Commentary by Linda Saxon
This was written in response to Anthony Leardi’s comments in his RTT Guest Column November 5, 2014.
I do not believe the issue is the Mayor’s postponement of meetings since the council approved procedural by-law clause provides him with the authority to do so; that is not a loophole.
And yes, ‘everyone still gets a pay cheque’ because of his or her salaried positions, elected or otherwise, regardless of how many meetings were held or cancelled.
As for the lawyer being called, council was free to accept or reject his advice.
Since the clerk did not adhere to the mandatory clause to call a meeting according to both the Municipal Act and the procedural by-law, the issue is why council allowed the non-compliance and what, if any, action it took as a result.
A new procedural by-law was to have been approved back in August but due to a lengthy meeting, there was a motion to defer the report and by-law to September 8, although it was not included on that agenda.
There was no notice to the public regarding the draft Procedural By-law because apparently there is no requirement for notice.
Regardless, I submitted my comprehensive review to members of council on September 7.
On October 7, I requested the status on my procedural by-law submission that no one had responded to.
On October 20, I submitted my review to the clerk, who acknowledged that it would be added to the next scheduled meeting, which I assumed was November 3 as a result of the petition.
The 2008 Procedural By-law has not changed in six years, so why the current council would approve a new one defies logic.
Hopefully, the new council will examine job descriptions, areas of responsibility, codes of conduct and actually be transparent and accountable.