to;
6. Aurora sacks its ethics czar". The Toronto Sun. 2009-08-11. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
7. Councillor's blog ignites Aurora firefight". The Toronto Star. 2009-08-12. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
8. Aurora losing its aura?". The Toronto Star. 2009-08-13. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Friday, August 21, 2009
How Does Media Influence Our Opinions
Recent news articles provide an interesting perspective on the role of media on our opinions.
For example, Debora Kelly of The Banner wrote an editorial Aug 12, in which she takes a fairly supportive position on the antics of our Council and the recent firing of our Integrity Commissioner. Providing lots of room for quotes and spin from former colleague and Banner columnist Mayor Phyllis Morris, Debora declares her opinion with the comment “Fortunately, the experience hasn't dampened council's desire to have a watchdog at its side. (Though, may I suggest they get an understanding on the complaints procedure before handing over the retainer fee next time?)”
Compared this to the point of view of the Editorial department of a more disinterested party, the Toronto Star “A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora's integrity commissioner.” and “Aurora's aura of good governance is on the wane.”
Note that both of these pieces are opinions versus news stories. News stories are supposed to be fact based -- while in editorials or opinions, the writer is expected to provide their own opinion/spin. Did Ms Kelley's prior relationship colour her opinion? How was The Stars writer influenced by their prior knowledge of Aurora and Mayor Morris (Right to Dry??). We'll never know.
Relying only on our media can be dangerous -- because all papers (and blogs for that matter) have their own view of the facts. So listen to your friends and neighbours, read the papers, and blogs -- but be sure to check out the meetings where you will see this Council in action live. Links are available at the top left if you can’t attend in person.
The next meeting to discuss the issue of the Integrity Commissioner is Tuesday Sept 8. Then draw your own opinion and join in the conversation. We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
For example, Debora Kelly of The Banner wrote an editorial Aug 12, in which she takes a fairly supportive position on the antics of our Council and the recent firing of our Integrity Commissioner. Providing lots of room for quotes and spin from former colleague and Banner columnist Mayor Phyllis Morris, Debora declares her opinion with the comment “Fortunately, the experience hasn't dampened council's desire to have a watchdog at its side. (Though, may I suggest they get an understanding on the complaints procedure before handing over the retainer fee next time?)”
Compared this to the point of view of the Editorial department of a more disinterested party, the Toronto Star “A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora's integrity commissioner.” and “Aurora's aura of good governance is on the wane.”
Note that both of these pieces are opinions versus news stories. News stories are supposed to be fact based -- while in editorials or opinions, the writer is expected to provide their own opinion/spin. Did Ms Kelley's prior relationship colour her opinion? How was The Stars writer influenced by their prior knowledge of Aurora and Mayor Morris (Right to Dry??). We'll never know.
Relying only on our media can be dangerous -- because all papers (and blogs for that matter) have their own view of the facts. So listen to your friends and neighbours, read the papers, and blogs -- but be sure to check out the meetings where you will see this Council in action live. Links are available at the top left if you can’t attend in person.
The next meeting to discuss the issue of the Integrity Commissioner is Tuesday Sept 8. Then draw your own opinion and join in the conversation. We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
What is the Proper Use of Social Media by Politicians
A very interesting discussion has branched off in the commentary section of Toronto Star Editorial Weights in. We thought we would start a specific post for this discussion.
Unfortunately we can't move the comments, so if you are interested, check out the comments in the original post.
The discussion is about how elected politicians should use social media (i.e. blogs, letters to the Editor) as well as interviews/press releases to get their points across. And whether they should continue to publicly debate issues after the decision has been made in the political arena.
Also covered is how their use of media is different from the general public.
Some very interesting commentary.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Unfortunately we can't move the comments, so if you are interested, check out the comments in the original post.
The discussion is about how elected politicians should use social media (i.e. blogs, letters to the Editor) as well as interviews/press releases to get their points across. And whether they should continue to publicly debate issues after the decision has been made in the political arena.
Also covered is how their use of media is different from the general public.
Some very interesting commentary.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Granger Shows True Colours
Councillor Granger has decided to step out from behind Mayor Morris and stand up for his beliefs. However, it seems his beliefs are limited to "Mayor Morris is a fantastic leader and I love working for her".
The key issue of the day -- the firing of the Integrity Commissioner -- seems unimportant when compared to trying to repair the damaged reputation of this Council and his leader.
Was this some attempt to get into the good books of the Mayor? Possibly.
Was it done with her approval? We suspect not.
Even she knows that an obvious puff piece that so blatantly praises her would be seen for exactly what it is. Pure rubbish. Give the Mayor her due, she understands the concept of spin. This was so blatant it has backfired. Sorry Councillor, bad move on your part.
Councillor Granger is living in a dream if he thinks Mayor Morris is an open and approachable team leader. He has probably found that out after this attempt to curry favour.
Which Councillor will be next in their letter writing campaign?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
The key issue of the day -- the firing of the Integrity Commissioner -- seems unimportant when compared to trying to repair the damaged reputation of this Council and his leader.
Was this some attempt to get into the good books of the Mayor? Possibly.
Was it done with her approval? We suspect not.
Even she knows that an obvious puff piece that so blatantly praises her would be seen for exactly what it is. Pure rubbish. Give the Mayor her due, she understands the concept of spin. This was so blatant it has backfired. Sorry Councillor, bad move on your part.
Councillor Granger is living in a dream if he thinks Mayor Morris is an open and approachable team leader. He has probably found that out after this attempt to curry favour.
Which Councillor will be next in their letter writing campaign?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Bloggers Wanted
If you are interested in sharing your opinions with other citizens of Aurora, we want to hear from you. Readership continues to grow and we are interested in expanding our base of writers.
You will never be required to publish according to a schedule and you can pick your favourite topic -- sports, traffic, environment, youth, culture, politics -- we don’t care.
Our only criteria is people who love living in this great town and want to share that passion.
Interested? Let us know. To start the conversation, send an email to communitycorner@auroracitizen.ca
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
You will never be required to publish according to a schedule and you can pick your favourite topic -- sports, traffic, environment, youth, culture, politics -- we don’t care.
Our only criteria is people who love living in this great town and want to share that passion.
Interested? Let us know. To start the conversation, send an email to communitycorner@auroracitizen.ca
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Willfully ignorant vs. aggressively skeptical
The following post was reprinted from Seth Godin's Blog.
Willfully ignorant vs. aggressively skeptical
Challenging the status quo is what I do for a living. Either that or encourage other people to do it.
