Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Leadership Lessons from Past Generals

Posted by auroracitizen on November 1, 2009

Often business people and politicians look to past Generals for leadership guidance (Conrad Black often quoted historical Generals as an inspiration and look where he ended up). Possibly even Mayor Phyllis Morris sought inspiration from past Generals and business leaders for her current strategy.

Came across the following quotes from Napoleon Bonaparte while doing some research.

In politics stupidity is not a handicap.

In politics… never retreat, never retract… never admit a mistake.

If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.

He also make a couple comments that might explain the current situation on our Council.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

When small men attempt great enterprises, they always end by reducing them to the level of their mediocrity.

Surely these people must believe that their behaviours are appropriate. Not to do so would leave so many questions unanswered.

Posted in Leadership, Town Council | 14 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 »

Activities for families

Posted by elizabethbishenden on October 28, 2009

Here’s an excerpt from an email sent to me by a reader.  I’d been thinking the same thing… what is the “best of the best” of the many activities available for families in the Aurora area?

“I am always on the look out for special events and things to do, fall, spring & winter fairs, etc around York Region. I know there are a number of websites that have such listings but perhaps some of the contributors would have other suggestions, recommendations etc. for such things as best hiking trails, best parks around Aurora, local sporting events, seasonal events not to miss, local fishing holes, concerts, kids shows, events and perhaps some entertainment that is family oriented and is not going to cost an arm and a leg. (i.e. taking in a Leafs game).

If everyone thinks that Aurora is a great place to live, perhaps we can add some substance as to what’s happening around us to enjoy the place some more!”

I’m hoping that this weekend’s hockey schedule will leave us enough time to head to our neighbours to the west and pick some apples at Pine Farms Orchards. 

One thing I love about Aurora is how active my family is… hockey games, running, cycling, more hockey games, and then our very favourite… Capture the Flag with friends!

What about your family?

Posted in For Fun | 3 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 »

Local Restaurants

Posted by auroracitizen on October 25, 2009

We are going to try a new feature on the site. One of our contributors suggested some local restaurants they thought were worth trying. So we have added a new tab across the top “Restaurants”.

Click on this tab and use this area as a discussion forum for restaurants that you have visited.

Offer your own feedback on restaurants you have tried. Agree or disagree. Better for families or couples. Casual or romantic. Lunch, dinner or just drinks. Share your stories.

Plus, if you have some suggestions for further tabs we would love to hear them.

NOTE: Comments have been disabled on this post. Please add your comment under the “Restaurant” tab on the main menu (see directly above). Comments previously made to this post have been moved to the restaurant tab. Thanks!

Posted in Community Corner, Community Input, For Fun, Restaurants | Leave a Comment »

Greetings from your first Guest Moderator

Posted by elizabethbishenden on October 23, 2009

Hi Everyone,

My name is Elizabeth Bishenden.  Some of you know me through a few local activities, some of you don’t.  I’m the first guest moderator at the Aurora Citizen and I think I’ll be around until about mid-November.

For the last few days I’ve been moderating the blog.  I’ve consulted at times with the blog owner about different kinds of posts.  The person who owns the blog (yes, I do know who it is,  but until that person chooses to reveal her/his identity, I have no interest in providing revelations) has been helpful with information about the editorial policy of the blog and the kinds of items that have been accepted and rejected in the past.

When a new post comes in we look for reasons not to post it.  Those reasons are well documented on this blog already.  Unsubstantiated allegations are not going to be posted.  Information about such posts is available at www.auroracitizen.ca/about/ but here’s a precis for you:

  • Allegations which are unsubstantiated and unproven will not be posted
  • Allegations are not opinions about known activities
  • Allegations are not questions about known activities but put forward as fact
  • The posts are usually filed anonymously, which leaves the accused with no recourse

This blog does not and will not investigate allegations to determine if they are based on fact. This is simply a communications channel to facilitate community dialogue. It is not an investigative facility — we leave that to the news media.

If these allegations were documented (i.e. viewed on video, previously reported by the paper, documents supplied, etc.) or filed by a person willing to accept responsibility for making the allegations we would publish the comments. Until such time, allegations will be rejected.

As a note, sometimes it is just one line in the post that causes problems.  Neither the blog owner nor I are interested in editing your posts.  That would open a can of worms for many people.  We will either post your entire response or reject your entire response.  If it’s rejected and you still think it is valid, read it again after 24 hours. (I’m a house league hockey convenor —  the 24 hour rule is huge with me.  Edit your response and try again.

 If you have an issue with a deleted post, you can send me an email via the connections at the AC for a private response about your post.  I might not answer promptly, but I will answer in a few days with some information.

Some people have accused the AC of being biased in the past.  I have to say that based on the posts I’ve moderated in the last few days, the AC needs alternative viewpoints about Town Council  and it especially needs discussion on topics other than Aurora Town Council.  Whatever you’re interested in, I’d love to see some support and reasoning for every point of view about your subject.  I will, however, remind everyone that support and reasoning are key to having your post approved.  Unsubstantiated allegations were never allowed on the AC and they won’t be approved while I am guest moderator, either.

Best regards to all,

Elizabeth

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 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 »

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 »