Tim the Enchanter has left a new comment on your post "Nothing Has Changed":

Should we be obsessed with what happened last term?
No.
But this council should be taking steps to close the loopholes that allowed this expensive silliness to happen in the first place.
Otherwise we're just stuck hoping that it doesn't happen again.

1. A motion for the town solicitor to take legal action must be presented on it's own and not part of a vague 'chinese menu' of options.

"I didn't realize it meant a lawsuit"
Translation?
"I had no clue what I was voting for"

2. A decision to take legal action must be voted on by ALL and with a clear majority - at least two thirds - or more.

With such a rule in place the "congratulations - it's a baby lawsuit!" decision never could have happened simply because all were not present.

Kudos to Councillor Buck for not letting this issue get left by the wayside but more needs to be done on the 'prevention' side.

I do take issue however with the decision taken by councillors not to attend certain meetings. Perhaps a meeting isn't necessary. Perhaps the issue shouldn't be closed door and perhaps the meeting shouldn't be at midnight but if council is meeting then all should attend barring illness or emergency.

**********************


You are of course entitled to take issue with a refusal to attend an in-camera meeting..

I will address the particular meeting where the "decision" was made to  authorize the solicitor  to decision to take  whatever  action  he considered necessary. to deal with the matter.

Councillor Collins Mrakas and myself did not attend. The meeting , in our judgment .contravened the  Municipal Act which spells out those matters that warrant being dealt with behind closed doors.

Thequestion of public criticism of an elected official  warrants neither a closed door meeting or a meeting of council.

It was not Town business.

Boycotting a meeting that has no validity in law is the only means available to a Councillor  to oppose.

.
In retrospect , our purpose would have been better served to have opposed the motion to go in camera. I am not een sure such a motion was placed on the table.

To attend such a meeting  is  to acquiesce  in it's validity.

I cannot speak for former Councillor Collins Mrakas , but  it was certainly a shock to discover Council had  apparently not been advised they had no role in the issue

One other point, if a Councillor does attend an in camera meeting , there is an obligation not to speak of  anything that  could  become an issue of solicitor/ client privilege.




 .     .