Posts
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
"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."
Councillor Buck was the first to reveal that a complaint was being made about her (moi as loved to call herself). She was the first to disregard the notion of confidentiality, promoting it through every vehicle at her disposal.
She has taunted and demeaned the mayor and councillors incessantly as her game of politics accepts no boundaries. She wanted an all out fight.
She needs to find other outlets for her need to taunt and intimidate. She's taken the council off task by drawing attention to herself. She cares nothing for the citizens of Aurora.
The only people who will enjoy this soap opera will be the lawyers, and they certainly will argue for the various positions.
I'm quite sure that Mr. Nitkin must have offered to sit down with Councillor Buck and those complaining about her behavior.
I'm equally sure that Councillor Buck refused to do so because it would not serve her politically.
I have discovered why it's wise not to say anything to anybody about any-thing at all to do with litigation.
The quotes in The Banner article are not precise.They don't reflect exactitude.
In litigation accuracy is essential.
So much so.the route to certainty is to say nothing at all outside a courtroom.where scribes and court reporters are there to ensure accuracy of meaning in every detail.
Keeping my lip zipped is going to be the hardest part of this new journey.
Of interest, Evelyn Buck on her blog entry on Thursday February 19, 2009 wrote:
"It is not the convention for elected officials to take legal action against one another. They probably could and there may be examples, but my gut instinct tells me one reason they wouldn't is the likelihood such an action would be seen as political and given less credence as a consequence. To be honest, I have never encountered such a circumstance."
Buck's blog entry on June 21, 2009:
"Twice now, I have been formally advised, of a possibility of incurring a Conflict of Interest by attending a meeting of the council of which I am a duly elected member. The reason given,? I might hear something to my pecuniary advantage should litigation ensue.
Since I do not ever contemplate litigation against my town I perceived no likelihood that I might ever be in a Conflict of Interest.
Ah, foolish moi ! At last I understand. The litigation referred to would be against me. I would be the person sued.... by council colleague or colleagues."
And on July 2 on her blog she published her letter to the mayor making it public that an "informal complaint" under the Code of Conduct had been
submitted.
Seemingly it served her purpose to ensure that confidentiality was not observed then.
But this is now.
If she does pursue a civil suit I'd be interested in shining light on the demeaning attacks she has made on her blog and in the Auroran, not part of council, with no accountability because she wouldn't publish comments that she deemed critical of her.
She has made many accusations that would need to be substantiated in a court of law.
I'm very interested in that.
As the Mayor has made it quite clear that she is an "employee" of the Town of Aurora, and not merely an elected official, it will be interesting to know if she will insist that her legal bills be paid for by the town.
I understand Councillor Buck directing the legal action to the Mayor and other councillors as "individuals", but her Mayorship will, as always, do everything in her power not to spend a cent of her own dosh.
I am sad that this whole thing has come to a litigation head. I am angry at Evelyn Buck and the GOS for letting it get to this. I used to read the many reports in The Star about how Vaughan council was suing each other and I marvelled at how much money was spent on legal fees.
For those that think that the GOS will have to pay their own legal fees, I would not rush into that conclusion yet. What they clearly did was under the letterhead of The Town and as members of the Town's executive. I know that any entity should (and I am sure Aurora does) hold insurance policies to pay for damages from lawsuits and provide legal council in those lawsuits.
I am sure Ms Buck is aware of this too. Perhaps in her mind, she is looking for the "apology" and "retraction" so that she can drop the suit and the town, and we taxpayers, will be spared the legal fees.
So, what if she gets the apology? What then? We are all a happy little family again as we go into an election year? Formal apologies do not mean anything. Evelyn's reputation is not any more soiled by this episode than before and will not get cleaner if they apologize.
For those that have read my posts here in the past, you know how I feel about Town Councillors using the press and things like blogs to pursue their agendas outside of the proper arena (council chambers). In my mind, the whole council with the exception of Alison and Bob should immediatly resign as they have clearly shown their inability to lead, work together or work effectivly. Evelyn posts here that she has only now discovered to not say anything to the press. It's 3 years too late I am afraid.
