Anatomy of a disenfranchisement

(Editor’s Note: The following is a word-for-word account of the lengthy debate conducted at Grimsby’s Town Council meeting of Tuesday, 16. It is NOT a transcript. There some simple introductions, jibberish and non-relevant chatter left out, but all are welcome to go to and follow along with the recording. For the purposes of this article, tidbits of information are interjected in bold copy at various points to draw of facts previously addressed when Integrity Commissioner Charles Harnick released his findings in a complaint filed by Coun. Randy Vaine vs Mayor Jeff Jordan – findings in which Mr. Harnick determined the actions of the mayor were “trivial” and “without consequence”.)

Report CAO 21-06: Reporting on Costs and Related Cases for Integrity Commission Complaint (Vaine-Jordan)
At the Feb. 1 meeting of Grimsby Council, Integrity Commissioner Charles Harnick released his findings into a complaint filed by Coun. Randy Vaine.

Harnick found that Mayor Jeff Jordan – by calling “the individual” to see if he had forwarded Coun. Kevin Ritchie confidential emails – had disclosed closed session information.

Harnick found the mayor asking “the individual” about the emails was a breach of the Town’s Code of Conduct. While giving his report at the Feb. 1 meeting, Harnick repeatedly called the matter “trivial” and of “no consequence” and recommended no penalty whatsoever.

However, with five councillors – Ritchie, Dave Kadwell, Dave Sharpe, John Dunstall and Vaine voting in favour, council passed the following motion:

“Resolved that the Town Clerk through the Office of the CAO be directed to report any cost that is affiliated with this matter and report back to the Committee of the Whole; and That the Town Clerk through the Office of the CAO look into related cases in the Province of Ontario where closed session information has been disclosed and prepare a report to Committee of the Whole at the earliest opportunity for further discussion”

This motion was approved after Harnick recommended against any such measure noting repeatedly that each case has its own set of facts and matching up findings from other cases and applying them to the Vaine vs Jordan case was senseless.


Jordan – CAO? Are you going to speak on that?

CAO Harry Schlange – No, I had not planned to. Coun. Ritchie pulled the report and can speak to it.

Jordan – Alright, fair enough. Coun. Ritchie, do you want to go ahead or I see Coun. Sharpe’s hand is up?

Ritchie – We can let Coun. Sharpe speak first. If you like.

Jordan – Sure. Coun. Sharpe.

Sharpe – Thanks, Mayor Jordan.

I’ve taken some time and I’ve gone through this and I’ve written some things down, so if you’ll bear with me…On July 13th, council went into closed session based on certain email correspondence that was delivered to Coun. Ritchie anonymously. During the closed session meeting, council made resolutions regarding the content of these emails.

On July 14th, CAO Schlange received an email from an individual with a series of emails between the individual, Mayor Jordan and Coun. (Reg) Freake.

The CAO confirmed that these emails were the emails read by Coun. Ritchie at the July 13 closed session meeting.
Mayor Jordan considered it imperative to contact the individual and notify them and he wanted to ascertain if there was a possibility that the data breach had occurred on the individual’s end.

The individual has disclosed that he and the mayor had talked about the July 13 closed session.

The individual confirmed that he knew about the emails that had come into Coun. Ritchie’s possession, but he didn’t know anything else other than about the emails, that they talked of nothing other than the security breach and that he gleaned no knowledge of the resolutions that were dealt with at the closed council session on July 13.

The mayor alleges that he contacted the individual regarding a security breach. In these circumstances, if indeed there was a security breach, the mayor should have directed the CAO to investigate or he should have sought legal advice from the Town’s legal council or taken the matter to full council.

The Integrity commissioner found that Mayor Jordan contacted the individual to determine if he was the one who disclosed the emails to Coun. Ritchie and not for advice regarding a security breach.

He found that the actions taken by the mayor were not required by law as set out in the section of the code governing closed meetings.

At no time, has Mayor Jordan disputed that the call to “the individual” breached the Town’s code of conduct, however, he has stated his conduct was always motivated by the the best interests of the municipality.

The mayor acknowledges that, in hindsight, perhaps he should have informed council or the CAO of these actions at the time he initiated them.

Staff has determined in report CAO- 2106 that is before us that the individual charged the Town of Grimsby $1,302.62 with regards to the discussion that he had with Mayor Jordan about the closed session on July 13.

I am disappointed that Mr. Harnick made a finding that the matter was trivial and without consequence when a simple request from Town staff shows that this breach cost just over $1,300.

