Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Archive for the ‘Election 2010’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Deputy Mayor Bob McRoberts has Announced He Won’t Seek Re-election.

Posted by auroracitizen on August 25, 2010

A recent article in the Era Banner (Aug 24, 2010) says it all. Sean Pearce spoke to McRoberts about his decision not to run and summarized the situation as follows.

Staff changes, a councillor’s resignation, a battle over a by-election, a controversial code of conduct, an integrity commissioner hired and fired and a legal battle among councillors were among the factors that led to a less than cordial atmosphere.

McRoberts as usual took the high ground and refused to elaborate.

You will recall, Grace Marsh initially also declined to comment — it was only after Mayor Phyllis Morris made her statements that Grace was compelled to correct the facts.

And this is the strategy that Phyllis and her supporters count on — class.

Whether it be Councillors — or departing staff — Phyllis counts on their silence. Which, since nature abhors a vacuum, she herself can fill.

However, take the time to speak to Mr McRoberts personally and you might hear the real story. If you have the stomach for it.

It hasn’t been easy decision to make, he said, adding he has pondered his options since December. “I’ve been mulling things over for some time just trying to decide if I wanted to aim for the mayor’s position, aim for a councillor position again or aim for no position,” he said.

A man of his character doesn’t consider running for Mayor against this administration because all is well. It’s a reflection on the current state of affairs when a Councillor like Bob McRoberts choses to stand aside. It is a tremendous loss to the town.

Let’s hope Bob does share with his more than 7300 supporters the true reasons for his departure. They deserve it. And the town deserves it.

Posted in Election 2010, Leadership | 21 Comments »

A Failure of Leadership and Responsibility

Posted by auroracitizen on August 24, 2010

The following is reprinted from the Aug 18 edition, Volume 13 no 33, of NovæResUrbis – Greater Toronto Area Edition (www.nrupublishing.com this weekly magazine focuses on municipal politics and urban planning issues in Toronto and in the GTA).

Aurora appeals consolidated
In a prehearing decision issued August 12, board member Reid Rossi provided an update on an appeal by Aurora 2C West Landowners Group Inc. against failure of the Town of Aurora to approve an official plan amendment to establish a secondary plan for the Bayview Northeast Area 2C West lands, located on Concession 2, east of Yonge Street, bringing the lands into the designated future urban expansion area.

Rossi also provided an update on an appeal by Elhara Investments Limited and Aurora-Leslie Developments Limited (collectively known as Aurora-Leslie Developments Inc.) against the town’s failure to approve an official plan amendment for lands bounded by Leslie Street, Highway 404, Wellington Street and St. John’s Sideroad to permit development of a new community.

The board consolidated the appeal of Aurora-Leslie Developments Inc. with that of Aurora 2C West Landowners Group. The board set aside November 15 for a further prehearing conference, noting that at that time the town’s position would be known and the parties would be able to engage in more substantive discussions. A full hearing is expected to be scheduled for 2011.

So what’s an ordinary citizen to think?

How about Council has failed to do the job they were elected to do and look after the best interests of this community?

When the decision-making process is removed from their hands and turned over to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to make decisions on our behalf — then Council has failed in their elected duties.

The hoopla — just prior to the election — about things like the Promenade Study is just smoke and mirrors to divert our attention from the fact that they failed to deal with official plan amendments as required.

Posted in Election 2010, Environment, Growth, Leadership, Town Council | 35 Comments »

Guest Opinion: Will Nigel Kean Put Community Ahead of Personal Ambition?

Posted by auroracitizen on August 22, 2010

Nigel Kean is the reason we have had the worst municipal government in Aurora’s history.

Phyllis Morris was the ‘winner’ of the 2006 mayoralty race — with less than 50% of votes — due to the candidacy of Nigel Kean and the vote splitting that ultimately defeated Tim Jones.

Nigel Kean was an adequate member of Council, but certainly not an outstanding one.

Now, again, in 2010, Nigel Kean is setting up to play the role of spoiler between incumbent Phyllis Morris and front-runner Geoff Dawe.