The Town's business is not getting done - in my neighbourhood alone there are at least two instances of emergency road work that needs to be done but who I am going to get on the phone to get it done when they are all tied up in this crap?
Fuimus
it's funny that now that the screws are being put to phyllis and the gang, they are saying that litigation is too much... but it was good for them when they thought they could screw Buck...
Funny that Buck claims the Banner's reporting is not accurate. When Buck reported in her blog that she was intending legal action against the GOS, she forgot to mention the other intended targets, the Banner and the Auroran.
Now she wants me to believe that somehow what I read in the Banner is not accurate. And that she has more credibility than the Banner. I'm not buying what Buck is selling.
Who do you believe the Banner or Buck?
I think if taxpayers are expected to foot the legal bills of ANY of the GOS there should be a revolt in this town.
I am shocked that people just watch their dollars frittered away by this crew (the GOS)of ignorant, irresponsible idiots.
Buck didn't say the Banner was not accurate, what she said was, "The quotes in The Banner article are not precise. They don't reflect exactitude."
I understand the difference. As I understand the difference with your comment -- which truly is "not accurate".
Your twist is just that -- a twist. Try again.
I read each and judged for myself. Your comment rated lowest of the 3 for credibility.
Despite what some have written here ,I feel Ms. Buck is not blameless in this whole mess. But the person entirely at fault is the Mayor. Firstly she was elected on a platform of leadership. When the IC was finally put in place lets not forget the orientaion session that was set-up. Mayor Morris should have led by example and been the first one there. Instead she and Ms Evilina and Mr. Gallo didn't bother with it. So a second one was set-up. Ms. Mac refused to attend and Ms Morris cancelled it.
Some example of leadership! Secondly and more ominously brings to attention Ms. Morris stated experience in her published (on the town website)resume. Anyone with 10 years HR experience, paralegal and business experience knows that if you sever a business arrangement or person, mums the word on why so as to not open the possible of litigation namely defamation of character.Ms Morris continues to say Mr. Nitkin's process for arriving at his decision was flawed. Since I'm sure Ms. Morris and Company set the scope for Mr. Nitkins role this is quite telling. Either Ms. Morris's stated previous work experience is a hoax or she is so blinded by her hatred of Ms Buck she chose to break a cardinal rule in termination. Either scenario clearly shows Ms. Morris is incapable of leading and should now resign less the Town suffer further humiliation. I can't wait for the spin from the Morris marks.
"she wouldn't publish comments that she deemed critical of her."
Not to play devil's advocate, but who in their right mind WOULD publish comments critical of himself/herself?
I would if there was good reason to - like if you wanted an answer to an earnest question, or had a legitimate complaint that could possibly be resolved.
Things like "Your mother wears army boots", though, aren't worth the cyberspace they're floating over if there's 'nobody' or 'anonymous' to talk to on the other side.
But of course, to each her own.
I think the Town's insurance will automatically step in to provide legal counsel to the GOS against Buck's intended action.
The GOS are going to get "tarred and feathered" for using Town resources to defend against Buck's claims. Truth is, the decision to post the ad was made by a majprity of council and was paid for by the Town. We may not like it but the Town ( we the taxpayers) are going to foot this bill thru higher insurance premiums.
Buck know's this. Her intended action against the GOS is just her way of giving the honey pot under stir.
One must remember, that the one who stirs the honey pot inevitably ends up wearing some of the honey.
M. le Chevalier Blanc
Given that the inflation rate has hovered near zero there's no earthly reason why our taxes should increase next year so I propose we pay this year's rate - and no more. At least council won't be able to hide any legal costs in a "small but regrettably unavoidable" tax increase.
Let them explain to the voters which town project or intiative has to get chopped in order to pay the lawyers. Perhaps the Farmers Market? the Canada Day Parade? the Long John Silver Impersonator's convention?