Since it has been determined by the IC that Mayor Jordan contacting this individual was a breach of our code of conduct, I think it is appropriate that Mayor Jordan should pay the bill for contacting this individual and not the Town of Grimsby.

Motion made by Sharpe, Seconded by Ritchie.

Ritchie – Reading a prepared comment – When we as a council asked staff to report on expenses regarding this item, it was due to the fact that the question was asked of the IC if any costs were incurred for Mayor Jordan’s actions that were against our code of conduct. In the report, there were three specific costs incurred. Two of those costs are items I would classify as a cost of doing business. However, the third item, charges from the individual, who Mayor Jordan spoke with about the closed session items.

Now, we can believe that this issue was pertaining to a security breach, but what kind of security breach.

Nowhere in the report does it state a Town of Grimsby security breach and I believe there’s a reason for that.

However, I do believe the mayor had the opportunity to bring this up during the closed session of July 13, 2020. We know this because the IC reported that the mayor spoke with the individual some time after the meeting and that the individual emailed our CAO the very next day, which provided conclusive proof of the disclosure. If a security breach, the IC states that the mayor should have contacted the CAO or he should have contacted the Town’s retained legal council. Or discussed this matter with council, even that night. None of this is what happened. Now a few councillors have expressed their concern with how I received these emails. I would like to state that I am proud that someone trusted me enough to do the right thing.

It is in this report that several motions were put forward the night of July 13, 2020. Now, the IC found this issue trivial and without consequence. When I look at the report from staff, I see a bill, with a conversation between Mayor Jordan and the individual for the discussion that night.

Do you not think the Town should be responsible for the actions that were found to be in breach of our code of conduct? I support Councillor Sharpe’s motion and I ask that he put a friendly amendment to it that IC report 11767-1020 be forwarded to those individuals pertaining to the directions given by council be it various resolutions from the closed session of July 13, 2020.

Sharpe – I’m ok with that.

Vardy – My question is to the CAO and what I’d like to know, if you can detail for me, what that bill for $1,300 some-odd was for?

Was it for the conversation with the mayor or was it for something else?

Perhaps you could detail for us what that bill was for, because I think we’re making an assumption that this was for a conversation between the mayor and the individual and I don’t think we should make decisions based on assumptions.

Schlange – It was basically just around the situation of the security breach. That individual billed us for that amount.

Vardy – Further to that, though, was that for conversation, perhaps, the individual had with you and perhaps research you had directed the individual to do?

Schlange – Research I had asked the individual to do? Absolutely not.


Vardy – I’m sure we are not getting billed $1,300 for a phone conversation, so could you please detail what that bill is for?

Schlange – It was a phone conversation with the mayor and then a follow up email to me and a slight phone conversation with me.

That’s what the bill’s for.

Vardy – Could you please provide those particulars to council?

Schlange – I don’t have any particulars on that.

Vardy – Well, you have emails that were sent to you. I’d like to see those before we start making any kind of decision.
Schlange – laughing – Mayor I have no further information on this other than the individual billed us for that amount talking about a security breach.

At this point, Coun. Ritchie is about to set off a series of Points of Order. This is something which happens at nearly every council meeting – almost always incorrectly used and out of order all on its own. A Point of Order is not a tool to interject because one has a differing opinion, or wants to state some other facts. Under the Province of Ontario’s Municipal Act:

1.31 “Point of Order” means a statement made by a Member during a meeting, drawing the attention of the Mayor or his/her designate to a breach of the Rules of Procedure;

Ritchie – Mr. Mayor, Point of Order.

We had received the emails, if Coun. Vardy remembers correctly, two weeks later in another closed session, so we have seen what the emails are…

Vardy – Point of Order – please don’t interrupt me.

Coun. Ritchie, my question to the CAO was could he please reveal the details of the bill that was provided by the individual because I am sure a two-minute phone call doesn’t cost $1,300.

Ritchie – And again, a Point of Order.

I think that if we’re going to do this, I caution we may need to go into closed session to discuss the details.

Vardy – I am fine with that, if that needs be, but all I have asked for is the CAO to provide the email to council of the email correspondence that he had with the individual or that we ask the individual what was actually billed for because I do not believe a two-minute conversation cost $1,300. There is more to this than what is being revealed here and I certainly don’t like……

Ritchie – Point of Order again…

Vardy – “the undercurrent of what’s going on. Please don’t interrupt me, Coun. Ritchie. You constantly do that.”

