How the gang of eight illegally dumped Coun. Kovach from the Police Board

Who is the “gang of eight”? Here are the names of the Farbridge controlled group on council: Mayor Farbridge, Councillors Leanne Piper, Lise Burcher, Maggie Laidlaw, June Hoffland, Ian Findlay, Todd Dennis and Karl Wettstein.

They all voted recently to throw Coun. Gloria Kovach off the Guelph Police Services Board. Ms. Kovach was appointed to the board last January for a four-year term. It was a unanimous decision at the time by members of Council.

Council procedural rules require any change in previous decisions must be approved by at least nine members of Council.

Here’s what happened: Coun. Leanne Piper moved in a striking committee meeting to remove her colleague claiming she was only elected for a one-year term.

When the full Council was presented with the proposal, Coun. Bob Bell produced a copy of the minutes confirming Ms. Kovach for four years on the Police Board, but it was ignored.

Instead, the gang of eight voted 8 to 5 to remove Coun. Kovach.

Immediately, in another 8 to 5 vote, surprise! Coun. Leanne Piper was appointed to the Police Services Board.

But in doing so, Council did not follow its own procedural bylaw.

This should be overturned. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs should investigate this travesty in which a senior member of Council was unceremoniously dumped for pure political vengeance.

Where were the city solicitor and clerk when this was going on? MIA – missing in action.

Let’s check the Baloney Scale: Drum roll, please.

It’s a ten!

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines

2 responses to “How the gang of eight illegally dumped Coun. Kovach from the Police Board

  1. Craig Chamberlain

    “Council procedural rules require any change in previous decisions must be approved by at least nine members of Council.”

    Are you sure this applies to council’s decisions on matters like committee appointments? If this is the case then that would mean the first vote failed, right?

    Which would have precluded the second vote from happening?

    It seems this whole thing hangs as a string of “oversights”.

    • Interesting point Craig. My theory is the clerk should have pointed out the proper procedure. The problem is the clerk is in an acting role (a replacement was announced this week) and she wasn’t about to rock the boat. It’s another example of how employees are cowed and careful not to upset the political agenda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s