Eek! It's all too horrible to contemplate.
Evelyn Buck's premise that she can sue individuals, not Council is difficult to understand.
The statement to which she objects was duly passed in council. It appeared as a statement from Council, in response to advice given by a lawyer.
The lawyer John Mascarin wrote, "Furthermore, in view of Councillor Buck's continued and persistent breaches of the Code of Conduct and the need for Council to attempt to remedy the damage that has been inflicted upon members of Town staff who have had their professional competence and credibility questioned and disparaged in public, it would be entirely appropriate for Council in these circumstances to issue a public statement respecting the filing of the formal complaint with the Integrity Commissioner.
The report from the lawyer began, "Dear Mayor and Members of Council".
On July 21 a resolution was passed by Council.
I understand from this information that Councillor Buck is choosing to sue Council, with all the financial burden heaped on Aurora taxpayers.
Why?
Why not wait for the election and let the voters make decisions?
Why drag this nonsense into the legal system?
We've suffered enough.
Councillor Buck has enjoyed saying whatever she felt like saying in her blog, in the Auroran, on the Aurora Citizen.
She had her fun. Now she wants me to pay.
Something is very wrong here.
From the municipal act...
Immunity
448. (1) No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced against a member of council or an officer, employee or agent of a municipality or a person acting under the instructions of the officer, employee or agent for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty or authority under this Act or a by-law passed under it or for any alleged neglect or default in the performance in good faith of the duty or authority
...and...
Policy decisions
450. No proceeding based on negligence in connection with the exercise or non-exercise of a discretionary power or the performance or non-performance of a discretionary function, if the action or inaction results from a policy decision of a municipality or local board made in a good faith exercise of the discretion, shall be commenced against,
(a) a municipality or local board;
(b) a member of a municipal council or of a local board; or
(c) an officer, employee or agent of a municipality or local board
...
No Councilor number 7 dosen't really have a leg to stand on, and all of the costs of defending such an action (if she decides to proceed) will be carried by the town.
I agree with Bob Bruce, it is all quite sad...and stupid too...
Most of the posters in this thread are sensible enough to realize that number 7 is fighting a losing cause, tilting at windmills actually...and it is sad to watch... I almost feel ashamed really...
And it's all because of one ego...
Pity...
Is anyone else dizzy from watching our Mayor spin the fan to spread the manure so it covers our entire town
"contains a number of unfounded allegations and it is wholly without merit and cannot be taken seriously.”
could be used to more accurately describe the GOS initial complaint (as the I.C. concluded) along with anything coming out of the Mayor's mouth since June.
Regardless of who pays what, we all know that no resignations will be had and the outrage of the town needs to be shown at the next available outlet Nov 2010.
None of these shallow, lackey, egotistical, self-serving rat-finks deserve any presence in decision making within our town, and they will know it after the votes are cast.
You say "The report from the lawyer began, "Dear Mayor and Members of Council".
On July 21 a resolution was passed by Council."
so then why was the report held from Councillor collins-mrakas and Coucillor McRoberts till they recieved the agendas??
Are they not part of council??
they were denied the report on the basis that they were not one of the ones that signed it...if its a council decision then any member of council is entitled to the report...
hmmmmm can't suck and blow my friends...
You don't make the rules up as you go...well in morrisville they do..
And know you want Councillor Buck to just let it go..
JUst like a morrisville fan, if it goes the wrong way then just sweep it under the rug and move on....Damn that rug can't cover anymore dirt!!!
Anonymous September 10, 2009 10:28 PM
She "wants [you] to pay" ?
How about Mayor Morris already made us pay? For all sorts of legal garbage.
Because she has such low self-esteem, Morris wasted my Money For Nothing. I want it back.
Where's our money, Mayor Morris?
Lots of facts on this thread.
Thanks for those who took the trouble to put them together.
It helps me to better understand what has happened and how it all fits together.
It is an unfortunate state of affairs.
