Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "An Election Message Misunderstood":
This question does not relate directly to your post but I am trying to seek clarification about the infamous Morris lawsuit fees.
I believe I read in the paper that the town has paid invoices in the amount of $43,000.00 for our ex-mayor's legal services up to December 22nd? Is this correct?
Considering that the town's legal team is there to protect the corporation's interest, how does incurring the cost of legal fees for an individual protect the corporation? This is a legal suit brought by an individual against 3 (or more) individuals and yet the town has been on the hook for $43K.
Also the ex-mayor officially divested duties effective December 1st 2010 so why has the town paid legal bills up until December 22nd?
I feel very strongly that a member of council should table a motion to recoup this large amount of taxpayer money, which has been spent inappropriately and would like to see that tabled sooner rather than later.
I fail to see how blog comments directed at individuals, i.e. the ex-mayor, placed the entire corporation at risk. The comments represented personal opinions about an individual, not the corporation.
Could you please expalin all of this to me? Am I missing something here? $43K is not an amount to sneeze at and soon, I am sure, we will be facing a property tax increase as a result.
Sunday 2 January 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Well what about it Councilor Buck , these are very good questions that warrant a full explanation, How is it that the tax payers paid $43,000 for Morris's legal fees , This can t be possible. Council just decided to cut her off ,surely there is a council resolution to back this up.
Please explain this to your readers, and if this is true what is Council doing to recover this absurd loss
as much as i disagreed with the decision by council to sue residents i don't think the town should be able to pursue ms. morris for the monies, and while i'd love her to pay, i need to step back and look at it from a non-emotional standpoint:
1)it was the decision of council to sue. the majority voted for it, and hence, it wasn't solely ms. morris' vote.
2)the notion of going back after elected officials for decisions they made on council, budget expenses, lawsuits, etc. - thats a slippery slope...if that becomes common, nobody will ever run
3)in an example where the council votes to sue say a vendor or a contractor, would they be concerned about a change of council and possibly being sued personally? boy, i don't know if they'd be making the best decisions from the town's perspective, rather, it becomes personal...and only the wealthy that can absorb a lawsuit will run for council
don't get me wrong, i know that last point does seem quite ironic considering residents were sued with no regard for their financial decision.
but they also have legal recourse, they can sue the town, or councillors who voted for the lawsuite (tho protected thru directors liability insurance) for abuse of power etc. thats how our legal system works...
anyways, i'm sure i've kicked a hornets nest here.
To: PoliticalJunkie....
Well done! You have summed up my feelings exactly. There are a number of people on this blog and the AC blog that have an incredible emotional attitude towards the former council and mayor. These emotions cloud the reality of some of their posts of late. Their hatred (what else can you call it?) of Morris has them in a lynch-mod mentality when it comes to issues like this lawsuit.
While I think the lawsuit was a stupid idea, it was endorsed (no matter what they say now) by a majority of council. The approval to sue by council is no different than any other bylaw.
Do we want newly elected councils spending their first few months in office reversing the previous council's bylaws? This is a dangerous precident and is not a productive use of council time and resources.
The new council has turned off the tap of resources to Morris. We have to consider the $43K as lost to the Town. There is no obligation for the former mayor to pay it back.
Fuimus
While appreciate your support RTB, I think your poast postings on other blogs demonstrate you can arrive at your opinions and thoughts from an emotional perspective too...i think we could all be better off with stepping back for context
To Robert the Bruce:
"Do we want newly elected councils spending their first few months in office reversing the previous council's bylaws? This is a dangerous precident and is not a productive use of council time and resources."
We want elected councils to protect the taxpayers and the corporation and it is for that reason that councillor Buck is trying to get to the bottom of this: what was authorised and by whom.
In my humble opinion it is Morris's lawsuit that threatens the corporation and not the comments made about an individual. Following that line of reasoning, the corporation, if any invoices are paid, is paying to support the very threat that has been levelled against it, i.e. the lawsuit.
If we don't put a stop to Morris's precedent now then we stand to have a lot more of our taxes wasted. I prefer setting my precedent than yours!
Post a Comment