Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Archive for the ‘Code of Ethics’ Category

2010 Mayors Message

Posted by auroracitizen on January 4, 2010

Mayor Phillis Morris delivered her Mayors Message through Rogers Cable and is available on-demand.

Of special note is her assertion that “no decision” was made by the Integrity Commissioner (full comments from 7:00 – 9:45). Her position is that  Mr Nitkin did not render a decision.

Our position is that he did render a decision — and that it was that the complaint was ill-formed and political in nature. He suggested that if they wanted to re-submit a new complaint, that was fine, but a decision was made on the complaint as submitted.

The Mayor also deftly avoided answering the question (12:00 – 12:17) on whether she will run again in 2011.

When asked about the accomplishments this year/term, she seemed very long on “planning” and very short on actual accomplishments. If she does plan to run again, she will need to manage her spin better than that or her opponents will hold her feet to the fire about what she actually accomplished that made Aurora a better place than when she took the reins of power.

We have a great community — because of the people who live here. Just think how much better it could be if staff were excited about coming to work each day because of the positive work culture vs the current culture of fear.

Here’s our first new years prediction. If you think the exodus of staff was bad after the last election — just think what it will be like if Morris and her crew returns in November. All those staff hoping and waiting for a change of the guard will lose hope and move on before staying for another 4 years.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Leadership, Staff Turnover, Town Council | 4 Comments »

Councillors Using Town Funds to Fight Personal Lawsuit

Posted by auroracitizen on December 18, 2009

Councillors using town insurer to cover defence of Buck suit

The Banner – Aurora , December 17, 2009

BY SEAN PEARCE

The six members of Aurora council named in Evelyn Buck’s $5.25-million civil libel lawsuit will have the town’s insurance cover their legal costs, The Banner has learned.

Ms Buck has repeatedly stated her intent is to sue the six members of council as individuals and not the town.

However, Ms MacEachern said that may prove difficult as the town’s insurer is paying for the councillors’ defence.

“She’s suing six members of council for taking steps in good faith and for representing the town,” Ms MacEachern said, adding, in effect, she is suing the town.

“We are insured. This is through the town’s insurance.”

Beyond that, Ms MacEachern defended the actions of council in its handling of the formal code of conduct complaint.

“We took the steps that were recommended to us with respect to the comments that Councillor Buck was making against staff and we took the steps to defend town staff, the corporation and the public interest,” Ms MacEachern said.

“We look forward to defending the steps we took and I look forward to the statement of defence being filed by the solicitor.”

Earlier this month, Mayor Phyllis Morris, along with Councillors Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson, were named in a statement of claim stemming from an advertisement entitled Statement From Town of Aurora Council, published in The Banner and another newspaper in July.

The ad in question outlined the reasons why the majority of council reviewed Ms Buck’s blog and filed a formal code of conduct complaint based on those postings with the then-integrity commissioner David Nitkin.

The statement of claim filed by Richmond Hill law firm MacDonald Associates seeks $1 million for “misfeasance in public office and abuse of power, conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, injurious falsehood, breach of confidence and breach of privacy” and another $1 million for “infringement or breach of (Ms Buck’s) charter rights and freedoms”.

Beyond that, $2 million is sought for defamation, $1 million in punitive damages and $250,000 in aggravated damages.

The Banner is also named in the lawsuit.

None of the allegations contained within the statement of claim have been proven in court. Defences have not been filed.

For her part, Ms Buck said she intends to continue her legal action regardless of who ends up funding the defence.

“It changes nothing,” she said. “It’s not for me to know who’s covering their defence costs.”

Ms Buck said she remains firm in her resolve to follow through with the suit against the six members of council as individuals. Should the town become involved as a result of that, it will not be because of her actions, she added.

“I will not concern myself with that until further along the line, because I didn’t take this step lightly,” Ms Buck said. “I’m not wavering and I’m not alone.”

Lawyer Kevin MacDonald of MacDonald Associates was unavailable for comment.

Also named as a defendant in the suit, Mr. Granger declined to comment and directed media inquiries to the mayor.

Mayor Morris would not comment on the matter, saying only that she has been advised by the town’s insurance company not to say anything.