Ritchie – You’re making assumptions.

Vardy – It is completely inappropriate.

Vaine – Point of Order, inaudible comments

Vardy – Coun. Vaine, you’re out of order.

Coun. Sharpe chuckles at the display.

Jordan – Coun. Vaine you’re out of order.

Vardy – Coun. Vaine, you’re out of order.

Vaine kept arguing

Jordan – Coun. Vardy as well.

Vaine kept speaking while Vardy attempted to continue with her inquiry.

Jordan – Coun. Vaine that will be your second warning.

Vaine – Let me give you a warning about the Integrity Commissioner, sir, because we’re going to go there again.

Jordan – Alright, that’s a threat I guess.

Bothwell – I would say that was the third call and I think he should be ejected for that comment.

Vardy – I concur.

Bothwell – I don’t know what you do, mayor here, but he continued to be persistent, he violated…that was number 3, strike out.

Vaine – Excuse me, Coun. Vardy… inaudible comments…She’s continuing to do it, so I’m not doing anything different than Coun. Vardy. If you wish to throw us both out, please go ahead. I have no problem with that, but I’m not doing anything out of order here. I called Point of Order, which I am legally allowed to do. You have no right to call me on that.

As noted earlier, a Point of Order is purely to question a point of procedure, not differing opinion.

Jordan – Well, I am overruling you right now. Thank you, Coun. Vaine, let’s just move forward.

Bothwell – It you’d like me to proceed, thank you, mayor. My question is as well that I believe with respect to the motion, that it is premature and that it is important that council have all the information in front of us and that the $1.302.62 be broken down specifically into…because the individual’s charged by time, I’m assuming, so the breakdown needs to show how that cost was arrived at. I’m not comfortable deciding on something where we don’t have all the information tonight.

The Integrity Commissioner has made a ruling and a decision that it was inconsequential, the mayor’s actions, and that there be no penalty.

As a result, this is creating a financial penalty to the mayor and I’d like to know from the clerk, or legal, if that’s setting a precedent where now we’re taking the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendation and we’re actually doing something that is outside the Municipal Act where we’re now putting a penalty on the mayor and asking him to reimburse a cost as a result of this Integrity Commissioner investigation, so I need to know more about that, too. Is that a practice that is acceptable or not and I think the clerk needs to come back to us, or the CAO, with whether that creates a precedent or even if it is permitted.

Note: According to the Municipal Act, no penalties shall be levied “for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty”:

Whereas Section 448 (1) under the heading of “Immunity” of The Ontario Municipal Act (Part XV Municipal Liability) states “No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced against a member of council or an officer, employee or agent of a municipality or a person acting under the instructions of the officer, employee or agent for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty or authority under this Act or a by-law passed under it or for any alleged neglect or default in the performance in good faith of the duty or authority. 2001, c. 25, s. 448 (1).

Kadwell- I think we need to have some more information because I don’t know where Coun. Vardy is saying a two-minute phone call. I am not aware of that.

Also, I believe there is a breach of code of conduct here by you, Mr. Mayor, so will there be an apology to this or have you made an apology I am not aware of, so I’m just throwing that out.

Vaine – I just want to clarify a couple of things. Everybody’s talking about a two-minute conversation. Had there been zero conversation, there would be zero bill. So I do tend to support Coun. Ritchie. I also take offence that you are accusing me of things you are allowing other councillors to get away from…with…and I find that very offensive. I am very disappointed and I will be pursuing it, so I just want that on the record. I have asked the clerk for the exact time of this moment and I’ve asked her to send me that time because I do believe, sir, you are showing a very big bias here and you’re showing very much favouritism towards certain councillors and yet when I speak to object exactly the same way other councillors do that are friends with you, you jump on me for that and threaten me for that, so that’s most inappropriate.

NOTE: The record does not indicate a threat.

Vaine continuing – As far as the conversation, if you had not made the original phone call we wouldn’t be here right now. And that complaint, it was not Vaine vs Jordan, it was a majority of council voted to file that complaint against you. I was told to put my name on it.

NOTE: Vaine did not elaborate on who told him to act.