So, reading this all through - The GOS and the town staff doctored minutes of a meeting (I agree, the video shows something different entirely).
Buck called them on it, and said "The minutes have been doctored". (This is the only example of something 'terrible' I could find on her blog that the GOS might have used in their argument to file a complaint.
GOS files a complaint citing "many instances of nastiness" (my words, not theirs).
Nitkin says the complaint is poorly written, tries to work with the GOS to make it acceptable, GOS doesn't respond, so Nitkin writes them off and throws the complaint out.
GOS gets the complaint tossed back to them, so they fire Nitkin.
So, because the complaint was thrown out, it was never 'proven' - now Buck wants to sue the councillors for libel because of what they published about her.
Even though it all started when they DID doctor the minutes.
??
To Anonymous September 10, 2009 11:15 PM
"so then why was the report held from Councillor collins-mrakas and Coucillor McRoberts till they recieved the agendas??"
I believe the lawyer's report was provided to everyone including McRoberts and Collins-Mrakas at an in-camera meeting where legal matters are dealt with. Perhaps Buck was at the meeting too. She has taken shots at the lawyer, Mascarin, for his report, so I guess she must have seen it.
You say "they were denied the report on the basis that they were not one of the ones that signed it..."
I think you're confusing this with the IC's report which was given to the Buck and those that made the complaint (the GOS). McRoberts and Collins-Mrakas refused to sign the complaint so they had no greater right to see the report than you or I and therefore they received their copy with their agenda as all members of the council would.
In summary:
Mascarin prepared an opinion for the Council, claiming that Buck had breached the Code of Ethics by bad-mouthing staff. Something she now denies doing.
Council made a descision to make Masacrin's report or part of it public through an ad in the papers.
The GOS made a complaint against Buck to the IC, based on the lawyer's findings.
The IC prepared a response and gave it to the GOS and Buck. If you make a complaint about Morris, the IC would first provide you and Morris a copy of his report and then it would go to Council.
you also say "...if its a council decision then any member of council is entitled to the report...". I guess you would agree then, that if it is a council decision and all members are entitled to receive it, then all members are accountable given that it was a council decision.
Do you follow your logic?
Buck is entitled to protect her reputation as is the Town. The council did just that when they hired a lawyer and placed an ad in the papers. If Buck was to take anyone to task for the "ad" then she has to take it up with the Town, because it was a council decision.
PS. I'm not on Morris' Xmas list either. But that doesn't make me blind to see what Buck is up to.
To Hugo T Kroon
Thank you for the clauses. However, I don't think that any of this was done in good faith and it should not protect the mayor and GOS from breaching confidentiality.
I belong to a professional college and in my experience with litigation within an organization I worked for, a member of staff was sued by a client. That part of the process was paid for by the organmization. However, when the staff was found to be at fault, the organization then sued her to recoup the original legal costs of defending her.
I have no clue whether this type of process exists within our municipal political forum.
In addition, from my experience as a board member, duly elected members bear ultimate legal bear ultimate responsibility for the organization. While the mayor may be an emplyee of the town, the councillors, as I see it, are equivalent to being elected board members and should bear their own costs.
I have no doubt that HRH the mayor will wrangle her way out of any financial costs but the way I see it, I don't know how the others can.
Of course I am not a lawyer and don't really know. This has all just been my experience.
Everyone has a right to defend themselves. Everyone has a right to confidentiality. "Everyone" includes councillor Buck.
Whatever confidentiality Councillor Buck chose to disclose (the operative word being "chose", is up to her. It is not the right of anyone else to disclose confidential information about anyone else. At least that's the way it works in other fields.
In her August 16 blog Councilor Buck wrote:
"I won't be filing a complaint though when we get our new Integrity Commissioner. That would be inappropriate use of public funds , don't you think. I'm not big on spending taxpayers' money on stuff that benefits least of all the people who are paying for it."
Perhaps worth rethinking.
Hey anonymous Sept 11,2009 9:19 a.m.
Why is it necessary to keep Cllr. Buck's published accusations and allegations confidential?
What piece of legislation gives her this protection?
She published an accusation that staff "doctored" the minutes.
She accused staff of putting the Aurora residents at risk by failing to ensure water quality monitoring was in place?
There are many others allegations and accusations contained within her blog. Hold your nose and go read her blog.
The code has NO REQUIREMENT to maintain confidentiality. Only the IC or anyone hired by the IC MUST keep confidentiality.
Read the Code. Confidentiality does not apply to the complainant.
I guess just one more item to confuse and spin.
Hey whoa....
"you also say "...if its a council decision then any member of council is entitled to the report...". I guess you would agree then, that if it is a council decision and all members are entitled to receive it, then all members are accountable given that it was a council decision."
That's the part I don't understand. Can someone explain it? If the ad published in the media to lambaste Cllr Buck was a council decision... then how can she sue the GOS individually?
If it was a council decision, then wouldn't ALL the councillors be entitled to a copy of the IC report?
WAS it a council decision or not? I think maybe no, if not everyone signed it... and because they all couldn't get a copy of the report.
Can someone clarify this much?
In her August 16 blog Councilor Buck wrote:
"I won't be filing a complaint though when we get our new Integrity Commissioner. That would be inappropriate use of public funds , don't you think. I'm not big on spending taxpayers' money on stuff that benefits least of all the people who are paying for it."
Perhaps worth rethinking.
Why? Would you like to pay for the legal fees? I certainly wouldn't. Your comment doesn't make sense.
"She published an accusation that staff "doctored" the minutes."
Well, someone "doctored" the minutes then....I've read the minutes and watched the DVD, and one of these things is not like the other.
I can't speak to whodunnit...but the point that it was done was the issue, no?
In all Evelyn's blog posts since the complaining started - she has said "I've asked for clarification and for instances where they believe I've provided incorrect information". Maybe it's like the IC report.....someone asks the GOS to back up their claims, and they refuse? Or they cannot? Why not?
If Evelyn says the minutes were doctored and they weren't - sure, complain away. If they were though...uh..that's a problem.
I hope they hire Jude Wapner to preside over this. What channel will it be on?
SPECULATIONS! All speculations. Until we are there we know NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
you say "I think you're confusing this with the IC's report which was given to the Buck and those that made the complaint (the GOS). McRoberts and Collins-Mrakas refused to sign the complaint so they had no greater right to see the report than you or I and therefore they received their copy with their agenda as all members of the council would."
There fore McRoberts and Collins-Mrakas are not complainants only the GOS. So then it is not a council matter and is a personal matter between the GOS and councillor Buck... YOU SAID IT
you say "Buck is entitled to protect her reputation as is the Town. The council did just that when they hired a lawyer and placed an ad in the papers. If Buck was to take anyone to task for the "ad" then she has to take it up with the Town, because it was a council decision. "
Problem is 2 coucillors disagreed with that and did not sign it...they have no part in it
if you can't see that then you might want to check you eyes....
The minutes WERE EDITED!!!!! ANY FOOL CAN SEE THAT!!!!!
To Anonymous September 11, 2009 3:59 PMs asked:
"That's the part I don't understand. Can someone explain it? If the ad published in the media to lambaste Cllr Buck was a council decision... then how can she sue the GOS individually?"
"If it was a council decision, then wouldn't ALL the councillors be entitled to a copy of the IC report?"
"WAS it a council decision or not? I think maybe no, if not everyone signed it... and because they all couldn't get a copy of the report."
"Can someone clarify this much?"
The decision to publish the "ad" outling the basis for filing a complaint was a council decision. But the complaint was filed by individual councilors.
I hope this helps.
To Anonymous September 11, 2009 4:15 PM
""She published an accusation that staff "doctored" the minutes.""
"Well, someone "doctored" the minutes then....I've read the minutes and watched the DVD, and one of these things is not like the other."
Believe or not I haven't had the benefit of seeing the DVD. What's the difference between the DVD and the minutes?
As for your thoughts:
"If Evelyn says the minutes were doctored and they weren't - sure, complain away. If they were though...uh..that's a problem."
The same goes for Councilor Buck, if she thought the minutes were "doctored", which is a very serious allegation, she had other avenues other than the blog. The route she chose (the blog) left her open to critism. Perhaps she should have pushed for a judicial review. That debate could have happened at the table for all to see.
If she thought staff had acted improperly, that would have come out in the debate without it appearing as a disparaging remark.
I'm just glad that Mr. Nitkin sank a legal nail into HRH's coffin.
Ho dare she, a nobody with no qualifications, assassinate the character and reputation of someone like Mr. Nitkin?
This town - council, residents and bloggers alike - sounds like an out-of-control kindergarten full of squabbling kids with helpless, hapless leadership and staff.
Why don't you all just grow up for God's sake?
Amen Shaking My Head in Aurora.
That's what you get when someone is an elected councillor and chooses to wage war on her colleagues through a blog rather than through established channels.
But then she was duly elected by people who should have known what they were getting.
She had many avenues to pursue her positions but none so personally gratifying as what she has chosen.
We are reduced to being her audience.
Hey anonymous..........of the 39 comments posted on this particular blog, 26 of them are yours. From 8:09 am on Sept 11 to 9:05 pm, you posted 17 comments most of them repetitive.
This thing is consuming you...I think it's time you considered another hobby
"Believe or not I haven't had the benefit of seeing the DVD. What's the difference between the DVD and the minutes? "
Here is a description:
http://auroracitizen.blogspot.com/2009/05/whats-up-with-may-12-council-minutes.html
Loved today's Banner story. Told us who attended Tuesday's meeting.
Wake me up when it's all over.
A lawyer was retained at public expense to watch videos, read Blogs, letters to the editor and comments to this Blog. He was further instructed to write a report alleging wrong-doing.
Using public funds,the allegations against an individual were published.
This community has rightly reacted against that.
I am not alone in my belief that in a free society, the right to disagree is ours to protect. It has been too hard won in history to surrender without a fight.
So the question is being raised beyond the political.
Moral encouragement and financial support are being freely given. There is no solicitation.
The litigation fund bank account is to ensure resources contributed are used for the purpose intended.
It is unusual that I support Buck but I agree with her here. This Mayor and GO5 have made this Town a joke right across Canada.
Support Buck and donate if you can.
To: Anonymous September 11, 2009 5:49 PM
"SPECULATIONS! All speculations. Until we are there we know NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!"
I mean this respectfully, but I do think you may want to just speak for yourself. We actually know quite a lot.
We know the council minutes in question don't reflect what was said at the meeting in question.
We know that Council’s handling of procedure has been called into question numerous times, including during open forum and when votes were taken. We know that some strange math and some unusual logic are being applied.
We also know the Mayor thinks she and her block vote are doing a great job and we know a lot of people seem to think otherwise, as reported by the Toronto Star, Globe, Sun, The Banner, Rogers Cable and on the CBC News.
We know the Mayor has said that the former Integrity Commissioner that she and Council fired a day after he dared to disagreed with her, was in the Mayor’s mind unqualified to do the job he was just recently hired to do on behalf of the town. We know that the Mayor’s bad mouthing his professional credentials at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in the media and presumably at AMO has resulted in a cease and desist order.
We know that the Mayor’s promise to run an open and inclusive council that values diverse opinions looks very much like it just electioneering when you consider what has been delivered.
We know that a growing number of people are disenchanted, embarrassed and / or disgusted by Aurora Council’s behavior under this Mayor’s “leadership”.
I'm not sure why the information on this blog, in the media and available through publicly released documents does not serve to enlighten you as to what is going on right under your nose.
To: Anonymous September 11, 2009 8:48 AM
Your summary is 100% correct.
I'm sure you could add a few more excellent concise comments but you nailed it none the less !
Post a Comment