Nigel, if you had any sense of public duty, both to yourself and to Aurora and its citizens, you would withdraw from the mayoralty contest and run for Council instead. There is still lots of time, until September 10.

You will never make mayor, but you could turn out to be a great member of Council.

It takes a big person to accept one’s limitations. It takes an even bigger person to temper one’s personal ambitions in the best interest of the greater good of the community.

Please do the right thing; end your mayoralty bid and lead a new and rejuvenated group of people seeking council membership, as senior councillor. Lead the way to a general house cleaning and a new beginning.

You would earn the grateful thanks of your community. 

Augustinius

Posted in Community Corner, Community Input, Election 2010, Guest Post, Leadership | 35 Comments »

Mayor Phyllis Morris Struggles with Basic Math

Posted by auroracitizen on August 15, 2010

Poor Mayor Phyllis Morris.  She really does struggle with math doesn’t she? Guess it isn’t one of her strengths. Her inability to do basic math seems to be an on-going problem. 

After the recent Council meeting (the July 13th fiasco) let’s just say, fractions are not her forte.  To be fair, many people struggle with fractions – the fact that those people tend to be nine years old is beside the point.

During the July 13th meeting, while attempting to ram through the Integrity Commissioner’s report – oh, we’re sorry – “deliberate” the IC report, Council lost quorum. This requires that the meeting must be adjourned – or at least recessed until such time as quorum can be re-established. 

Let’s explain quorum — quorum means a majority of Council must be present in order for the meeting to proceed. This isn’t a small thing — it’s required according to the Municipal Act for any activity of a Council to be considered legal.  As Aurora’s Council is composed of 9 members, quorum is 5 members out of 9. Even a first time Councillor knows that, let alone someone with the years of experience Phyllis has.

At the July 13th meeting, Councillor Gallo was not present leaving eight members of Council.  Councillor Buck had left just prior to the tabling of the IC report and Councillors McRoberts and Mrakas, having previously declared their objection to the item being on a public agenda, left the Chamber.  This left 5 members of council still present.  So far so good. 

Then, at 11:25pm, Councillor MacEachern also left the Chamber.  That left just 4 members at the table.  4 out of 9 does not equal a majority.  Quorum was lost. 

And yet, watch the tape, Mayor Morris just kept blabbering on, speaking to the item on the floor, either oblivious to or unconcerned with the clear loss of quorum.  Yes the loss of quorum was temporary – only minutes really.  But that’s beside the point.  Quorum is basic.  Everyone knows you must have enough people at the meeting in order for it to continue. Once quorum is lost, the meeting is over. It’s the law. 

Except where Phyllis is concerned. Once again, adherence to rules and procedures go out the window when Morris is in the Chair. 

This is not the first time that Phyllis’ lack of math skills have caused problems.  Last May, while “chairing” a council meeting – and sorry for the air quotes folks, we just can’t in all good conscience describe Phyllis’ actions as chairing per se, though she does occupy the chair, but we digress – the Mayor allowed a motion to waive procedure to be put to a vote and declared the vote to be carried. 

Unfortunately, the vote did not in fact carry.  According to our Byzantine like procedural by-law a 2/3 majority is required in order for the vote to waive procedure to carry. There were 8 members of Council present. The vote was 5 for and 3 against.  5 out of 8 is not 2/3 – at least in most math books – and yet Phyllis said it was.

So what does this mean? Should the public really care if quorum is lost? Should the public really care if a vote is counted as passed when it really hasn’t?

Well we say YES!

Fair and democratic processes depend on clear and public set of rules that everyone abides by. After 4 years of Morris though, it’s clear, that the rule book has either been tossed aside — or she just doesn’t know them. In either case, it means she is unqualified for a position of trust.

When Morris points to her experience as one of the key reason she should be re-elected — let’s not forget just how well she knows procedure. She may have been class valedictorian in law enforcement  at Seneca in 1995 — but it looks like she must have failed basic math and leadership. Possibly those courses weren’t offered as part of the curriculum.

Posted in Election 2010, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Town Council | 35 Comments »

Candidate Questions

Posted by auroracitizen on August 12, 2010

We will be sending a questionnaire to each candidate. We would like your input on what the questions should be.