Vaine continuing – That’s the only reason my name is on there so, if you’re upset with me I’m sorry about that but you’ve got to show some professionalism here and I don’t believe you are when you start attacking me personally and it has been noted by many people in the public as well as myself, Mayor Jordan…

Vardy – Point of Order

Jordan – Let him speak

Vaine – Thank you, I appreciate that, your worship. But, all I am saying is let’s all try to be professional here. I know this is uncomfortable for you and I appreciate that, but the point is, if the Integrity Commissioner makes a suggestion, his own words were it is only a suggestion and the council can do whatever they wish. All I’m asking is to be treated fairly and not in a biased way toward myself. That’s what I’m asking for. And as far as the call, If the phone call hadn’t been made, had you done protocol and gone to the CAO or even brought it to us, this wouldn’t be a conversation at all right now. I am not attacking you personally. That’s all I have to say, thank you.

Jordan – Just for the scoring, both you and Coun. Vardy have two warnings.

Freake – I must admit, there is not enough information here. I question the $1,302. It couldn’t have been a phone call. I couldn’t imagine a phone call would cost $1,300, but I’m sure that there must be something in there. I believe the IC commissioner also interviewed this individual so I’m just wondering if that is part of the cost. We do need to find more details as we all, more or less, agree. So, I am hoping the mayor or CAO will come back with more details on that. I am sure the mayor acted in very good faith whatever he did. I’m sure he wasn’t doing anything untoward or anything that was criminal or illicit. I think we’re making a mountain out of a molehill. This is dragging it out too long and causing a lot of grief on this council and on this Town so, hopefully, we can get this sorted and move on.

Sharpe – When we made this resolution to refer this to the clerk for a report, at the time, when…so there was an email that was sent to all of us, all my fellow councillors were copied on that email from this individual outlining this security breach, talking about that we need to have an investigation done of our town servers.

To my knowledge, these emails weren’t from Town of Grimsby email addresses, they were from personal email addresses but, um, the Integrity Commissioner made a ruling, he made a finding that if there was a security breach it should have been directed to the CAO or to the Town’s legal counsel or to full council to make a decision.

NOTE: Sharpe divulged additional closed session items right there as there had been no prior information about what the source of the emails in question was.

Sharpe continuing – Instead, it was directed to this individual and so I knew that when this complaint was filed. I had already spoken to staff six months ago or however long ago this was in July of 2019. Staff told me, ya, there was a bill that this individual billed the Town. So I didn’t think we should be contacting this individual. We made resolutions with regard to the content of these emails and, essentially, the mayor tipped him off that we’re….It’s not hard to put two and two together when you know what the content of the emails are and you know we’ve gone into closed session to discuss them, that it’s a tip off and I was uncomfortable with that.

So, knowing that there was a charge to this, we asked the clerk to…we resolved that the town clerk, through the office of the CAO, be directed to report any costs that were associated with this matter and to look into related cases within the Province of Ontario where closed session information had been disclosed.

NOTE: Integrity Commissioner Harnick repeatedly stated when presenting his initial findings that all cases are unique and include their own set of facts and circumstances, therefore, seeking other cases in a province wide review would be fruitless. Under repeated questioning, he reiterated this point several times, noting the incident was “trivial” to begin with.

Sharpe continued – In that report, she says that $1,300.62 were charges from the individual in regards to the closed session matter. We don’t have an itemized breakdown of what those charges are, but they there were charges in relation to the closed session matter. The clerk has brought us that charge and, if we’re letting people charge us for things that are not….then we have a procurement issue with staff allowing people to just give us random bills but, presuming we only pay bills that are legitimate, this is a legitimate bill and the matter was the closed session item of July 13. Then further in this report, while not inclusive of all reports in Ontario, upon review of some cases involving disclosure of confidential closed session material, actions that were recommended included no sanction, a warning, an apology verbal or written, training, communication or restriction or a communication ban, sorry…remuneration or repayment or paid suspension. So we’re not reinventing the wheel.

NOTE: Harnick noted several times penalties in other cases from across the province would not be relevent to this file and he found not even requiring an apology was in order.

Sharpe continued – When we asked the clerk this, so I knew when we made this resolution that there were charges that were associated. We didn’t know the exact amount. We knew there was a bill to the Town and so the intent was to find out what that bill was and then to see, if ever, people had made someone repay those, and they have. So, to Coun. Bothwell’s query, are we creating new precedent, no. Repayment is a thing that has been stipulated before. With regards to the recommendations from the Integrity Commissioner, he said that there was no consequence and that was based on his review of the facts. He looked at what he had but he didn’t ask if there was any financial cost to this and if he had asked that, the clerk could have given it to him.

I mean I knew there was a cost before he even did his investigation, so he didn’t ask that so for him to say that there’s no consequence…you can say things…you can’t say things that you don’t know. If he doesn’t ask the question, then he can’t make a finding.

