Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Has Anything Changed For The Better?

Posted by auroracitizen on January 9, 2010

This article was originally published in the Era Banner in May 2008 shortly after Councillor Grace Marsh resigned because of the toxic environment that the mayor had allowed to flourish in her first year as Mayor. We thought it interesting to revisit some of the media comments back then to see if anything had changed for the better as Mayor Morris gained some real experience managing people. The emphasis is ours.

———————————————————————

Time to get tough: Mayor

Aurora May 01, 2008
by Teresa Latchford

Phyllis Morris vows to get tough at council, enact strict code of conduct

Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris will bring in a strict code of conduct next week to get things back on track at council, she told The Era-Banner yesterday.

Last Thursday’s sudden resignation of councillor Grace Marsh only reinforces something needs to change — and fast.

Ms Marsh quit the job, citing council’s dysfunction as a situation she could no longer tolerate.

While the mayor admits she needs to improve her leadership skills and take back control of proceedings, it’s difficult when some councillors refuse to follow rules.

“I’m still determined to bring decorum back to the table,” Mrs. Morris said. “I’m fighting back: I’m not going to be polite anymore.”

Meetings — plagued with angry outbursts, accusations of wrongdoing, threats and a complete disregard for the mayor’s rulings, have forced her hand, she said. “Grace is a loss, she is very intelligent and could balance the issues,”

Mrs. Morris said. “It’s an unusual situation, someone leaving council, but it’s not the end of the world.”

This is not the way Mrs. Morris envisioned her tenure at the helm of the community’s political scene.

During her election campaign, Mrs. Morris pledged to end the “dysfunction” at the council table — a situation for which she openly criticized former mayor Tim Jones.

However, this council, which began in 2006 — just 18 months into its four-year term — is bogged down by personality conflicts that are worse than ever, leaving little room to serve constituents.

A code of conduct, however, should help things run smoother, the mayor said.

“If there are consequences attached, some may think twice about their actions.

It is hard to enforce procedure when, at the end of every meeting, a grenade is thrown in that requires legal action.”

There are times when she feels she doesn’t have the respect of councillors who continue personal debates after a ruling has been made.

As leader, however, residents and fellow councillors could look at the dysfunctional meetings and question her leadership abilities. “The fact is I’m staying and when people challenge me, I’m going to fight back,” she said. “I have taken more abuse than anyone.

Some want to see this current council succeed, but others are determined to see it fail.”

Councillor Wendy Gaertner agrees the mayor is not respected and admits some councillors could behave more appropriately.

Mrs. Morris has improved control of meetings by enforcing procedure, but not every councillor wants to play by the same rules, Mrs. Gaertner said.

“It’s not the head of council, it’s the council members,” she said last week in response to Mrs. Marsh’s resignation.

This council does get things done, despite the fact the budget, which was to be completed by December 2007, was not finalized until April 2008, CAO John Rogers said.

It is staff’s duty to make recommendations to council and it is their prerogative to accept or reject the courses of action, Mr. Rogers said.

He doesn’t feel there is a lack of direction to staff. In fact, there is a running priority list that includes seven years worth of issues, created by council to let senior staff know what projects and issues should be dealt with first.

There are always points of discussion that we need to allow,” he said. “Sometimes, it takes longer than expected.”

One of the most important accomplishments on which council has come to agree this term is putting up significant funds for the Heritage Centre renovations (old Church Street School), Mr. Rogers said. It has been in discussion for several years and this council made the decision.

“There are many things council has accomplished that aren’t readily seen,” he said. “Infrastructure is one, like improving roads and watermains in the area.”

Since its term began two years ago, council has also endorsed the urban wildlife park, headed the downtown core revitalization project, launched the heritage district study for the southeast quadrant and abolished a bylaw that provided a loophole for council to meet without including the public or media.

Council also created three new citizen advisory committees focusing on arts and culture, trails development and graffiti abatement, Mrs. Morris said.

“This is not a slow-go council. The majority of council members don’t go out and negatively attack each other.”

A special council meeting earlier this week saw politicians declare Mrs. Marsh’s seat vacant.

A motion to fill the seat via a byelection was defeated after a 4-4 vote. Another motion that suggested an appointment to the position was deferred to the next council meeting.  

“We want people to hear and know about the resignation and allow council to reflect on the choices they have,” Mrs. Morris said.

“We didn’t want to be rushed or pushed into a decision, which is what it felt like.”

In two weeks, council will be presented with more detailed information about the procedural choices to complete the appointment.

One choice involves welcoming John Gallo, first runner-up in the 2006 municipal election, to join. The next meeting to discuss the vacant seat is May 13.

Posted in Budget, Code of Ethics, Leadership, Media, Town Council | 4 Comments »

Councillors Using Town Funds to Fight Personal Lawsuit

Posted by auroracitizen on December 18, 2009

Councillors using town insurer to cover defence of Buck suit

The Banner – Aurora , December 17, 2009

BY SEAN PEARCE

The six members of Aurora council named in Evelyn Buck’s $5.25-million civil libel lawsuit will have the town’s insurance cover their legal costs, The Banner has learned.

Ms Buck has repeatedly stated her intent is to sue the six members of council as individuals and not the town.

However, Ms MacEachern said that may prove difficult as the town’s insurer is paying for the councillors’ defence.

“She’s suing six members of council for taking steps in good faith and for representing the town,” Ms MacEachern said, adding, in effect, she is suing the town.

“We are insured. This is through the town’s insurance.”

Beyond that, Ms MacEachern defended the actions of council in its handling of the formal code of conduct complaint.

“We took the steps that were recommended to us with respect to the comments that Councillor Buck was making against staff and we took the steps to defend town staff, the corporation and the public interest,” Ms MacEachern said.

“We look forward to defending the steps we took and I look forward to the statement of defence being filed by the solicitor.”

Earlier this month, Mayor Phyllis Morris, along with Councillors Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson, were named in a statement of claim stemming from an advertisement entitled Statement From Town of Aurora Council, published in The Banner and another newspaper in July.

The ad in question outlined the reasons why the majority of council reviewed Ms Buck’s blog and filed a formal code of conduct complaint based on those postings with the then-integrity commissioner David Nitkin.

The statement of claim filed by Richmond Hill law firm MacDonald Associates seeks $1 million for “misfeasance in public office and abuse of power, conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, injurious falsehood, breach of confidence and breach of privacy” and another $1 million for “infringement or breach of (Ms Buck’s) charter rights and freedoms”.

Beyond that, $2 million is sought for defamation, $1 million in punitive damages and $250,000 in aggravated damages.

The Banner is also named in the lawsuit.

None of the allegations contained within the statement of claim have been proven in court. Defences have not been filed.

For her part, Ms Buck said she intends to continue her legal action regardless of who ends up funding the defence.

“It changes nothing,” she said. “It’s not for me to know who’s covering their defence costs.”

Ms Buck said she remains firm in her resolve to follow through with the suit against the six members of council as individuals. Should the town become involved as a result of that, it will not be because of her actions, she added.

“I will not concern myself with that until further along the line, because I didn’t take this step lightly,” Ms Buck said. “I’m not wavering and I’m not alone.”

Lawyer Kevin MacDonald of MacDonald Associates was unavailable for comment.

Also named as a defendant in the suit, Mr. Granger declined to comment and directed media inquiries to the mayor.

Mayor Morris would not comment on the matter, saying only that she has been advised by the town’s insurance company not to say anything.

However, a statement issued on behalf of Mrs. Morris and the five councillors states, “The remarks complained of were part of a notice to town residents, speaking to the integrity of our hard-working staff and our concern that they were being treated unfairly.

“These remarks were posted on our website in July 2009 and only now, at the end of November, have we finally been served with a statement of claim that repeats the allegations made in the Toronto Star (on Oct. 30).

“We are currently reviewing the statement of claim and look forward to defending ourselves and our staff vigorously. We are confident that we will show that the claims made in the lawsuit are entirely without merit.”

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Media, Town Council | 18 Comments »

Will Taxpayers be Forced to Pay For Mayor Morris Poor Judgement

Posted by auroracitizen on December 12, 2009

Buck launches $5.25M lawsuit suit against councillors

 The Banner, Aurora, December 10, 2009

BY SEAN PEARCE

Evelyn Buck has launched a $5.25-million civil lawsuit against Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris and five fellow councillors in the latest salvo following their filing of a code of conduct complaint against her last July.

Mayor Morris, Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson are also named in a statement of claim stemming from an advertisement, entitled Statement From Town of Aurora Council, which was published in The Banner and another local newspaper last July.

The Banner is also named in the lawsuit.

The ad contained a statement from Town of Aurora Council regarding its review of Councillor Buck’s weblog entries and its decision to file a formal complaint against her based on those postings with then-integrity commissioner David Nitkin.

The lengthy statement of claim filed by Richmond Hill law firm MacDonald Associates seeks $1 million for “misfeasance in public office and abuse of power, conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, injurious falsehood, breach of confidence and breach of privacy” and another $1 million for “infringement or breach of (Ms Buck’s) charter rights and freedoms”.

Beyond that, $2 million is sought for defamation, $1 million in punitive damages and $250,000 in aggravated damages.

None of the allegations contained within the statement of claim have been proven in court.

The Banner and the Auroran, which also published the town ad, were initially named in a notice of intended action filed in September. The Banner consequently ran a notice to readers regarding the ad at the request of Ms Buck’s lawyer. Despite that, the newspaper is also being sued now, while the Auroran, which didn’t run a notice or apology, has been removed as a defendant on the latest legal documents.

“I saw the newspaper did publish something, but I’m not sure why that wasn’t acceptable,” Ms Buck said. “I’ll leave it for the lawyer to say.”

Ms Buck said the lawsuit is about principle, not money.

“The reason I’m doing this is that people can’t do things like that to another person in this country,” Ms Buck said. “You cannot publish damaging statements about another human being in Canada. You may have freedom of speech, but you cannot spend money to publish damaging accusations about another person. You can’t go about it the way they did.”

Mayor Morris would not comment, saying only she has been advised by the town’s insurance company not to comment.

Town solicitor Christopher Cooper refused to confirm if the town would cover the legal costs of the six councillors named in the civil suit. However, a town statement issued on behalf of Mrs. Morris and the five councillors states, “The remarks complained of were part of a notice to town residents, speaking to the integrity of our hard-working staff and our concern that they were being treated unfairly.

“These remarks were posted on our website in July 2009 and only now, at the end of November, have we finally been served with a statement of claim that repeats the allegations made in the Toronto Star (on Oct. 30). We are currently reviewing the statement of claim and look forward to defending ourselves and our staff vigorously. We are confident that we will show that the claims made in the lawsuit are entirely without merit.”

Ms Buck has said her intention is to sue the six councillors as individuals and not the town itself.

Lawyer Kevin MacDonald of MacDonald Associates was unavailable for comment.

Ms Buck said she has received unsolicited cheques and cash to help with legal costs, being tracked by former Aurora councillor Grace Marsh in a litigation account.

According to Mrs. Marsh, more than $3,500 has been donated by about 25 donors.

Any excess funds will be donated to a local charity, Ms Buck said, adding, “I’ve spent more at this point than I’ve received.”

Note: Highlighting added by Aurora Citizen

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Media, Town Council | 12 Comments »

Lawsuit continues

Posted by auroracitizen on October 31, 2009

Gail Swainson Urban Affairs Reporter

Toronto Star: Published On Fri Oct 30 2009

Aurora councillor plans to sue colleagues

Claims defamation by mayor, councillors in complaint over blog

Embattled Aurora Councillor Evelyn Buck has served a notice of action on Mayor Phyllis Morris and five council colleagues for $5.25 million, alleging abuse of power, misuse of public funds and defamation, in the latest salvo of a political dispute over the pointed criticisms she has posted on her popular blog.

“The mayor and town councillors abused their statutory powers and authority for a wrongful purpose which included interfering with (Buck’s) constitutional rights through the improper use of public funds to defame (Buck) and advance their personal and political interests with a view to censoring and eliminating dissent,” says a two-page notice of action filed in Newmarket court this week by Buck’s lawyers, MacDonald Associates. None of Buck’s allegations has been proven in court.

What provoked the move was a formal complaint against Buck, lodged by town council this summer, about her critique of town staff in her lively “Our Town and its Business” blog. The town’s new integrity commissioner quickly rejected the complaint for being “inappropriate as crafted” and suggested it had been politically motivated. He was promptly fired.

Named in the action are Morris and councillors Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo and Al Wilson. Also named is publisher Ian Proudfoot and Metroland Media Group, which published a statement from the town in The Banner newspaper and its website in July. Metroland is owned by Toronto Star’s parent Torstar Corp.

The list of allegations involving the politicians includes malfeasance in public office, intimidation, injurious falsehood, conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering and breach of confidence. Buck has 30 days to file a more detailed statement of claim. She said she could not comment because the matter is before the courts.

Morris, who had yet to see the court document Thursday afternoon, said, “There’s not much I can say at this point because I’m not privy to any information.”

Several years of political infighting came to a head this summer when the majority of council members signed the formal complaint, accusing Buck of posting “unmerited” comments on her blog, in which she said city staff weren’t following proper council procedures.

Morris issued a statement saying council was “obliged” to file the complaint to protect staff. Anonymous ads then ran in the Auroran newspaper calling on residents to turf Morris and five councillors.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Media, Town Council | 6 Comments »

Can Aurora Handle the Truth?

Posted by auroracitizen on October 27, 2009

Can McCallion’s Mississauga handle the truth?

Published On Tue Oct 27 2009, Royson James, Toronto Star

Will Mississauga be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century? We begin to find out Wednesday when its council votes on whether to go ahead with a judicial inquiry into conflict of interest questions involving the city’s legendary mayor and her developer son.

A staff report estimates the inquiry will cost between $2 million and $2.5 million and last some 40 days. And costs could increase, if councillors add more issues for the judge to probe.

For example, how did the council minutes come to record that Mayor Hazel McCallion had declared a conflict of interest at one of the meetings when her son’s project came before council? The city clerk has been forced to admit to an embarrassing dilemma: video evidence showed neither McCallion nor any other councillor declared a conflict of interest that day. And the clerk couldn’t say how or why the error was inserted.

In reporting to council, the city clerk answered the unasked question, just in case you were thinking it. She said the recording clerk would not have been influenced by a member of council to insert the change.

Somehow, that doesn’t settle it. The Phantom Minutes is clearly an issue council should include in the inquiry’s terms of reference.

Of course, the whole affair is enough to make some councillors gag, one surmises. So it would not be a shock if one or two pro-inquiry councillors get cold feet and abort the judicial review before it starts. The September vote seeking the review passed 6-4, with one councillor missing.

Though McCallion is reportedly mourning the recent death of her son-in-law, the inquiry item is still before council.

“Business as usual,” Councillor Carolyn Parrish said Monday, anticipating Wednesday’s vote.

Just getting to the inquiry stage will be an accomplishment in a big small town that’s effectively ruled by one strong woman, now 88.

When the Star wrote about the issue, the response was, in some cases, vile. Mississauga residents took it personally that their beloved mayor was being taken to task. Leave us alone, they were saying. We trust our Hazel. If she met with her developer son and his real estate buddies, she was doing it in the best interest of the city and if she didn’t declare a conflict of interest when the issue came before council, she might have been preoccupied with city business.

Councillor Nando Iannicca proposed the motion seeking the inquiry. Parrish seconded the motion. McCallion backers on council said the inquiry is politically motivated, a witch hunt.

So, have they been inundated with protests from constituents angry they’re attempting to besmirch the mayor’s record?

“It’s been so quiet … we are pinching ourselves,” Parrish said Monday. “I received five emails from the usual suspects who go off whenever I hiccup.”

When I told her I received 15 emails of protest, Parrish, infamous for her anti-George W. Bush rant while a federal politician, was unimpressed.

“Listen, when I called the Americans a bad name, I got 5,000 in 24 hours. I got 1,500 when I stomped on the George Bush doll.”

You’ve got to get calls and emails into the thousands “before you get my attention,” she said.

But the cost, Carolyn, the cost? At what price good government?

Mississauga is spending $40 million to beautify its city centre square, she said. “If we can spend $40 million to make the square pretty, we can spend $2 million to get to the truth.”

Ah, the elusive truth. Finding it is often messy. Ask Toronto. Ask Vaughan. Ask Mississauga?

Hey? What about asking Aurora?

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Media | 20 Comments »

The Focal Point: Are York Regions Councils Working?

Posted by auroracitizen on October 20, 2009

In a recent post, we mentioned the show “The Focal Point” was doing a show titled “Are York Regions Councils Working?”   The show is now available online.

The panel had a healthy debate – free of spin –  that offered some interesting insights. The panel consisted of

  • George Rust-D’eye, Partner with Weir Foulds (one of the law firms used by Aurora)
  • Don Cousens, ex Mayor of Markham.
  • Robert MacDermid, a York University professor
  • Chris Emanuel, Newmarket Councillor

We would encourage everyone to watch it. There were many insightful comments by the members of this panel worth your time.

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

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 »

Moderator vs Contributor

Posted by auroracitizen on September 17, 2009

The recent question by Councillor MacEachern served to illustrate the misunderstanding of how a blog works.

To paraphrase, she asked Mr Hogg if he is the “Moderator”. He replied that he is a “Contributor”.

Let us explain in case some folks are confused.

Moderators review and approve the comments in response to the original post. Each blog has their own criteria — as does the Aurora Citizen. Ours are posted.

Contributors write the initial post. These are posted to stimulate reaction and feedback and usually reflect the perspective of the writer. Most blogs — including the Aurora Citizen — have numerous contributors.

Clearly Councillor MacEachern is confused about the difference.

We have extended the opportunity to contribute directly to the Mayor and Council — as well as any citizen. Citizens have responded and submitted — the Mayor and Council have chosen not to contribute directly thus far. Possibly they are concerned that the comments in response to their post cannot be controlled by them.

Regardless of the initial post, the tone and balance of the blog is driven by the responding comments. Possibly the reason she feels this blog is unbalanced is because so many commenter’s are expressing their displeasure with the actions of Council.

By definition, a blog is an online conversation. The value is that you get the real truth as expressed by real citizens. You just might not like what you hear.

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

Posted in Media, Town Council | 10 Comments »

Mystery Ad Sparks More Toronto Star Coverage

Posted by auroracitizen on August 27, 2009

Mystery ad blasts town council

Anonymous `coalition for a better Aurora’ urges residents to turf mayor and five councillors

Aug 27, 2009 04:30 AM — Gail Swainson – Staff Reporter

A nasty spat within Aurora council that sparked the firing of the town’s integrity commissioner has taken a curious turn: a bluntly worded ad in a local newspaper calls on residents to turf Mayor Phyllis Morris and five of the eight sitting councillors in the 2010 municipal election.

“In our opinion, individually and jointly, the group has made a mockery of the concept of public service,” says the large display ad that ran in Tuesday’s Auroran, which follows a months-long feud between Morris and outspoken councillor Evelyn Buck.

Five councillors, Wendy Gaertner, John Gallo, Stephen Granger, Evelina MacEachern and Al Wilson – all considered staunch supporters of Morris – are said to be tagging “meekly behind” Morris.

The ad calls on potential candidates willing to run against them to step up to the plate in next fall’s election.

Sponsored by an anonymous “coalition for a better Aurora,” the ad castigates Morris for allegedly “trampling and denigrating almost to the point of blasphemy” her campaign promises, and claims that she has a “manic ego.”

It accuses the councillors of demoralizing the town’s staff and forcing several senior civil servants from office, and alleges they “engaged in legal and other entanglements detrimental to the best interests of the town.”

Gaertner called the ad disappointing. “I believe I went into this for the right reason: to do what is right for the residents of Aurora,” she said.

Morris is out of town on vacation and, along with the other named councillors, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Buck and fellow councillors Alison Collins-Mrakas and Bob McRoberts are not named in the ad, which lists no contact number, email address or website, but promises to be the first in a continuing series.

“I think it’s a terrible reflection on our town affairs,” said Buck. “For the sake of the community, I feel bad that it’s come to this, but it’s a sign of people’s opinion.”

Buck denied having anything to do with the ad.

She pointed out she has already had ample opportunity to express her controversial views in a public blog.

She and Gaertner both hinted they had some idea who might be at the root of the ad campaign, but refused to say.

An ongoing war of words between Buck and the six councillors came to a head earlier this month when the town’s integrity commissioner was fired after just two months on the job, over his handling of complaints by councillors about Buck’s blog, titled “Our Town and its Business.”

David Nitkin, president of EthicScan Canada, was dumped the day after he ruled that the councillors’ formal complaint against Buck – for slagging city staff on the blog – didn’t have enough information to go forward.

Nitkin said pointedly that he thought the whole affair “raised concerns of political interference.”

The sordid infighting on council is the talk of the town, with each side accusing the other of abuse of process and playing fast and loose with the facts.

Just days after Nitkin’s abrupt departure, town clerk Lucille King, who went to work for the town last November, announced she was retiring after 30 years of municipal service, sparking another round of finger-pointing and blame-laying.

Last year, rookie councillor Grace Marsh quit, telling a local newspaper in a letter that she’d been subjected to “anger, threats and insults” by a deeply divided council.

Her resignation was followed by a heated debate and a 5-3 vote to appoint a replacement rather than conduct a by-election.

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

Posted in Leadership, Media, Town Council | 5 Comments »

Aurora Makes Wikipedia

Posted by auroracitizen on August 22, 2009

The controversy in Aurora has now available on Wikipedia.

2009 Council Controversy
In August 2009 a controversy erupted when the Aurora town council fired its integrity commissioner in a special meeting after receiving his first decision on a contentious issue. Three of eight councillors were absent from the special meeting. The mayor and five councillors who were present at the special meeting had filed a complaint with the integrity commissioner against councillor Evelyn Buck for comments made in her blog. Although the integrity commissioner’s report has not been released to the public, it is believed that he dismissed the complaint.[6][7] The council was criticized for the decision to fire the integrity commissioner.[8]

Links 6 – 8 refer to;
6. Aurora sacks its ethics czar”. The Toronto Sun. 2009-08-11. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
7. Councillor’s blog ignites Aurora firefight”. The Toronto Star. 2009-08-12. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
8. Aurora losing its aura?”. The Toronto Star. 2009-08-13. Retrieved 2009-08-22.

It will be interesting to see how long before someone tries to remove these factual links from the site.

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

Posted in Integrity, Leadership, Media, Town Council | 7 Comments »