EDITORIAL: Aug 13, 2009 04:30 AM
TheStar.com

Aurora losing its aura?

Aurora rarely gets a second glance, but the bizarre behaviour of town council in recent days merits a double take. A war of words on the web and a bruising battle at city council has culminated with the outlandish firing of Aurora’s integrity commissioner.

The surprise sacking of David Nitkin by city council – he served as ethics watchdog for barely two months – came just one day after he submitted his first formal report. Nitkin had dared to defy council by rejecting a bitter complaint against its most outspoken member, dismissing it as a politically motivated affair.

The target of council’s wrath was maverick councillor Evelyn Buck, 80, who has embraced blogging with a blunt style that gets under the skin of her rivals. A 40-year veteran of politics, her passionate web posts are the talk of the town – one reason why council wants to rein her in.

But when the watchdog refused to muzzle the maverick, he found himself in the doghouse. Aurora council is making a mockery of the integrity process and providing more grist for the blogosphere.

Writing in her blog yesterday, the irrepressible Buck neatly summed up council’s public relations blunder: “All they did was prod me with a pointy stick and create another unholy mess for themselves.”

Aurora’s aura of good governance is on the wane.

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

In case you missed it, Toronto Sun article Aurora Sacks its Ethics Czar

“Mayor Phyllis Morris said she couldn’t release a copy of the report, but calls the firing and the filing of the report a “huge coincidence.”

The commissioner’s report will be released in September when it goes to council and will be turned over to the next integrity czar, she said.”

We all look forward to seeing the full unedited report.

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

Councillor Buck has provided some of the text from the DECISION by the Integrity Commissioner. Her post can be read at Our Town and Its Business.

A couple key quotes;

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.

Query oo8 is INAPPROPRIATE that the way it was crafted, politicized and communicated, may be, and be seen to be, wholly political. Explanation of this last test point can be seen in the many tests or measures of political interference that were raised in my e-mail of July 30th in direct communication to the proponents.

The decision was made on the 5th of August. It was in the hands of the Deputy Clerk, Acting clerk for the previous week and a half, on that date.

We appreciate that this is not the entire text, possibly Mayor Morris will make that available. But from the parts we see, the comments appear pretty clear and damning.

It also appears to directly contradict the comments made publicly by Mayor Phyllis Morris of when the decision was made versus when they fired the Integrity Commissioner.

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

News coverage is finally starting to shine a light on the activities of Council.

Aurora’s Integrity Commissioner Axed
By Sean Pearce – Era Banner
August 10, 2009

Less than two months after formalizing his agreement with the town, Aurora’s integrity commissioner has left the building.

Following last Thursday’s special meeting of council, the six members who attended left closed session after voting to immediately remove the powers of integrity commissioner EthicScan Canada Ltd. president David Nitkin.

Further, it was also resolved the search for a new integrity commissioner begin immediately, the integrity commissioner section on the town’s website be removed and any pending complaints be stayed and reported to Aurora’s director of corporate services and held in abeyance until a new integrity commissioner is appointed.

For her part, Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris said council’s decision is a result of the inability to reconcile Mr. Nitkin’s procedures with the town’s own code of conduct, despite multiple attempts.

“We have a code of conduct that we have adopted and wish to uphold,” Mrs. Morris said. “We, the council, entered into an agreement for a complaint procedure that we put in place and we agreed to it and it would appear the procedure the integrity commissioner wishes to follow appears not to be in compliance and, in fact, appears to conflict with council’s adopted code.”

In an interview between The Banner and Mrs. Morris Friday afternoon and attended by town solicitor and acting CAO Chris Cooper, the mayor explained council resolved to abide by a section in the agreement between the town and EthicScan, although she said she could not divulge any specifics about the section of the contract nor could she say what, if any, financial implications the decision might have for the town due to concerns about confidentiality. Citing similar reasons, Mrs. Morris said she was unable to comment on how much Mr. Nitkin had been paid for his services so far.

CBC News at Six
(The following link http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/newsatsix/toronto.wmv, will take you directly to the August 10th show.)
We also made the news on CBC News at Six. Check out the report from 17:43 – 20:25. Councillor Buck confirms –after finally getting a copy of the report — that she was completely cleared of the accusations that were made by Council.

A Few Questions That Spring To Mind

1. Why does Mayor Phyllis Morris need the Town Solicitor sitting in on interviews? What was she afraid she might say?
2. How did Aurora Council hire someone after months of discussions only to find out “the procedure the integrity commissioner wishes to follow appears not to be in compliance and, in fact, appears to conflict with council’s adopted code.”? What kind of research did they do the first time? Is their latest “spin” credible?
3. What will the process of hand-picking their next Integrity Commissioner be? Will it require an upfront agreement to follow Council direction since autonomy is clearly not allowed?
4. Why does our procedure conflict so seriously with an acknowledged expert who has built a reputation based on managing these issue? Maybe the problem is the Code as written by this Council?
5. Was the reason for Councillor Buck’s vindication because the Integrity Commissioner viewed the basis for the complaint as politically motivated?
6. Why are citizens of Aurora unable to see the cost to our taxes of this latest (insert your own descriptive here) move by this Council? After all, it’s our money they keep spending.

If it wasn’t our money and our reputation, it might well make a good slapstick comedy. As it is, we are not only the laughing stock of York Region — but now Aurora will become a case study of what not to do when discussing integrity and politics.

First it’s clotheslines — now ethics. Mayor Phyllis Morris is certainly putting Aurora on the map. Too bad it’s for all the wrong reasons.

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

The following letter was delivered by Grace Marsh to the Editor(s) of The Auroran and The Banner and copied to the Aurora Citizen Blog.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.

Council created and approved their own Code of Conduct. Some felt the Oath of Office wasn’t enough . Apparently, they believe they need more in order to “control” some Members of Council from expressing opinions that don’t mirror theirs.

Council approves the hiring of an Integrity Commissioner. Puts someone at the ready to “investigate” any complaint that may be lodged under their Code. His bio and experience as posted on the Town website is impressive.

Next Council approves the hiring of Aird & Berlis, at Town cost, to help get ready ammunition in order to prepare a formal complaint against Councillor Buck under the Code.

6 members of Council file a formal complaint against Councillor Buck. 2 do not participate. No surprise who the 6 are. The complaint is placed on the Town’s website and paid advertisements are taken out in 2 local papers. Apparently Councillor Buck has levelled “unmerited public criticism of staff”. So much for confidentiality in the process.

On July 30th, I called Mr. Nitkin directly on his confidential line to let him know that I was willing to provide information for his investigation should he be interested. I actually do have firsthand experience with how other Members of this Council , including the Mayor have criticised staff. Mr. Nitkin advised me that he was unable to discuss Council’s complaint as he had not yet either accepted or rejected the complaint that was advertised by Council. A fair and appropriate response in my view. My feeling from the conversation, although Mr. Nitkin said nothing specific, was that it may not be long before he would make that decision.

Just 7 days later, on August 6th, Rogers First Local broadcasts that Councillor Buck believes a decision has been made and while looking for a copy, it appears she is stonewalled. On the same broadcast the Mayor admits that an email was sent to the Director of Corporate Services, and a copy was sent to the Director’s assistant (the Deputy Clerk). She further stated nothing would be disclosed and it could be up to 90 days before anything is made public. Seems to me that a staff member (the assistant to the designated person) getting a copy should not be a big deal. Why should that stop the Councillor accused from receiving a copy?

Later that same night, there is a Special Council Meeting at which, according to the public minutes, the same 6 Councillors that lodged the complaint, spent 5 hours and 12 minutes behind closed doors on 2 “personal” items and the results are:

The Integrity Commissioner is removed. Any mention of him is gone from the Towns’ website by the next day, and it’s directed that more money will be spent recruiting a new Integrity Commissioner. We (the people paying the bill for all this) still don’t know what his decision was or why it must be secret. Council’s complaint was made very public, in two newspapers, at our expense, but we are not entitled to know the result.

Draw your own conclusions:

• Would the decision put those who orchestrated the complaint into a bad light,
  perhaps?
• Did he reject their complaint outright?
• Did he come to the conclusion that it was purely political?
• How can they explain promoting the high standards and experience of Mr. Nitkin and so easily dismiss him?
• Are they looking to hire a “different” Integrity Commissioner who will accept their
  complaint?
• How many will they have to go through before they find the “right” one?
• How much will this cost us in the end in money and time? A staggering
  number, I’m sure.

I have certainly drawn my own conclusions, and quite frankly this whole affair simply does not pass the smell test. But I’m also not surprised.

Grace Marsh

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