But there are two ways to do it, and one of them is ineffective, short-sighted and threatens the fabric of the tribe. The other seems to work.
I heard someone screaming about death panels and how the government was not only going to kill his grandmother, but would take out Stephen Hawking himself if it had the chance.
The screaming is a key part, because screaming is often a tool used to balance out the lazy ignorance of someone parroting opposition to an idea that they don't understand. (If you want to write to me about this post, please write to me about the screaming part, not about whether or not you agree with the facts or the science. That's what the post is about, the screaming.)
If you want to challenge the conventional wisdom of health care reform, please do! It'll make the final outcome better. But if you choose to do that, it's essential that you know more about it than everyone else, not less. Certainly not zero. Be skeptical, but be informed (about everything important, not just this issue, of course). Screaming ignorance gets attention, but it distracts us from the work at hand.
It's easy to fit in by yelling out, and far more difficult to actually read and consider the facts. Anytime you hear, "I don't have the time to understand this issue, I'm too busy being upset," you know that something is wrong.
Brands face this as much or more than politicians do. I witnessed a knock-down fight between two teenagers over which operating system was best. There are generations of arguments between Ford and Chevy owners. Motorcycle gangs are often parochial in their choice of bike. And in each case, the less people know, the more they yell.
If you want to change what your boss believes, or the strategy your company is following, the first step is to figure out how to be the best informed person in the room.
We think it applies. Facts are essential. Opinions drawn from facts are worth listening to. Opinions without facts to support them are just yelling. We love your informed opinions -- thanks for joining the conversation.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Willfully ignorant vs. aggressively skeptical
Challenging the status quo is what I do for a living. Either that or encourage other people to do it.
But there are two ways to do it, and one of them is ineffective, short-sighted and threatens the fabric of the tribe. The other seems to work.
I heard someone screaming about death panels and how the government was not only going to kill his grandmother, but would take out Stephen Hawking himself if it had the chance.
The screaming is a key part, because screaming is often a tool used to balance out the lazy ignorance of someone parroting opposition to an idea that they don't understand. (If you want to write to me about this post, please write to me about the screaming part, not about whether or not you agree with the facts or the science. That's what the post is about, the screaming.)
If you want to challenge the conventional wisdom of health care reform, please do! It'll make the final outcome better. But if you choose to do that, it's essential that you know more about it than everyone else, not less. Certainly not zero. Be skeptical, but be informed (about everything important, not just this issue, of course). Screaming ignorance gets attention, but it distracts us from the work at hand.
It's easy to fit in by yelling out, and far more difficult to actually read and consider the facts. Anytime you hear, "I don't have the time to understand this issue, I'm too busy being upset," you know that something is wrong.
Brands face this as much or more than politicians do. I witnessed a knock-down fight between two teenagers over which operating system was best. There are generations of arguments between Ford and Chevy owners. Motorcycle gangs are often parochial in their choice of bike. And in each case, the less people know, the more they yell.
If you want to change what your boss believes, or the strategy your company is following, the first step is to figure out how to be the best informed person in the room.
We think it applies. Facts are essential. Opinions drawn from facts are worth listening to. Opinions without facts to support them are just yelling. We love your informed opinions -- thanks for joining the conversation.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Toronto Star Editorial Weighs In
EDITORIAL: Aug 13, 2009 04:30 AM
TheStar.com
Aurora losing its aura?
Aurora rarely gets a second glance, but the bizarre behaviour of town council in recent days merits a double take. A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora's integrity commissioner.
The surprise sacking of David Nitkin by city council – he served as ethics watchdog for barely two months – came just one day after he submitted his first formal report. Nitkin had dared to defy council by rejecting a bitter complaint against its most outspoken member, dismissing it as a politically motivated affair.
The target of council's wrath was maverick councillor Evelyn Buck, 80, who has embraced blogging with a blunt style that gets under the skin of her rivals. A 40-year veteran of politics, her passionate web posts are the talk of the town – one reason why council wants to rein her in.
But when the watchdog refused to muzzle the maverick, he found himself in the doghouse. Aurora council is making a mockery of the integrity process and providing more grist for the blogosphere.
Writing in her blog yesterday, the irrepressible Buck neatly summed up council's public relations blunder: "All they did was prod me with a pointy stick and create another unholy mess for themselves."
Aurora's aura of good governance is on the wane.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
TheStar.com
Aurora losing its aura?
Aurora rarely gets a second glance, but the bizarre behaviour of town council in recent days merits a double take. A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora's integrity commissioner.
The surprise sacking of David Nitkin by city council – he served as ethics watchdog for barely two months – came just one day after he submitted his first formal report. Nitkin had dared to defy council by rejecting a bitter complaint against its most outspoken member, dismissing it as a politically motivated affair.
The target of council's wrath was maverick councillor Evelyn Buck, 80, who has embraced blogging with a blunt style that gets under the skin of her rivals. A 40-year veteran of politics, her passionate web posts are the talk of the town – one reason why council wants to rein her in.
But when the watchdog refused to muzzle the maverick, he found himself in the doghouse. Aurora council is making a mockery of the integrity process and providing more grist for the blogosphere.
Writing in her blog yesterday, the irrepressible Buck neatly summed up council's public relations blunder: "All they did was prod me with a pointy stick and create another unholy mess for themselves."
Aurora's aura of good governance is on the wane.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
The Press Continues To Ask Questions
Another article by the Toronto Star-- this time about the "coincidence" of another senior staff retiring.
We also thought the closed door of Mayor Morris when Rogers Cable came for an interview -- sans lawyer for Mayor Morris -- was a perfect symbol of her open door policy of openness and transparency.
A picture is indeed worth a 1,000 words.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
We also thought the closed door of Mayor Morris when Rogers Cable came for an interview -- sans lawyer for Mayor Morris -- was a perfect symbol of her open door policy of openness and transparency.
A picture is indeed worth a 1,000 words.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Aurora Continues to Garner Media Coverage
We had a number of comments today informing us about articles in the news. Rather than publish all the comments, here are the links.
Globe & Mail
Toronto Star
One interesting quote by Mayor Phyllis Morris that caught our eye was in the Toronto Star.
Is this more of the new math Mayor Morris has become famous for?
Era Banner
Then another classic quote from the Banner story.
Mayor Morris stated, "We called the meeting previously, so it's just a coincidence we got (the report) the day before," she said of Mr. Nitkin's firing. "(People) can speculate on things all they like."
