Silly Is As Silly Does
Posted by auroracitizen on April 5, 2012
Tonight Councillor Gaertner again demonstrated just how silly she has become.
First, she voiced her opinion that Council was discussing an illegal motion because she felt that the motion of March 28 was contrary to the approved motion from Feb 27. Then, when the Clerk stated that his opinion was that Council was discussing a legal motion — she indicated that she couldn’t vote. She even made a point of stating twice that she hoped the press had heard her.
Yet she continued to stay in the chambers and participated fully in the debate. Then when the vote was called — she leapt from her chair and took 2 steps away — then returned to her chair to vote on the confirming by-law and adjournment. What’s was that supposed to mean?
For someone who seems to be so concerned about following the letter of the rules — surely she also knows that you can’t declare a conflict on a matter unless it is a pecuniary conflict. And furthermore, when you declare a conflict you are required to leave the room.
So what happened to her interpretation of the rules here. The was no conflict and she participated fully in the discussion and was in the chambers during the vote
Since a non vote is considered a “nay”, the Council minutes must show that Councillor Gaertner voted “nay” on the motion.
It will be interesting to see what the record shows.
Hopefully the press saw that as well.
Aurora Citizen 
Anonymous said
Councillor Wendy only recalls the number of votes she received. It has never dawned on her that she acquired them by default. We had to concentrate our votes in order to remove the truly bad actors- actually we got one I had never dreamed we could eliminate-and then it simply worked its way back though the alphabet. Since she was in ‘g’ with Gallo, she and he got missed and Granger was taken out. If you look at one of those ballots, you can see people with their lists moving down and trying to put in the new names. Which is how Ballard made it – he seemed like a new name and was right near the top. Silly, looking back, but it could have been a lot worse.
Christopher Watts said
Is Clr. Gaertner Aurora’s version of Newmarket Clr. Di-Muccio?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/28/newmarket-councillor-maddie-di-muccio-storms-out-of-meeting-over-lack-of-professionalism/
jd said
IT makes you wonder. I guess she (councillor di Muccio) doesn’t understand the principle of majority vote. Just because she proposes, doesn’t mean she gets. I wonder if it’s something in the water we drink in this area that we seem to have to suffer from our local politicians.
Anonymous said
That Newmarket Councillor actually had some good points, unlike our councillor Wendy. She has offended. So?
A.R. said
If Watts and jd actually had a clue about Newmarket politics they’d know that comparing Gaertner to DiMuccio is like comparing apples to oranges. Their politics are completely different and the Newmarket Councillor actually does know what shes doing… in light of being forced to work with a bunch of boneheads.
Extremely confused said
The Pirri motion that was presented and passed by Council this evening concludes: “AND THAT sections 5.5 and 6.4 of the Ad Hoc Negotiating Working Group Terms of Reference be deleted in their entirety.”
While I admit to not being a Councillor or member of Staff but having in my possession a copy of the March 27, 2012 Report No. CAO12-006 that was printed from the Town’s website that day, I see no reference to section 6.4. There is a section 6.3 that states “All Ad Hoc Committee meetings and minutes shall be private and confidential.” Section 6.3 contemplated that two Council members would have been involved. It is my understanding that this might have been in contravention of the Municipal Act since a “closed session” would have occurred, contrary to the subject matters that are permitted.
Unless section 6.3 was replaced by a section 6.4 prior to this evening’s Council meeting, always a possibility, how is it that something that did not exist came to be replaced?
Sorry to appear a bit confused, actually extremely confused, could someone please explain things. Thank you in advance.
Anonymous said
“Sorry to appear a bit confused, actually extremely confused”
No worries, 7:30, you’ll find yourself in very good company.
Anonymous said
The devil may still lie in the details. Do we know in what state the termination clause has landed? Is it viable and does anyone have the power to invoke it? If so, under what conditions? Not a whole lot of transparency going around here. The ACC may just go into their usual hibernation mode if there is no threat that can be applied.
Anonymous said
It is actually pretty simple. Councillor Wendy’s two script writers could not predict what would happen and she had no notes. Failed synapse.
jd said
She was probably just doing exactly what she had been instructed to do by her puppeteers.
I watched the council meeting a couple of weeks ago and noted that, when this topic was up for discussion, she disappeared out of the chambers for awhile, only to return with a list of questions and comments. I wondered if they had been received by text or email during her absence.
I have not watched council meetings for quite some time and was discouraged to see that nothing has changed with respect to councillor Gaertner’s silliness, inability to think for herself and guide her own decisions without the background players.
So sad!