Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

It All Depends On How You Look At Things

Posted by auroracitizen on August 10, 2009

The story is told ….

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Congressman Harry Reid’s great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: ‘Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.’

So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.

Believe it or not, Harry Reid’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:

“Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.”

NOW THAT’s how it’s done, Folks! That’s real POLITICAL SPIN. Even our own Mayor, Phyllis Morris would be impressed.

Stay tune for her comments on the recent departure of our much admired Integrity Commissioner.

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

Posted in Leadership, Town Council | 7 Comments »

Guest Post: Why Has the Integrity Commissioner Been Dismissed?

Posted by auroracitizen on August 8, 2009

The following letter was delivered by Grace Marsh to the Editor(s) of The Auroran and The Banner and copied to the Aurora Citizen Blog.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.

Council created and approved their own Code of Conduct. Some felt the Oath of Office wasn’t enough . Apparently, they believe they need more in order to “control” some Members of Council from expressing opinions that don’t mirror theirs.

Council approves the hiring of an Integrity Commissioner. Puts someone at the ready to “investigate” any complaint that may be lodged under their Code. His bio and experience as posted on the Town website is impressive.

Next Council approves the hiring of Aird & Berlis, at Town cost, to help get ready ammunition in order to prepare a formal complaint against Councillor Buck under the Code.

6 members of Council file a formal complaint against Councillor Buck. 2 do not participate. No surprise who the 6 are. The complaint is placed on the Town’s website and paid advertisements are taken out in 2 local papers. Apparently Councillor Buck has levelled “unmerited public criticism of staff”. So much for confidentiality in the process.

On July 30th, I called Mr. Nitkin directly on his confidential line to let him know that I was willing to provide information for his investigation should he be interested. I actually do have firsthand experience with how other Members of this Council , including the Mayor have criticised staff. Mr. Nitkin advised me that he was unable to discuss Council’s complaint as he had not yet either accepted or rejected the complaint that was advertised by Council. A fair and appropriate response in my view. My feeling from the conversation, although Mr. Nitkin said nothing specific, was that it may not be long before he would make that decision.

Just 7 days later, on August 6th, Rogers First Local broadcasts that Councillor Buck believes a decision has been made and while looking for a copy, it appears she is stonewalled. On the same broadcast the Mayor admits that an email was sent to the Director of Corporate Services, and a copy was sent to the Director’s assistant (the Deputy Clerk). She further stated nothing would be disclosed and it could be up to 90 days before anything is made public. Seems to me that a staff member (the assistant to the designated person) getting a copy should not be a big deal. Why should that stop the Councillor accused from receiving a copy?

Later that same night, there is a Special Council Meeting at which, according to the public minutes, the same 6 Councillors that lodged the complaint, spent 5 hours and 12 minutes behind closed doors on 2 “personal” items and the results are:

The Integrity Commissioner is removed. Any mention of him is gone from the Towns’ website by the next day, and it’s directed that more money will be spent recruiting a new Integrity Commissioner. We (the people paying the bill for all this) still don’t know what his decision was or why it must be secret. Council’s complaint was made very public, in two newspapers, at our expense, but we are not entitled to know the result.

Draw your own conclusions:

  • Would the decision put those who orchestrated the complaint into a bad light,
    perhaps?
  • Did he reject their complaint outright?
  • Did he come to the conclusion that it was purely political?
  • How can they explain promoting the high standards and experience of Mr. Nitkin and so easily dismiss him?
  • Are they looking to hire a “different” Integrity Commissioner who will accept their
    complaint?
  • How many will they have to go through before they find the “right” one?
  • How much will this cost us in the end in money and time? A staggering
    number, I’m sure.

I have certainly drawn my own conclusions, and quite frankly this whole affair simply does not pass the smell test. But I’m also not surprised.

Grace Marsh

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

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 63 Comments »

Believe it or Not

Posted by auroracitizen on August 7, 2009

Thursday night, Aug 6, the contract for the Integrity Commissioner was terminated by Council — only 6 Councillors attended the closed session meeting Councillors Buck, Roberts and Collins-Marakas declined to attend because they weren’t informed why the meeting was held until too late to attend.

This decision was reported out after the emergency meeting in response to the decision that was provided by the Commissioner about the complaint against Councillor Buck lodged by Council on July22.

Let’s summarize.

  • Contract signed: June 18
  • Complaint lodged: July 22
  • Decision rendered to Mayor Phyllis Morris: Aug 5
  • Commissioner terminated: Aug 7

So let’s all guess why the Integrity Commissioner was terminated. Was it because he has integrity and refused to render a decision that conformed to the desires of Mayor Morris and her crew?

It will be very interesting to hear what Mayor Morris has to say about “cause” for the termination. However, don’t expect to hear anything concrete. The contract was probably written to allow termination by either party without cause — so we will be left to decide what the real back story is on this issue.

It will be equally interesting to hear whether members of Council have seen the report or anything from the Commissioner. And if so, which ones. Give them a call — see what they have to say.

Maybe one of them would be willing to make a comment to this post — in their own name versus anonymous — and let us know. Confession is good for the soul.

Truth is stranger than fiction. A fiction writer couldn’t make this stuff up and have anyone believe it was a credible story!

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

Posted in Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 23 Comments »

Confirm or Deny!

Posted by auroracitizen on August 7, 2009

Watch for Mayor Phyllis Morris — promoter of openness and transparency — to address the following.

  1. In addition to Councillor Buck’s statements on Rogers News, whispers inside Town Hall indicate the Integrity Commissioner rendered a decision about whether to accept Council’s complaint about Councillor Buck. Apparently it was received in the clerk’s office on Tuesday. However, Councillors were refused access to the report even though the complaint protocol states that they are to receive it.
  2. Subsequently — in addition to Councillor Buck who was not invited — apparently 3 Councillors did not attend a “special” meeting called at the urgent request of Mayor Phyllis Morris. No agenda was given and until shortly before the meeting Council was not informed why or whom the meeting was about. Possibly these Councillors refused to attend because they felt they shouldn’t be placed in the position of having to guess what a meeting is about or because they felt a meeting was being held without proper notice. In addition to Roberts and Collins-Marakas, who would have the gumption to stand and be counted?

Is it possible even the faithful are starting to see the issues? If you hear an updates, please let us know.

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

Posted in Integrity, Leadership, Town Council | 4 Comments »

A little decorum would go a long way

Posted by auroracitizen on August 6, 2009

The comment below is from today’s Toronto Sun and it sounds a lot like Aurora. What lessons can be learned?

A little decorum would go a long way
Interim integrity commissioner blasts councillors for rudeness
By SUE-ANN LEVY, 6th August 2009

In a tiny paragraph of his annual report to council yesterday, interim integrity commissioner Lorne Sossin hones in on the immature and petty behaviour that has become the norm during meetings at Socialist Silly Hall.

He contends that the “lack of civility” he’s witnessed at several council meetings in the past year “is corrosive to an environment of mutual respect” and likely to “undermine public confidence in city council.”

When I contacted him for more specifics, Sossin, who leaves the city in early September, said the kinds of things he’s referring to run the gamut from “name-calling, casting aspersions on other councillors to indifference” — meaning councillors are often busy chatting with other councillors while their colleagues try to address council.

Like me, Sossin says he has seen plenty of “snickering, heckling” and other attempts to “demean and diminish colleagues.” He feels councillors need to “show respect” for their colleagues and the “office” since everyone has been elected to council by constituents, who want their views represented. “This petty back and forth … that’s where the lines need to be drawn,” he said.

Being far more diplomatic than me, Sossin wouldn’t name names. But, in my view, it is usually the same cast of characters — mostly the cabal of councillors in the mayor’s inner circle — who believe their self-righteous views are the only ones that are legitimate, and that those who dare disagree have no concern about the public interest.

I’ve lost count how many times I’ve seen and heard councillors such as Pam McConnell, Paula Fletcher, Adam Vaughan, Kyle Rae and Gord Perks loudly heckle right-of-centre colleagues who endeavour to provide a view other than that shared by them. Budget chief Shelley Carroll is often seen wandering around the council floor and committee rooms openly yakking and laughing with her leftist pals on council, whenever a councillor dares criticize one of her beloved mayor’s initiatives.

CITIZENS GRILLED

The rudeness isn’t just directed at councillors. I’ve watched many times in standing committees as councillors like McConnell and Fletcher grilled members of the public, who have come in to give their opinions, as if they were lawyers cross-examining opponents. Many councillors don’t even feign giving public deputants their undivided attention. They either leave the room, tap on their Blackberries or chatter with their seatmates. Maybe these rude, self-important politicians, apparently suffering from a political version of attention deficit disorder, need some lessons from Miss Manners.

Sossin says a problem at City Hall is that the Speaker — Sandra Bussin — does not have the same “authority” as speakers in Ottawa and at Queen’s Park — who can toss out politicians who don’t behave. In contrast, at City Hall, an ejection is “put to a Council vote,” he noted. The interim integrity commissioner believes councillors must take responsibility for their own actions and “not accept” a culture of incivility.

Coun. Mike Del Grande, who often finds himself heckled and cat-called by the mayor’s inner circle, feels there’s much more Bussin could do as council’s speaker. He says she hasn’t always been fair with her rulings and doesn’t work to stop the heckling as soon as it occurs.

Coun. Case Ootes adds Mayor David Miller does little to discourage the heckling and does not , in his view, set an example by applying council rules in a fair and equitable manner. “I lay a lot of the problems at the foot of the speaker and the mayor for playing fast and loose with the rules of the chamber,” he said. “That’s what causes the polarization of this council and the heckling and disrespect between councillors.”

SUE-ANN.LEVY@SUNMEDIA.CA

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

Posted in Community Corner, Leadership, Town Council | 5 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 »

More Tax Dollars Wasted

Posted by auroracitizen on July 28, 2009

So what possible rationale has Council developed for the outrageous purchase of a half-page ad in The Banner to target Councillor Buck? Our money.

It was bad enough that the information was published on the Town website, when the process is supposed to be confidential — but now they are spending our tax dollars to promote their agenda through advertising.

And before you start saying Councillor Buck started the issue of non-confidentiality by posting on her blog — let’s remember, she is acting as an individual Councillor. Agree or disagree with her actions, when the Town purchases ad space, they do so as the corporation. Regardless of your point of view about Councillors Buck’s actions, surely we must all agree that the corporation must hold itself to a higher standard than an individual.

It will be very enlightening to see where the Integrity Commissioner nets out on this behaviour. Let’s hope he will be allowed to look at the bigger picture when evaluating accepted behaviour.

For example, will he include a review of how Council meetings are run and comments by other Council members towards staff, so he has a baseline of what is acceptable for others by Mayor Morris and this Council?

Or how about Mayor Phyllis Morris allowing a citizen from outside Aurora to publicly attack a Councillor without intervening?

We look forward to seeing his written report. It will be interesting to see what Council will allow to be published — sort of like the fox guarding the hen house.

Possibly some citizen will test the process for some other members of Council. 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, Town Council | 24 Comments »

Claiming “Offended” is Offensive

Posted by auroracitizen on July 28, 2009

The following was posted by Kevin Burns – Author and Attitude Adjuster, on his blog about leadership and corporate cultures. We thought is was worth sharing.

There is nothing that offends me more than someone who plays the “offended” card and claims righteous indignation. You can’t even have an attempt at humor around these people. Have a little fun and you can see that sour look coming over their faces and looking down their nose at you.

Worse yet are the people who feign offended when it serves to advance their own agenda. Politicians are really good at this one. In fact, in Canada today, there are a whole bunch of politicians pretending to be offended at what another politician supposedly said and turning it into a media circus. It’s cheap politics and it’s as transparent as bottled water.

People who claim to be offended are manipulators, plain and simple. Claiming to be offended is an act that people of poor self-worth pull when they want to get attention. It’s the equivalent to a child’s temper-tantrum, only supposedly more refined.

Their offended-act is a ploy to make the offender seem as though they are not as smart and refined as the one who claims to be offended. It’s childish. It’s counter-productive. And it will alienate and divide a good staff.

It makes the issue all about the person claiming to be offended and not about the issue itself. That’s selfish and offensive.

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

Posted in Community Corner | 9 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 »