If the meeting was scheduled in advance -- how come the agenda was released only 13 minutes before the start time and why didn't McRoberts, Collins-Marakas or Buck hear about it until the day of the meeting. Hmmmm? What could people speculate from those facts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Globe & Mail
Toronto Star
One interesting quote by Mayor Phyllis Morris that caught our eye was in the Toronto Star.
"Morris said, adding all but two of the town's eight councillors, including BuckSo let's do the math together -- if Collins-Marakas, Buck and McRoberts didn't attend -- that means only 5 or 8 Councillors attended the meeting. How did they get 6 of eight Councillors to support the firing?
– who didn't attend the meeting – supported firing Nitkin"
Is this more of the new math Mayor Morris has become famous for?
Era Banner
Then another classic quote from the Banner story.
Mayor Morris stated, "We called the meeting previously, so it's just a coincidence we got (the report) the day before," she said of Mr. Nitkin's firing. "(People) can speculate on things all they like."
If the meeting was scheduled in advance -- how come the agenda was released only 13 minutes before the start time and why didn't McRoberts, Collins-Marakas or Buck hear about it until the day of the meeting. Hmmmm? What could people speculate from those facts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Another One Bites The Dust
Thank you to the many readers who told us about this news in their comments -- but until we were able to confirm it as factual, we were not prepared to publish what was still a rumour.
Another senior staff member is no longer in the employ of the Town of Aurora. Lucille King, Director of Corporate Services, has decided to retire -- after starting in November 2008. One has to wonder what led to the change in plans.
The revolving door continues. Draw your own conclusion.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Another senior staff member is no longer in the employ of the Town of Aurora. Lucille King, Director of Corporate Services, has decided to retire -- after starting in November 2008. One has to wonder what led to the change in plans.
The revolving door continues. Draw your own conclusion.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Mainstream Media Coverage Continued
In case you missed it, Toronto Sun article Aurora Sacks its Ethics Czar
"Mayor Phyllis Morris said she couldn't release a copy of the report, but calls the firing and the filing of the report a "huge coincidence."
The commissioner's report will be released in September when it goes to council and will be turned over to the next integrity czar, she said."
We all look forward to seeing the full unedited report.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
"Mayor Phyllis Morris said she couldn't release a copy of the report, but calls the firing and the filing of the report a "huge coincidence."
The commissioner's report will be released in September when it goes to council and will be turned over to the next integrity czar, she said."
We all look forward to seeing the full unedited report.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
What Did Mayor Morris Know When
Councillor Buck has provided some of the text from the DECISION by the Integrity Commissioner. Her post can be read at Our Town and Its Business.
A couple key quotes;
It also appears to directly contradict the comments made publicly by Mayor Phyllis Morris of when the decision was made versus when they fired the Integrity Commissioner.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
A couple key quotes;
It is the DECISION of my office that this statement of complaint, as is, is unacceptable and that as is, no investigation or inquiry shall take place.We appreciate that this is not the entire text, possibly Mayor Morris will make that available. But from the parts we see, the comments appear pretty clear and damning.
Query oo8 is INAPPROPRIATE that the way it was crafted, politicized and communicated, may be, and be seen to be, wholly political. Explanation of this last test point can be seen in the many tests or measures of political interference that were raised in my e-mail of July 30th in direct communication to the proponents.
The decision was made on the 5th of August. It was in the hands of the Deputy Clerk, Acting clerk for the previous week and a half, on that date.
It also appears to directly contradict the comments made publicly by Mayor Phyllis Morris of when the decision was made versus when they fired the Integrity Commissioner.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Keystone Cops Alive and Living In Aurora
News coverage is finally starting to shine a light on the activities of Council.
Aurora's Integrity Commissioner Axed
By Sean Pearce - Era Banner
August 10, 2009
Less than two months after formalizing his agreement with the town, Aurora’s integrity commissioner has left the building.
Following last Thursday’s special meeting of council, the six members who attended left closed session after voting to immediately remove the powers of integrity commissioner EthicScan Canada Ltd. president David Nitkin.
Further, it was also resolved the search for a new integrity commissioner begin immediately, the integrity commissioner section on the town’s website be removed and any pending complaints be stayed and reported to Aurora’s director of corporate services and held in abeyance until a new integrity commissioner is appointed.
For her part, Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris said council’s decision is a result of the inability to reconcile Mr. Nitkin’s procedures with the town’s own code of conduct, despite multiple attempts.
“We have a code of conduct that we have adopted and wish to uphold,” Mrs. Morris said. “We, the council, entered into an agreement for a complaint procedure that we put in place and we agreed to it and it would appear the procedure the integrity commissioner wishes to follow appears not to be in compliance and, in fact, appears to conflict with council’s adopted code.”
In an interview between The Banner and Mrs. Morris Friday afternoon and attended by town solicitor and acting CAO Chris Cooper, the mayor explained council resolved to abide by a section in the agreement between the town and EthicScan, although she said she could not divulge any specifics about the section of the contract nor could she say what, if any, financial implications the decision might have for the town due to concerns about confidentiality. Citing similar reasons, Mrs. Morris said she was unable to comment on how much Mr. Nitkin had been paid for his services so far.
CBC News at Six
(The following link http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/newsatsix/toronto.wmv, will take you directly to the August 10th show.)
We also made the news on CBC News at Six. Check out the report from 17:43 - 20:25. Councillor Buck confirms --after finally getting a copy of the report -- that she was completely cleared of the accusations that were made by Council.
A Few Questions That Spring To Mind
First it's clotheslines -- now ethics. Mayor Phyllis Morris is certainly putting Aurora on the map. Too bad it's for all the wrong reasons.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Aurora's Integrity Commissioner Axed
By Sean Pearce - Era Banner
August 10, 2009
Less than two months after formalizing his agreement with the town, Aurora’s integrity commissioner has left the building.
Following last Thursday’s special meeting of council, the six members who attended left closed session after voting to immediately remove the powers of integrity commissioner EthicScan Canada Ltd. president David Nitkin.
Further, it was also resolved the search for a new integrity commissioner begin immediately, the integrity commissioner section on the town’s website be removed and any pending complaints be stayed and reported to Aurora’s director of corporate services and held in abeyance until a new integrity commissioner is appointed.
For her part, Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris said council’s decision is a result of the inability to reconcile Mr. Nitkin’s procedures with the town’s own code of conduct, despite multiple attempts.
“We have a code of conduct that we have adopted and wish to uphold,” Mrs. Morris said. “We, the council, entered into an agreement for a complaint procedure that we put in place and we agreed to it and it would appear the procedure the integrity commissioner wishes to follow appears not to be in compliance and, in fact, appears to conflict with council’s adopted code.”
In an interview between The Banner and Mrs. Morris Friday afternoon and attended by town solicitor and acting CAO Chris Cooper, the mayor explained council resolved to abide by a section in the agreement between the town and EthicScan, although she said she could not divulge any specifics about the section of the contract nor could she say what, if any, financial implications the decision might have for the town due to concerns about confidentiality. Citing similar reasons, Mrs. Morris said she was unable to comment on how much Mr. Nitkin had been paid for his services so far.
CBC News at Six
(The following link http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/newsatsix/toronto.wmv, will take you directly to the August 10th show.)
We also made the news on CBC News at Six. Check out the report from 17:43 - 20:25. Councillor Buck confirms --after finally getting a copy of the report -- that she was completely cleared of the accusations that were made by Council.
A Few Questions That Spring To Mind
- Why does Mayor Phyllis Morris need the Town Solicitor sitting in on interviews? What was she afraid she might say?
- How did Aurora Council hire someone after months of discussions only to find out "the procedure the integrity commissioner wishes to follow appears not to be in compliance and, in fact, appears to conflict with council’s adopted code.”? What kind of research did they do the first time? Is their latest "spin" credible?
- What will the process of hand-picking their next Integrity Commissioner be? Will it require an upfront agreement to follow Council direction since autonomy is clearly not allowed?
- Why does our procedure conflict so seriously with an acknowledged expert who has built a reputation based on managing these issue? Maybe the problem is the Code as written by this Council?
- Was the reason for Councillor Buck's vindication because the Integrity Commissioner viewed the basis for the complaint as politically motivated?
- Why are citizens of Aurora unable to see the cost to our taxes of this latest (insert your own descriptive here) move by this Council? After all, it's our money they keep spending.
First it's clotheslines -- now ethics. Mayor Phyllis Morris is certainly putting Aurora on the map. Too bad it's for all the wrong reasons.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
It All Depends On How You Look At Things
The story is told ....
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Congressman Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
NOW THAT's how it's done, Folks! That's real POLITICAL SPIN. Even our own Mayor, Phyllis Morris would be impressed.
Stay tune for her comments on the recent departure of our much admired Integrity Commissioner.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Congressman Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
"Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."
NOW THAT's how it's done, Folks! That's real POLITICAL SPIN. Even our own Mayor, Phyllis Morris would be impressed.
Stay tune for her comments on the recent departure of our much admired Integrity Commissioner.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Guest Post: Why Has the Integrity Commissioner Been Dismissed?
The following letter was delivered by Grace Marsh to the Editor(s) of The Auroran and The Banner and copied to the Aurora Citizen Blog.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.
Council created and approved their own Code of Conduct. Some felt the Oath of Office wasn’t enough . Apparently, they believe they need more in order to “control” some Members of Council from expressing opinions that don’t mirror theirs.
Council approves the hiring of an Integrity Commissioner. Puts someone at the ready to “investigate” any complaint that may be lodged under their Code. His bio and experience as posted on the Town website is impressive.
Next Council approves the hiring of Aird & Berlis, at Town cost, to help get ready ammunition in order to prepare a formal complaint against Councillor Buck under the Code.
6 members of Council file a formal complaint against Councillor Buck. 2 do not participate. No surprise who the 6 are. The complaint is placed on the Town’s website and paid advertisements are taken out in 2 local papers. Apparently Councillor Buck has levelled “unmerited public criticism of staff”. So much for confidentiality in the process.
On July 30th, I called Mr. Nitkin directly on his confidential line to let him know that I was willing to provide information for his investigation should he be interested. I actually do have firsthand experience with how other Members of this Council , including the Mayor have criticised staff. Mr. Nitkin advised me that he was unable to discuss Council’s complaint as he had not yet either accepted or rejected the complaint that was advertised by Council. A fair and appropriate response in my view. My feeling from the conversation, although Mr. Nitkin said nothing specific, was that it may not be long before he would make that decision.
Just 7 days later, on August 6th, Rogers First Local broadcasts that Councillor Buck believes a decision has been made and while looking for a copy, it appears she is stonewalled. On the same broadcast the Mayor admits that an email was sent to the Director of Corporate Services, and a copy was sent to the Director’s assistant (the Deputy Clerk). She further stated nothing would be disclosed and it could be up to 90 days before anything is made public. Seems to me that a staff member (the assistant to the designated person) getting a copy should not be a big deal. Why should that stop the Councillor accused from receiving a copy?
Later that same night, there is a Special Council Meeting at which, according to the public minutes, the same 6 Councillors that lodged the complaint, spent 5 hours and 12 minutes behind closed doors on 2 “personal” items and the results are:
The Integrity Commissioner is removed. Any mention of him is gone from the Towns’ website by the next day, and it’s directed that more money will be spent recruiting a new Integrity Commissioner. We (the people paying the bill for all this) still don’t know what his decision was or why it must be secret. Council’s complaint was made very public, in two newspapers, at our expense, but we are not entitled to know the result.
Draw your own conclusions:
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.
Council created and approved their own Code of Conduct. Some felt the Oath of Office wasn’t enough . Apparently, they believe they need more in order to “control” some Members of Council from expressing opinions that don’t mirror theirs.
Council approves the hiring of an Integrity Commissioner. Puts someone at the ready to “investigate” any complaint that may be lodged under their Code. His bio and experience as posted on the Town website is impressive.
Next Council approves the hiring of Aird & Berlis, at Town cost, to help get ready ammunition in order to prepare a formal complaint against Councillor Buck under the Code.
6 members of Council file a formal complaint against Councillor Buck. 2 do not participate. No surprise who the 6 are. The complaint is placed on the Town’s website and paid advertisements are taken out in 2 local papers. Apparently Councillor Buck has levelled “unmerited public criticism of staff”. So much for confidentiality in the process.
On July 30th, I called Mr. Nitkin directly on his confidential line to let him know that I was willing to provide information for his investigation should he be interested. I actually do have firsthand experience with how other Members of this Council , including the Mayor have criticised staff. Mr. Nitkin advised me that he was unable to discuss Council’s complaint as he had not yet either accepted or rejected the complaint that was advertised by Council. A fair and appropriate response in my view. My feeling from the conversation, although Mr. Nitkin said nothing specific, was that it may not be long before he would make that decision.
Just 7 days later, on August 6th, Rogers First Local broadcasts that Councillor Buck believes a decision has been made and while looking for a copy, it appears she is stonewalled. On the same broadcast the Mayor admits that an email was sent to the Director of Corporate Services, and a copy was sent to the Director’s assistant (the Deputy Clerk). She further stated nothing would be disclosed and it could be up to 90 days before anything is made public. Seems to me that a staff member (the assistant to the designated person) getting a copy should not be a big deal. Why should that stop the Councillor accused from receiving a copy?
Later that same night, there is a Special Council Meeting at which, according to the public minutes, the same 6 Councillors that lodged the complaint, spent 5 hours and 12 minutes behind closed doors on 2 “personal” items and the results are:
The Integrity Commissioner is removed. Any mention of him is gone from the Towns’ website by the next day, and it’s directed that more money will be spent recruiting a new Integrity Commissioner. We (the people paying the bill for all this) still don’t know what his decision was or why it must be secret. Council’s complaint was made very public, in two newspapers, at our expense, but we are not entitled to know the result.
Draw your own conclusions:
- Would the decision put those who orchestrated the complaint into a bad light,
perhaps? - Did he reject their complaint outright?
- Did he come to the conclusion that it was purely political?
- How can they explain promoting the high standards and experience of Mr. Nitkin and so easily dismiss him?
- Are they looking to hire a “different” Integrity Commissioner who will accept their
complaint? - How many will they have to go through before they find the “right” one?
- How much will this cost us in the end in money and time? A staggering
number, I’m sure.
I have certainly drawn my own conclusions, and quite frankly this whole affair simply does not pass the smell test. But I’m also not surprised.
Grace Marsh
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Believe it or Not
Thursday night, Aug 6, the contract for the Integrity Commissioner was terminated by Council -- only 6 Councillors attended the closed session meeting Councillors Buck, Roberts and Collins-Marakas declined to attend because they weren't informed why the meeting was held until too late to attend.
This decision was reported out after the emergency meeting in response to the decision that was provided by the Commissioner about the complaint against Councillor Buck lodged by Council on July22.
Let's summarize.
It will be very interesting to hear what Mayor Morris has to say about "cause" for the termination. However, don't expect to hear anything concrete. The contract was probably written to allow termination by either party without cause -- so we will be left to decide what the real back story is on this issue.
It will be equally interesting to hear whether members of Council have seen the report or anything from the Commissioner. And if so, which ones. Give them a call -- see what they have to say.
Maybe one of them would be willing to make a comment to this post -- in their own name versus anonymous -- and let us know. Confession is good for the soul.
Truth is stranger than fiction. A fiction writer couldn't make this stuff up and have anyone believe it was a credible story!
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
This decision was reported out after the emergency meeting in response to the decision that was provided by the Commissioner about the complaint against Councillor Buck lodged by Council on July22.
Let's summarize.
- Contract signed: June 18
- Complaint lodged: July 22
- Decision rendered to Mayor Phyllis Morris: Aug 5
- Commissioner terminated: Aug 7
It will be very interesting to hear what Mayor Morris has to say about "cause" for the termination. However, don't expect to hear anything concrete. The contract was probably written to allow termination by either party without cause -- so we will be left to decide what the real back story is on this issue.
It will be equally interesting to hear whether members of Council have seen the report or anything from the Commissioner. And if so, which ones. Give them a call -- see what they have to say.
Maybe one of them would be willing to make a comment to this post -- in their own name versus anonymous -- and let us know. Confession is good for the soul.
Truth is stranger than fiction. A fiction writer couldn't make this stuff up and have anyone believe it was a credible story!
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Confirm or Deny!
Watch for Mayor Phyllis Morris -- promoter of openness and transparency -- to address the following.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
- In addition to Councillor Buck's statements on Rogers News, whispers inside Town Hall indicate the Integrity Commissioner rendered a decision about whether to accept Council's complaint about Councillor Buck. Apparently it was received in the clerk's office on Tuesday. However, Councillors were refused access to the report even though the complaint protocol states that they are to receive it.
- Subsequently -- in addition to Councillor Buck who was not invited -- apparently 3 Councillors did not attend a "special" meeting called at the urgent request of Mayor Phyllis Morris. No agenda was given and until shortly before the meeting Council was not informed why or whom the meeting was about. Possibly these Councillors refused to attend because they felt they shouldn't be placed in the position of having to guess what a meeting is about or because they felt a meeting was being held without proper notice. In addition to Roberts and Collins-Marakas, who would have the gumption to stand and be counted?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
A little decorum would go a long way
The comment below is from today's Toronto Sun and it sounds a lot like Aurora. What lessons can be learned?
A little decorum would go a long way
Interim integrity commissioner blasts councillors for rudeness
By SUE-ANN LEVY, 6th August 2009
In a tiny paragraph of his annual report to council yesterday, interim integrity commissioner Lorne Sossin hones in on the immature and petty behaviour that has become the norm during meetings at Socialist Silly Hall.
He contends that the "lack of civility" he's witnessed at several council meetings in the past year "is corrosive to an environment of mutual respect" and likely to "undermine public confidence in city council."
When I contacted him for more specifics, Sossin, who leaves the city in early September, said the kinds of things he's referring to run the gamut from "name-calling, casting aspersions on other councillors to indifference" -- meaning councillors are often busy chatting with other councillors while their colleagues try to address council.
Like me, Sossin says he has seen plenty of "snickering, heckling" and other attempts to "demean and diminish colleagues." He feels councillors need to "show respect" for their colleagues and the "office" since everyone has been elected to council by constituents, who want their views represented. "This petty back and forth ... that's where the lines need to be drawn," he said.
Being far more diplomatic than me, Sossin wouldn't name names. But, in my view, it is usually the same cast of characters -- mostly the cabal of councillors in the mayor's inner circle -- who believe their self-righteous views are the only ones that are legitimate, and that those who dare disagree have no concern about the public interest.
I've lost count how many times I've seen and heard councillors such as Pam McConnell, Paula Fletcher, Adam Vaughan, Kyle Rae and Gord Perks loudly heckle right-of-centre colleagues who endeavour to provide a view other than that shared by them. Budget chief Shelley Carroll is often seen wandering around the council floor and committee rooms openly yakking and laughing with her leftist pals on council, whenever a councillor dares criticize one of her beloved mayor's initiatives.
CITIZENS GRILLED
The rudeness isn't just directed at councillors. I've watched many times in standing committees as councillors like McConnell and Fletcher grilled members of the public, who have come in to give their opinions, as if they were lawyers cross-examining opponents. Many councillors don't even feign giving public deputants their undivided attention. They either leave the room, tap on their Blackberries or chatter with their seatmates. Maybe these rude, self-important politicians, apparently suffering from a political version of attention deficit disorder, need some lessons from Miss Manners.
