Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Councellor Gaertner Admits She Didn’t Write Notes

Posted by auroracitizen on December 20, 2010

Could it get any weirder?

After attacking Mayor Dawe at last Council meeting because he provided Council with a written Notice of Motion rather than a verbal Notice of Motion, Councillor Gaertner read from prepared printed notes that most would assume she prepared in advance of the meeting.

Throughout, members of the audience saw her continuously refer to these notes as she railed on that the written notice was not consistent with the procedural bylaw — even after the clerk assured her that written was even better than verbal, which was the minimum  as stated in the by-law.

She then proceeded to move a motion that the written Notice should not be accepted — instead, Mayor Dawe should make the Notice verbal.

“I would like to make a motion that items 15 and 16 be removed from the agenda tonight as they contravene the procedural bylaw and the mayor can give notice of motion verbally under new business as is our custom in Aurora Council.”

This motion was seconded by — wait for it — Councillor Ballard. Thankfully Council saw the absurdity of this “keystone kops” motion and voted it down 7 – 2 (guess who the 2 were :))

After her comments, she provided a copy of the notes that she read from to Brock Weir of The Auroran for his reference.

Here’s where it gets good.

It has been a common belief by many Council watchers that Councillor Gaertner gets notes provided in advance by others and then reads from them as if they are her own — but never before has she provided them for the press so that this belief could be proven. However, here’s what she said when asked to comment on the notes provided to The Auroran.

When asked who printed it off and handed it to her, she said “I guess I shouldn’t answer because this might get them in trouble.” “I don’t know whose comments these are. I have no idea. Do you think that I would hand that to you knowing that there was something like that on the back? I never wrote that, but that is somebody’s opinion. That is not my opinion.”

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

The interesting comment she makes was “Do you think that I would hand that to you knowing that there was something like that on the back?”

Well of course, any intelligent person wouldn’t hand them over — but would any intelligent person be reading from someone else’s notes to begin with?

Some questions that immediately come to mind.

  1. Who is this mystery person or persons providing Councillor Gaertner her comments?
  2. And who did people actually elect when they put their “X” beside Councillor Gaertner’s name?

Points to ponder in the coming months and when trying to evaluate the contribution of Councillor Gaertner to this Council.

Posted in Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 18 Comments »

Special Meeting Planned to Deal With Lawsuit Funding

Posted by auroracitizen on December 19, 2010

Aurora Council has called a special meeting for Tuesday December 21 to deal with the Town of Aurora funding Phyllis Morris for her lawsuit against 3 private citizens and this blog as well as unnamed bloggers.

The purpose will be to re-consider the original motion that allowed the then Mayor to take “any and all” action — which resulted in Phyllis launching a $6 million lawsuit funded with your tax dollars.

The meeting is at 7:00 pm if you are interested in attending.

Posted in Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Town Council | 3 Comments »

12/14 Council Meeting Highlights

Posted by auroracitizen on December 15, 2010

So what did we learn about our new Council last night.

First, we thought Mayor Dawe did a good job on his first night. He was not completely comfortable with everything he had to do, but got better as the night progressed. He will need to remember that a motion must always be on the floor (duly moved and seconded) before any debate is allowed, Plus, debate/comments must be entertained before calling the question — and both for and against must be called before calling the vote carried. We expect that it will soon be second nature.

