Watermain-gate Conflicts: Is City Hall Scared

Gee all that has to be done is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to issue a simple statement saying that they will undertake a full financial, business and operational audit on WUC/Enwin after talking to citizens.

The Office of Dwight Duncan apparently said that he will make a statement shortly. Will he be speaking on behalf of the Ontario Government or merely for himself and what will he say? Where is Sandra setting out her position?

Then the Mayor and Council need apologize for their actions and bring a Section 7 application under the Municipal Conflicts of Interest Act to ask a Judge for directions re conflicts and this matter would be over.

Why won't anyone do what is so obvious? Makes me wonder anyway. Does the concept of a "forensic" investigation terrify politicians so much?

To answer the question, is City Hall afraid of what may happen since there was so much spinning after Chris Schnurr's Press Conference?

Nawwwwwwwww.

Why should they be afraid just because it was brought up in the Star, on Melanie's CKLW afternoon show yesterday and it was discussed at Council. Interestingly, a CBC Reporter had information about the City's legal position before the Schnurr press conference so that he could ask a question trying to put Schnurr on the spot. Someone at City Hall had to get up early in the morning to give out that information!

Heck, things are so easy-going with the WUC Chair, Councillor Lewenza, that he feels the need to attack people by saying that they have a personal agenda. I am sure they do....perhaps it is to uncover the truth!

Junior needs to be taught that ad hominem attacks by an elected official make him look childish. He should be asked to apologize at the next Council meeting for his unfortunate remarks or be forced to resign as WUC Chair. WUC has enough problems now. It does not need the Water Chair spouting off!

City Solicitor George Wilkki has nothing better to do with his time it seems than to go on a radio talk show, Melanie Deveau's CKLW show, and reply to some "irrelevant" Blogger, Chris Schnurr [I'll explain irrelevant later].

Councillor Ron Jones was not scared. He was asked to appear on the radio but he did not. (Ron is on WUC too). Councillor Lewenza, who is the Chair of WUC was not scared either. He also refused to appear on the show at first but by the time he changed his mind, the slot was filled. You see Junior thinks Chris Schnurr is "irrelevant" and Bloggers have "no credibility" according to Melanie. I guess he feels that there is no need for him to lower himself to deal with mere taxpayers and voters.

It seems that we lonely Bloggers are not worthy enough for the Councillor, just like him dealing with the people on the People-based budget. It too was of little value to Junior. It only allowed "city councillors the privilege to mingle with their constituents."

Great quotes to be used for Junior's next political campaign when Joe Comartin retires.

Bill Marra appeared and his strange contribution was to give the Ministry a chance to do their audit and then decide if more has to be done once their report is in! As if there is going to be a second one. {Sigh} Does he think we are that dumb!

Don't you find it odd that no one asked the Mayor to appear on the radio. Oh I forgot, he will get the softball lobs from the morning crew on CKLW on his Tuesday interview show. It appears that he must have a little bit of concern since he had to go out and get his own legal opinion to give him comfort. I assume that it is NOT privileged and confidential any longer since George Wilkki has referred to it and told us what it said.

So will the Mayor release that opinion. Yeah, right.

It is all so strange. Why just a few weeks ago, Solicitor Wilkki said at Council:

• "Your Worship, Members of Council; if the issue is as to a position of conflict - -that the individual councillors who serve on either Enwin or the W U C Boards may or may not have, then my opinion they should not be debating, moving, seconding, participating whatsoever in the discussion of the issue."

The Mayor said:

• "The Mayor: "Members of Council, There's a motion on the floor moved and supported. Legal Counsel has provided advice. I am going to remove myself from the Chair. The rest of you can govern yourselves accordingly"

Then another comment

• "Councillor Marra asks into his microphone: "So the legal advice is. Then if you are a member of WUC it's inappropriate to debate this motion?"
  
  "The Mayor points toward Wilkki (to answer this question.)
  
  Wilkki replies: "That's correct. The way, as I see it, if you feel you have a conflict with regard to this issue of the audit- - you shouldn't discuss anything, --with respect to the terms of reference of the audit or whether in fact the audit should proceed in whatever manner."

Has everything changed after the Star story that discussed conflicts? Wilkki now said in an answer to Melanie that in his personal opinion, there is no conflict. And he said it again at Council. He also tried to explain what he said previously by saying that his comments were only in relation to the specific Motion and how it was worded.

He does know how to play with words too. His line in the Star today was a classic:

• "The conflict issue is dead in the water," Wilkki said. "

Unfortunately for him and some on Council, I think the issue is just starting. After all, the CAO said at the time:

• "Your worship, if I may for a second I just consulted with the City Solicitor on this issue. The way the motion is worded at the present time. Just for the sake of clarity for council members who currently are members of the Windsor Utilities Commission. You may wish to declare a conflict because we’re talking about conducting an audit and if at the end of the day the motion gets defeated an argument will be made that somehow you swayed the vote and in fact you killed the decision to exclude you from that process. You want to declare a conflict and refrain from the discussion."

Isn't that the issue. The City solicitor has tried to frame the issue in a very narrow fashion. He quoted section 4 (h) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to prove there is no issue. In my opinion, it has NO application:

• Sec. 4 Section 5 does not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have,
  
• (h) by reason only of the member being a director or senior officer of a corporation incorporated for the purpose of carrying on business for and on behalf of the municipality or local board or by reason only of the member being a member of a board, commission, or other body as an appointee of a council or local board.

The word "only" is the important one. No one has ever said that the conflict is only by someone being a member of the Commission. There is so much more involved as both the CAO and City solicitor said. Why else would they give the advice they did.

That proves the point of what this is all about. If a question is framed very narrowly, one gets one answer. If it is framed broadly, then one might get a different one. It is all in the Terms of Reference!

You know, I am getting soooooooooo confused! It is getting worse with legal interpretations now part of the mix. I think we need an inquiry on the legal issue alone. Is there a Judge in the house?