We can’t guarantee whether any candidates will answer them — but we want to make sure they are asked. Please indicate whether your question is for Mayor, Councillor or both.

Please send along your suggestions. We will probably send them to the candidates in early September.

Posted in Election 2010, Town Council | 45 Comments »

Role of Developers in an Election

Posted by auroracitizen on August 12, 2010

Growth is often raised as a significant issue in any election campaign. Politician who cosy up to developers have sometimes been rejected by citizens because of this relationship and the concern that campaign contributions by the developers may influence projects that stand to net the developers significant profits.

To be clear, there is nothing illegal or inappropriate about a developer making a contribution to a campaign. It is within their rights to make a donation according the election guidelines — the same as any other citizen or business.

However, the public sometimes holds a different view. They are concerned about the potential appearance of a conflict of interest.

One of our readers asked the question about whether a candidate should answer a question whether his or her campaign is sponsored directly or indirectly by a developer or any entity seeking development approval from the town.

We are assuming they meant before the election — because all contributions must be declared after the election — but that would be too late to have the information as a voter which may influence your vote.

Sounded like a good question. So what are your thoughts.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Community Input, Conflict of Interest, Election 2010, Integrity | 4 Comments »

Open and Transparent? You be the judge

Posted by auroracitizen on August 6, 2010

A familiar refrain throughout the Morris Regime has been that she fosters an Open and Transparent Council environment; an Open and Transparent Council process; she’s Open and Transparent. She makes that statement at virtually every council meeting.

Similarly, we heard this throughout her campaign in 2006 as if to differentiate herself from Tim Jones and the “back room boys”.  She would open the doors to the “backroom” and bring all the council business into the open where all the public could see for themselves what goes on behind closed doors.

Well, that might be what she’s selling, but we’re not buying.

We’ve heard from many posters and many residents and many “insiders” alike that Morris et al have spent more time behind those closed doors – doing god knows what – than any other Council in recent memory.  Every single Council meeting seems to have a closed session meeting.  Everything seems to need a “secret” meeting to discuss, decide and I assume defend the decisions they are making.

Thus far though, those “allegations” as Poppe the apologist calls them, have not been based on tangible, provable, facts.  We’ve only had impressions, or thoughts, or observations of meetings and Town hall going’s on upon which to base our suppositions.  We know in our gut that all is not right but had nothing to prove it.

Until now that is.

As a by-product of an FOI request, we have been provided with a complete list of EVERY closed door session of Council from 2000 through 2009.  It includes start time and end time of each closed session.

This list is a veritable goldmine of information, not the least of which is that it is proof positive that Phyllis Morris is as transparent as a block of wood. 

Closed Door Sessions

The pie chart you see above is wholly accurate.  The 2006 – 2010 (and before anyone and argues we’ve skewed the figures by comparing a 4 year term to three year terms – we used figures from 2007 – 2009 only; so it is an accurate comparison).

Here are the stark figures folks:  Since Phyllis Morris took office, the Town of Aurora council has spent more time meeting in secret, behind closed doors,  than the last two terms of council combined and then some!!  It also shows that more than 30 percent of those meetings started at or beyond the hour of adjournment and a staggering 60 % ended well past 10:30. It begs the question, “Just what the heck are they talking about into the wee hours of the morning??”

Getting back to the numbers though, to be exact the breakdown of time spent in secret meetings is as follows:

  Term Term Term
  2000-2003 2003-2006 2006-2009
       
Total # closed sesion  meetings: 63 73 103
       
Total # meetings starting at or beyond hour of adjournment: 1 12 28
       
Total # meetings ending at or beyond hour of adjournment: 3 24 61
       
Total Time spent in closed session: 30hrs 20mins 52hrs 49mins 115hrs 21mins
       
Average length of meeting in closed session: 29 43 1hr 7mins

 

Look at those numbers — 115 hours and 21 minutes or 6921 minutes!!!!  They are simply staggering.  The difference between this term and last term is a DOUBLING of time spent in secret discussions.

