In previous commentaries I have indicated that several of my reports were censored, without legitimate authority, without grounds, and without reasons being provided.
The latest to be censored is report Gammie 02-2107. The report is attached as it was submitted to the clerk.
The subject is the Sauble land claim.
I had read the first nations (plaintiff) amended claim of April 2016. They are still claiming that they own to about 7th street. I had also read the TSBP amended statement of defence of December 2016.
I felt that with my background on the Sauble Land claim issue, I could improve our defence considerably, and reduce the risk of us losing the beach to the first nation.
All I was asking for in the censored report was for council to grant me authority to meet with town lawyer Johnathon Lisus to discuss the land claim and our defence.
Clerk Cathrae scuttled my report, refusing to put it on a council agenda.
I asked Ms. Cathrae for her authority for the censorship, and the grounds.
Although Ms. Cathrae would not answer directly, it became clear that she was using the part of rule 12.1 which says that the mayor (not the clerk) can reject reports “felt to be in violation of law”.
It also became clear that the “law” that the Clerk felt that my report “violated” was these two resolutions:
R-19-2016 That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor meet with staff on a quarterly basis to review the legal update and bring back to Council as a whole anything they feel needs to have discussion for any decisions.
R-32-2016That Council has already determined that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will meet with staff quarterly to discuss legal and that this issue not be brought back to Council for the remainder of this term.
First of all, it is clear that the clerk lacks the legitimate authority to censor my reports, regardless of the grounds. The authority (when there are legitimate grounds), is reserved for the Mayor.
Second, the grounds provided for censoring are preposterous.
The two resolutions are not “law”, and are not anything that my report could possibly be “in violation of law”, so the report does not violate anything.
Even the report recommendations, (as distinct from the report itself), if implemented, would not “violate the law”, and would not even violate the resolutions.
I suspect that the Clerk is not really acting on her own, but rather is being directed by the Mayor. If true, then it is the Mayor who has done wrong, not so much the clerk.
Every day I become more convinced that something is going on behind the scenes and that Janice Jackson is taking very questionable measures to keep the residents in the dark regarding the Sauble Land claim.
I can only pray that the Mayor’s shenanigans do not cost us the beach.