The Trail Continues

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Georgina.....There Is A Solution": The by-law was without any doubt passed behind closed doors-- this is taken from the Committee of the Whole Minutes from Monday November 21st, page 16:23. RECESS COUNCIL AND RESOLVE INTO CLOSED MEETING:
Moved by Councillor Smockum
Seconded by Councillor Craig That the Council Meeting recess at this time and move into a closed meeting pursuant to Section 239 of The Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to consider:
i) Personal matter about an identifiable individual; Section 239(2)(b), MA
*24. RISE AND REPORT FROM CLOSED MEETING:
Moved by Councillor Smockum
Seconded by Councillor Davison
RESOLUTION NO. CW-2011-0278
THAT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BE REQUESTED TO FOLLOW LEGAL ADVICE ON A PERSONAL MATTER.

(unrelated topic between what I'm pasting here)

25. ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Councillor Smockum
Seconded by Councillor Davison
That the Committee of the Whole meeting resolve into a Special Council meeting at 11:40
a.m., immediately following the Committee of the Whole meeting to deal with the following
matters:
i) Roll Call
ii) Declarations of Pecuniary Interest
iii) Memorandum concerning appointment of members of the public to the Former
Sutton Public School Steering Committee
iv) A By-law to indemnify a Member of Council against damages and the costs of legal
proceedings
v) Confirming By-law
vi) Adjournment
If you were to dig up the actual Agenda as a whole, you'd find
that nothing was recorded (at least publicly) after item iii) Memorandum concerning appointment of members of the public to the Former Sutton Public School Steering Committee


Hunting for RESOLUTION NO. CW-2011-0278 mentioned above through the Town's Electronic Records management yields nothing.
Fortunately, The Pefferlaw Post has identified the relevant By-law as No. 2011-0121
However, having searched this in town records online I can find the Bylaw, but for the past two days the webpage that it is supposed to open in refused to load (having taken too long to respond according to google) -- either their system has been down for the last two days or they are attempting to hide this by-law from the people like me following the trail of slime through the mazes of bureaucracy. Hope that clarifies a few specifics.

********************
 Anything but.  It raises far more serious questions.

 Item 24.     The resolution contains  similar weasel words used in Aurora when staff were directed to take whatever action was necessary to resolve the situation.The election was underway. Council had no further meetings. Councillors heard about  the suit at the doors while  they campaigned .  The decision to  litigate  against  three local residents was made  without council authority.

Item Number 25.

"Adjournment was moved and seconded".

Presumably there was a  vote. No further business can take place following adjournment.Special Meetings require public notice of forty-eight hours  and circulation of an agenda stating its purpose.

Committee of the whole cannot  resolve into a Special  Council Meeting.

Did the Mayor attend the closed meeting. Did he participate in the vote to "request staff  to follow legal advice on a personal matter. Did he vote on the resolution in the so-called "special meeting of council?
Did he declare a  pecuniary  interest  when asked and abstain from voting on the resolution to " request  the C.A.O.to obtain legal advice to be sought on a personal matter"

Was the Clerk present? The Clerk is  the  statutory officer responsible to ensure municipal business is conducted in accordance with the statutes?

Aurora's former Mayor is currently facing a charge of Conflict of Interest because of the issue. It has been filed  by a citizen of Aurora. It was to be heard in February. It has been delayed until August.

The charge followed an investigation by a solicitor retained for the purpose of determining  how things evolved and  publication of his findings. Which included the statement the Mayor appeared to be in conflict.

The  Town Solicitor employed  by the town during the period no longer is.

Aurora paid  legal fees of $65,000 on behalf of the former Mayor for a case that failed miserably and caused tremendous stress  and horrendous expense to three families in the community.

Too damned right...I did not vote to pay that bill.

The families were served on the eve of Thanksgiving... for God's Sake.

Georgina residents can stop this now if they have the will. Your Council answers to you and not just at election time.

There is no weaselling out of it.   The town is not involved in litigation. The Mayor is. His is the personal matter referred to in the "request to the CAO to obtain legal advice to be sought on a personal matter " as stated in the recorded  minutes. .


Like a  cab, the meter keeps on clicking.