Both Papers Respond to Buck Lawsuit
Posted by auroracitizen on October 4, 2009
The second ad in response to the lawsuit by Councillor Buck has appeared. First we saw an ad in The Banner. This past week, The Auroran ran an ad titled Statement of Explanation.
Unlike the Banner ad, it did not offer an apology to Councillor Buck, it actually deflected the blame back where it belongs — with the party that placed the ad. The Auroran takes the position that it simply ran an ad they accepted in good faith “considering the Town is a good customer of The Auroran and a government body as well” and “One would assume the comments made by the Town were correct”.
In other words, the government should be trusted to follow the rules. Fair enough.
The Auroran is seeking indemnification from the party that placed the ad — the Corporation of Aurora.
The ad goes even further and states that The Auroran’s lawyer had reviewed Councillor Buck’s blog and had found nothing that would be considered critical or disparaging to staff or that was outside the duties to which Councillor Buck had been elected.
It would appear the only response outstanding is from Council. Although their refusal to remove the complaint from the Town website using a procedural twist to prevent this will certainly be included in any further legal activities.
Aurora Citizen 
Anonymous said
Note to Ron Wallace.
When are you going to stop be carefull with the GOS? When are you going to challenge them? When are you going to rate their council actions so far after three years?
Now is the time to take of the gloves and tell the residents of Aurora what they really need to know. Let them know that they are being led down the garden path. Let them know the truth. I do not know if you read this blog but you should.
Get with it and give a true response. Do not be like the Banner and Sean. Please tell the folks of Aurora what they need to know.
You are the only person who people in Aurora trust.
Council Cop said
Lets take a closer look at council’s logic with regards to a recent motion put forward by Councillor McRoberts.
Councillor McRoberts put forward a motion that asked that the statement posted on the Town’s website related to Councillor Buck should be removed. In the spirit of trying to mend fences and move on with the Town’s business, as well as in support of the concept of people being innocent until proven guilty, the motion put forward seemed to be both logical and productive.
Councillor MacEachern and the Mayor then argued that the motion should be rejected because it was “reconsideration” of the motion to post the material in the first place (i.e. a motion passed by the G6).
Following the Mayor’s and the G6’s logic, does this mean that nothing that Council has decided to post on the Town’s website can ever be removed ?
Has anyone asked the Mayor what the procedure is to remove any material that Council has asked to be posted on the Town’s site if any motion requesting the site to be updated is considered “reconsideration” ?
Am I missing something here ?
White Knight said
Re Anonymous, Oct 7 @ 10:41
I am guessing that this anonymous is one of the GOS or their close friend/family/cohort.
Councillor Buck, please don’t settle or drop the litigation. I think a large percentage of the town supports you in this.
Grace Marsh said
To: Anonymous Oct 7 10:41
Donations so far do not exceed what Evelyn has already expended, so a surplus is not expected regardless of how she chooses to proceed. However in the unlikely event that there is surplus Evelyn has already stated it will donated to a worthy local cause and all non-anonymous contributors will be notified.
Anonymous said
What is the plan for the litigation fund when you decide to settle out of court; decide to drop the suit because it will cost the Town money or you realize that the process will not give you any positive results?
White Knight said
I am very sorry to hear of Chris Alexander’s demise. He was most helpful to us when we had an issue over a bylaw in our neighbourhood.
evelyn.buck@rogers.com said
Donation to the litigation fund are more than welcome and they mean more than money.
My phone number is 905-727-6457. Call and someone will collect it.
My address is in the book. Drop it off at the house if that’s more convenient.
Norm Weller at 36 Larmont Street is glad to receive them if that’s more conventient.
Grace Marsh’s address is also in the book and Grace is happy to oblige by receiving donations.
We tried to open a trust account in a bank but that proved to be problematic.
Grace and I will be co-signers on cheques to pay the legal bills.
Thank you everyone for your many expressions of support.
Help I want to donate! said
I have been meaning to find out where I can get a donation to Mrs Buck, can anybody Help?
Anonymous said
Congratulations to the Editor of the Auroran for placing the blame where it should be, on the heads of the mayor and GOS.
The Banner took the easy way out but then again the fact that St Kitts and the mayor’s husband were putting up an Era Banner banner on St Kitts booth at the Farmers MArket so why would that paper place the blame on their all-star mayor who used to work for them.
Another low point in this council’s long far from star studded years in power.
Positive 2010 said
This news flash just in ………..another one bites the dust .
Chris Alexander of By-laws is terminated .
The line gets longer and longer .
someone who loves this town more than politics said
Another week goes by and the GOS continues to deny the inevitable
Lets shake our collective head and shall we see where this ill-formed, incomplete and inappropriate complaint has got us:
1.) The integrity commissioner clearly determined that the complaint was “ill-formed, incomplete, and inappropriate” adding that he thought it was “wholly political”.
This is from someone that THEY hired, who was very credible including being the President of Ethiscan. He is fired. The GOS attempts some spin but the message remains clear.
2.) The Era Banner ran an ad apologizing for running the ad titled “Statement from the Town of Aurora”. TorStar’s lawyers must have determined that the complaint had no merit.
No response from the town.
3.) The Auroran ran a “statement of explanation” saying it ran the ad assuming the comments made by the town were correct. Needing to write a statement means that there was obviously some public outcry that pointed otherwise. The statement also says that the Auroran’s lawyer could not find any merit in the complaint.
No response from the town.
4.) Evelyn Buck’s lawyer also found no merits in the complaint and in turn she has filed notice back to members of council.
5.) Councilor McRoberts attempts to have the complaint removed from the website. He is buried in red-tape by Evilina and the rest of the GOS and his motion is out voted.
Besides an “amendment” to the integrity commissioners report forced upon the public by the Mayor I haven’t heard of ANY support for the complaint. Yet the GOS remains steadfast. What will it take for our Mayor and the GOS to realize that they have absolutely zero public support for their crusade against councilor Buck.
Sadly nothing.
Politics will be played out until the bitter end. The GOS is well aware that they are well past the point of no return. The mayor and her cronies know that if they drop the complaint then they admit that they are the fools that everyone has seen them to be.
They are in a no-win situation, and rightly so.
Such cowardice and idiocy have no place in our town.
Being voted out of office is inevitable for the GOS, there will be no denying that come November 2010.