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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)