However, a statement issued on behalf of Mrs. Morris and the five councillors states, “The remarks complained of were part of a notice to town residents, speaking to the integrity of our hard-working staff and our concern that they were being treated unfairly.

“These remarks were posted on our website in July 2009 and only now, at the end of November, have we finally been served with a statement of claim that repeats the allegations made in the Toronto Star (on Oct. 30).

“We are currently reviewing the statement of claim and look forward to defending ourselves and our staff vigorously. We are confident that we will show that the claims made in the lawsuit are entirely without merit.”

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Media, Town Council | 18 Comments »

Has Transparency Been Re-defined This Term?

Posted by auroracitizen on December 16, 2009

This is the first of a continuing series of articles by Richard Johnson.

Council Watch — issue #1, by Richard Johnson

I have decided to take up the offer to contribute to Aurora Citizen on a more formal basis. The list of issues and concerns that spring to mind concerning our municipal government seem to offer no end of possible topics that deserve to be raised for consideration and discussion. From my perspective our democracy requires both a detailed examination of the facts as well as debate in order to achieve the best possible results. While most issues may not be clearly black and white in nature, a thorough debate can clarify, refine and sometimes even evolve our respective positions to our collective benefit (at least that is my hope).

Provided enough time, effort and clarity is brought to any given discussion one can expect to see an underlying truth emerge or at the very least the full range of perspectives, regardless of the fact that some details may be debated or the simple fact that we may all view any given issue from a slightly different perspective. With this in mind, I am grateful for the opportunity that the Aurora Citizen has provided everyone in Aurora to express their views and concerns. While we may not all agree all of the time, I can only hope that we can agree to respect and appreciate everyone that cares about the issues facing our town, regardless of their perspective.

Without further adieu, I would like to now get down to business.

For my first topic I would like to raise the issue of transparency and accountability.

While we were all promised a new and higher standard of civility, responsiveness and transparency during the Mayor’s 2006 inaugural speech it strikes me that in reality we have been subject to something quite different. Local reporter Sean Pearce has been forced more than once to file Freedom of Information requests in order to obtain what appears to be simple answers to basic questions, as has been my regrettable experience. In fact the 2009 file number (#39) that was assigned to my two recent Freedom of Information requests may suggest that over 40 questions have been submitted to the town through this last resort method of inquiry in order to hold the government accountable, but that is another question for another time.

After receiving no response following multiple weeks and multiple e-mails to the Town Clerk in which I was merely trying to understand a simple Council Procedure that appeared to have been potentially politically manipulated in order to serve the Mayor’s self interest, I felt compelled to file a Freedom of Information request on November 11th. You will note in the Freedom of Information response from the Town of Aurora, that there are no written procedures for editing the town’s website, therefore my initial reasons for concern in this instance appear to have been well founded.

The FOI response states that when material is posted on the town’s website at the direction of Council the “staff  generally requires direction from Council regarding the removal of the posting” and “The posting regarding the Code of Conduct complaint will be removed from the town’s website upon direction of Council.” 

Here-in lies the conundrum: how can Council ever contemplate the removal of the unsubstantiated and potentially politically motivated accusations posted on the town’s website attacking Councilor Evelyn Buck if, according to the Mayor, raising a motion to remove the material is considered to be “reconsideration” of an earlier motion posted the material in the first place ?  The Mayor’s handling of this issue at council strikes me as being not only indefensible but absurd.

It should not have required a response to an FOI request to come to this rather obvious conclusion given that the Mayor’s apparently broken logic was raised for discussion by Councillor McRoberts and Collins-Mrakas at the same time that numerous councillors stated for the record that they wanted to “move on” from the whole code of conduct issue, however true to form their comments were apparently ignored by the Mayor and her block of supporters.

I’m open to hearing all perspective related to this story, however based on the facts as I know them today this situation looks to me to be rather transparent and clear cut from my perspective.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Council Watch-Richard Johnson, Freedom of Information, Integrity, Leadership | 12 Comments »

Will Taxpayers be Forced to Pay For Mayor Morris Poor Judgement

Posted by auroracitizen on December 12, 2009

Buck launches $5.25M lawsuit suit against councillors

 The Banner, Aurora, December 10, 2009

BY SEAN PEARCE

Evelyn Buck has launched a $5.25-million civil lawsuit against Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris and five fellow councillors in the latest salvo following their filing of a code of conduct complaint against her last July.