It’s like if you hire an engineer to come into your basement and say tell me about the structural foundation. He’ll come in and say, see the drywall up and say, ‘It looks fine’. And then if the basement has a crack in it he say, he couldn’t see it, it was behind drywall and he can…I’m off track, but I am…the Integrity Commissioner did not know about this charge at the time of his finding and now we do know of it.

Note: Harnick’s finding was that no penalty of any kind be levied as he found the matter so trivial he did not even suggest an apology let alone a significant financial penalty.

Vardy – Perhaps the CAO could tell us the date, he could retrieve the bill and tell us the date and what service was provided for. And secondly, I would ask that Coun. Vaine apologize to the mayor for having inferred that you acted unprofessionally. I think that was inappropriate and I’d like an apology please.

Vaine – Point of Order, that is not yours to call and second of all I said to the mayor exactly what I felt. I do believe that what he did was unprofessional. So, I think there are a lot of things that some of us do that are unprofessional that will be called out in due time. If the mayor disagrees with what I said he has every right to file a complaint against me as well. I am quite fine with that. I stand behind what I said and so do a number of people in the public who have commented on this to me many times and I am getting tired of the public telling me the mayor is trying to get me. So that’s why I said it and I’ll back it up. You can smile all you want it means nothing to me.

Ritchie – In regards to Coun. Bothwell’s questions, do we have the right to do this? Of course we have the right. The IC makes recommendations, councils make decisions on what should happen. It’s not precedent setting. This happens throughout all of Ontario, so there. The only question I have that I ask when we have this motion forward is how do you ensure pay and there’s a few ways that Coun. Sharpe spoke before, if that’s where we end up going, but, again, my understanding is that we never would have been billed from this individual had the mayor not contacted this individual from the first place and anything that he chose to do was not authorized by council.

So whether this individual talked about the potential of some kind of security breach, whatever he talked about, the issue is that we as a council never authorized that so the question that I have is that, if I pick up the phone and talk to someone tomorrow, and they tell me they are going to bill me for it, and I say ‘send it to the Town’, is that ok? I don’t think it is. I mean, you know we just have to look and, ya the rest of the cost is the cost of doing business and I understand that, but any cost that is there that an individual has the right to charge the Town is not accurate…or is not right.

Bothwell – Just again to reconfirm, we need to see how the $1,300 was arrived at, how much of it was the time that the CAO has said was maybe perhaps related to the email he received and his conversation with the individual or any other staff or perhaps the Integrity Commissioner. So I think it is premature to expect the mayor to reimburse the Town for something that we do not have a detailed breakdown on, how much time was allotted to whatever the costs are.

So, I think that is important to see. In the broad picture of things, yes, this is a small amount, but we’re looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars we’re spending on these Integrity Commissioner complaints and the amount of time we’re spending on them…It’s like, I just don’t know why we’re going to such lengths to be to this extreme and if we are, then we’ve got to get it right, so let’s get the details, let’s find out exactly how the breakdown is. I’m not prepared to vote on anything that I don’t have all the details in front of me.

Freake – I concur with Coun. Bothwell. We need the CAO to go back to this individual. Maybe he does not have that information in front of him now, nor does he it in the office but I think he should go back to this individual and ask him to give him a breakdown of what that $1,302.62 is for and I think we’ll have enough information to go forward. Until we get that, I don’t think we can. I’d like to direct the CAO to go back to this the individual and get a really good breakdown of what this is all about.

Jordan – Coun. Dunstall, you have not spoken yet.

Dunstall – Thank you, your worship, I just want to call the question.

Sharpe – If you would afford me just a moment. I just want to, for the record, Coun. Bothwell said hundreds of thousands of dollars, spent on these Integrity Commissioner complaints – the first six complaints, we spent about $22,000. This complaint was about $8,000. There’s a couple of active complaints from members of the public against, um, I don’t know exactly who, but they been, so, um, the integrity complaints, it’s maybe $30,000. It’s not hundreds of thousands, so Coun. Bothwell, please don’t say those things.

It’s in the neighbourhood of $30,000, maybe $40,000 once all the, any of the other complaints are complete. Hundreds of thousands is a major exaggeration.

Bothwell – Thank you for clarifying, Coun. Sharpe.

Jordan – So the question has been called. I just want to make a couple of comments. When I recited my oath on Dec. 3, 2018, I promised to do my fiduciary duty and to always act in good faith towards the Town of Grimsby and I have always acted in the best interests of the Town and I will continue to do so. And I will leave it at that.

