There has been some discussion about the Council Closed Meeting closed discussion regarding property at 65 St. John’s Side Road. When Council is in litigation or potential litigation these discussions need to be held in private to protect the municipality’s position. This is standard practice, and that meeting is confidential until such time that litigation has concluded and it can be made public.
When any member of Council is to discuss a closed session matter, the only item allowed to be discussed is the actual public record of the meeting. The public record for this particular item states:
CS24-018 – Appeals of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
Applications and Site Plan Application, 65 St. John’s Sideroad (OPA-2023-04, ZBA-2023-04 and SP-2023-13)Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board as per Section 239(2) (e) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose as per Section 239(2) (f) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Moved by Councillor Gallo
Seconded by Councillor Kim1. That Council Closed Session Report No. CS24-018 be received; and
2. That the confidential direction to staff be confirmed.
Yeas (4): Councillor Gilliland, Councillor Thompson, Councillor Gallo, and
Councillor KimNays (2): Mayor Mrakas, and Councillor Gaertner
Absent (1): Councillor Weese
Carried (4 to 2)
Should a member of Council make public comments which could have the effect of disclosing confidential information from closed session meetings, there could be an impact to the Town’s position in ongoing legal or other matters. To ensure that this does not occur, I along with our CAO will discuss with members of Council the confidentiality requirements of closed session meetings to ensure they understand their responsibilities to maintain and not disclose confidential information until it is allowed to be disclosed publicly.
As I said in my previous post, I am looking forward to discussing this matter (65 St. John’s Side Road) in detail once it is appropriate to do so.
3 Responses
Tom,
Not knowing the content of the ‘confidential direction to staff’ but aware that you voted against it, do you have the mayor’s authority to veto it?
Did the Council take this vote with any awareness of the serious environmental consequences described in the McKenzie Marsh Ratepayers Association submission to you and the OLT, supported by 2500 petitioners – many of whom are Aurora constituents?
Dear Mr. Mrakas,
I urge you to make the right decision, as much is at stake. At what point can your mayoral powers intervene? As Brian mentioned, we know you understand the implications of such development on our beloved Aurora and that you agree with our concerns. I have previously voiced my thougths during council meetings, through the MMRA, and the “Save the Mackenzie Marsh Petition.” I will continue to advocate for those who cannot, including our seniors, children, future generations, and the essential flora and fauna needed for a sustainable future.
I find it encouraging that people are advocating for the marsh and the wildlife there. That land and water would be a good addition to the parkland in the town much like the Henderson Forest. Not that the lands are alike, just the principle of saving ecosystems which contribute to our wellbeing.