Sossin says a problem at City Hall is that the Speaker -- Sandra Bussin -- does not have the same "authority" as speakers in Ottawa and at Queen's Park -- who can toss out politicians who don't behave. In contrast, at City Hall, an ejection is "put to a Council vote," he noted. The interim integrity commissioner believes councillors must take responsibility for their own actions and "not accept" a culture of incivility.
Coun. Mike Del Grande, who often finds himself heckled and cat-called by the mayor's inner circle, feels there's much more Bussin could do as council's speaker. He says she hasn't always been fair with her rulings and doesn't work to stop the heckling as soon as it occurs.
Coun. Case Ootes adds Mayor David Miller does little to discourage the heckling and does not , in his view, set an example by applying council rules in a fair and equitable manner. "I lay a lot of the problems at the foot of the speaker and the mayor for playing fast and loose with the rules of the chamber," he said. "That's what causes the polarization of this council and the heckling and disrespect between councillors."
SUE-ANN.LEVY@SUNMEDIA.CA
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
A little decorum would go a long way
Interim integrity commissioner blasts councillors for rudeness
By SUE-ANN LEVY, 6th August 2009
In a tiny paragraph of his annual report to council yesterday, interim integrity commissioner Lorne Sossin hones in on the immature and petty behaviour that has become the norm during meetings at Socialist Silly Hall.
He contends that the "lack of civility" he's witnessed at several council meetings in the past year "is corrosive to an environment of mutual respect" and likely to "undermine public confidence in city council."
When I contacted him for more specifics, Sossin, who leaves the city in early September, said the kinds of things he's referring to run the gamut from "name-calling, casting aspersions on other councillors to indifference" -- meaning councillors are often busy chatting with other councillors while their colleagues try to address council.
Like me, Sossin says he has seen plenty of "snickering, heckling" and other attempts to "demean and diminish colleagues." He feels councillors need to "show respect" for their colleagues and the "office" since everyone has been elected to council by constituents, who want their views represented. "This petty back and forth ... that's where the lines need to be drawn," he said.
Being far more diplomatic than me, Sossin wouldn't name names. But, in my view, it is usually the same cast of characters -- mostly the cabal of councillors in the mayor's inner circle -- who believe their self-righteous views are the only ones that are legitimate, and that those who dare disagree have no concern about the public interest.
I've lost count how many times I've seen and heard councillors such as Pam McConnell, Paula Fletcher, Adam Vaughan, Kyle Rae and Gord Perks loudly heckle right-of-centre colleagues who endeavour to provide a view other than that shared by them. Budget chief Shelley Carroll is often seen wandering around the council floor and committee rooms openly yakking and laughing with her leftist pals on council, whenever a councillor dares criticize one of her beloved mayor's initiatives.
CITIZENS GRILLED
The rudeness isn't just directed at councillors. I've watched many times in standing committees as councillors like McConnell and Fletcher grilled members of the public, who have come in to give their opinions, as if they were lawyers cross-examining opponents. Many councillors don't even feign giving public deputants their undivided attention. They either leave the room, tap on their Blackberries or chatter with their seatmates. Maybe these rude, self-important politicians, apparently suffering from a political version of attention deficit disorder, need some lessons from Miss Manners.
Sossin says a problem at City Hall is that the Speaker -- Sandra Bussin -- does not have the same "authority" as speakers in Ottawa and at Queen's Park -- who can toss out politicians who don't behave. In contrast, at City Hall, an ejection is "put to a Council vote," he noted. The interim integrity commissioner believes councillors must take responsibility for their own actions and "not accept" a culture of incivility.
Coun. Mike Del Grande, who often finds himself heckled and cat-called by the mayor's inner circle, feels there's much more Bussin could do as council's speaker. He says she hasn't always been fair with her rulings and doesn't work to stop the heckling as soon as it occurs.
Coun. Case Ootes adds Mayor David Miller does little to discourage the heckling and does not , in his view, set an example by applying council rules in a fair and equitable manner. "I lay a lot of the problems at the foot of the speaker and the mayor for playing fast and loose with the rules of the chamber," he said. "That's what causes the polarization of this council and the heckling and disrespect between councillors."
SUE-ANN.LEVY@SUNMEDIA.CA
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Should Councillor Buck Sue?
An interesting question. One that may generate some consensus?
We raise that interesting concept because it would seem to serve both sides of the debate.
Those who feel that the legal process being driven by Council is warranted so we all have a legal ruling should be pleased because then all sides of the arguments would be heard and ruled on without bias by an independent party. Then we will all know what behaviour is appropriate.
On the opposing side, those who are upset and feel that Councillor Buck is being attacked should be pleased since it would give Councillor Buck some recourse and hold the members of Council accountable for their actions.
Councillor Buck has indicated that she would not sue the Town, so residents would not have more tax dollars spent defending Councillors -- their defense should be funded from their own pockets since they are being sued personally, not the Town -- and wouldn't be on the hook if Councillor Buck is proven innocent of the allegations.
So everybody would be happy. Just a thought ;)
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
We raise that interesting concept because it would seem to serve both sides of the debate.
Those who feel that the legal process being driven by Council is warranted so we all have a legal ruling should be pleased because then all sides of the arguments would be heard and ruled on without bias by an independent party. Then we will all know what behaviour is appropriate.
On the opposing side, those who are upset and feel that Councillor Buck is being attacked should be pleased since it would give Councillor Buck some recourse and hold the members of Council accountable for their actions.
Councillor Buck has indicated that she would not sue the Town, so residents would not have more tax dollars spent defending Councillors -- their defense should be funded from their own pockets since they are being sued personally, not the Town -- and wouldn't be on the hook if Councillor Buck is proven innocent of the allegations.
So everybody would be happy. Just a thought ;)
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
More Tax Dollars Wasted
So what possible rationale has Council developed for the outrageous purchase of a half-page ad in The Banner to target Councillor Buck? Our money.
It was bad enough that the information was published on the Town website, when the process is supposed to be confidential -- but now they are spending our tax dollars to promote their agenda through advertising.
And before you start saying Councillor Buck started the issue of non-confidentiality by posting on her blog -- let's remember, she is acting as an individual Councillor. Agree or disagree with her actions, when the Town purchases ad space, they do so as the corporation. Regardless of your point of view about Councillors Buck's actions, surely we must all agree that the corporation must hold itself to a higher standard than an individual.
