Posts
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.
Showing posts with label Integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Integrity. Show all posts
Friday, September 25, 2009
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.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Aurora Makes Wikipedia
The controversy in Aurora has now available on Wikipedia.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
2009 Council ControversyIt will be interesting to see how long before someone tries to remove these factual links from the site.
In August 2009 a controversy erupted when the Aurora town council fired its integrity commissioner in a special meeting after receiving his first decision on a contentious issue. Three of eight councillors were absent from the special meeting. The mayor and five councillors who were present at the special meeting had filed a complaint with the integrity commissioner against councillor Evelyn Buck for comments made in her blog. Although the integrity commissioner's report has not been released to the public, it is believed that he dismissed the complaint.[6][7] The council was criticized for the decision to fire the integrity commissioner.[8]
Links 6 - 8 refer to;
6. Aurora sacks its ethics czar". The Toronto Sun. 2009-08-11. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
7. Councillor's blog ignites Aurora firefight". The Toronto Star. 2009-08-12. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
8. Aurora losing its aura?". The Toronto Star. 2009-08-13. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Friday, August 21, 2009
How Does Media Influence Our Opinions
Recent news articles provide an interesting perspective on the role of media on our opinions.
For example, Debora Kelly of The Banner wrote an editorial Aug 12, in which she takes a fairly supportive position on the antics of our Council and the recent firing of our Integrity Commissioner. Providing lots of room for quotes and spin from former colleague and Banner columnist Mayor Phyllis Morris, Debora declares her opinion with the comment “Fortunately, the experience hasn't dampened council's desire to have a watchdog at its side. (Though, may I suggest they get an understanding on the complaints procedure before handing over the retainer fee next time?)”
Compared this to the point of view of the Editorial department of a more disinterested party, the Toronto Star “A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora's integrity commissioner.” and “Aurora's aura of good governance is on the wane.”
Note that both of these pieces are opinions versus news stories. News stories are supposed to be fact based -- while in editorials or opinions, the writer is expected to provide their own opinion/spin. Did Ms Kelley's prior relationship colour her opinion? How was The Stars writer influenced by their prior knowledge of Aurora and Mayor Morris (Right to Dry??). We'll never know.
Relying only on our media can be dangerous -- because all papers (and blogs for that matter) have their own view of the facts. So listen to your friends and neighbours, read the papers, and blogs -- but be sure to check out the meetings where you will see this Council in action live. Links are available at the top left if you can’t attend in person.
The next meeting to discuss the issue of the Integrity Commissioner is Tuesday Sept 8. Then draw your own opinion and join in the conversation. We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
For example, Debora Kelly of The Banner wrote an editorial Aug 12, in which she takes a fairly supportive position on the antics of our Council and the recent firing of our Integrity Commissioner. Providing lots of room for quotes and spin from former colleague and Banner columnist Mayor Phyllis Morris, Debora declares her opinion with the comment “Fortunately, the experience hasn't dampened council's desire to have a watchdog at its side. (Though, may I suggest they get an understanding on the complaints procedure before handing over the retainer fee next time?)”
Compared this to the point of view of the Editorial department of a more disinterested party, the Toronto Star “A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora's integrity commissioner.” and “Aurora's aura of good governance is on the wane.”
Note that both of these pieces are opinions versus news stories. News stories are supposed to be fact based -- while in editorials or opinions, the writer is expected to provide their own opinion/spin. Did Ms Kelley's prior relationship colour her opinion? How was The Stars writer influenced by their prior knowledge of Aurora and Mayor Morris (Right to Dry??). We'll never know.
Relying only on our media can be dangerous -- because all papers (and blogs for that matter) have their own view of the facts. So listen to your friends and neighbours, read the papers, and blogs -- but be sure to check out the meetings where you will see this Council in action live. Links are available at the top left if you can’t attend in person.