Highlights & Lowlights

  1. First, he needed to remind Councillor Geartner that when she addressed him, that it should be to the title of Mayor versus Mr Dawe. This is not ego, but it is protocol for all members of Council. Also, all questions/comments are to be addressed to the “Chair” versus individual members as a matter of course. The intent is to avoid personalities from entering the debate and maintaining a civil, respectful attitude. Possibly Councillor Gaertner simply forget this important protocol after the layoff for the election and no intentional insult was intended.
  2. Both a member of the public and Councillor Ballard were cautioned because their comments towards staff could be viewed in a negative manner. This was often seen last term and it was nice to see Mayor Dawe stepping in. Staff has no ability to defend themselves or their reputation, so it is totally inappropriate for anyone, Council or public, to make assertions about their competence or behaviour in a public forum. If there is a need for that type of discussion it should be handled in private. Hopefully, he will be called upon less to address this disrespectful attitude as Council progresses. Council refused to deal with Councillor Ballards motion as worded and would only support it once he agreed (with his seconder Councillor Gaertner) to remove the comments thought to be offensive.
  3. Councillors Ballard and Gaertner did not support the motion for an off-site. It will be interesting to see whether they follow the agreed direction of Council or boycott. Councillor Humfryes hit the nail on the head when she commented that a big part of the objective was to team build — something lacking last term that is trying to be remedied this term.
  4. Councillor Gaertner tried to derail the discussion about 2 critical issues that were presented as Notice of Motions by Mayor Dawe; the removal of the information about Councillor Buck from the town website and Termination of the contract for the Integrity Commissioner. Her argument was that a Notice of Motion is not to be provided in writing, but should be presented verbally — according to her interpretation of the procedural bylaw. However, the Clerk explained the procedural bylaw outlined the minimum standard and that presenting them in written format would seem to surpass this test and was therefore acceptable although not covered specifically in the bylaw. The balance of Council agreed and Councillor Gaertner was over-ruled on the point of order. She then clucked and squawked that this Council was not following the procedural bylaw. Of interest, there was no corresponding comment whatsoever about Councillor Ballards motion (point 2 above) which had no notice and was supported by 3 delegations.
  5. Of a more humorous nature, a couple of staff referred to Mayor Dawe as Madame Mayor.
  6. Another funny moment was when Mayor Dawe on one occasion asked Councillor Buck to focus her comments on the question for debate. Councillor Buck, with a twinkle in her eye, asked if he was asking her to stop talking. When he replied to the affirmative, she laughed and agreed — which brought a laugh from most of the folks in the Council chamber. It also suggested that the banter back and forth will be more positive and of better humour this term that last.
  7. A motion to reconsider the motion that led to 3 private citizens and this blog being sued by former Mayor Phyllis Morris was approved after almost a 2 hour in camera session. Hopefully there will be a public debate on this issue soon.

Not sure if we caught everything, but hope that you get a sense of what the meeting was like. Full Minutes will be on the town website — but without the commentary. Also, Rogers should start taping the meetings in the new year so you will be able to tune in yourself.

If you share some of our concerns or are pleased by some of the changes — please take the time to show your support or displeasure by writing a letter to the editor. As a community, we get the politicians we deserve — so let’s continue to let them know what we expect – every day, not just once every 4 years.

Posted in Community Input, Leadership, Town Council | 21 Comments »

Responsibility of Councillors with a Consent Agenda

Posted by auroracitizen on December 15, 2010

Last night was the first “working” meeting of the new Council. It was an interesting litmus test for what we can expect in the future.

For the background of readers who may be unfamiliar with the consent agenda format, allow me to explain (if you already know, please feel free to skip this paragraph). The intent of a consent agenda is for Councillors to ask question of clarification in advance so that if they support a motion, it can be approved without debate — hence saving time to focus on the more difficult issues and not wasting time or taxpayers dollars with needless politicking. Items should only be pulled that require debate because someone either; 1) disagrees or 2) would like to change the motion. In both cases, the Councillor would want to have the opportunity to engage fellow members of Council to see their point of view — the very essence of democracy. Items should never be pulled simply to ask questions that should have been asked in advance.

However, last term it became common practice for members of Council to pull items seemingly only to grill staff with endless questions and then approve the item as originally presented. Nothing is accomplished other than demonstrating to each other (and their supporters) how powerful they are. Oh yeah, plus taxpayers are on the hook for the cost of staff being there until all hours of the night (through lieu time), plus the poor morale we heard about during the election (which leads to people leaving and qualified candidates declining to apply for  the open position).

In keeping with the 7 years, Councillor Gaertner  arrived ill-prepared and asked more questions of staff than the entire balance of Council. On one item alone, 2010 Surplus/Deficit Control, she asked 11 question “for understanding”, while the balance of Council had no questions. Every question she asked was prefaced with something like, “could you explain” or I don’t understand”. The motion was subsequently approved unanimously without change.

After 7 years on Council, citizens might rightly ask why is she still struggling so hard to understand, and/or why doesn’t she ask these questions of staff in advance.  When Councillor Gaertner doesn’t do her research, then it wastes the time of the other 8 members of Council who did spend the time in advance to get their questions asked and answered. Each hour staff spends at a Council meeting responding to these questions is costing us lost productivity in others areas of their job.

So what is the solution?

  1. Councillor Gaertner needs to follow the lead of other Councillors and call staff on Monday/Tuesday, after having reviewed her agenda over the weekend and get the required answers from staff. Staff has always made themselves available to answer question in advance.
  2. If after having a clear understanding of the issue, she has a point of disagreement with the recommendation, she should certainly pull the item and share her thoughts with Council based on facts. If she is able to convince the others to her position the motion should be changed and then Council will vote accordingly.
  3. Mayor Dawe, supported by Council,  needs to insist that Councillors not waste the time of Council because they haven’t done their own homework. If  Councillors arrive unprepared, they have no right to waste the time of fellow Councillors and the public while they catch up so they are prepared to do the job we elected them and are paying them to do. Duties each Councillor swore an oath to execute.
  4. Lastly, members of the public need to write letters to the editor insisting that Councillors come to meetings prepared to do their job.