It will be very enlightening to see where the Integrity Commissioner nets out on this behaviour. Let's hope he will be allowed to look at the bigger picture when evaluating accepted behaviour.
For example, will he include a review of how Council meetings are run and comments by other Council members towards staff, so he has a baseline of what is acceptable for others by Mayor Morris and this Council?
Or how about Mayor Phyllis Morris allowing a citizen from outside Aurora to publicly attack a Councillor without intervening?
We look forward to seeing his written report. It will be interesting to see what Council will allow to be published -- sort of like the fox guarding the hen house.
Possibly some citizen will test the process for some other members of Council. Just a thought.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
It was bad enough that the information was published on the Town website, when the process is supposed to be confidential -- but now they are spending our tax dollars to promote their agenda through advertising.
And before you start saying Councillor Buck started the issue of non-confidentiality by posting on her blog -- let's remember, she is acting as an individual Councillor. Agree or disagree with her actions, when the Town purchases ad space, they do so as the corporation. Regardless of your point of view about Councillors Buck's actions, surely we must all agree that the corporation must hold itself to a higher standard than an individual.
It will be very enlightening to see where the Integrity Commissioner nets out on this behaviour. Let's hope he will be allowed to look at the bigger picture when evaluating accepted behaviour.
For example, will he include a review of how Council meetings are run and comments by other Council members towards staff, so he has a baseline of what is acceptable for others by Mayor Morris and this Council?
Or how about Mayor Phyllis Morris allowing a citizen from outside Aurora to publicly attack a Councillor without intervening?
We look forward to seeing his written report. It will be interesting to see what Council will allow to be published -- sort of like the fox guarding the hen house.
Possibly some citizen will test the process for some other members of Council. Just a thought.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Claiming “Offended” is Offensive
The following was posted by Kevin Burns - Author and Attitude Adjuster, on his blog about leadership and corporate cultures. We thought is was worth sharing.
There is nothing that offends me more than someone who plays the “offended” card and claims righteous indignation. You can’t even have an attempt at humor around these people. Have a little fun and you can see that sour look coming over their faces and looking down their nose at you.
Worse yet are the people who feign offended when it serves to advance their own agenda. Politicians are really good at this one. In fact, in Canada today, there are a whole bunch of politicians pretending to be offended at what another politician supposedly said and turning it into a media circus. It’s cheap politics and it’s as transparent as bottled water.
People who claim to be offended are manipulators, plain and simple. Claiming to be offended is an act that people of poor self-worth pull when they want to get attention. It’s the equivalent to a child’s temper-tantrum, only supposedly more refined.
Their offended-act is a ploy to make the offender seem as though they are not as smart and refined as the one who claims to be offended. It’s childish. It’s counter-productive. And it will alienate and divide a good staff.
It makes the issue all about the person claiming to be offended and not about the issue itself. That’s selfish and offensive.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
There is nothing that offends me more than someone who plays the “offended” card and claims righteous indignation. You can’t even have an attempt at humor around these people. Have a little fun and you can see that sour look coming over their faces and looking down their nose at you.
Worse yet are the people who feign offended when it serves to advance their own agenda. Politicians are really good at this one. In fact, in Canada today, there are a whole bunch of politicians pretending to be offended at what another politician supposedly said and turning it into a media circus. It’s cheap politics and it’s as transparent as bottled water.
People who claim to be offended are manipulators, plain and simple. Claiming to be offended is an act that people of poor self-worth pull when they want to get attention. It’s the equivalent to a child’s temper-tantrum, only supposedly more refined.
Their offended-act is a ploy to make the offender seem as though they are not as smart and refined as the one who claims to be offended. It’s childish. It’s counter-productive. And it will alienate and divide a good staff.
It makes the issue all about the person claiming to be offended and not about the issue itself. That’s selfish and offensive.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Council Declares War on Buck
For the first time in memory, Aurora Council have declared outright war on another Councillor.
The crime -- speaking out against other members of Council. However, Council has wrapped their complaint in the shroud of protecting staff. Hardly!
The Banner reports that "Mayor Phyllis Morris stated the complaint against Councillor Evelyn Buck stems from blog postings, which allegedly make repeated disparaging remarks and allegations about town staff."
We absolutely agree that staff is off-limits. They are merely executing the policies as set out by Council. Time will tell whether Councillor Buck actually made comments against staff.
Mayor Morris goes on to say "Various sources have made many insinuations about herself and the other members of council, Mrs. Morris said, however, that's not what the complaint is about. Politicians are aware that sometimes harsh criticism comes with the territory, she said, noting it crossed the line when it targeted the staff."
Untrue. The CAO specifically called this blog to task -- demanding removal of a comment by an anonymous commenter that made disparaging comments about Mayor Morris -- with no mention of staff or the corporation.
It was only when the Town Solicitor formalized the complaint in a legal letter that the demand changed to specifically refer to Mayor Morris.
It is also interesting to note how "confidential" this matter is. The Town website indicates; The Commissioner and every person acting under the Commissioner’s direction “shall preserve secrecy”. These requirements are expressly stated to prevail over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Where a Commissioner provides a periodic report he or she “may summarize advice he or she has given but shall not disclose confidential information that could identify a person concerned.”
Yet a full report is published on the Town website, along with links to the legal opinion letter and Council motion.
It will be interesting to see how much support Council gets from the Integrity Commissioner and how far he is prepared to go on what Councillor Buck can and cannot say.
If they really think this public fight will work in their favour, they grossly under-estimate the fortitude of Councillor Buck. Love her or hate her -- history tells us she is always clear on her position and sticks to her principles. Pity the same can't be said for some of the rest of Council.
Mayor Morris claims "Freedom of speech is a valuable thing in our society, but it does not, however, allow people to call out 'fire' in a crowded theatre." "Mrs. Morris was also quick to point out the complaint is by no means an attempt to stifle anyone's free speech."
Her claim seems somewhat disingenuous in this context. Attacking another Councillor and a citizen blog site would seem to be exactly intended to stifle comments about her leadership. Not only can you not yell "Fire" in a theatre, apparently you can't yell "Fire Mayor Morris" in Aurora.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
The crime -- speaking out against other members of Council. However, Council has wrapped their complaint in the shroud of protecting staff. Hardly!
The Banner reports that "Mayor Phyllis Morris stated the complaint against Councillor Evelyn Buck stems from blog postings, which allegedly make repeated disparaging remarks and allegations about town staff."
We absolutely agree that staff is off-limits. They are merely executing the policies as set out by Council. Time will tell whether Councillor Buck actually made comments against staff.
Mayor Morris goes on to say "Various sources have made many insinuations about herself and the other members of council, Mrs. Morris said, however, that's not what the complaint is about. Politicians are aware that sometimes harsh criticism comes with the territory, she said, noting it crossed the line when it targeted the staff."
Untrue. The CAO specifically called this blog to task -- demanding removal of a comment by an anonymous commenter that made disparaging comments about Mayor Morris -- with no mention of staff or the corporation.
It was only when the Town Solicitor formalized the complaint in a legal letter that the demand changed to specifically refer to Mayor Morris.
It is also interesting to note how "confidential" this matter is. The Town website indicates; The Commissioner and every person acting under the Commissioner’s direction “shall preserve secrecy”. These requirements are expressly stated to prevail over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Where a Commissioner provides a periodic report he or she “may summarize advice he or she has given but shall not disclose confidential information that could identify a person concerned.”
Yet a full report is published on the Town website, along with links to the legal opinion letter and Council motion.
It will be interesting to see how much support Council gets from the Integrity Commissioner and how far he is prepared to go on what Councillor Buck can and cannot say.
If they really think this public fight will work in their favour, they grossly under-estimate the fortitude of Councillor Buck. Love her or hate her -- history tells us she is always clear on her position and sticks to her principles. Pity the same can't be said for some of the rest of Council.
Mayor Morris claims "Freedom of speech is a valuable thing in our society, but it does not, however, allow people to call out 'fire' in a crowded theatre." "Mrs. Morris was also quick to point out the complaint is by no means an attempt to stifle anyone's free speech."
Her claim seems somewhat disingenuous in this context. Attacking another Councillor and a citizen blog site would seem to be exactly intended to stifle comments about her leadership. Not only can you not yell "Fire" in a theatre, apparently you can't yell "Fire Mayor Morris" in Aurora.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Legal Costs Are Inching Up
On July 23, The Banner published an article which provided some historical perspective on legal costs this term versus prior terms. While we appreciate the work of Sean Pearce in preparing this summary, it would have been helpful if he had the opportunity to dig a little deeper.
While in may be true that costs for this year/term are lower than past years, it is equally important to know the purpose for those expenditures. There is a significant difference between Town expenditures and the legal costs for political issues that are causing the uproar by citizens.
For example, Mr Pearce states "A large portion of to 2000 total had to do with an Ontario Municipal Board battle over the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan". That would clearly be a Town based expenditure.
However, this term we have seen funds spent trying to find dirt against former Mayor Jones (unsuccessfully it would appear since nothing was published), circumventing the by-election that was desired by an outspoken majority of residents that allowed Mayor Morris to appoint a Councillor who had previously indicated his support, and most recently to silence an outspoken Councillor who regularly disagrees in public with her.
None of those 3 has anything to do with the Town business, but are exclusively political/personal in nature.
Clearly the Council perspective (as it is for any Council) is to spin the numbers in a positive light. The role of the press and citizen watchdogs is to ask questions that seek to understand the facts behind the spin.
Mayor Morris states that she unequivocally refutes that she has spent over $200,000 on lawyers. Well total expenditures this term are indicated at $372.7K (2006-$38.5, 2007-$109.0, 2008-$139, 2009 YTD-86.2).
Not sure how these figures "clearly don't support that". Over $350,000 dollars have been spent by this Mayor and Council. It would appear the numbers do support the assertion!
An argument will be made -- quite accurately -- that all these expenditures are not driven by the politicians. But why are the real facts so hard to determine.
Every legal bill comes with a detailed breakdown. Yet when you review the items on agenda item 37 from the July 21 meeting this breakdown is hard to see.
For example, according to the written report there is no mention of expenditures for the matter involving Councillor Buck although we know that funds have been spent. There is a letter of legal opinion dated July 16 from Aird & Berlis. We guess that's because the report is only until May 31.
Similarly, almost 50% of legal fees to-date from Virginia MacLean were not broken down. What types of issues were these? We know Councillor Buck has been a thorn in the Mayors side long before June 2009.
There was also another $2,400 spent on a Freedom of Information requests. One would suspect that was so Council did not have to provide the information requested. Hard to tell whether this was Town or political in nature from this report.
Overall the issue that keeps rearing its ugly head is openness and transparency. These were the key promises of this Mayor and probably the greatest broken promise thus far.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
While in may be true that costs for this year/term are lower than past years, it is equally important to know the purpose for those expenditures. There is a significant difference between Town expenditures and the legal costs for political issues that are causing the uproar by citizens.
For example, Mr Pearce states "A large portion of to 2000 total had to do with an Ontario Municipal Board battle over the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan". That would clearly be a Town based expenditure.
However, this term we have seen funds spent trying to find dirt against former Mayor Jones (unsuccessfully it would appear since nothing was published), circumventing the by-election that was desired by an outspoken majority of residents that allowed Mayor Morris to appoint a Councillor who had previously indicated his support, and most recently to silence an outspoken Councillor who regularly disagrees in public with her.
None of those 3 has anything to do with the Town business, but are exclusively political/personal in nature.
Clearly the Council perspective (as it is for any Council) is to spin the numbers in a positive light. The role of the press and citizen watchdogs is to ask questions that seek to understand the facts behind the spin.
Mayor Morris states that she unequivocally refutes that she has spent over $200,000 on lawyers. Well total expenditures this term are indicated at $372.7K (2006-$38.5, 2007-$109.0, 2008-$139, 2009 YTD-86.2).
Not sure how these figures "clearly don't support that". Over $350,000 dollars have been spent by this Mayor and Council. It would appear the numbers do support the assertion!
An argument will be made -- quite accurately -- that all these expenditures are not driven by the politicians. But why are the real facts so hard to determine.
Every legal bill comes with a detailed breakdown. Yet when you review the items on agenda item 37 from the July 21 meeting this breakdown is hard to see.
For example, according to the written report there is no mention of expenditures for the matter involving Councillor Buck although we know that funds have been spent. There is a letter of legal opinion dated July 16 from Aird & Berlis. We guess that's because the report is only until May 31.
Similarly, almost 50% of legal fees to-date from Virginia MacLean were not broken down. What types of issues were these? We know Councillor Buck has been a thorn in the Mayors side long before June 2009.
There was also another $2,400 spent on a Freedom of Information requests. One would suspect that was so Council did not have to provide the information requested. Hard to tell whether this was Town or political in nature from this report.
Overall the issue that keeps rearing its ugly head is openness and transparency. These were the key promises of this Mayor and probably the greatest broken promise thus far.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)