The next meeting to discuss the issue of the Integrity Commissioner is Tuesday Sept 8. Then draw your own opinion and join in the conversation. We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Toronto Star Editorial Weighs In
EDITORIAL: Aug 13, 2009 04:30 AM
TheStar.com
Aurora losing its aura?
Aurora rarely gets a second glance, but the bizarre behaviour of town council in recent days merits a double take. A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora's integrity commissioner.
The surprise sacking of David Nitkin by city council – he served as ethics watchdog for barely two months – came just one day after he submitted his first formal report. Nitkin had dared to defy council by rejecting a bitter complaint against its most outspoken member, dismissing it as a politically motivated affair.
The target of council's wrath was maverick councillor Evelyn Buck, 80, who has embraced blogging with a blunt style that gets under the skin of her rivals. A 40-year veteran of politics, her passionate web posts are the talk of the town – one reason why council wants to rein her in.
But when the watchdog refused to muzzle the maverick, he found himself in the doghouse. Aurora council is making a mockery of the integrity process and providing more grist for the blogosphere.
Writing in her blog yesterday, the irrepressible Buck neatly summed up council's public relations blunder: "All they did was prod me with a pointy stick and create another unholy mess for themselves."
Aurora's aura of good governance is on the wane.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
TheStar.com
Aurora losing its aura?
Aurora rarely gets a second glance, but the bizarre behaviour of town council in recent days merits a double take. A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora's integrity commissioner.
The surprise sacking of David Nitkin by city council – he served as ethics watchdog for barely two months – came just one day after he submitted his first formal report. Nitkin had dared to defy council by rejecting a bitter complaint against its most outspoken member, dismissing it as a politically motivated affair.
The target of council's wrath was maverick councillor Evelyn Buck, 80, who has embraced blogging with a blunt style that gets under the skin of her rivals. A 40-year veteran of politics, her passionate web posts are the talk of the town – one reason why council wants to rein her in.
But when the watchdog refused to muzzle the maverick, he found himself in the doghouse. Aurora council is making a mockery of the integrity process and providing more grist for the blogosphere.
Writing in her blog yesterday, the irrepressible Buck neatly summed up council's public relations blunder: "All they did was prod me with a pointy stick and create another unholy mess for themselves."
Aurora's aura of good governance is on the wane.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
The Press Continues To Ask Questions
Another article by the Toronto Star-- this time about the "coincidence" of another senior staff retiring.
We also thought the closed door of Mayor Morris when Rogers Cable came for an interview -- sans lawyer for Mayor Morris -- was a perfect symbol of her open door policy of openness and transparency.
A picture is indeed worth a 1,000 words.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
We also thought the closed door of Mayor Morris when Rogers Cable came for an interview -- sans lawyer for Mayor Morris -- was a perfect symbol of her open door policy of openness and transparency.
A picture is indeed worth a 1,000 words.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Aurora Continues to Garner Media Coverage
We had a number of comments today informing us about articles in the news. Rather than publish all the comments, here are the links.
Globe & Mail
Toronto Star
One interesting quote by Mayor Phyllis Morris that caught our eye was in the Toronto Star.
Is this more of the new math Mayor Morris has become famous for?
Era Banner
Then another classic quote from the Banner story.
Mayor Morris stated, "We called the meeting previously, so it's just a coincidence we got (the report) the day before," she said of Mr. Nitkin's firing. "(People) can speculate on things all they like."
If the meeting was scheduled in advance -- how come the agenda was released only 13 minutes before the start time and why didn't McRoberts, Collins-Marakas or Buck hear about it until the day of the meeting. Hmmmm? What could people speculate from those facts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Globe & Mail
Toronto Star
One interesting quote by Mayor Phyllis Morris that caught our eye was in the Toronto Star.
"Morris said, adding all but two of the town's eight councillors, including BuckSo let's do the math together -- if Collins-Marakas, Buck and McRoberts didn't attend -- that means only 5 or 8 Councillors attended the meeting. How did they get 6 of eight Councillors to support the firing?
– who didn't attend the meeting – supported firing Nitkin"
Is this more of the new math Mayor Morris has become famous for?
