Last month we published a post Focal Point on Roger’s Cable should be interesting Wednesday night…. that spoke of the program on Rogers Cable by Nancy Coldham dealing with Municipal Governance.

We understand the show is scheduled for tonight. The program starts at 8:00 p.m and you can call in at 1-866-715-1010. You can also contact Nancy via email <ncoldham@cggroup.com>

We expect that both Vaughan and Aurora Council will be prominently featured.

The recent post (Comparison often Highlights Differences) regarding the Toronto Star story that covered the issue of “doctored” council minutes in Mississauga and the recent Toronto Star coverage about the great divide on Aurora’s council got me thinking. We know that one of the main issues that triggered the recent wrath of Mayor Morris and the G6 was the reaction to the delegation from a resident of Snowball by the name of Sher St. Kitts and all that has ensued subsequently. Councillor Buck dared to suggest that the minutes were “doctored”, so you be the judge of the following facts, as we know them.

A motion from Councillor MacEachern resulted in Council waiving procedure, despite the fact that they did not have enough votes to do so. The resulting motion clearly states that Council should “allow the comments (of Ms. St.Kitts) to be introduced as part of the record.” I also understand that the Roger’s Cable video of the meeting clearly shows Sher St. Kitts handing her comments to the Town Clerk. However the resulting council minutes accepted by Council as capturing the essence of the meeting (provided below) do not include the specific comments made by Sher St. Kitts for some very strange reason.  Instead we were told by the Mayor that the CAO, the Town’s Solicitor and the Town Clerk all agreed that the summary of the comments included in the minutes captured are sufficient. On that front I would like to clarify what “undirected harassment” in fact means.

I also understand that when you listen to the tape, the motion that was read by the clerk and voted upon was NOT what Councilor MacEachern originally moved and Councillor Wilson seconded, therefore I am somewhat confused how this could have been permitted to happen.

If procedure was waived in order to allow for Sher St. Kitts approximately twenty minute rant against Councilor Buck when five minutes is usually permitted for delegations, and if council did not technically have the two thirds (2/3) majority required to pass the MacEachern motion and if the motion that passes was not the one initially proposed, does that mean that the Council can arbitrarily decide when a motion passes and what the minutes will reflect irrespective of the procedural bylaws that govern council ?

The minutes do not in fact reflect what transpired or what was required by an order of council to reflect. Furthermore the rules of procedure were also apparently broken in a number of areas which also does not seem to be of concern to the Mayor. If the minutes do not capture what was said or what council insisted be captured, and if the council’s following of procedure is called into question, then I am wondering what recourse the citizens of Aurora have ? Apparently all we may have is the power of our vote in one year’s time.

To add a very strange twist to this tale, it is the very Councilor that was allowed to be verbally attacked in front of her granddaughter who was with her class in the audience, that is fighting for the truth to come out, while the Mayor who allowed offensive comments to be made in a forum that she was informed by the Town’s Solicitor was inappropriate for such comments, who has tried to justify the gross and flagrant manipulation of procedure. The Mayor presumably allowed her friend (otherwise now known as “The Lady at the Back”) to attack her advisory on council because the Mayor presumably appreciated the potential political consequences. That captures for me, the essence of our new and improved form of local government.

Despite all of the issues raised above, Council does not want to address any of the issues resulting from the above outlined debacle as  per their defeating of the motion noted below and all of this is from a Mayor who insists that she is restoring integrity, civility and transparency to our council’s dialog: 

May 26th discussion on “Council Meeting Minutes of Tuesday, May 12, 2009”

Moved by Councillor Collins-Mrakas                    Seconded by Councillor Buck
THAT the Council minutes of Tuesday, May 12, 2009 be referred to staff so that they may review them in concordance with the tape of the meeting, and revise the minutes where appropriate.

On a recorded vote the motion was DEFEATED. YEAS:  3                    NAYS: 6

VOTING YEAS:         Councillors Buck, Collins-Mrakas and Gaertner
VOTING NAYS:         Councillors Gallo, Granger, MacEachern, McRoberts, Wilson and Mayor Morris
 
 Moved by Councillor Gallo                                 Seconded by Councillor Granger
THAT the Council minutes of Tuesday, May 12, 2009 be adopted as printed and circulated. On a recorded vote the motion was CARRIED. YEAS:  7                    NAYS: 2

VOTING YEAS:         Councillors Gaertner, Gallo, Granger, MacEachern, McRoberts, Wilson and Mayor Morris
VOTING NAYS:         Councillors Buck and Collins-Mrakas
 
III       OPEN FORUM May 12th — minutes accepted by Council Ms Sher St. Kitts, volunteer and Chair of the Canada Day Parade Sub-Committee addressed Council to advise of her intent to lodge a formal undirected harassment complaint on behalf of the Canada Day Parade Sub-Committee and the Aurora Dream Team pertaining to Councillor Evelyn Buck and advised that she would provide a written submission when it has been formally prepared.

Moved by Councillor MacEachern                      Seconded by Councillor Wilson
THAT the provisions within the Procedural By-law be waived to allow the comments to be introduced as part of the record.

CARRIED

To add insult to injury, the Mayor has attacked the professional credentials of our past Integrity Commissioner in order to justify her firing of him after he dared to deliver a less than favorable report and furthermore she has been copied on any number of e-mails sent by Councillor MacEachern at all hours of the night that have been far less than professional or civil. These e-mails are in the public realm and yet the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern seem to feel that they have the moral authority to hold Councillor Buck accountable while ignoring their own apparent indiscretions.

I think these issues should be the first order to business for our new Integrity Commissioner who with any luck will have a well crafted contract with the town in order to protect against wrongful or politically motivated dismissal.

Ad renews attack on Aurora mayor’s leadership
Published On Wed Oct 7 2009
Gail Swainson Urban Affairs Reporter

A second anonymous ad has appeared in a local newspaper demanding the resignation of Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris and her council “minions,” and the production of a detailed list of expenditures for “extraordinary” legal issues.

“In order to rid ourselves from the arrogance on council, people will have to come forward and stand for public office,” said the ad, which ran in the Auroran last week and was sponsored by a group identifying itself as the Aurora Coalition.

The ad questions Morris’s leadership and asks why council spends “untold hours” in “secret meetings accompanied by lawyers.”

The first ad ran in late August in the Auroran, a lively community paper run by Ron Wallace, a former local politician. It called for Morris and five of the eight sitting councillors to be turfed in the next election.

Last week’s ad is the latest volley in an escalating battle between two warring factions on council.

The infighting crystallized in July around the firing of integrity commissioner David Nitkin after he rejected a complaint lodged by council against Councillor Evelyn Buck, led by Morris and her supporters.

The complaint said Buck posted “unmerited” comments on her blog accusing city staff of not following proper council procedures.

Morris’s office would not comment on the latest ad. Buck said she doesn’t know who is behind them.

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.

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.

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.”

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?
They published the full complaint and will be publishing her version — doesn’t Nitkin’s report deserve the same coverage?

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.

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.

The Commissioner sets up his decision with 4 points:

1. The commissioner will not conduct an inquiry if the matter is frivolous, vexatious, not made in good faith or insufficient grounds.
2. In addition to the above, the commissioner may dismiss a complaint if it is seen as an abuse of power
3. The complaint was ill-formed, incomplete and inappropriate
4. The Commissioner gave the proponents the opportunity to provide additional information respecting the complaint, which they chose not to do.

The Commissioner therefore resolved that based on the above, no inquiry should take place. He further indicated the complaint was ill-formed, incomplete and inappropriate.

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.