Mayor Morris, Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson are also named in a statement of claim stemming from an advertisement, entitled Statement From Town of Aurora Council, which was published in The Banner and another local newspaper last July.

The Banner is also named in the lawsuit.

The ad contained a statement from Town of Aurora Council regarding its review of Councillor Buck’s weblog entries and its decision to file a formal complaint against her based on those postings with then-integrity commissioner David Nitkin.

The lengthy statement of claim filed by Richmond Hill law firm MacDonald Associates seeks $1 million for “misfeasance in public office and abuse of power, conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, injurious falsehood, breach of confidence and breach of privacy” and another $1 million for “infringement or breach of (Ms Buck’s) charter rights and freedoms”.

Beyond that, $2 million is sought for defamation, $1 million in punitive damages and $250,000 in aggravated damages.

None of the allegations contained within the statement of claim have been proven in court.

The Banner and the Auroran, which also published the town ad, were initially named in a notice of intended action filed in September. The Banner consequently ran a notice to readers regarding the ad at the request of Ms Buck’s lawyer. Despite that, the newspaper is also being sued now, while the Auroran, which didn’t run a notice or apology, has been removed as a defendant on the latest legal documents.

“I saw the newspaper did publish something, but I’m not sure why that wasn’t acceptable,” Ms Buck said. “I’ll leave it for the lawyer to say.”

Ms Buck said the lawsuit is about principle, not money.

“The reason I’m doing this is that people can’t do things like that to another person in this country,” Ms Buck said. “You cannot publish damaging statements about another human being in Canada. You may have freedom of speech, but you cannot spend money to publish damaging accusations about another person. You can’t go about it the way they did.”

Mayor Morris would not comment, saying only she has been advised by the town’s insurance company not to comment.

Town solicitor Christopher Cooper refused to confirm if the town would cover the legal costs of the six councillors named in the civil suit. However, a town statement issued on behalf of Mrs. Morris and the five councillors states, “The remarks complained of were part of a notice to town residents, speaking to the integrity of our hard-working staff and our concern that they were being treated unfairly.

“These remarks were posted on our website in July 2009 and only now, at the end of November, have we finally been served with a statement of claim that repeats the allegations made in the Toronto Star (on Oct. 30). We are currently reviewing the statement of claim and look forward to defending ourselves and our staff vigorously. We are confident that we will show that the claims made in the lawsuit are entirely without merit.”

Ms Buck has said her intention is to sue the six councillors as individuals and not the town itself.

Lawyer Kevin MacDonald of MacDonald Associates was unavailable for comment.

Ms Buck said she has received unsolicited cheques and cash to help with legal costs, being tracked by former Aurora councillor Grace Marsh in a litigation account.

According to Mrs. Marsh, more than $3,500 has been donated by about 25 donors.

Any excess funds will be donated to a local charity, Ms Buck said, adding, “I’ve spent more at this point than I’ve received.”

Note: Highlighting added by Aurora Citizen

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Media, Town Council | 12 Comments »

Community Corner: Do the Friends of Councillors Get Special Treatment?

Posted by auroracitizen on November 25, 2009

To the Aurora Citizen

What seems to be missing in the debate (debacle?) around the November 10th meeting, is the fact that Walter Mestrinaro was making his second appearance before Council to get a decision on the bleachers overturned, because his company did not get the award.

Despite the fact that Mr. Mestrinaro was disqualified for the most of basic of reasons – he didn’t respond on time, he did not provide the proper certifications and his bid was more expensive – he appeared at multiple Council meetings to protest that he did not get the work, culminating in the Nov 10th meeting, where he impugned the town staff for not following procedure.

Mr. Elliot & Mr. Christopher both advised Council (at a previous meeting) that the matter was administrative, strictly within the purview of Staff. They advised Council again on the 10th. Yet, Mr. Mestrinaro was allowed to carry on, impugn town staff, with no input from Mayor Morris nor the sidekicks. Interesting, considering that Councilor Wilson had just recently professed his undying support/respect, etc., for town staff.

The other interesting point is that Councilor MacEachern was “sick” that evening – perhaps the “my friend is appearing a Council to whine about something, and I don’t really want to be a part of it” flu.

And, the kicker? Walter Mestrinaro is a member of the Committee of Adjustments: “The committee considers the merits of applications for land severance and minor variances to land, buildings or structure, in accordance with the Planning Act.” A PAID position.

Yes, good citizens of Aurora. You are paying for Mr. Mestrinaro to sit in judgment of merits of an application as it pertains to the Planning Act (a fairly extensive document) – and he can’t even follow the basic rules of tendering.

I would be concerned, but then I am not Mayor – at least not yet!

From Junius — belatedly and with apologizes added by Aurora Citizen 😉

Posted in Code of Ethics, Community Corner, Conflict of Interest, Leadership, Local Business, Town Council | 15 Comments »

Integrity Commissioner needed… but who should decide?

Posted by elizabethbishenden on November 18, 2009

 The article “Search Continues for Integrity Czar”  by Sean Pearce in the November 17 Banner states that the Town of Aurora is continuing its search for a new Integrity Commissioner (IC). 

A search of the Town website and re-reading of the Code of Conduct by-law and Town postings reveal no reference as to  who actually decides who the IC should be, what their credentials are to be, and how the person will be chosen.

Neil Garbe, the town’s CAO is quoted in the article as saying that the town is looking for “a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, who has practiced in some sort of a judicial capacity”.  The candidate could have experience as a lawyer or a justice of the peace, the article states.  So, are we in the situation where only legal eagles need apply?

The article later has information from Mayor Morris.  It’s up to staff to determine candidates, Mrs. Morris said, adding she’s not aware who is under consideration.  Council will not be involved in the process until a report is brought forward, she said.

Statements in the article about Mr. Garbe’s comments also indicate that the hiring will be done without a job competition.

Since the first and only complaint to the first IC involved the interaction between a councillor and staff, it seems incongruous that the new IC will be hired by council from a list of staff-recommended candidates.  Both council and staff are now implicitly involved in the failure of the first Integrity Commissioner.  Can we citizens entrust them with hiring the next Integrity Commissioner?

Perhaps when the Code of Conduct was formulated a better system of choosing the IC should have been decided and adhered to at the same time as the key to all of this would appear to be who “rules” as IC and who can hire and fire that same person. There are predictions that a bigger mess of this whole situation is still to come.

The whole program seems to lack, let us say, integrity.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Conflict of Interest, Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 58 Comments »

Lawsuit continues

Posted by auroracitizen on October 31, 2009

Gail Swainson Urban Affairs Reporter

Toronto Star: Published On Fri Oct 30 2009

Aurora councillor plans to sue colleagues

Claims defamation by mayor, councillors in complaint over blog

Embattled Aurora Councillor Evelyn Buck has served a notice of action on Mayor Phyllis Morris and five council colleagues for $5.25 million, alleging abuse of power, misuse of public funds and defamation, in the latest salvo of a political dispute over the pointed criticisms she has posted on her popular blog.

“The mayor and town councillors abused their statutory powers and authority for a wrongful purpose which included interfering with (Buck’s) constitutional rights through the improper use of public funds to defame (Buck) and advance their personal and political interests with a view to censoring and eliminating dissent,” says a two-page notice of action filed in Newmarket court this week by Buck’s lawyers, MacDonald Associates. None of Buck’s allegations has been proven in court.

What provoked the move was a formal complaint against Buck, lodged by town council this summer, about her critique of town staff in her lively “Our Town and its Business” blog. The town’s new integrity commissioner quickly rejected the complaint for being “inappropriate as crafted” and suggested it had been politically motivated. He was promptly fired.

Named in the action are Morris and councillors Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson. Also named is publisher Ian Proudfoot and Metroland Media Group, which published a statement from the town in The Banner newspaper and its website in July. Metroland is owned by Toronto Star’s parent Torstar Corp.

The list of allegations involving the politicians includes malfeasance in public office, intimidation, injurious falsehood, conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering and breach of confidence. Buck has 30 days to file a more detailed statement of claim. She said she could not comment because the matter is before the courts.

Morris, who had yet to see the court document Thursday afternoon, said, “There’s not much I can say at this point because I’m not privy to any information.”

Several years of political infighting came to a head this summer when the majority of council members signed the formal complaint, accusing Buck of posting “unmerited” comments on her blog, in which she said city staff weren’t following proper council procedures.

Morris issued a statement saying council was “obliged” to file the complaint to protect staff. Anonymous ads then ran in the Auroran newspaper calling on residents to turf Morris and five councillors.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Media, Town Council | 6 Comments »

Can Aurora Handle the Truth?

Posted by auroracitizen on October 27, 2009

Can McCallion’s Mississauga handle the truth?

Published On Tue Oct 27 2009, Royson James, Toronto Star

Will Mississauga be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century? We begin to find out Wednesday when its council votes on whether to go ahead with a judicial inquiry into conflict of interest questions involving the city’s legendary mayor and her developer son.

A staff report estimates the inquiry will cost between $2 million and $2.5 million and last some 40 days. And costs could increase, if councillors add more issues for the judge to probe.

For example, how did the council minutes come to record that Mayor Hazel McCallion had declared a conflict of interest at one of the meetings when her son’s project came before council? The city clerk has been forced to admit to an embarrassing dilemma: video evidence showed neither McCallion nor any other councillor declared a conflict of interest that day. And the clerk couldn’t say how or why the error was inserted.

In reporting to council, the city clerk answered the unasked question, just in case you were thinking it. She said the recording clerk would not have been influenced by a member of council to insert the change.

Somehow, that doesn’t settle it. The Phantom Minutes is clearly an issue council should include in the inquiry’s terms of reference.

Of course, the whole affair is enough to make some councillors gag, one surmises. So it would not be a shock if one or two pro-inquiry councillors get cold feet and abort the judicial review before it starts. The September vote seeking the review passed 6-4, with one councillor missing.

Though McCallion is reportedly mourning the recent death of her son-in-law, the inquiry item is still before council.

“Business as usual,” Councillor Carolyn Parrish said Monday, anticipating Wednesday’s vote.

Just getting to the inquiry stage will be an accomplishment in a big small town that’s effectively ruled by one strong woman, now 88.

When the Star wrote about the issue, the response was, in some cases, vile. Mississauga residents took it personally that their beloved mayor was being taken to task. Leave us alone, they were saying. We trust our Hazel. If she met with her developer son and his real estate buddies, she was doing it in the best interest of the city and if she didn’t declare a conflict of interest when the issue came before council, she might have been preoccupied with city business.

Councillor Nando Iannicca proposed the motion seeking the inquiry. Parrish seconded the motion. McCallion backers on council said the inquiry is politically motivated, a witch hunt.

So, have they been inundated with protests from constituents angry they’re attempting to besmirch the mayor’s record?

“It’s been so quiet … we are pinching ourselves,” Parrish said Monday. “I received five emails from the usual suspects who go off whenever I hiccup.”

When I told her I received 15 emails of protest, Parrish, infamous for her anti-George W. Bush rant while a federal politician, was unimpressed.

“Listen, when I called the Americans a bad name, I got 5,000 in 24 hours. I got 1,500 when I stomped on the George Bush doll.”

You’ve got to get calls and emails into the thousands “before you get my attention,” she said.

But the cost, Carolyn, the cost? At what price good government?

Mississauga is spending $40 million to beautify its city centre square, she said. “If we can spend $40 million to make the square pretty, we can spend $2 million to get to the truth.”

Ah, the elusive truth. Finding it is often messy. Ask Toronto. Ask Vaughan. Ask Mississauga?

Hey? What about asking Aurora?

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Media | 20 Comments »

An Unbiased Opinion: The Globe and Mail

Posted by auroracitizen on October 18, 2009

Special to The Globe and Mail

Aurora: Toronto’s most dysfunctional suburb

Ivor Tossell: From Saturday’s Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Oct. 16, 2009

An 80-year-old councillor with a robust set of lungs, Evelyn Buck has become the mayor's implacable foe.

 

An 80-year-old councillor with a robust set of lungs, Evelyn Buck has become the mayor’s implacable foe. THE GLOBE AND MAIL

The town’s mayor tried to bring decorum to her city and wound up facing rancour, resignations, and an irrepressible granny blogger

Perched on Yonge Street, about 40 kilometres north of Toronto, Aurora is perhaps best known for being home to the Stronach family, who rule over the auto-parts company Magna and whose daughter, Belinda, once represented the riding in Ottawa.

On first blush, this town of 50,000 seems decorous, right down to its gingerbready GO station. Locals have a habit of badging each other with labels like “20-year resident” or “50-year resident.” Adults sing along to Jerusalem at a concert in a local park, sometimes led by the mayor herself. In a nod to its Asian residents, the city has allowed them to remove numbers they deem unlucky from their addresses.

But behind this courtly setting is a political vortex of loathing and retribution, a sterling example of urban politics at their most dysfunctional: An integrity commissioner fired. Accusations of slander, conspiracy and harassment. Angry, anonymous ads popping up in the local newspaper. At the heart of this conflict is an 80-year-old politician, who one leading counterpart suggested should be checked for Mad Cow disease after she took to a combative form of blogging.

What on earth happened in Aurora?

The first thing to know about Aurora is that it’s not Vaughan.

Unlike that sprawling, scandal-plagued city – its image tarnished by questions over expenditures and conflicts of interest – everything in Aurora is smaller, prettier and more personal.

An election in 2006 brought changes to the clubby old ways. In a tight three-way race, Ms. Morris – then a town councillor – upset the incumbent, Tim Jones, who’d held the job for 12 years. A long-time backer of MP Stronach, Mr. Jones also had the endorsement of her auto magnate father, Frank.

Mayor Morris – Phyllis to most everyone – had made a name for herself during the campaign as an environmentalist. With a sing-song, Shropshire accent that vibrates with nervous energy, she took power with promises of decorum. “Many of us don’t see it as a blood-sport,” she says, “We see it as a public service.”

From the outside, at least, things seemed to be going well. The New York Times sent a writer up to report on Ms. Morris’s quest to legalize backyard laundry lines. (To this day, people keep sending clothes-pegs to her office.) She also brought in a code of conduct in 2007 that required councillors to “accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of council, even if they disagree with the majority of council” and forbade them to publically disparage town staff.

Rancour ensued, the council splitting into pro- and anti-mayor groups with the mayor’s side holding a majority.

“The level of hostility and animosity has been present from the very first day,” says Alison Collins-Mrakas, one of the new councillors at odds with the mayor.

Closed-door council meetings were marked with “cursing and screaming” says Grace Marsh, another rookie councillor who found herself on the wrong side of the majority.

Some councillors also didn’t seem interested in staff advice they didn’t agree with. In one instance, they overruled the advice of their chief planner during a road-paving project, and spent tens of thousands of dollars improving the driveways of well-organized ratepayers. The town was upgrading the street from suburban to city standards, lowering the levels of the road and making for awkward access to driveways.

Bureaucrats would find their judgment being questioned in public council meetings. Ms. Marsh – herself a former town employee of 10 years – says she saw city staff being berated at closed-door meetings. Council members – though not the mayor herself – were “calling people stupid, [saying], ‘You’re an idiot, you don’t know how to do your job.’ I had staff members calling me in tears,” she says.

Since the council took office, all but two of the town’s top tier of public servants have retired, left for other municipalities or were terminated.

Ms. Morris denies the charges of discord. She says the staff turnover is on par with previous administrations.

“You can’t keep everyone forever, but you can make it [look] ugly if you want to.”

In June, 2008, Ms. Marsh resigned in disgust, and rather than have the town pay for another by-election, Ms. Morris led council to appoint a runner-up from the last election – who became a loyal ally. The decision divided council even further.

“I often feel that it’s difficult to have any constructive or rational debate,” says Ms. Collins-Mrakas, an academic by trade. “If you take a position, it’s all very personal.”

But it was the new council’s lone elder voice who really roiled the water.

Sitting on her back porch in one of Aurora’s twisty, low-slung 1950s suburbs, cradling her silver-tipped cane between her legs, Ms. Buck lets out a hoot. At 80, she’s been in politics longer than many constituents have been alive, even having been mayor herself in the mid-seventies.

“Politicians, by their nature, are congenial people. They want to be liked,” muses Ms. Buck in her thick Scottish accent, shaking her head. “This council is an aberration.”

First elected in 1967, she’s known for having encyclopedic knowledge of the town and the lungs to vent it. She’s known for being ornery, having once whacked a fellow councillor, a newspaper proprietor, over the head with a rolled-up copy of his own publication. (All was soon forgiven, though Phyllis Morris was appalled.) And more recently, she’s famous for bringing city hall into a legal morass.

From the get-go, a member of the mayor’s faction expressed dislike of Ms. Buck – her polarizing style and her cantankerous approach. One was an e-mail from a mayor’s ally sent to the council that advocated that Ms. Buck be checked for Mad Cow disease. In another email, the same councillor called Ms. Buck a “jack ass” – followed by eleven exclamation marks.

In the meantime, Ms. Buck felt she was being shut out of discussions, constantly interrupted, her motions largely ignored.

“I said,” she recalls, “if they won’t give me a role, I’ll create a new role for myself.”

So, in the spring of 2007, she started a blog.

Entitled “Our Town and Its Business,” with a picture of a smiling Ms. Buck in the margin, it was at first more opaque than incendiary, full of writing that alludes slyly to incidents and avoids naming names. (Still, she hadn’t gotten six months in before calling her own nephew “abysmally bloody ignorant.”) One of Ms. Buck’s postings in November, 2007, which attacked council for the road upgrades, especially raised hackles.

“Do I take exception to mine and my neighbours’ tax money being spent that way? Damn right, I do,” she wrote. “Had I voted for that, I would have been in breach of trust to the people who elected me. Malfeasance is the term used in the Oath of Office.”

Ms. Buck also used the old media, filling countless column-inches of local newspapers with critical commentary. (Among her many topics: How much money was the town spending on outside lawyers?) “It was always my primary role anyway to keep people informed of what the issues were and what my position was,” she says. “I don’t believe in being shy or backward about telling people what I think. A lot of people like you to tell them what they think.”

It was enough to drive the majority on the council to distraction. And it put Ms. Buck’s candour at odds with the mayor’s desire for civility.

“What is difficult is if council has made a decision, and it’s time to move on then. The vote is over. You move on,” says the mayor.

Over the past summer, a nasty dispute erupted about how some remarks a citizen made before council were recorded in the meeting minutes. This led Ms. Buck to muse online about how the minutes could be “doctored.”

Having instituted a code of conduct and hired an integrity commissioner – respected ethicist David Nitkin – Ms. Morris handed him the first and last case he’d see: a formal complaint against Ms. Buck, broadly accusing her of maligning staff in public.

Exactly what that case was remains a mystery; the full complaint has never been released, nor has exactly what Ms. Buck is said to have said. A posting on the town website accused Ms. Buck of breaching the code of conduct in several places, including “unfounded and completely unmerited public criticism of staff” on her blog. A legal opinion was attached, though exactly which blog posts were thought to be troublesome, and why, were never specified.

Mr. Nitkin was not impressed by the complaint. He declined to be interviewed for this story, citing contractual obligations, but in a report he sent back to council, he slammed the complaint as “inappropriate in that the way in which it was crafted, politicized and communicated may be, and may be seen to be, wholly political.”

The next day, the mayor’s faction of council met in camera and voted to dismiss him. The remaining three councillors, sensing trouble from the e-mails flying around, stayed away. Within days, a senior bureaucrat in charge of keeping the town in line with provincial laws – who had joined the town six months earlier – abruptly retired.

“It’s unfortunate that Aurora would find itself – with all the good that’s going on in this town – even remotely being questioned for the simple fact that we’re trying to raise the bar of decorum and accountability,” says Ms. Morris.

The dismissal of Mr. Nitkin exacerbated the tension, bringing unfavourable media attention.

An anonymous blog, called Aurora Citizen, has become a hotbed of anger. Widely suspected to be run by a former councillor, perhaps with political ambitions of his or her own, its posts attract dozens of heated, nameless comments. Ms. Morris also finds herself facing a series of increasingly hostile ads that an anonymous group, calling itself the Aurora Coalition, has been printing in a local newspaper owned by a former councillor. One of them presented a statement of the town’s legal fees, tallying up hundreds of thousands spent on legal opinions, many relating to the code of conduct and Ms. Buck’s blog.

Ms. Buck has announced her intention to sue the mayor and most of council for libel, stemming from the affair. (Ms. Marsh is helping her set up a fund, and says she’s already accumulated thousands of dollars in donations.) Still, she will likely face a new integrity commissioner, and a new attempt to censure her.

Elections, which once brought hope for change to the city, are coming in 2010. Will the mayor run again?

“I hope to retain that commitment without having that light taken away. I have to believe that it’s the right thing to do. I have to believe it. I do believe it. As long as I have that commitment burning in me, I’ll continue to put myself up for office.”

Ms. Buck also sounded determined. “Oh yeah,” she said. “Unless I’m dead.”

Special to The Globe and Mail

Posted in Code of Ethics, Conflict of Interest, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Media, Special Meetings, Staff Turnover, Town Council | 26 Comments »

Aurora Coalition Disputes Legal Expenses Town Supplied to The Banner

Posted by auroracitizen on October 14, 2009

Thanks to contributor Richard Johnson for this post. It was also sent to The Auroran.

The most recent ad run by the Aurora Coalition in the October 13th issue of the Auroran raises a number of interesting questions given the town’s legal expenses outlined.

A July 22nd story in The Banner, entitled “Town’s legal costs inching up, but far from record” noted the following:

“The tab for outside legal help up to May 31 is pegged at just more than $86,200 and is estimated to come in below $180,000 by the end of the year, according to a report presented to councillors Tuesday. So far, it marks the highest expenditure on outside legal advice for this term of council, having spent more than $139,000 in 2008, $109,000 in 2007 and just $38,500 in 2006.  But those figures pale in comparison to the $430,000 spent in 2005 and the $659,000 doled out in 2000.”

It has since come to light through information obtained by a freedom of information request filed by the Aurora Coalition that the figures quoted by the town to the Banner in July were apparently $14,000 too low in 2007 and $356,654 too low in 2008. We can also conclude that the 2009 legal fees may well go up by an additional $50,000 above what has been quoted year to date in the numbers provided to the Aurora Coalition so we are actually looking at a total cost for legal expenses of approximately $800,000 over a two and a half year period.

It also turns out that the 2008 charges of just under $500,000 are only eclipsed by one other year (i.e. the year 2000) as noted in the Banner’s story, so these legal expenses are in fact closer to setting a record than what was suggested this past July. Putting aside how the town could misquote such basic financial numbers for expenses incurred on 2007 & 2008, one has to look at what the legal expenses incurred for outside council were spent on.

By way of example, the Town of Markham spent approximately $750,000 on legal costs over a two or three year period in order to ensure that the Province, Hydro One and the OPA followed the Planning Act by exploring all possible alternatives before power supply infrastructure was imposed on Markham and Aurora. Those fees potentially saved home owners in York Region tens of millions of dollars in potential negative real estate valuation impacts, not to mention saving the Province’s tens of millions of dollars. Markham’s efforts contributed to indentifying a better financial, technical and environmental power supply solution than what was initially imposed by Hydro One, who had not explored all possible alternatives. Markham’s legal expenses were well spent in my view, even if Aurora eventually worked against the viable alternatives proposed in the end which may well result in new transmission facilities being installed in Markham and or Aurora (but that’s yet another sad story for another day).

From my perspective, justifiable legal expenses incurred through the conducting the town’s legitimate business should be contrasted by politically motivated and groundless legal expenses, however given the secretive nature of so much of what our current Aurora Council does behind closed doors these days, and given the apparent spin that so much information emanating from the Mayor’s office appears to subjected to, we will not likely be able to ever know what expenses may have in fact been frivolous or politically motivated. It should also be noted that by the time the Mayor and her supporters have defended themselves against additional litigation that may be undertaken by Councilor Buck and the recently fired Integrity Commissioner that the Mayor has gone to great lengths to discredit, the total legal charges incurred as a direct result of this council could well be far higher before this term is all over.

Posted in Budget, Code of Ethics, Guest Post, Integrity, Legal, Town Council | 37 Comments »