Post by Max on Apr 25, 2008 22:32:09 GMT -3
The Ombudsman issued his report today on the Eltongate. He claims he did an extensive search and review of the case.
www.ombudsman.on.ca/UploadFiles/File/SudburyReportEng.pdf
Despite how flawed the decision is in fact, under section 23 of the Ombudsman Act, it cannot be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which does not apply here.
www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o06_e.htm
It could, however, be argued the Ombudsman limited his jurisdiction.
I notified the Ombudsman of the fact council held other closed door meetings and made decisions regarding the concert that need to be part of his investigation. I was interviewed yet everything was ignored in the decision. The fact these issues were not addressed in the decision amply demonstrates he limited his jurisdiction.
For example, prior to February 20, council made a decision on how many tickets each councillor would get.
A decision was made to allow staff tickets as well, and how many they would get.
A decision to allow councillors to buy tickets not purchased by other councillors was also made.
A decision to instruct Ray Mensour to lie to the public and tell everyone no tickets were set aside for anyone was also made.
None of these decisions were made during public meetings as the issues do not appear in any minutes of any meeting.
And none of these issues were addressed by the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman incorrectly states in paragraph 13 that it was within the purview of staff authority to spend public money without councils approval or knowledge.
This is a complete lie and he does not provide any evidence, case law, or statutory provision to support his position because none exist.
Council must hold a public meeting, have a debate, and hold a vote when public money is spent. They must also issue a notice of the meeting and vote.
This did not occur.
In order to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, council amended delegation by-law in 2007-160 that allows staff to spend money on external legal counsel without a public meeting or vote.
www.greatersudbury.ca/pdf_bylaws/By_law_20_716929.pdf
However, the by-law does not allow them to spend money on consultants, of which they spent $8,900 on.
More importantly, schedule B clause 7 of by-law 2007-299 states any expenditure related to a matter shall have been provided for in the current year's budget.
www.greatersudbury.ca/pdf_bylaws/By_law_20_726708.pdf
This matter was not in the current year's budget.
The Ombudsman states additional out-of-house advice was hired because in-house staff was away, however, it was widely reported that additional staff was hired because in-house staff were too busy. Moreover, consultants don’t provide advice on how to deal with a Freedom of Information request, lawyers do.
The Ombudsman states it is a long standing practice of allowing council ticket to concerts, which is another outright lie. Our previous mayor advisor and previous councillors already acknowledged no such practice exists, thus this current council held another closed door meeting when they created a new practice of allowing themselves access to tickets.
If it were a long standing practice, why was Ray Mensour told to lie?
Why were tickets given back?
The Ombudsman also claims the perk policy no longer exists because the mayor cast the deciding vote to end the practice. This is true, however only a week prior to the vote the mayor voted in favour of the policy and only changed his mind at the second vote.
www.ombudsman.on.ca/UploadFiles/File/SudburyReportEng.pdf
Despite how flawed the decision is in fact, under section 23 of the Ombudsman Act, it cannot be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which does not apply here.
www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o06_e.htm
It could, however, be argued the Ombudsman limited his jurisdiction.
I notified the Ombudsman of the fact council held other closed door meetings and made decisions regarding the concert that need to be part of his investigation. I was interviewed yet everything was ignored in the decision. The fact these issues were not addressed in the decision amply demonstrates he limited his jurisdiction.
For example, prior to February 20, council made a decision on how many tickets each councillor would get.
A decision was made to allow staff tickets as well, and how many they would get.
A decision to allow councillors to buy tickets not purchased by other councillors was also made.
A decision to instruct Ray Mensour to lie to the public and tell everyone no tickets were set aside for anyone was also made.
None of these decisions were made during public meetings as the issues do not appear in any minutes of any meeting.
And none of these issues were addressed by the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman incorrectly states in paragraph 13 that it was within the purview of staff authority to spend public money without councils approval or knowledge.
This is a complete lie and he does not provide any evidence, case law, or statutory provision to support his position because none exist.
Council must hold a public meeting, have a debate, and hold a vote when public money is spent. They must also issue a notice of the meeting and vote.
This did not occur.
In order to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, council amended delegation by-law in 2007-160 that allows staff to spend money on external legal counsel without a public meeting or vote.
www.greatersudbury.ca/pdf_bylaws/By_law_20_716929.pdf
However, the by-law does not allow them to spend money on consultants, of which they spent $8,900 on.
More importantly, schedule B clause 7 of by-law 2007-299 states any expenditure related to a matter shall have been provided for in the current year's budget.
www.greatersudbury.ca/pdf_bylaws/By_law_20_726708.pdf
This matter was not in the current year's budget.
The Ombudsman states additional out-of-house advice was hired because in-house staff was away, however, it was widely reported that additional staff was hired because in-house staff were too busy. Moreover, consultants don’t provide advice on how to deal with a Freedom of Information request, lawyers do.
The Ombudsman states it is a long standing practice of allowing council ticket to concerts, which is another outright lie. Our previous mayor advisor and previous councillors already acknowledged no such practice exists, thus this current council held another closed door meeting when they created a new practice of allowing themselves access to tickets.
If it were a long standing practice, why was Ray Mensour told to lie?
Why were tickets given back?
The Ombudsman also claims the perk policy no longer exists because the mayor cast the deciding vote to end the practice. This is true, however only a week prior to the vote the mayor voted in favour of the policy and only changed his mind at the second vote.