How can Morris continue to claim that she is “Open and Transparent”? Is she being deliberately obtuse or are secret meetings simply how she thinks Town Business should be handled?

Look at the numbers another way.  If a Council meting is, through by-law, generally 3.5 hours long, and this Council has spent over 115 hours behind closed doors, then that means this Council has spent the equivalent of 33 full council meetings deliberating in secret.  

That’s right.  The equivalent of 33 full council meetings held in secret.

If that’s open and transparent government, then possibly you would be interested in a bridge for sale in Brooklyn …

Posted in Election 2010, Freedom of Information, Integrity, Leadership, Special Meetings, Town Council | 23 Comments »

Why Does Sher St. Kitts Get Special Treatment?

Posted by auroracitizen on August 2, 2010

Signs on Town Property

 

A reader sent another snap of a new sign that popped up at the Church Street School/Cultural Centre. 

The sign was plunked down on the lawn of the building on Wednesday July 28th —  just two days after a similar sign was removed — after public outcry — from its illegal location at the Town Park. 

It’s yet another very large sign advertising the Jazz Festival.  

Here’s the problem. The Church Street School is also a Town owned (though not operated) property.  

The question remains, “Why is an advertisement for a commercial venture allowed to be erected on Town Owned property?”  

A simple answer? It isn’t.  

Follow the logic people.  If it wasn’t allowed to be on the Town Park property, because the Town Park is Town property, then it isn’t allowed to be on the Church Street School property, because it is Town owned property.  Pretty straight forward don’t you think?  

But yet there it sits. Town by-law staff should have removed it.  

The question that should be asked is, “Why haven’t they?”

Posted in Code of Ethics, Election 2010, Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 5 Comments »

See It For Yourself — Then Decide For Yourself

Posted by auroracitizen on July 24, 2010

Council Watch #12 – by Richard Johnson

Well council once again put on quite a show at the July 13th council meeting. There were so many issues of concern raised that one does not know where to start.

While I remain impressed with the quality of our town staff, I’m left with the feeling that we may want to change the town we are twinned with to Salem, Mass given the clear and apparent witch hunt that appears to be well underway under the leadership of our Mayor.

The meat of the accusations that have been re-issued under the code of conduct appear at 4:24:00 to 4:39:30 of the tape located at this link:

Rogers Cable LINK: http://www.rogerstv.com/option.asp?lid=237&rid=70&mid=52&gid=69135#38_120_3103

The Integrity Commissioner is paid a maximum of $5,000 per month to a maximum of $60,000 per year. He is also paid a minimum monthly retainer, even when complaints are held in abeyance from August 1 to Dec 1. He also answers questions and educates council where and when required. John Leach agreed to send me the report that was prepared by staff when the IC was hired in order that I might be able to figure out what the monthly retainer is.

The section between 3:32:00 to 3:57:00 of the above noted meeting tape deals with two issues: the cut-off date for filing complaints in around election time moratoriums as well as the fact that council seems to only be focusing on accusations raised by Clr MacEachern (which complaints are supported by Mayor Phyllis Morris, Clr Wendy Geartner & Clr Steve Granger). A complaint that was apparently filed against Clr Granger seems to have fallen off the radar for some reason and amazingly no complaint has ever been submitted against Clr MacEachern as far as I am aware, despite her less than civil e-mails to Clr Wilson and Clr Buck and her actions towards others at the council table from time to time.

At 3:48:50 Evelyn Buck speaks about the code of conduct. The IC’s contract is a twelve month contract that can be terminated with 30 days notice.

While the Integrity Commissioner may in fact be an “independent (arms length) third party” as noted by the Mayor, he can also apparently be fired if he does not rule to the Mayor’s favour, as Mr. Nitkin found out the hard way. The fate of the previous IC can’t escape the notice of the current IC who is currently responsible for inspiring the current council to new levels of integrity. The jury is out as to how successful the new IC has been and how much money is too much money when witnessing the games that we continue to see being played, which games do in fact appear to be highly politically motivated.

Clr Buck states that the previous council “extorted” money and her statement was like throwing bloody meat into a shark tank. Start the tape at  4:07:50 onwards… and onwards to 4:13:00. Buck marches out at 4:10:00

See definition of extortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

Extortion:  “The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. For example, certain lawsuits, fees for services such as banking, automobile insurance, gasoline prices, and even taxation, have all been labeled “legalized extortion” by people with various social or political beliefs. [citation needed]”

Even if I may disagree with Clr Buck on any number of issues and / or her choice of language, I still don’t think that the code of conduct and the $50,000 plus that has been spent to date in dealing with councillor Buck is money well spent when we given that not one thin dime to the food bank. This is a poisoned council and it very largely the Mayor’s doing as a result of her approach to public dialog and her clear and apparent manipulation of process.

Here is but one small example from the same meeting in question: The Mayor tried to paint a picture that only a small number of people do all the work, as per her attempt with Clr. MacEachern to get attendance records for in-camera CLOSED meetings made public (see 4:17:00 — 4:24:00) and despite the fact that the Mayor often ignores the input of at least three councillors constantly and she has thwarted their efforts to join committees and advisory groups.

I suspect that the reason that some councilors are less than fully utilised is because they have been ignored and mistreated. I trust that we don’t have to remind anyone that one Councilor (Grace Marsh) felt compelled to resign in frustration. Look at the town’s senior staff employment record for an inkling of how staff must feel under this business culture. This is a vindictive and manipulative council beyond all compare.

Apparently dealing with ethical issues with this group could well become a full-time job at our collective expense. Between the accolades that were showered on staff and committee members by the Mayor and the dealing of the above mentioned code of conduct issues, it is amazing that the above noted meeting was only four and a half hours long. If you feel that this post is far too long, I don’t blame you, but just try watching the entire council meeting.

RJ

Posted in Code of Ethics, Council Watch-Richard Johnson, Election 2010, Leadership, Staff Turnover, Town Council | Leave a Comment »

Why Is Council Avoiding A Direct Question?

Posted by auroracitizen on July 24, 2010

Council Watch #11 – by Richard Johnson

Back in April I asked the town if the recent level of senior staff turn-over was typical of past councils or was it some kind of anomaly ?

I was then asked to file a freedom of information request, which I promptly obliged. I was reluctant to spend the total charge of $30 requested in order to get an answer to what I thought was a simple question that council itself should have been asking at no cost to me given that approximately twenty senior and mid level management staff have left the town in the past few years by choice, or otherwise.

When I opened up the town’s response (seconds after parting with my money) I realised that they had not actually answered my question.

Rather than get a specific answer with regards to senior and mid level management turn-over I received total employment numbers that suggest that staff turn-over on average appears to be in line with the previous two Council terms. At that point I decided that I could not afford to pay the money that would be expected to actually answer my question. I was prepared to cut my losses and move on to the next big municipal issue.

I have subsequently found out in a round about way that the Mayor informed a local reporter that all I had to do was ask her to answer the question and the answer would have been forthcoming at no cost to me. The Mayor’s comments also come as a surprise to me because I understand that at least two councillors have asked the same question of staff and have received no response.

At this point, through this OPEN QUESTION TO THE MAYOR, I would like to clarify if the senior and mid level staff turn over that we have witnessed during the current council term is typical of the pervious two councils or is it some kind of anomaly?

The town’s response to my FOI was also enlightening in that I found out that our town staff has grown by 20% since the last election, to a of total 192 people.

This too was typical of previous staff growth, however as a side note I had to ask myself if such an increase was in line with our town’s growth over the same period and was this staffing increase justifiable given the current economic downturn and the town’s apparent efforts to limit our tax increases ?

Some may argue that the town’s approach may be a Keynesian approach to stimulus spending, but I’m not so sure that increasing taxes year in and year out is in our collective best interest over the long term. If the Mayor wants to tackle that question as well, it would be much appreciated given that October 25th is fast approaching.

I look forward to receiving some kind of more detailed response that will hopefully come before October 25th at no further expense to me.

RJ

Posted in Council Watch-Richard Johnson, Election 2010, Freedom of Information, Leadership, Staff Turnover | 5 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »