Posts
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Too outrageous to contemplate.
That Buck just can't imagine giving up the limelight and obviously contemplating years of attention.
There's a process in place.
Can't accept that?
Why?
The Code of Conduct is available for Buck to lodge her complaint.
I just happen to believe she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
If she does, go for it.
Puzzling why the first comment seems to have issue with Councillor Buck availing herself of the legal process when they don't seem to have issue with Mayor Morris doing so. Seems like a double standard.
Possibly they are nervous about what a disinterested thrid party might point out.
I also heard that staff were interested in contributing to a Councillor Buck legal fund. Is there somewhere others can make a contribution?
I would contribute too.
Anonymous July 31, 2009 10:12 AM
The same double standard applies to Councillor Buck.
Just keeps the circus going.
Councillor Buck is always complaining about $$$ spent on lawyers.
Tax $$$ or charity $$$, it really is all the same.
I think I'd find a more worthy charity.
Anonymous 11:12 am, the difference you seem to be missing is that for the first time we are not talking about our tax dollars. These are personal dollars which we have a choice to spend -- or not. As do you.
The problem is that the funds Mayor Morris keeps spending on legal fees are my tax dollars and I have no say on what she spends them on or how much she spends (at least until Nov 2010). She might be less inclined to spend if she actually had to fund them personally.
I too am looking forward to this outcome, however, unlike you, I believe that Councillor Buck has made no disparaging comments about staff, but rather Mayor Morris should be held to account for starting these proceedings without any justification other than her displeasure at Councillor Buck disagreeing with her and publically expressing that disagreement. Thank goodness someone is watching the goings-on by Morris and her cronies.
Lastly, I am puzzled by why you think tax and charity dollars as the same. One pays for services we receive from government and the other we give freely to support good works we believe in. I'm not sure how you made that connection.
I hope you do donate yours to your charity of choice.
Hey Anonymous July 31, 2009 12:24 PM:
Gee I guess it's the same confusion some expressed over issues dealing with Sher St. Kitts and tax money and charity money.
That kind of thinking muddied the waters for me.
And it's so confusing trying to understand that the mayor is at fault for following a lawyer's direction and that seemingly there was enough merit found in the complaints about Councillor Buck that they warranted a formal investigation, but it's all Mayor Morris's fault.
And it's confusing to me that a collection needs to be taken for a lawsuit so Councillor Buck can sue the mayor for what a lawyer directed the mayor to do.
Will it be called Buck declares war on the gang of six?
I know I must be missing a lot of differences.
I find it more than a tad confusing.
Will it be the case of dueling suits?
Will I give my money to charity or to fund warfare?
Now that doesn't confuse me.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
— Shakespeare, Macbeth
Why sue?
Why not lodge a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner to see whether it has merit.
My guess is it wouldn't.
Does anyone realize how long it takes and how much it costs to sue someone?
I do and I think only pure hubris would motivate such a waste of resources (time, money, energy).
Ladida
Oh no.
Shakespeare must have been having a bad day when he wrote the stanza for Macbeth to speak in the play of his name.
It's true he did not enjoy long life. Would he have written the same however, had he known that hundreds of years hence he would still be known as "The Immortal Bard"
And there would still be people arguing about whether he really was the author of the plays still being acted as written or was he really just fronting for somebody else.
All these centuries dead and still they can't give him credit for his genius in articulating the human dimension in all its faults and frailties.
a lawyer did not "direct the mayor"
the mayor and her minions directed the lawyer to investigate buck
But when this all hits the fan, I have no doubt that the Mayor will attempt to say she was following the direction of a lawyer. What a crock!
and there is NO investigation
just because a "complaint" has been lodged doesn't mean the Integrity Commissioner has to accept it. Given the way that bunch of yahoos went about it, it seems to me that the Integrity Commissioner will have to reject it.(juding by the rules they have set up in their complaint protocol)
To date we haven't heard a peep more about it (according to Buck's blog) I think if things were going the GOS' way, we'd bloody well hear about it.
we shall see how this all shakes out
the only sure thing is that the Town is out a lot of money, and, again, our council looks like a bunch of idiots...
In discussing this situation with someone recently, it dawned on me as to what is going on.
Everyone has been saying that Buck has not slagged any staff in her blogs. She has certainly slagged councillors, the Mayor and the paid lawyers that have been brought in. I can't remember the exact date or blog thread here, but to those Blog regulars, you will remember an instance when Her Highness, Mayor Morris asked for and received confirmation that she was infact a town employee because of her full-time mayor stauts. Here is the maligned person!
I believe that the town staff that Ms Buck is aledged to have breached the Code of Conduct is the Mayor herself! She is wacky enough and the GOS are faithful enough to believe it and that is their tact.
I can only hope that Mr. Nitkin has the brains to see through this.
Fuimus
I understand the process is supposed to be confidential, so I assume that means all will be quiet until the Integrity Commissioner reports to council, maybe in 1,2,3 months.
There are rules and regulations that must be enforced when someone chooses to push the boundaries without which a civilized society cannot exist.
I agree with Robert the Bruce. If the Mayor has status as an employee so do ALL of the councillors.
To anonymous of July 31 at 8:12 it is NOT YOUR MONEY, NOT YOUR TIME Nor YOUR ENERGY, if Councillor Buck decides to sue. Unlike your obvious friends, the GOS, who have spent unknown amounts of tax dollars on sheer stupidity. But you seem to think that is alright.
To anonymous of July 31 at 12:24 if you have not figured it out yet the Mayor follows no ones direction, and each time she falls flat on her face she is prone to blame others. That part you obviously have figured out as you are currently attempting to blame the lawyers direction.
Get a grip Phyliss accepts no responsibility for the dysfunction of this council yet she has created exactly what she sowes.
Anonymous July 30 9:35 - I don't believe the complaint process is the Code of Conduct. It is the Integrity Commissioner with whom you file the complaint. Two seperate entities.
It has often been said, though not openly that my purpose is "to malign council, in particular "bring The Mayor down"
A lawyer. on retainer at taxpayers' expense, has stated in writing I have made "factually incorrect" statements.
Examples of my perfidy are never cited.
People refer to "whining", "slagging" and similar uncomplimentary terms to describe my commentary.
By and large, my references to the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern are precisely to comments and contentions they have made in support of decisions they steer successfully through council with consistent support from Councillors Gaertner,Granger,Gallo and Wilson.
They are obviously confident in the rectitude of their decisions. Why else would they make them ?
So when they are relayed to the community in a Blog or Letters to the Editor,why are they not thrilled for them to be broadcast.
Do they not understand what they are saying or doing when they make their decisions?
Or...do they not understand people might read the comments and decisions written accurately but with a slant. a different opinion, that reflects unfavourably upon their collective wisdom?
When they came to understand the new challenge...is that why they were eager to seek George Rust D'Eye's legal advice, paid for by taxpayer dollars,and accept the solution to their problem was to adopt a Code of Conduct which would outlaw comments written or spoken which did not support whatever course they were intent on pursuing?
When The Code failed to silence dissent, they went for the "final solution"....They retained a different lawyer. instructed him to investigate and come up with interpretations written and spoken comments , make reference to "factually incorrect" statements without identifying any, to send to the Integrity Commissioner in a much publicised "complaint"
The task of the Integrity Commissioner by the way, is to investigate complaints he considers valid and conclude how much harm might have been done,how it might be mitigated and avoided in the future.
The Integrity Commissioner does not see his role as "policeman"
He has publicly stated his belief he can improve our situation with a better understanding of the concept of Ethics.
And why not? Were ethics not the principle espoused and publicised for adoption of a Code Of Conduct.
"Oh! what a tangled web we weave"
If we, the taxpayers are not on the hook for Ms. Buck's legal expenses, I say "Go for it, Ev." I would really like to put the 6 in their place once and for all.
I wonder if Mayor Morris and her cohorts have some kind of a vested interest in handing so much business (paid for by our hard-earned dollars) to the legal profession. Did we ever get an answer about how much has been spent on legal expenses to date?
What's the point?
Tempest in a teapot.
Wells Street school?
That's worth discussing.
To Anonymous, August 4, 2009 7:48 AM
What's the point?
Tempest in a teapot.
Wells Street school?
That's worth discussing.
Why is Wells Street School such an issue? You cannot keep a building operating forever. Look at where the development of the town is. Well St. school is no where near where students are coming from.
This is a school board issue and the Town should have no say nor should they get involved. The Province removed the municipal funding for schools a long time ago. Contact the board trustee about this.
Councillor Buck didn't accomplish anything on her Rogers interview.
Why do it?
White Knight Aug 2, 1:51 Said:
"If we, the taxpayers are not on the hook for Ms. Buck's legal expenses, I say "Go for it, Ev." I would really like to put the 6 in their place once and for all."
So you want to "put the 6 in their place once and for all"..."if we the taxpayers are not on the hook for Ms. Buck' legal expenses..."?
As long as you've got nothing invested.
Like time. Or effort. Or money
Figures.
To say nothing of the author(?) of this blog who suggests that "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."
What did I mention before about reading the Municipal Act, and other pertinant legislation?
But then "...everybody would be happy..."
Yeah, I suppose if ignorance is bliss, then you would be right.
Boy oh boy, Ev go for it!
With supporters like these, how could you possibly lose?
After what I saw on Rogers TV last night I don't think Evelyn needs to do anything - these GOS will sink their own boat.
How is it that they can shut Evelyn out of a closed meeting and not provide an agenda and not give her the paperwork even when she ASKS for it?
Read Evelyn's blog. Someone told her nobody could bring a camera to the town hall, I guess he meant nobody who's not chummy with the Mayor, like Sher St. Kitss husband when he came to council with his video camera.
Anonymous said...
After what I saw on Rogers TV last night I don't think Evelyn needs to do anything - these GOS will sink their own boat.
How is it that they can shut Evelyn out of a closed meeting and not provide an agenda and not give her the paperwork even when she ASKS for it?
Read Evelyn's blog. Someone told her nobody could bring a camera to the town hall, I guess he meant nobody who's not chummy with the Mayor, like Sher St. Kitss husband when he came to council with his video camera.
August 7, 2009 8:50 AM
Funny... Anonymous is not so Anonymous....
for heaven's sake evelina just sign your name
everyone know's it's you!
To anonymous of August 4, 2009 7:59 PM Councillor Buck obviously accomplished something as you saw the need to post an absolute stupid post. The only thing that Councillor did not accomplish on that interview was not getting your name in Councillor Wilson. Hey here it is in print are you happy now idiot?
Councillor Buck is the only councillor that the reporters interview because she is the only councillor who has any credibility or sanity to offer.
The true legal test here is the reasonability of the entire process and quite frankly right now there is no reasonability at all now or in any foreseeable future to what the hell is happening in the Aurora Town hall.
As for lawyers getting involved are the GOS suggesting that John Mascarin become the new Integrity Commissioner? That in its self is a joke. He is one lawyer that I would not ever consider to represent me or my company or anyone/thing else. What a farce. I feel for the firm. But like all good companies it only takes one bad apple to ruin the crop.
Heck, at this point, I think the Integrity Commissioner should be thinking about suing this Council...
Post a Comment