Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "More Material To Think About":
This question of paying the $43,000is a red herring and only distracts from the real issue.
Who at the Town didn't know that a legal firm had been engaged to represent Ms. Morris? This was no surprise. Now there's been a change of heart but the bills todate are legitimate and payable. How any member of the Council can even contemplate not paying the bill is beyond any sensibity that I can think of.
The real question is whether those named in the lawsuit published comments about the Mayor that were untrue and damaging? Or if one can say whatever they want without accountability?
**************************
The answer is Council, the governing body, did not know a solicitor had been retained to represent the former Mayor in litigation against three families in the community.
It was a horrible surprise when Councillors learned of it from the media.Everyone except former Councillors MacEachern and Wilson and Ms Morris have acknowledged that.
Yes: if there is defamation,there is accountability.
According to Ms. Morris suit, $6 million dollars worth of accountability. All of it accruing to herself.
I retained a solicitor to take action against named parties for published defamation against myself.
It is my fight.
It is my signature on the contract.
The fees are my responsibility.
Thursday 6 January 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I agree with you Councillor Buck. Nobody disputes the right of any individual to defend themselves, including the ex-mayor. The issue is that taxpayers should NOT be funding the lawsuit. That's immoral in my opinion.
The more I think about this the more I wonder if the ex-mayor was trying to secure a tidy little "exit package" on the backs of 3 Aurora families and the taxpayers at large. Perhaps it is her warped way of punishing us for not voting for her. Nothing would surprise me about what she and her ex-councillor buddy might cook up.
I wonder a lot about a lot of things and sometimes hindsight is clearer than "in the moment" sight.
Post a Comment