Just our thoughts.

Posted in Leadership, Town Council | 24 Comments »

Council Inauguration

Posted by auroracitizen on December 10, 2010

I had the opportunity to attend both the Aurora Council and Regional Council Inauguration meetings.

Some observations;

I particularly enjoyed the length of the Aurora meeting — 1 hour. The Region could learn from this. We were over 2 hours — although in fairness they did have more members who had to speak. To his credit — Mayor Dawe was one of the shortest speeches 🙂

The Aurora Inauguration was the first meeting where we had a range of faiths offer prayer for guidance and encourage to Council. I thought this was a great step. I believe that religion has no place in politics — but religion has an important place in community. By honouring and recognizing a diversity of religious beliefs in Aurora, it showed no favouritism, but took a more inclusive approach — regardless of your religious beliefs. I enjoyed the diversity.

Phyllis Morris didn’t attend either event. I feel this showed a lack of respect for the office. As outgoing Mayor, what did you expect? For comparison, defeated incumbent Vaughan Mayor Linda Jackson attended the Regional Inauguration — and as we know from last term, Vaughan is known for bitter election campaigns. Did Vaughan set a higher standard than Aurora?

A few Councillors were quite emotional.

  • Our youngest Councillor, Paul Pirri, was so positive and gracious. I am looking for very good things from this young man. He represents the future of Aurora politics and I am hopeful other young people see him as a role model and get involved.
  • Our eldest Councillor, Evelyn Buck, after almost 50 years (did I get that right Ev?) still gets emotional by the trust the residents place in her with their votes. It was nice to see her warmly received.
  • Councillor John Gallo acknowledged the conditions he was appointed under last term and was very gracious in communicating his gratitude for his “election”. He was clearly appreciative and it was a touching moment when he paid tribute to his wife.

Was anyone else puzzled why Wendy Gaertner walked out with only 10 minutes remaining at end of the Aurora meeting? Although she indicated that someone was sick in her family — out of respect to Councillors Ballard and Pirri who followed her comments and to the Queens York Rangers — I wondered if another few minutes delay would have changed anything?

Generally Councillors were positive about the future and were looking forward to working as a team and getting started on the work ahead.

However, why would Councillor Ballard, in the very first meeting end his speech with “let the games begin”? As someone who claims to be a communications expert, what was his intention in making this statement. Games have no place at the Council table. Was he putting Council and residents on notice that he is not prepared to work together as a team, but is clarifying the battle lines already. He states that he should be judged on his actions — not his past affiliation with Phyllis Morris. What are we to judge based on this action? In my opinion, his comment had no place at an Inauguration and showed lack of respect to fellow Councillors and residents.

Overall I have positive feelings about this term and I am hopeful that some of the ghosts of the past term will quickly be replaced by positive collaborative energy. Let’s hope Councillors that may harbour resentment are prepared to put aside their personal feelings and get the focus back to what is best for the community and away from the “if you aren’t for us, you are against us” philosophy we too often saw last term.

Respect was too often missing last term. A couple of current Councillors need to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Agree? Disagree? Any other observations?

Bill Hogg

Posted in Guest Post, Leadership, Town Council | 58 Comments »

Committee Appointments

Posted by auroracitizen on December 10, 2010

A reader submitted a comment that started us thinking (which is always a scary thought). They were enquiring about committee appointments.

How did Mr. Ballard manage to be on 4 committees when others who applied (my husband included) were brushed off with nothing more than a curt note from the clerk? Wouldn’t it make sense to broaden citizen participation with more diverse experience, knowledge and expertise rather than concentrate it into the chosen few? I hope the process changes this year. We are being short-changed if it is the same old few monopolizing all the committees.

The question for discussion is how should committee members be appointed in the future. What should the process be?

In the past, public notice was made of any opportunities and confidential applications were reviewed in camera by Council. Selections made and announced publicly.

Folks who applied, but were not chosen were not disclosed so people were not offended or embarrassed by not being chosen. But at the same time, there is no opportunity for public scrutiny to confirm that no favouritism was shown or that the best people received the appointment.

The issue was one of how the decisions were made in camera. Were the most appropriate people chosen? Was Council fair and impartial in their selections or was favouritism shown?

Councillor Ballard has been and continues to align himself with Phyllis Morris and her initiatives. When there is an appearance of favouritism it adds a stink to the air that is not helpful to anyone and breeds resentment on all sides — because suddenly there are sides versus working together for the benefit of the community.