Era Banner
Then another classic quote from the Banner story.
Mayor Morris stated, "We called the meeting previously, so it's just a coincidence we got (the report) the day before," she said of Mr. Nitkin's firing. "(People) can speculate on things all they like."
If the meeting was scheduled in advance -- how come the agenda was released only 13 minutes before the start time and why didn't McRoberts, Collins-Marakas or Buck hear about it until the day of the meeting. Hmmmm? What could people speculate from those facts.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Mainstream Media Coverage Continued
In case you missed it, Toronto Sun article Aurora Sacks its Ethics Czar
"Mayor Phyllis Morris said she couldn't release a copy of the report, but calls the firing and the filing of the report a "huge coincidence."
The commissioner's report will be released in September when it goes to council and will be turned over to the next integrity czar, she said."
We all look forward to seeing the full unedited report.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
"Mayor Phyllis Morris said she couldn't release a copy of the report, but calls the firing and the filing of the report a "huge coincidence."
The commissioner's report will be released in September when it goes to council and will be turned over to the next integrity czar, she said."
We all look forward to seeing the full unedited report.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
What Did Mayor Morris Know When
Councillor Buck has provided some of the text from the DECISION by the Integrity Commissioner. Her post can be read at Our Town and Its Business.
A couple key quotes;
It also appears to directly contradict the comments made publicly by Mayor Phyllis Morris of when the decision was made versus when they fired the Integrity Commissioner.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
A couple key quotes;
It is the DECISION of my office that this statement of complaint, as is, is unacceptable and that as is, no investigation or inquiry shall take place.We appreciate that this is not the entire text, possibly Mayor Morris will make that available. But from the parts we see, the comments appear pretty clear and damning.
Query oo8 is INAPPROPRIATE that the way it was crafted, politicized and communicated, may be, and be seen to be, wholly political. Explanation of this last test point can be seen in the many tests or measures of political interference that were raised in my e-mail of July 30th in direct communication to the proponents.
The decision was made on the 5th of August. It was in the hands of the Deputy Clerk, Acting clerk for the previous week and a half, on that date.
It also appears to directly contradict the comments made publicly by Mayor Phyllis Morris of when the decision was made versus when they fired the Integrity Commissioner.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Keystone Cops Alive and Living In Aurora
News coverage is finally starting to shine a light on the activities of Council.
Aurora's Integrity Commissioner Axed
By Sean Pearce - Era Banner
August 10, 2009
Less than two months after formalizing his agreement with the town, Aurora’s integrity commissioner has left the building.
Following last Thursday’s special meeting of council, the six members who attended left closed session after voting to immediately remove the powers of integrity commissioner EthicScan Canada Ltd. president David Nitkin.
Further, it was also resolved the search for a new integrity commissioner begin immediately, the integrity commissioner section on the town’s website be removed and any pending complaints be stayed and reported to Aurora’s director of corporate services and held in abeyance until a new integrity commissioner is appointed.
For her part, Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris said council’s decision is a result of the inability to reconcile Mr. Nitkin’s procedures with the town’s own code of conduct, despite multiple attempts.
“We have a code of conduct that we have adopted and wish to uphold,” Mrs. Morris said. “We, the council, entered into an agreement for a complaint procedure that we put in place and we agreed to it and it would appear the procedure the integrity commissioner wishes to follow appears not to be in compliance and, in fact, appears to conflict with council’s adopted code.”
In an interview between The Banner and Mrs. Morris Friday afternoon and attended by town solicitor and acting CAO Chris Cooper, the mayor explained council resolved to abide by a section in the agreement between the town and EthicScan, although she said she could not divulge any specifics about the section of the contract nor could she say what, if any, financial implications the decision might have for the town due to concerns about confidentiality. Citing similar reasons, Mrs. Morris said she was unable to comment on how much Mr. Nitkin had been paid for his services so far.
CBC News at Six
(The following link http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/newsatsix/toronto.wmv, will take you directly to the August 10th show.)
We also made the news on CBC News at Six. Check out the report from 17:43 - 20:25. Councillor Buck confirms --after finally getting a copy of the report -- that she was completely cleared of the accusations that were made by Council.
A Few Questions That Spring To Mind
First it's clotheslines -- now ethics. Mayor Phyllis Morris is certainly putting Aurora on the map. Too bad it's for all the wrong reasons.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Aurora's Integrity Commissioner Axed
By Sean Pearce - Era Banner
August 10, 2009
Less than two months after formalizing his agreement with the town, Aurora’s integrity commissioner has left the building.
Following last Thursday’s special meeting of council, the six members who attended left closed session after voting to immediately remove the powers of integrity commissioner EthicScan Canada Ltd. president David Nitkin.
Further, it was also resolved the search for a new integrity commissioner begin immediately, the integrity commissioner section on the town’s website be removed and any pending complaints be stayed and reported to Aurora’s director of corporate services and held in abeyance until a new integrity commissioner is appointed.
For her part, Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris said council’s decision is a result of the inability to reconcile Mr. Nitkin’s procedures with the town’s own code of conduct, despite multiple attempts.
“We have a code of conduct that we have adopted and wish to uphold,” Mrs. Morris said. “We, the council, entered into an agreement for a complaint procedure that we put in place and we agreed to it and it would appear the procedure the integrity commissioner wishes to follow appears not to be in compliance and, in fact, appears to conflict with council’s adopted code.”
In an interview between The Banner and Mrs. Morris Friday afternoon and attended by town solicitor and acting CAO Chris Cooper, the mayor explained council resolved to abide by a section in the agreement between the town and EthicScan, although she said she could not divulge any specifics about the section of the contract nor could she say what, if any, financial implications the decision might have for the town due to concerns about confidentiality. Citing similar reasons, Mrs. Morris said she was unable to comment on how much Mr. Nitkin had been paid for his services so far.
CBC News at Six
(The following link http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/newsatsix/toronto.wmv, will take you directly to the August 10th show.)
We also made the news on CBC News at Six. Check out the report from 17:43 - 20:25. Councillor Buck confirms --after finally getting a copy of the report -- that she was completely cleared of the accusations that were made by Council.
A Few Questions That Spring To Mind
- Why does Mayor Phyllis Morris need the Town Solicitor sitting in on interviews? What was she afraid she might say?
- How did Aurora Council hire someone after months of discussions only to find out "the procedure the integrity commissioner wishes to follow appears not to be in compliance and, in fact, appears to conflict with council’s adopted code.”? What kind of research did they do the first time? Is their latest "spin" credible?
- What will the process of hand-picking their next Integrity Commissioner be? Will it require an upfront agreement to follow Council direction since autonomy is clearly not allowed?
- Why does our procedure conflict so seriously with an acknowledged expert who has built a reputation based on managing these issue? Maybe the problem is the Code as written by this Council?
- Was the reason for Councillor Buck's vindication because the Integrity Commissioner viewed the basis for the complaint as politically motivated?
- Why are citizens of Aurora unable to see the cost to our taxes of this latest (insert your own descriptive here) move by this Council? After all, it's our money they keep spending.
First it's clotheslines -- now ethics. Mayor Phyllis Morris is certainly putting Aurora on the map. Too bad it's for all the wrong reasons.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Guest Post: Why Has the Integrity Commissioner Been Dismissed?
The following letter was delivered by Grace Marsh to the Editor(s) of The Auroran and The Banner and copied to the Aurora Citizen Blog.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.
Council created and approved their own Code of Conduct. Some felt the Oath of Office wasn’t enough . Apparently, they believe they need more in order to “control” some Members of Council from expressing opinions that don’t mirror theirs.
Council approves the hiring of an Integrity Commissioner. Puts someone at the ready to “investigate” any complaint that may be lodged under their Code. His bio and experience as posted on the Town website is impressive.
Next Council approves the hiring of Aird & Berlis, at Town cost, to help get ready ammunition in order to prepare a formal complaint against Councillor Buck under the Code.
6 members of Council file a formal complaint against Councillor Buck. 2 do not participate. No surprise who the 6 are. The complaint is placed on the Town’s website and paid advertisements are taken out in 2 local papers. Apparently Councillor Buck has levelled “unmerited public criticism of staff”. So much for confidentiality in the process.
On July 30th, I called Mr. Nitkin directly on his confidential line to let him know that I was willing to provide information for his investigation should he be interested. I actually do have firsthand experience with how other Members of this Council , including the Mayor have criticised staff. Mr. Nitkin advised me that he was unable to discuss Council’s complaint as he had not yet either accepted or rejected the complaint that was advertised by Council. A fair and appropriate response in my view. My feeling from the conversation, although Mr. Nitkin said nothing specific, was that it may not be long before he would make that decision.
Just 7 days later, on August 6th, Rogers First Local broadcasts that Councillor Buck believes a decision has been made and while looking for a copy, it appears she is stonewalled. On the same broadcast the Mayor admits that an email was sent to the Director of Corporate Services, and a copy was sent to the Director’s assistant (the Deputy Clerk). She further stated nothing would be disclosed and it could be up to 90 days before anything is made public. Seems to me that a staff member (the assistant to the designated person) getting a copy should not be a big deal. Why should that stop the Councillor accused from receiving a copy?
Later that same night, there is a Special Council Meeting at which, according to the public minutes, the same 6 Councillors that lodged the complaint, spent 5 hours and 12 minutes behind closed doors on 2 “personal” items and the results are:
The Integrity Commissioner is removed. Any mention of him is gone from the Towns’ website by the next day, and it’s directed that more money will be spent recruiting a new Integrity Commissioner. We (the people paying the bill for all this) still don’t know what his decision was or why it must be secret. Council’s complaint was made very public, in two newspapers, at our expense, but we are not entitled to know the result.
Draw your own conclusions:
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.
Council created and approved their own Code of Conduct. Some felt the Oath of Office wasn’t enough . Apparently, they believe they need more in order to “control” some Members of Council from expressing opinions that don’t mirror theirs.
Council approves the hiring of an Integrity Commissioner. Puts someone at the ready to “investigate” any complaint that may be lodged under their Code. His bio and experience as posted on the Town website is impressive.
Next Council approves the hiring of Aird & Berlis, at Town cost, to help get ready ammunition in order to prepare a formal complaint against Councillor Buck under the Code.
6 members of Council file a formal complaint against Councillor Buck. 2 do not participate. No surprise who the 6 are. The complaint is placed on the Town’s website and paid advertisements are taken out in 2 local papers. Apparently Councillor Buck has levelled “unmerited public criticism of staff”. So much for confidentiality in the process.
On July 30th, I called Mr. Nitkin directly on his confidential line to let him know that I was willing to provide information for his investigation should he be interested. I actually do have firsthand experience with how other Members of this Council , including the Mayor have criticised staff. Mr. Nitkin advised me that he was unable to discuss Council’s complaint as he had not yet either accepted or rejected the complaint that was advertised by Council. A fair and appropriate response in my view. My feeling from the conversation, although Mr. Nitkin said nothing specific, was that it may not be long before he would make that decision.
Just 7 days later, on August 6th, Rogers First Local broadcasts that Councillor Buck believes a decision has been made and while looking for a copy, it appears she is stonewalled. On the same broadcast the Mayor admits that an email was sent to the Director of Corporate Services, and a copy was sent to the Director’s assistant (the Deputy Clerk). She further stated nothing would be disclosed and it could be up to 90 days before anything is made public. Seems to me that a staff member (the assistant to the designated person) getting a copy should not be a big deal. Why should that stop the Councillor accused from receiving a copy?
