Mayor demands retraction and apology from The Current

At today’s Council meeting during her opening statement, Mayor Kim Love referred to the opinion in The Current entitled “MV is not a CAO-friendly environment!” The Mayor made serious accusations against The Current and demanded a retraction and a “sincere written apology”.

The Current will consider the matter after receiving a full transcript of the Mayor’s comments, and conducting such further investigation as it believes necessary. When that investigation has been completed, The Current will publish a full response to the Mayor’s accusations.

9 Comments

  1. Don Webb

    Remember folks that we have gone through four CAO’s in seven years, three of whom were dismissed and one who quit. The Mayor may think she and council have maintained a positive work place for people who have families and mortgages that depend on them keeping their job. Not exactly fun and games.
    Off the top of my head, Mayor and Council have also consumed a;
    Development and Recreation Officer
    Deputy Clerk/Treasurer
    Roads Foreman
    Building Inspector/Fire Chief
    Two Museum Curators
    The Combermere Recreation Committee
    Conflict of Interest Commissioner
    I don’t know how many of these events require legal counsel, or how many law firms have been employed by the Township through of all this, but there is a considerable cost with this amount of staff turnover for the taxpayer. I also wonder what the legal bill is for this Councils term so far, but I bet its a whopper! But then that stuff is all secret right? Funny how our fiscal watch-dogs don’t whine about this waste of resources.

    • Danielle Paul

      We are right to be concerned about legal costs. Taking only my case as an example, I first requested an apology in January 2016. If I had received the same apology then that I eventually got on the doorstep of the HRTO hearing in September 2017, not one cent of public money would have been spent during the intervening 20 months.

      Taxpayers are entitled to know what has been spent by the township in respect of, for example, legal costs. They just have to file a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

  2. Patricia Thurston

    thank you John Gulland for asking the pertinent question above, and thank you Danielle for your clear answer, explaining how taxpayers concerns are currently being handled by this Council’s Mayor and lawyer. So good to know what is really going on with the people entrusted to run the town’s business – true journalism in action.

  3. John Gulland

    Did Danielle and Anya get retractions and apologies for the terrible public abuse they suffered at the hands of this council, abetted by a certain local newspaper?

    • Danielle Paul

      Speaking for myself only, I did get an apology from Councillor Peplinski given literally at the courtroom door of the Human Rights Tribunal last fall (20 months after his infamous “not from here” criticism of Paul Nopper and myself). I was not allowed to read his apology at a council meeting, even though it was an apology for his conduct at a council meeting. Since then when he was repaid for some personal expenses relating to the HRTO hearing, the councillor during the finance committee meeting said “it is important for people to know” the “consequences and costs” arising from my claim. Subsequent attempts to get him and the township to live up to that public statement have not yet succeeded. Surely, taxpayers ought to know the cost of 18 months of litigation to which they have contributed so I am pursuing this through a Freedom of Information request at the moment. Sadly time limits and other provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act seem to have little meaning to the township’s lawyer. Yes, taxpayers are paying for that too! By the way, the township lawyer also acts for Councillor Peplinski … One thing I have learned is that the report of the independent investigator (whose findings council refused to accept back in May 2016) cost the taxpayer in excess of $8,000. Perhaps one day council will explain why they felt entitled to ignore the recommendations of the township’s Human Rights expert. Apologies for the length of this reply but it had to be said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *