When the staff that advise Newmarket Council are less than honest with in their advice, then there should be consequences. Let's see if our Council members can ignore this one.
On Monday's Council agenda, there is a report from the Clerk and Deputy Clerk advising Council on the Audit Committee. One paragraph in the Corporate Services - Legislative Services 2015-09 report conspicuously stands out:
"At the April 20, 2014 Council meeting, Council approved the committee structure for for the 2014-2018 term. The Audit Committee was included in that structure and Council also recommended that the citizen members of the Audit Committee 2010-2014 be permitted to meet until new members have been appointed, being Mark Foerster, Mark Holland and Cristine Prattas."
Now, compare the paragraph above to the actual minutes of the Council meeting on April 20, 2015 as posted on the Town of Newmarket's own web site:
"Section 24 Item v) AND THAT the Audit Committee members from the 2010-2014 term be permitted to meet until new members have been appointed."
The actual direction from Council did not reference 'citizen" members exclusively.
Is there a distinction?
Yes.
The Audit Committee from the 2010-2014 term included former Ward 6 Councillor Maddie Di Muccio and there is no way in hell the senior administration at the Town of Newmarket wants her scrutiny on something as potentially revealing as the audit committee.
In short, she knows where the bodies are buried and she has nothing to lose politically in exposing the administration.
Now if this report were to be submitted to Queens Park or the House of Commons, misleading Parliament is considered a criminal offense and the OPP or the RCMP would be looking into the matter.
I don't know if the same holds true for a town council.
But certainly the Clerk and Deputy Clerk have been caught modifying Council direction with the word "citizen" in the report before Council on Monday.
Will there be any consequences for their actions?
No comments:
Post a Comment