What does an Ethics Commissioner Do?

We read with interest the recent article in the Banner where David Nitkin, our new Ethics Commissioner, is quoted as saying he was not there to enforce the rules. He stated, "I am not here as a policeman, but as an educator and facilitator."

But what does that really mean?

He recommended that no fees were to be charged to the public, that he remain autonomous and that he have a dedicated phone line. He would also only delegate when asked by Council.

Council approved that he will act independently, but no mention of fees to the public. And if they don't ask for a delegation on a topic, how does the public know what is happening?

Plus any town board or committee is exempt from his mandate.

Since he sees himself as an educator versus policeman will he just make suggestions which Council can ignore and the public never finds out. Or will he make written recommendations to Council?

The Mayor indicated that Aurora has stepped up to the plate. Hopefully Council will also step up and communicate how the Ethics Commissioner will work. What the process is for public complaint and how the public will be kept apprised of his activities. Or will this be just a tool to be used as they see fit on issues they see worthy.

Time will tell, so be sure and let them know what you think.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Transparency and Accountability in Fundraising

Our last post on the fundraising activities of the Dream Team has generated a tremendous amount of commentary -- from both sides -- second only to our invitation to the Mayor to set her up as an author on this site so she could post with complete confidence that her words would be her own. (We would extend that offer to any member of Council or allow guest posts by any interested citizen -- hence the name Aurora Citizen -- all are welcome to post or comment.)

But back to the post about fundraising.

Concern was initially raised about who the group holding themselves up as The Dream Team were and who they represented. This naturally led to questions about how the money raised was to be used.

The comparison was drawn to other organization such as sports association or community groups. In these cases, there are a specific group of stakeholders with a common goal who have agreed on a mandate for their organization and have clearly identified what the dollars are to be used for. This is called transparency and accountability.

Stakeholders for this groups should have the right to view the books and see how the dollars are being spent. If they have issues, the questions are raised and hopefully resolved. We see this with numerous groups within our own community.

However, we have seen circumstances outside our community where this has gone terribly wrong. People have not used funds appropriately and when the balance of stakeholders find this out they are naturally upset and take appropriate action.

Town committees (i.e. special events, Traffic and Safety etc.) are operated in a similar manner. They accountable to Council and are required to make public their financials.

The concern in this situation seems to be the perceived lack of transparency and accountability to stakeholders -- which in this case are the citizen of Aurora not a small select group of stakeholders. Hence the issue. In spite of people suggesting that those who expressed concern about the situation were off the mark -- there has never been any answers provided, just attacks against the questioners.

Why are the details of the workings of this group not available for public review by the people who are funding their activities either through taxes or direct donation and supposedly benefiting from their activities.

To be clear, there has never been any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour or misguided direction. There has simply been a request for information.

It is troubling that no one has been able to determine the legal status of The Dream Team. Why has someone who is in the know not shared the information with those that are asking simple, justified questions?

Clearly people are concerned about this lack of information. They are concerned about the perception of favoured status by Council. They are concerned about where the dollars are being spent. Simple questions that require simple answers.

Can any one help shine some light on this situation?

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Speaking of Ethics...

The following post was sent as a comment to the original post "Ethics Commissioner" below. We thought it was worth repeating here for its own separate discussion. A number of worthwhile questions are asked. Does anyone know the answers?

Speaking of ethics...the question MUST be asked. Enough people in the community are talking about it. What is "The Dream Team" and who are they accountable to?

The Mayor and a number of Councillors certainly seem to be supporting their efforts. It is assumed the Mayor and Council have sanctioned their activities. They have a huge public profile with the Mayor always promoting their events. They have been holding many events and collecting sponsorship dollars and donations.

Where does the money go, how is it spent? Are these dollars collected on behalf of the Town? Because that's what those who are making the donations assume.

Are they a stand alone group, merely sanctioned by the Mayor?

How does one get a copy of the financials involving this group? What is the relationship and how does it all work?

It certainly seems there is considerable funds being raised in support of great select local causes. Many are souring on their important efforts because of the apparent lack of accountability. That would be a shame for those who are benefiting.

