Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Archive for the ‘Legal’ Category

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 »

The Facts are the Facts

Posted by auroracitizen on October 15, 2009

Openness and transparency is a bold claim when running for election. It resonates with citizens and we trust our leaders will do the right thing. Tell the truth.

However, all too often we are disappointed as one politician after another steps closer and closer to the line we would all rightly call “a lie” if it wasn’t in politics. In politics they have a special name for it — it’s called spin.

Here in Aurora, Mayor Phyllis Morris has shown herself to be accomplished at the art of spin. Her latest effort is the recent release of legal expenditures that clearly do not reflect those released by the Town in July. These new numbers only having been released after a Freedom of Information request, which the town solicitor confirmed as correct.

Why was a Freedom of Information request even required? I guess someone didn’t believe the numbers released through Council initially. Guess they were correct

A couple interesting spins as noted in the full article in The Banner;

  • “No members of Council had seen the numbers in question until their recent publication.” Are we the only ones surprised that an explosive document like this was released by staff without informing her worship first. Who was on duty when these were released that didn’t see the potential for political repercussions? Heads will roll if it is true. Lesser sins have resulted in great consequences.
  • “She isn’t certain why there was a discrepancy between the new figures and those previously attributed to 2007.” Huh? Isn’t that her job?
  • “Other costs included on the list relate to the price of protecting staff’s reputations, Mrs. Morris added. “That might explain some of the extra costs.” she said.” Might? The basis for the question in the first place was how much money had been spent on this type of issue. You would expect the Mayor to be aware of what she was spending on personal issues of this nature since they were specifically directed be spent by Council. After all it’s only ‘our’ money.

Mt MacDermid summed up the issue quite nicely when he said “I think it’s regrettable when a council cannot get along and solve its differences without going the legal route. At that point, I think that they’ve forgotten who it is that they’re really there to represent.”

“There is no spin here,” Mr. Wilson said. “You can try all you like to spin things, but the facts are the facts.” Well said Councillor Wilson. So how about explaining ‘the facts’ so we all understand them. One must wonder why a Council that claims openness and transparency would release numbers that conflict with numbers released through official channels?

We raised questions in our blog post back in July when the initial numbers were disclosed. Just 3 months later, the appearance of distortion and manipulation is troubling. One again this Council is being challenged on their numbers.

We can’t speak for everyone — but aren’t you just a little insulted that Mayor Morris and Council thinks we are that stupid?

Posted in Budget, Integrity, Leadership, Legal | 8 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 »

Comparision Often Highlights Differences

Posted by auroracitizen on October 4, 2009

In many aspects of life, comparison provides a good foil for seeing the strengths and weaknesses in a particular product or service. The same applies to leadership. In politics, various leaders are often compared to make a point.

Here’s an interesting article from Royson James in The Star that serves to provide an illuminating comparison. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/703650

Mississauga Council has recently had to deal with a conflict of interest declaration by Mayor McCallion. The interesting  point of comparison is the handling of the assertion by Carolyn Parrish that the minutes had been potentially ” doctored”. You may recall it was a similar comment by Councillor Buck that led to the entire Integrity Commission complaint and subsequent firing of the Commissioner the day after returning his opinion on the matter.

In Mississauga’s case, when faced with the assertion by Councillor Parrish — they reviewed the videotaped evidence and acted on it. City council voted 6-4 to order a judicial inquiry into the Mayor’s role in the proposed land deal. Councillor Parrish, regardless of her motives, was not accused of inappropriate comments. The facts were clear — the minutes did not reflect what happened in the meeting. She merely brought the discrepancy to light.

In Aurora, Councillor Buck, put forward a similar – and in many respects far more neutral comment – and when faced with the video evidence — 5 members of Council voted to have her charged under the Code of Conduct.

Even when faced with the hard facts that the public record did NOT match what the video clearly showed to have happened (i.e. a recorded vote was taken and did not appear in the Minutes), Aurora Council blustered and continued to pretend it didn’t happen. And went on the offensive when held to account by one of their own members.

Well folks, minutes are supposed to capture what did happen — not what should have happened. Just because you acted badly, doesn’t mean we should just pretend it didn’t happen. Responsible adults accept responsibility for their actions. Even David Letterman understood that. Trusted leaders are held to an even higher standard.

It is interesting to see the disparity. Once again our “leaders” have shown their true colours — and this has only been more clearly illustrated by comparison with another municipality.

James sums up his article “No Mayor should expect a free ride after such a contravention of the rule. Not even in Mississauga.” Well he should make a visit to our fair city. The rules are being re-written for the benefit of Mayor Phyllis Morris and her faithful side-kicks.

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

Ads More Informative Than Articles

Posted by auroracitizen on September 25, 2009

Recently the ads seem to be more interesting than the articles — and sometimes more telling about what is really happening in our town.

While our local media seems to be taking a “wait and see” attitude that doesn’t offend the current slate of politicians, the mainstream media has been more critical.

Then the Coalition for a Better Aurora placed the first of 2 ads that condemned the actions of Council.

Now on Page 15 of The Banner on Sept 22, we see an ad from The Banner that apologizes for running the ad titled “Statement from the Town of Aurora”.

It goes on to say “The Ad contained allegations of inappropriate conduct by Councillor Buck relating to her weblog. The Ad did not set out Councillor Buck’s position in response to the allegations. Councillor Buck denies the allegations made against her in the Ad and denies that she has acted inappropriately.”

Then it formally apologizes with “The Banner regrets any harm that may have been caused by the publication of the Ad.”

It would seem to be a logical conclusion that this ad was run in response to the lawsuit filed by Councillor Buck. It is interesting that a sophisticated media publication, with all their lawyers who defend freedom of speech etc, were so quick to see the error of their behaviour.

Even with the rights of Freedom of Speech and integrity of news stories that newspapers rightly champion and fight for, they have written an apology because (we hypothesize) they recognized that allegations without proof are inappropriate.

Council, in their rush to condemn should also have known better. If the news media see that the ad should not have been run, what will the result be for the Town when they have used suspect procedural manipulation to maintain the ad on our Town website simply to prove that they can.

Councillor MacEachern has again demonstrated her feelings towards Councillor Buck have caused her to lose sight of why she was elected. And the rest of the gang have just gone along.

The Banner has accepted responsibility for their inappropriate behaviour. When will Council?

Now we, the taxpayers, have to sit back and watch this Council continue to waste our resources.

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

Posted in Integrity, Legal, Town Council | 6 Comments »

Mayor Morris Faces Legal Action on 2 Fronts

Posted by auroracitizen on September 10, 2009

Mayor Phyllis Morris is being held to account for her statements on 2 separate fronts according to The Banner.

First, Councillor Buck has taken legal action to demand an apology from Morris and Councillors Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson, about the ads published in 2 papers which she described as “libelous”, “unfounded and unsubstantiated”.

She very clearly states that the suit is against the 6 specific people versus the Town or the Council as a whole. For example, contrary to the much discussed Town Code of Conduct, the matter was not handled confidentially, but was promoted through every vehicle at their disposal.

Mayor Morris indicated the suit “contains a number of unfounded allegations and it is wholly without merit and cannot be taken seriously.” We suggest she does take it seriously, since the legal system is not quite so easy hoodwinked as she feels citizens of Aurora can be.

However, it will be interesting to see if Mayor Morris and her supporters will still try to use Town funds to fund their personal war. This is a personal suit — let them start to accept financial responsibility for their actions rather than using Town funds for everything.

Secondly, and of special note, in the same article Mayor Morris indicated David Nitkin, through his lawyer, has also sent a letter to the Mayor demanding she cease making negative comments about his performance.

Apparently Mr Nitkin is fed up with the comments that Mayor Morris has made about his abilities and denigrating his reputation.

If you haven’t already done so, take the opportunity to review Mr Nitkin’s credentials. Among other things he is past president of the Ethics Practitioners’ Association of Canada and is a Business Ethics instructor at Schulich School of Business, York University. His credentials are impressive to say the least.

The Banner also did an article back in July.

But it seems Mayor Morris felt he was unqualified for the job and resultant he was fired. What qualifications were missing — possibly the willingness to follow her direction without question?

Stay tuned. This will only get more interesting as the stories unfold.

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

Posted in Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Town Council | 47 Comments »

Should Councillor Buck Sue?

Posted by auroracitizen on July 30, 2009

An interesting question. One that may generate some consensus?

We raise that interesting concept because it would seem to serve both sides of the debate.

Those who feel that the legal process being driven by Council is warranted so we all have a legal ruling should be pleased because then all sides of the arguments would be heard and ruled on without bias by an independent party. Then we will all know what behaviour is appropriate.

On the opposing side, those who are upset and feel that Councillor Buck is being attacked should be pleased since it would give Councillor Buck some recourse and hold the members of Council accountable for their actions.

Councillor Buck has indicated that she would not sue the Town, so residents would not have more tax dollars spent defending Councillors — their defense should be funded from their own pockets since they are being sued personally, not the Town — and wouldn’t be on the hook if Councillor Buck is proven innocent of the allegations.

So everybody would be happy. Just a thought 😉

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

Posted in Code of Ethics, Legal, Town Council | 28 Comments »

Council Declares War on Buck

Posted by auroracitizen on July 26, 2009

For the first time in memory, Aurora Council have declared outright war on another Councillor.

The crime — speaking out against other members of Council. However, Council has wrapped their complaint in the shroud of protecting staff. Hardly!

The Banner reports that “Mayor Phyllis Morris stated the complaint against Councillor Evelyn Buck stems from blog postings, which allegedly make repeated disparaging remarks and allegations about town staff.”

We absolutely agree that staff is off-limits. They are merely executing the policies as set out by Council. Time will tell whether Councillor Buck actually made comments against staff.

Mayor Morris goes on to say “Various sources have made many insinuations about herself and the other members of council, Mrs. Morris said, however, that’s not what the complaint is about. Politicians are aware that sometimes harsh criticism comes with the territory, she said, noting it crossed the line when it targeted the staff.”

Untrue. The CAO specifically called this blog to task — demanding removal of a comment by an anonymous commenter that made disparaging comments about Mayor Morris — with no mention of staff or the corporation.

It was only when the Town Solicitor formalized the complaint in a legal letter that the demand changed to specifically refer to Mayor Morris.

It is also interesting to note how “confidential” this matter is. The Town website indicates; The Commissioner and every person acting under the Commissioner’s direction “shall preserve secrecy”. These requirements are expressly stated to prevail over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Where a Commissioner provides a periodic report he or she “may summarize advice he or she has given but shall not disclose confidential information that could identify a person concerned.”

Yet a full report is published on the Town website, along with links to the legal opinion letter and Council motion.

It will be interesting to see how much support Council gets from the Integrity Commissioner and how far he is prepared to go on what Councillor Buck can and cannot say.

If they really think this public fight will work in their favour, they grossly under-estimate the fortitude of Councillor Buck. Love her or hate her — history tells us she is always clear on her position and sticks to her principles. Pity the same can’t be said for some of the rest of Council.

Mayor Morris claims “Freedom of speech is a valuable thing in our society, but it does not, however, allow people to call out ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.” “Mrs. Morris was also quick to point out the complaint is by no means an attempt to stifle anyone’s free speech.”

Her claim seems somewhat disingenuous in this context. Attacking another Councillor and a citizen blog site would seem to be exactly intended to stifle comments about her leadership. Not only can you not yell “Fire” in a theatre, apparently you can’t yell “Fire Mayor Morris” in Aurora.

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

Posted in Code of Ethics, Leadership, Legal, Town Council | 44 Comments »

Legal Costs Are Inching Up

Posted by auroracitizen on July 26, 2009

On July 23, The Banner published an article which provided some historical perspective on legal costs this term versus prior terms. While we appreciate the work of Sean Pearce in preparing this summary, it would have been helpful if he had the opportunity to dig a little deeper.

While in may be true that costs for this year/term are lower than past years, it is equally important to know the purpose for those expenditures. There is a significant difference between Town expenditures and the legal costs for political issues that are causing the uproar by citizens.

For example, Mr Pearce states “A large portion of to 2000 total had to do with an Ontario Municipal Board battle over the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan”. That would clearly be a Town based expenditure.

However, this term we have seen funds spent trying to find dirt against former Mayor Jones (unsuccessfully it would appear since nothing was published), circumventing the by-election that was desired by an outspoken majority of residents that allowed Mayor Morris to appoint a Councillor who had previously indicated his support, and most recently to silence an outspoken Councillor who regularly disagrees in public with her.

None of those 3 has anything to do with the Town business, but are exclusively political/personal in nature.

Clearly the Council perspective (as it is for any Council) is to spin the numbers in a positive light. The role of the press and citizen watchdogs is to ask questions that seek to understand the facts behind the spin.

Mayor Morris states that she unequivocally refutes that she has spent over $200,000 on lawyers. Well total expenditures this term are indicated at $372.7K (2006-$38.5, 2007-$109.0, 2008-$139, 2009 YTD-86.2).

Not sure how these figures “clearly don’t support that”. Over $350,000 dollars have been spent by this Mayor and Council. It would appear the numbers do support the assertion!

An argument will be made — quite accurately — that all these expenditures are not driven by the politicians. But why are the real facts so hard to determine.

Every legal bill comes with a detailed breakdown. Yet when you review the items on agenda item 37 from the July 21 meeting this breakdown is hard to see.

For example, according to the written report there is no mention of expenditures for the matter involving Councillor Buck although we know that funds have been spent. There is a letter of legal opinion dated July 16 from Aird & Berlis. We guess that’s because the report is only until May 31.

Similarly, almost 50% of legal fees to-date from Virginia MacLean were not broken down. What types of issues were these? We know Councillor Buck has been a thorn in the Mayors side long before June 2009.

There was also another $2,400 spent on a Freedom of Information requests. One would suspect that was so Council did not have to provide the information requested. Hard to tell whether this was Town or political in nature from this report.

Overall the issue that keeps rearing its ugly head is openness and transparency. These were the key promises of this Mayor and probably the greatest broken promise thus far.

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

Posted in Legal, Town Council | 4 Comments »

Financial Accountability

Posted by auroracitizen on July 12, 2009

Legal expenditures on this Council have been significant. And those are just the ones that are easily identified. It seems the current Council has spent more than their fair share of our tax dollars on legal issues that have less to do with the business of running the Town, but have more to do with the manner in which the Council chooses to run it.

Some time ago, former Councillor Kean was forced to use a Freedom of Information request to get expenditures.

More recently Councillor Buck has asked for a breakdown of legal costs — she was denied. She is one of our voices on Council. It is her job to ask questions on our behalf.

Makes one wonder why these numbers are not freely available to the folks who are paying them — you — the taxpayer.

Lawyers are very specific in detailing their bills — project by project, minute by minute, photocopy by photocopy. Why is it so hard to get the financials that this Council has spent this term?

They should all be easily accessible in a file somewhere. Making a photocopy shouldn’t be hard, or time consuming for staff.

Maybe we need another Freedom of Information request?

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

Posted in Legal, Town Council | 38 Comments »