Moved by Coun. Sharpe, Seconded by Coun. Ritchie

Resolved that Report CAO 21-06 dated Feb. 21 be received and that since the mayor’s correspondence with this individual is deemed to be a breach of the code of conduct and that Mayor Jordan be required to pay the $1,302.62 that this individual charged to the Town for this correspondence and that Report IC-1167-1020 be forwarded to those individuals pertaining to the directions given by council via various resolutions from the closed session of July 13, 2020.

Ritchie – Just a point of clarity, Mr. mayor, if I could..I don’t know if we can actually force you to pay, unless you want to, if this is passed tonight, or if we would have to do a suspension of pay. I don’t know, but if we can have both of those words in there, because I know if we have the ability to force anyone to pay a particular bill.

Sharpe – There’s probably a tax savings just to deduct it from the pay, too. But, the accounting aside, I am sure that the treasurer or admin department can do that as long as it is included in the motion I am ok with it.

Those opposed to the Motion: Bothwell, Freake, Vardy.

Those in favour: Dunstall, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine.

Jordan Abstained, Motion approved 5-3.

Vardy – Point of Inquiry – can I put a resolution on the floor?

Sharpe – No

Vardy – I am not talking to Coun. Sharpe, I am asking the mayor a question.

Jordan – What’s the resolution?

Vardy – I would still like the details of the $1,300. Despite what motion we just passed, I would still like a breakdown of that $1,300 bill, so I’d like to put forward a resolution that council be given a breakdown of that bill.

Jordan – The clerk says that’s ok…she’s preparing it right now.

Sharpe – I’m ok with having a breakdown of this. I think it’s spending extra time to do a recorded vote, I would just do a vote of hands.

I’m ok with it.

Ritchie – If I may, also I would like to suggest to Coun. Vardy that she also includes that the breakdown is made public and that we hold off to any withdrawal or payments from yourself until we see the breakdown. The bill is not paid until we receive the breakdown.

Vardy – Through you, Mr. Mayor and the clerk, would that not just contradict the motion that the councillors just passed?

Sharpe – Ya.

Ritchie – No, it’s just the holding off so we have the right for reconsideration.

Vardy – Why wouldn’t we just wait for the information? Then vote.

Ritchie – I feel very confident I already know what the bill’s about.

Vardy – Well, let me ask you directly, through you Mr. Mayor, has the CAO shared that bill breakdown with you?

Ritchie – Has not.

Vardy – So, if I may ask, how would Coun. Ritchie have this information? Could it be more anonymous material being provided to his home?

Ritchie – this could have been how Coun. Sharpe said earlier, that a staff had stated that we received a bill for this.

Vardy – Could have been, but was it? I am asking for how you actually know? Because you say you know.

Jordan – I think this discussion is getting far off topic, so I think we should end it there.

Note: Clerk Sarah Kim asked if Vardy was ok with Ritchie’s amendment. Before Vardy could answer, Sharpe interjected.

Sharpe – To the clerk, I think that amendment interferes with the motion I just made.

Freake – I think that breakdown should come from the individual and not from the CAO. The CAO can contact the individual and the individual can submit the breakdown.
CAO Schlange – We can retrieve the invoice and provide that to the council.

Sharpe – We’ve already passed the resolution and in my resolution it says that the mayor should repay that amount and that the IC complaint be considered closed. So if we’re going to delay this, the resolution that we just passed, it kind of nullifies what we passed. Coun Vardy said it earlier, we’ve already passed a resolution. This resolution (if amended) contradicts what we already passed. We can’t say two things.

Vardy – No, through you Mr. Mayor, if I may, my resolution, independent of what was passed, says I’d like to see the breakdown of the bill. I would like that to come forward.

Sharpe – Ya, I’m ok with that. I’m just about the amendment.

Vardy – This is about transparency.

Sharpe – I’m ok with the breakdown. I just mean the amendment to delay it is, I don’t think that’s allowed. I’m ok to have the breakdown.

Motion: Moved by Coun. Vardy, Coun. Freake, Resolved that CAO be directed to provide a breakdown of costs of $1,302.62 in regard to charges made by the individual.
Recorded Vote: all were in favour.

Comments are closed.

Local News Matters! Help Support News Now with a Voluntary Subscription

Would you like to support NewsNow in its efforts? This is your opportunity.

Get Details