If perception is everything, like we constantly hear from an ethical standpoint, I wish someone in the know could clarify these concerns.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Ethics Commissioner

Noticed an interesting couple posts on Councillor Bucks blog that seem worthy of investigation. After all the chatter about a Code of Ethics and the need for an impartial person to evaluate breaches, why is the issue bumbling along in such a comical manner

First Councillor Buck reported: We have heard nothing of our Commissioner of Ethics for some weeks now. First, on his advice, we had an educational workshop in closed session. Three people were absent: the Mayor, Councillor MacEachern and Councillor Gallo. Their absence rendered the effort useless and a waste of town resources. A second workshop was scheduled. Councillor MacEachern declared she would not attend as it was in closed session.The Mayor claimed intervention. The second workshop was to have proceeded. It didn't. (Click link to see full post)

It would also be interesting to know why Morris, MacEachern and Gallo did not attend. Do they feel they do not need the same background information that the balance of Council needs. Seems strange since the Mayor was one of the key proponents of this initiative.

Councillor Buck then reported: The Commissioner of Ethics is attending Council on Tuesday. In public. His advice was to meet in private. (Click link to see full posting).

If the Commissioner stated that a meeting should be held in private surely they had good reasons for the recommendation. Why would Councillor MacEachern refuse to attend and subsequently the Council insist it be held in public. Wouldn't it be interesting to know their reasons and the reason for Council to override.

Also, if the Commissioner gets overridden on such a minor issue, what credibility do they have on much larger issues.

Lots of unanswered questions. Can anyone enlighten our readers?

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

The Role of Council

There has been a spirited discussion on the topic of Who Do Councillors Work For, so we wanted to broaden the discussion by adding a couple more thoughts. We originally broached this subject with a post about Council versus Staff Roles back in Sept 2008.

One of the issues seen with this Council is their determination to get involved in the daily running of the business of the Town. By definition this is the role of staff and is in fact a Managerial role -- not a leadership role.

Managers focus on adherence to rules and systems and policies. While leaders are about providing vision and delegating and empowering people to be better.

The reality is people who get involved in the day to day activities of their teams do so because they are comfortable there and uncomfortable at the hard task of delegating and empowering through policies.

The current Council seems focused on the day to day work. They have demonstrated a lack of trust in their team by constantly challenging (in a non-productive manner) staff recommendations and sending them back to be re-written the way Council wants them. This is the very definition of poor leadership.

In the business world we know that people don't quit companies -- they quit leaders.

In the political world, people don't quit leaders -- they just keep their head down and wait for a new leader. Effectively they quit their job, but don't leave so we the taxpayers keep paying their salaries.

Unmotivated staff don't do a very good job, but you don't fault the staff for this. It is always the leadership.

This Council needs to get out of the daily details and start letting staff run things based on the policies set by Council. Since this Council has effectively replaced the entire senior team this term, we should expect to see less micro-managing and more visioning/policy setting in the balance of the term.

After all, we should have every expectation that they hired people they have confidence can do their jobs and be willing to let them. Time will tell.

What do you think?

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Nokiidaa Trail Link Through Mackenzie Marsh Debated

Concerns are being raised about the proposed link to the Nokiidaa trail system through the Mackenzie March north of St John's Sideroad.

A permanent link is being considered because current users must cut through a series of informal trails and paths near Yonge Street between the Aurora and Newmarket sections.

The concern raised is that by building this trail we will see increased garbage and impact on wildlife through this important area.

The Town claims people are uninformed. The citizens claim that the proposal is too far along before seeking citizen input.

What do you think?

For more information you can attend a public meeting April 28 from 6 to 8 p.m. in the Holland Room of the Aurora Town Hall. You can also contact Jim Tree at 905-727-3123 ext. 3222 or jtree@e-aurora.ca.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Town Considering Fencing Town-owned Soccer Fields

Recent reports indicate that in an effort to reduce maintanence costs of town-owned soccer fields, one option tabled is fencing soccer fields adjacent to schools.

Since these are town-owned and funded by the entire population, shouldn't the entire population have access?

Equal access is already not available. Users groups have priority at certain times which seems a reasonable situation. But to now restrict access even when user groups are not using the facilities seems too much.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

A Reader Asked

Does anyone have a favourite restaurant in Aurora? Great food? Great ambiance? Superb service?

Also, does anyone know of an indian grocery store in the immediate area?

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Is the Media Unbiased?

Some of the more recent posts have commented about the biased nature of this site relative to other news.

Most people recognize that all news is biased -- to think otherwise is a bit naive. Just read the Star, Sun, Globe and Post and you will quickly see their leanings or spin on things. More/less environmental, pro/anti gun control, supporting one political party over another -- they are all skewed to varying degrees. That is the very nature of people and Editorial Policies. That is also the beauty of social media.

No matter what the potential skew of the vehicle/blog -- any and all points can be raised and presented by the reader through their comments. That is how unbiased discussion takes place. It is the responsibility of the reader, not the vehicle.

The fact that people feel this site is negative says something. People who are engaged and interested in town are angry. They are commenting. Does it represent the general feelings of the community -- we don't know, but it makes one wonder.

The opposite point of view doesn't seem to be as interested in making their case. Maybe they aren't interested enough. We don't know. Both sides of any issue are published. All comments published are without editing (Blogger does not allow editing of comments). Comments which are purely lashing out at other contributors are simply rejected.

For those readers who's commentary thus far has been to criticise the criticizers -- we encourage your continued participation. Clearly we don't vet the comments -- otherwise yours would not have been published. We love to hear your point of view.

The real value of social media is the ability for everyone to take the opportunity to communicate their views -- as many have done. Could we do better? Could this site offer a more balanced point of view? That's up to the readers -- it's not up to the site.

The opportunity in always there for you to take. Will your take it?


Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Amalgamation- Yes or No?

Back when Mike Harris was Premier amalgamation was a hot topic here in York Region. A number of amalgamations took place and the "benefits" should now be well-known.

The issue was recently raised in the Aurora with a letter by Barry Hall and an Editorial by Ron Wallace. Both can be seen on The Auroran website www.auroran.com.

What do you think -- good idea or bad? Undecided? What advantages do you see versus the disadvantages?

We are interested in your point of view. The comments in The Auroran should provide some food for thought.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Thank You For Your Support

We just hosted our 10,000 visitor. Our first post was 8/19/08 and after 75 posts and only 8 months we have surpassed our expectations.

It hasn't always been easy and sometimes the comments haven't been as productive as hoped, but we are seeing a steady increase in visitors and more productive commentary.

This is your blog, so please let us know what concerns you, what delights you and what you'd like to see done differently.

Plus, if you would like to be a post contributor, drop us a line. We'd love to hear from you.

As we near the next election, let's make this a voice that represents Aurora.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

Who Do Councillors Work For?

One of our readers raised an interesting issue. They were enquiring about the letter written by Councillor MacEachern to the opposing side of a lawsuit against the Town. They felt that Councillor MacEacheren had provided information in that letter that helped the opposing case.

What do you have to say about the email MacEachern sent to the opposing side in a lawsuit. It's been made public. I think it's a common business practice that when someone is suing you, you should NOT send them information to help them. Let's not elect someone who clearly DOES NOT act in the Town's best interests. Does anyone know the decision in that case anyway?

This raises the question of whether your own beliefs take precedence over the citizens you have been elected to represent?

If you have clearly spelled out your position on a specific issue, then elected officials should follow their commitments.

However, if the issue has not been clearly spelled out as one of your campaign principles, then how should you act? Should you act to the detriment of the community, or hold your tongue. Interesting?

How does this type of conduct align with the Code of Ethics? How does this align with acting as a united Council once a decision has been reached.

It would appear that Councillor MacEachern has acted on her own -- contrary to the best interest of the community, against the position of Council on behalf of the community and possible contrary to the Code of Ethics.

Readers should be interested in understanding what this issue was about and how it has resolved itself. Both the lawsuit against the Town and Councillor MacEachern's conduct.

Readers should also be interested to know what steps Council took in response to Councillor MacEachern's conduct. After all, Council/Councillors should work for the community as our representative, not their own special interests.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.