Transparency needed in the Rosien affair

Image: Shutterstock


In The Current’s report on the conclusion of Jack Rosien’s claim against the Township, we said “questions remain.” Some of those are apparent from The Current’s summary of the history including what motivated Council to meet behind closed doors on April 3 2017 and decide not to renew his contract. Replacing him for the purpose of obtaining “a greater range of services” does not seem to merit secrecy.

As this was said to be the reason and repeated in defence of his claim, why reject his suggestion that he be allowed to finish the investigations he had started? In the Court case, Rosien produced an email from the Acting Clerk telling him that there would be no discussion about that proposal. This does not pass the smell test.

The Current believes MV residents are owed answers to at least these questions:

  1. Why was the April 3 meeting in camera and did every councillor who was under investigation recuse him/herself from it?
  2. Why did Council refrain from discussing, whether in camera or otherwise, Rosien’s cost-saving recommendation made to them that he complete his investigations?
  3. What prevented the councillor from meeting with Rosien to conclude his investigation of her, but did not prevent her, as far as can be determined, from carrying out all her other duties and engagements for the ensuing three months or more?
  4. Council and the Township were provided with a scathing legal opinion from a senior, highly-respected municipal lawyer that condemned the Township’s lawyers, saying among things,“The Solicitor and the Law Firm have compromised their duty of impartiality and loyalty to the Township.” His opinion made it clear that he was in no doubt that the lawyers were conflicted. As those lawyers represent the taxpayers of this community, did the Township seek an independent legal opinion as to whether it was in the taxpayers’ interests for them to continue to represent us?

These are some of the more pertinent questions that arise from what has transpired since February 13 2017. They go to the heart of this Council’s commitment to the “motherhood” standards of Accountability, Transparency and, of course, Integrity.

The Current wrote to Mayor Kim Love after learning the Court was being asked by Rosien to dismiss the lawyers from the case. We asked a number of questions including whether independent legal advice would be sought. No reply was received.

Leave a Reply

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