To avoid any perception of favouritism and to demonstrate leadership in this area Mayor Dawe clearly stated in his election campaign that none of his key supporters would be appointed to any committees.

This term, a small group populates a disproportionate share of committees. The Town is not leveraging the diverse population to get the broadest input. I commit to encouraging diverse participation and will not support the selection of any of my key campaign team to any Town committee.

He subsequently listed his key campaign team on his website as part of his election thank you’s. So you can quickly tell if any are appointed to any committees.

We fully expect that he will honour this commitment. We are also confident readers will report if they see any conflict with this commitment. It’s pretty transparent from where we sit.

The fact that he felt the need to make this type of commitment suggests his view of past appointments, but does not implicate the process itself.

During his inaugural comments, Councillor Gallo made reference that politicians are held to a higher standard. We agree. They are in a position of public trust. It’s not just what they do, but how they are seen to do it. The commitment to simply not appoint any favourites to committees resets the bar and clarifies his position.

But the question still remains, what is best process for making committee appointments  — so it is seen to be fair and transparent by all members of the community.

And in this case, is there a loss to the town? In an effort to make sure the process is seen to be fair and impartial, potentially valued resources are precluded from participation because they were part of Mayor Dawes campaign team.

Your thoughts?

Posted in Code of Ethics, Community Input, Geoff Dawe, Integrity, Leadership | 18 Comments »

Intimidation Breeds Intimidation

Posted by auroracitizen on November 29, 2010

Council Watch #18 – by Richard Johnson

I had to share a posting from tvo’s website. It sure does make you think… where do we draw the line and who should decide ?

Salman Rushdie: When censorship is mislabelled respect

Posted on: 25 November 2010 by Allison Buchan-Terrell

In the fourth chapter of Salman Rushdie’s new book Luka and the Fire of Life, Luka – the main character, a young man on a quest to save his father from eternal sleep by bringing the fire of life back from the World of Magic – comes across “a strange, sad land.”

And our hero is greeted by a rather ominous sign on the O-Fence (a large barbed wire barrier) that surrounds this land, “YOU ARE AT THE FRONTIER OF THE RESPECTORATE OF I. MIND YOUR MANNERS.” It is home to very thin-skinned rats who “take Offense very sharply indeed.”

It is here in this children’s novel that adult themes emerge. Perhaps because Rushdie hopes his works, like the Harry Potter series, will appeal to adults as well. In his first children’s novel, Haroun and the Sea of Stories — written for his eldest son Zalaf immediately after Rusdhie went into hiding after the fatwa – Haroun struggles against forces within the world of magic determined to silence storytelling, which is very clearly connected to Rushdie’s real-life battle to speak freely.

In Luka and the Fire of Life, and particularly in the passage on the Respectorate of I, takes on what he sees as a grave threat to free speech: political correctness and censorship under the moniker of respect. A bit of pet topic for Rushdie.

In a BBC interview about this chapter, Rushdie said:

I think we live in a very timid age and a part of our timidity arises from our unwillingness to offend people. And, as a result, there are whole tribes of people now who define themselves by their offendedness. You know, I mean, who are you if you are not offended by anything? Nobody, or even worse, you are a liberal. And I just think this whole business of defining yourself by anger is very problematic and the idea that we all sort of bend over backwards not to induce that anger also becomes a problem and a kind of cowardice, if you like. And I think we just need to live in a more robust society in which people say things that other people don’t like and the answer to that is not to throw a bomb at them, you know, but to say “You know, I don’t like that much,” and get on with the next business.

Rushdie is particularly concerned about a new climate of censorship emerging where people are afraid to name things and call them what they are. Something he feels is happening not just in Muslim countries, but in the secular West as well.

He sees it in a bill put forward by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and in the furor over the Danish cartoons and Random House’s (his own publisher’s) decision to cancel The Jewel of Medina, a novel about Muhammad and his child bride, Aisha, over fear of Islamic reprisals.

In 2005, Blair put forward a controversial bill that sought to combat racial and religious hatred. He argued the new law was necessary in the post-9/11 world where Muslims, as a group, have been the target of racial attacks.

But Rushdie, and a rather unlikely counterpart – Rowan Atkinson, a.k.a. Mr. Bean, helped defeat it by one vote (as Rushdie points out, Blair went home early that day and missed the vote).

Rushdie recounts how Atkinson asked, quite politely, whether a sketch that aired on his program would be considered a hate crime under the new law. The sketch includes stock footage of Muslims praying at an Iranian mosque with Atkinson saying in a voiceover, “And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s contact lens.”

They were defending the right to shock, outrage and offend, which they feel is a fundamental part of the right to free speech and a legitimate form of creative expression.

Also in this spirit, Rushdie signed on to a manifesto in support of the infamous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. He, and a dozen co-signers, argued that the violent response to the cartoons signaled a new tyranny hiding in the cloak of religion and that it should be called by its true name.

The question Rushdie wants us to consider is: how do we respond to intimidation? We must be careful he says not to confuse not printing or publishing something out of fear of protest and violence with respect. The problem with giving in to intimidation, he says, is that there will be more intimidation in the future.

In a democracy, he says, there is no absolute view of right and wrong. We argue about it all the time. At one time, we believed slavery was acceptable and later, as the argument developed (and included some bloodshed), we decided slavery is wrong. The argument, Rushdie says, is freedom. The argument is the end — not winning.

Are you concerned, like Rushdie, about a growing climate of censorship? If so, what can be done to stop it? Do you agree argument is at the heart of democracy?

Posted in Community Input, Council Watch-Richard Johnson, Freedom of Information, Leadership, Legal | 20 Comments »

Mayor Elect Says No Means No

Posted by auroracitizen on November 22, 2010

On November 17, 2010 @8:29 pm in the post Recount Results,  “Anonymous” stated;

“Humfryes, Ballard, Gaertner, and Gallo should be a good check on Dawe, to make sure he doesn’t sell out the town to developers, and gut the new official plan.

I’m looking forward to seeing Dawes financial report to see how much developer backing he has.”

I was originally going to simply respond with a comment, but then I decided to submit a stand-alone post and see if we can’t have some fun with it.

First, to reiterate, I stated during the campaign, that I would not accept donations from developers. I said this a number of times and I was quoted (accurately) in the paper. So, that fact is very much public, and I fully expect it will be verified with my audited returns.

As I used to have to say to my kids, what part of NO do you not understand.

Should the audit show that I did unknowingly receive a donation from a developer, then I will

  1. return that donation, and;
  2. personally donate an equal amount to the Aurora Food Pantry.

HOWEVER, should the audit show that I indeed DID NOT receive donations from developers then I ask Anonymous to make a donation to the Aurora Food pantry – say $100.00.

What say you, Anonymous? Are you up for this challenge? Are you ready to make a positive difference to life in Aurora?

Let me know.

Geoff Dawe – Mayor Elect

Posted in Code of Ethics, Election 2010, Geoff Dawe, Integrity, Leadership | 28 Comments »

Guest Post: Integrity

Posted by auroracitizen on October 26, 2010

The events and news of the past week in Aurora have made me reflect on “integrity”. It seems that the word is bantered around at every corner. Integrity has become a political catchphrase and in Aurora its been battered and bruised. Are we are too liberal with the use of the word? Do we need to be more reserved so that it still holds it value?  Perhaps we need to review “integrity”, its meaning, its origins in ourselves, our children, our friends and our neighbours.”.

Here are my thoughts:

Having and maintaining integrity is hard work. It’s not something to be taken lightly. It’s not something that parents pass on like a family heirloom. It is developed and nutured in our children by leading them through examples. It is not automatically received by job title or promotion or family tree.

It’s what perhaps our best teachers, most memorable coaches, favourite family friends helped demonstrate to us growing up. It’s not something that we can self-prescribe to ourselves. It is something that must be earned and demonstrated from our interactions with our family, friends, co-workers and community. It’s something we may all struggle with at times to know what’s right and to do what’s right at the right time.

It’s treating people fairly – all people whether you’ve known them all your life or your just met them yesterday. It’s being fair, even if at that moment being fair is not to your advantage. It’s saying what you’ll do and following through by doing what you say.

You can’t display integrity some days and not others. By its definition it requires consistency. You either have it or you don’t – it’s not half way. At times you may lose your integrity, but perhaps you can regain it. It may be having the humility to admit that you have made a mistake (and we all have made mistakes) and correcting the wrong. It’s about how you handle yourself during the time when you need to right your wrongs and learn from your mistakes.

In going forward, perhaps we need to reserve the use of the word so that it retains its value and meaning. Aurora’s next mayor and town council will have a challenge of leading by example and being measured by their integrity. They may be choosing to do so without an appointed referee. Best of success to them all!

Paul

Posted in Code of Ethics, Community Corner, Integrity, Leadership | 1 Comment »

Dawe Says Thanks

Posted by auroracitizen on October 26, 2010

Geoff Dawe was spotted at the corner of Bayview and Wellington at 6:45 am this morning with a message for Aurora Commuters.

It’s definitely a different type of leadership style.

Looks like we are off to a positive start.

Posted in Election 2010, Leadership | 8 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »