Posted by auroracitizen on October 14, 2009
Last month we published a post Focal Point on Roger’s Cable should be interesting Wednesday night…. that spoke of the program on Rogers Cable by Nancy Coldham dealing with Municipal Governance.
We understand the show is scheduled for tonight. The program starts at 8:00 p.m and you can call in at 1-866-715-1010. You can also contact Nancy via email <ncoldham@cggroup.com>
We expect that both Vaughan and Aurora Council will be prominently featured.
Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 2 Comments »
Posted by auroracitizen on October 7, 2009
You might notice that the Post “Is there a Doctor in The House” was submitted directly by CouncilCop. This is our first direct contribution and is one of the functions that are available on WordPress that was not so elegant in Blogger.
We have also extended this offer by direct email to Mayor Morris should she wish to post directly in response to some of your comments.
Phyllis Morris, pmorris@e-aurora.ca
We are extending this offer to provide you with an opportunity to post directly to the blog so that you may be assured that your comments are published exactly as intended.
We are always interested in additional contributors, so please let us know if you are interested.
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Posted by councilcop on October 7, 2009
The recent post (Comparison often Highlights Differences) regarding the Toronto Star story that covered the issue of “doctored” council minutes in Mississauga and the recent Toronto Star coverage about the great divide on Aurora’s council got me thinking. We know that one of the main issues that triggered the recent wrath of Mayor Morris and the G6 was the reaction to the delegation from a resident of Snowball by the name of Sher St. Kitts and all that has ensued subsequently. Councillor Buck dared to suggest that the minutes were “doctored”, so you be the judge of the following facts, as we know them.
A motion from Councillor MacEachern resulted in Council waiving procedure, despite the fact that they did not have enough votes to do so. The resulting motion clearly states that Council should “allow the comments (of Ms. St.Kitts) to be introduced as part of the record.” I also understand that the Roger’s Cable video of the meeting clearly shows Sher St. Kitts handing her comments to the Town Clerk. However the resulting council minutes accepted by Council as capturing the essence of the meeting (provided below) do not include the specific comments made by Sher St. Kitts for some very strange reason. Instead we were told by the Mayor that the CAO, the Town’s Solicitor and the Town Clerk all agreed that the summary of the comments included in the minutes captured are sufficient. On that front I would like to clarify what “undirected harassment” in fact means.
I also understand that when you listen to the tape, the motion that was read by the clerk and voted upon was NOT what Councilor MacEachern originally moved and Councillor Wilson seconded, therefore I am somewhat confused how this could have been permitted to happen.
If procedure was waived in order to allow for Sher St. Kitts approximately twenty minute rant against Councilor Buck when five minutes is usually permitted for delegations, and if council did not technically have the two thirds (2/3) majority required to pass the MacEachern motion and if the motion that passes was not the one initially proposed, does that mean that the Council can arbitrarily decide when a motion passes and what the minutes will reflect irrespective of the procedural bylaws that govern council ?
The minutes do not in fact reflect what transpired or what was required by an order of council to reflect. Furthermore the rules of procedure were also apparently broken in a number of areas which also does not seem to be of concern to the Mayor. If the minutes do not capture what was said or what council insisted be captured, and if the council’s following of procedure is called into question, then I am wondering what recourse the citizens of Aurora have ? Apparently all we may have is the power of our vote in one year’s time.
To add a very strange twist to this tale, it is the very Councilor that was allowed to be verbally attacked in front of her granddaughter who was with her class in the audience, that is fighting for the truth to come out, while the Mayor who allowed offensive comments to be made in a forum that she was informed by the Town’s Solicitor was inappropriate for such comments, who has tried to justify the gross and flagrant manipulation of procedure. The Mayor presumably allowed her friend (otherwise now known as “The Lady at the Back”) to attack her advisory on council because the Mayor presumably appreciated the potential political consequences. That captures for me, the essence of our new and improved form of local government.
Despite all of the issues raised above, Council does not want to address any of the issues resulting from the above outlined debacle as per their defeating of the motion noted below and all of this is from a Mayor who insists that she is restoring integrity, civility and transparency to our council’s dialog:
May 26th discussion on “Council Meeting Minutes of Tuesday, May 12, 2009”
Moved by Councillor Collins-Mrakas Seconded by Councillor Buck
THAT the Council minutes of Tuesday, May 12, 2009 be referred to staff so that they may review them in concordance with the tape of the meeting, and revise the minutes where appropriate.On a recorded vote the motion was DEFEATED. YEAS: 3 NAYS: 6
VOTING YEAS: Councillors Buck, Collins-Mrakas and Gaertner
VOTING NAYS: Councillors Gallo, Granger, MacEachern, McRoberts, Wilson and Mayor Morris
Moved by Councillor Gallo Seconded by Councillor Granger
THAT the Council minutes of Tuesday, May 12, 2009 be adopted as printed and circulated. On a recorded vote the motion was CARRIED. YEAS: 7 NAYS: 2VOTING YEAS: Councillors Gaertner, Gallo, Granger, MacEachern, McRoberts, Wilson and Mayor Morris
VOTING NAYS: Councillors Buck and Collins-Mrakas
III OPEN FORUM May 12th — minutes accepted by Council Ms Sher St. Kitts, volunteer and Chair of the Canada Day Parade Sub-Committee addressed Council to advise of her intent to lodge a formal undirected harassment complaint on behalf of the Canada Day Parade Sub-Committee and the Aurora Dream Team pertaining to Councillor Evelyn Buck and advised that she would provide a written submission when it has been formally prepared.Moved by Councillor MacEachern Seconded by Councillor Wilson
THAT the provisions within the Procedural By-law be waived to allow the comments to be introduced as part of the record.CARRIED
To add insult to injury, the Mayor has attacked the professional credentials of our past Integrity Commissioner in order to justify her firing of him after he dared to deliver a less than favorable report and furthermore she has been copied on any number of e-mails sent by Councillor MacEachern at all hours of the night that have been far less than professional or civil. These e-mails are in the public realm and yet the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern seem to feel that they have the moral authority to hold Councillor Buck accountable while ignoring their own apparent indiscretions.
I think these issues should be the first order to business for our new Integrity Commissioner who with any luck will have a well crafted contract with the town in order to protect against wrongful or politically motivated dismissal.
Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 3 Comments »
Posted by auroracitizen on October 7, 2009
Ad renews attack on Aurora mayor’s leadership
Published On Wed Oct 7 2009
Gail Swainson Urban Affairs Reporter
A second anonymous ad has appeared in a local newspaper demanding the resignation of Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris and her council “minions,” and the production of a detailed list of expenditures for “extraordinary” legal issues.
“In order to rid ourselves from the arrogance on council, people will have to come forward and stand for public office,” said the ad, which ran in the Auroran last week and was sponsored by a group identifying itself as the Aurora Coalition.
The ad questions Morris’s leadership and asks why council spends “untold hours” in “secret meetings accompanied by lawyers.”
The first ad ran in late August in the Auroran, a lively community paper run by Ron Wallace, a former local politician. It called for Morris and five of the eight sitting councillors to be turfed in the next election.
Last week’s ad is the latest volley in an escalating battle between two warring factions on council.
The infighting crystallized in July around the firing of integrity commissioner David Nitkin after he rejected a complaint lodged by council against Councillor Evelyn Buck, led by Morris and her supporters.
The complaint said Buck posted “unmerited” comments on her blog accusing city staff of not following proper council procedures.
Morris’s office would not comment on the latest ad. Buck said she doesn’t know who is behind them.
Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 3 Comments »
Posted by auroracitizen on October 5, 2009
The Aurora Coalition has published their third ad in a continuing series. Of interest, this one has increased to a full 1/2 page which may suggest that financial support has increased.
The initial focus of this ad is the lack of teamwork demonstrated by this Council, in spite of promises by Mayor Morris in her Inaugural Speech that we would see an improvement versus the Jones era. An era in which she was the major contributor to the dysfunction — some might suggest as a strategy to aid her own chances of election.
The ad goes on to highlight the legal costs that have been incurred by this Council for reasons that have little to do with the management of the Town and demanding a detailed statement of expenditures for these expenses.
Both these issues led to a question about the Accountability and Transparency demonstrated by this Council and a final suggestion that the only way to “rid ourselves of the arrogance on Council” will be for people to come forward to stand for public office and then get the vote out in 2010. The have also provided an email address where they can be contacted at auroracoalition@gmail.com
Posted in Community Input, Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 25 Comments »
Posted by auroracitizen on October 4, 2009
The second ad in response to the lawsuit by Councillor Buck has appeared. First we saw an ad in The Banner. This past week, The Auroran ran an ad titled Statement of Explanation.
Unlike the Banner ad, it did not offer an apology to Councillor Buck, it actually deflected the blame back where it belongs — with the party that placed the ad. The Auroran takes the position that it simply ran an ad they accepted in good faith “considering the Town is a good customer of The Auroran and a government body as well” and “One would assume the comments made by the Town were correct”.
In other words, the government should be trusted to follow the rules. Fair enough.
The Auroran is seeking indemnification from the party that placed the ad — the Corporation of Aurora.
The ad goes even further and states that The Auroran’s lawyer had reviewed Councillor Buck’s blog and had found nothing that would be considered critical or disparaging to staff or that was outside the duties to which Councillor Buck had been elected.
It would appear the only response outstanding is from Council. Although their refusal to remove the complaint from the Town website using a procedural twist to prevent this will certainly be included in any further legal activities.
Posted in Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 11 Comments »
Posted by auroracitizen on October 4, 2009
One has to smile when presented by the latest manipulation by our Mayor.
At last Council meeting, when Open Forum was started, Mayor Morris asked if anyone had any comments. She then refered to the “Lady at the Back” (9:25 of the tape) who was encouraged to come forward and make her comments to Council.
And who should appear — none other than Sher St Kitts, one of the Mayors most loyal and vocal supporters — and an ongoing benefactor of the Mayors support.
One has to wonder if the Mayor has suddenly had a case of forgetfulness and cannot remember the names of her loyalists. Or is this the first public distancing of herself from a person who the Mayor sees as competition for media attention.
Why the silly charade? Does Mayor Morris not know that anyone who pays any attention to the goings on in Aurora is fully aware of the relationship between Sher St. Kitts and Phyllis Morris?
How silly!
Posted in Town Council | 11 Comments »
Posted by auroracitizen on October 4, 2009
Thanks to one of our contributors for this post.
I’m writing this at 7:20 pm only 20 minutes into the televised Council meeting and already the procedural by-law is ignored. Ms. St. Kitts was once again allowed to appear before Council in the Open Forum time period, simply for the purpose of boosting the Farmers Market, the entertainment, and the ego’s of those involved (again).
Here is the applicable section of the procedural by-law, as posted on the Town’s website (bolding has been added for emphasis).
Section 3 – Order of Business
Open Forum
3.1 Open Forum shall be considered a part of the formal order of business of Council. Any ratepayer of the Town of Aurora is entitled to make a deputation to Council on a matter that is or is not on the Agenda of Council provided the maximum time allotted is five minutes for each delegate and the total time of all delegates for this portion of the Agenda be restricted to twenty minutes.
By-law 4912-07.C
To the best of my knowledge, Ms. Kitts is not a “ratepayer of the Town of Aurora”, but no one, not the Chair, not staff, or any Member of Council raised a legitimate point of order.
Moderators Note: When people who are not ratepayers of Aurora wish to speak to Council or make a presentation, the appropriate channel to do so is though a Delegation — which is arranged through the Clerk’s department. A simple email request is usually all that is required. This gives members of Council fair notice that an item will be discussed which may require some preparation on their part.
Posted in Town Council | 5 Comments »
Posted by auroracitizen on October 4, 2009
The downtown core of Aurora has long been of concern for both residents and merchants. Yonge/Wellington Street parking has been debated as both essential (to merchants) and annoying (to drivers) for years.
Commercial centres continue to grow — with large pockets along Bayview and out at the 404 — but Aurora does not have a vibrant downtown core that has reached its potential.
With the recent Thompson’s closing and Liquidation World opening up in the old Price Chopper, what plans does the Mayor and this Council have?
Make no mistake it will take a bold plan. One with foresight and require real collaboration and leadership to pull it off. It will not be easy.
However, if this Council wants a legacy different from “right to Dry”, fired Integrity Commissioners, entire senior staff turnover in 1 term, accusations of favouritism about select volunteers — here is an opportunity.
In her inaugural address Mayor Phyllis Morris stated that one of Council’s priorities was “developing a plan for our downtown and heritage areas, including Library Square” (see full transcript). There is less that 1 year left and we are still waiting.
Posted in Growth, Leadership, Town Council | 10 Comments »
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 he 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 »
Aurora Citizen 