Later that same night, there is a Special Council Meeting at which, according to the public minutes, the same 6 Councillors that lodged the complaint, spent 5 hours and 12 minutes behind closed doors on 2 “personal” items and the results are:
The Integrity Commissioner is removed. Any mention of him is gone from the Towns’ website by the next day, and it’s directed that more money will be spent recruiting a new Integrity Commissioner. We (the people paying the bill for all this) still don’t know what his decision was or why it must be secret. Council’s complaint was made very public, in two newspapers, at our expense, but we are not entitled to know the result.
Draw your own conclusions:
- Would the decision put those who orchestrated the complaint into a bad light,
perhaps? - Did he reject their complaint outright?
- Did he come to the conclusion that it was purely political?
- How can they explain promoting the high standards and experience of Mr. Nitkin and so easily dismiss him?
- Are they looking to hire a “different” Integrity Commissioner who will accept their
complaint? - How many will they have to go through before they find the “right” one?
- How much will this cost us in the end in money and time? A staggering
number, I’m sure.
I have certainly drawn my own conclusions, and quite frankly this whole affair simply does not pass the smell test. But I’m also not surprised.
Grace Marsh
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Believe it or Not
Thursday night, Aug 6, the contract for the Integrity Commissioner was terminated by Council -- only 6 Councillors attended the closed session meeting Councillors Buck, Roberts and Collins-Marakas declined to attend because they weren't informed why the meeting was held until too late to attend.
This decision was reported out after the emergency meeting in response to the decision that was provided by the Commissioner about the complaint against Councillor Buck lodged by Council on July22.
Let's summarize.
It will be very interesting to hear what Mayor Morris has to say about "cause" for the termination. However, don't expect to hear anything concrete. The contract was probably written to allow termination by either party without cause -- so we will be left to decide what the real back story is on this issue.
It will be equally interesting to hear whether members of Council have seen the report or anything from the Commissioner. And if so, which ones. Give them a call -- see what they have to say.
Maybe one of them would be willing to make a comment to this post -- in their own name versus anonymous -- and let us know. Confession is good for the soul.
Truth is stranger than fiction. A fiction writer couldn't make this stuff up and have anyone believe it was a credible story!
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
This decision was reported out after the emergency meeting in response to the decision that was provided by the Commissioner about the complaint against Councillor Buck lodged by Council on July22.
Let's summarize.
- Contract signed: June 18
- Complaint lodged: July 22
- Decision rendered to Mayor Phyllis Morris: Aug 5
- Commissioner terminated: Aug 7
It will be very interesting to hear what Mayor Morris has to say about "cause" for the termination. However, don't expect to hear anything concrete. The contract was probably written to allow termination by either party without cause -- so we will be left to decide what the real back story is on this issue.
It will be equally interesting to hear whether members of Council have seen the report or anything from the Commissioner. And if so, which ones. Give them a call -- see what they have to say.
Maybe one of them would be willing to make a comment to this post -- in their own name versus anonymous -- and let us know. Confession is good for the soul.
Truth is stranger than fiction. A fiction writer couldn't make this stuff up and have anyone believe it was a credible story!
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Confirm or Deny!
Watch for Mayor Phyllis Morris -- promoter of openness and transparency -- to address the following.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
- In addition to Councillor Buck's statements on Rogers News, whispers inside Town Hall indicate the Integrity Commissioner rendered a decision about whether to accept Council's complaint about Councillor Buck. Apparently it was received in the clerk's office on Tuesday. However, Councillors were refused access to the report even though the complaint protocol states that they are to receive it.
- Subsequently -- in addition to Councillor Buck who was not invited -- apparently 3 Councillors did not attend a "special" meeting called at the urgent request of Mayor Phyllis Morris. No agenda was given and until shortly before the meeting Council was not informed why or whom the meeting was about. Possibly these Councillors refused to attend because they felt they shouldn't be placed in the position of having to guess what a meeting is about or because they felt a meeting was being held without proper notice. In addition to Roberts and Collins-Marakas, who would have the gumption to stand and be counted?
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)