Did Council Pass a Motion To Have the Leak From City Hall Investigated?

Monday, October 05, 2009 03:45 AM

While the City officials are not prepared to divulge if there was a Motion that initiated the investigation into the leaking of some private information to the CBC, if such a motion was made, it should be revealed.

The investigtion into the leaking of information to the CBC has resulted in a charge of breaching the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act against Councillor Brian Skakun.

It is highly likely there was such a motion passed by Council asking the North District of the RCMP to investigate the leak. The question is, who all voted in favour of having the matter investigated by the RCMP?

There is a further question, did the new Council , in which Councillor Skakun is a member, also pass a motion to have the matter investigated by the RCMP given that many of the old Council (including the Mayor) were no longer at the helm?

It is no secret that Councillor Brian Skakun and former Mayor Colin Kinsley were not buddies. The new council would have had to be apprised of what was going on in the matter and whether they were called on to have the matter investigated by the RCMP should be public.

The issue raises the question of whether Councillor Skakun voted on the matter of sending it to the cops to investigate the leak and how he voted. Now that information would be made public in the event that he pleads not guilty to the charge, but in the event that he chooses to plead guilty will that information come forward at the hearing?

The citizens of the city have a right to know how the matter was dealt with. Try as you may, it is difficult to come up with a reason as to why the public is not being told if there was such a motion and if there was, how people voted.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, October 05, 2009 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Denaljo on October 5 2009 6:05 AM

None of this would have happened if the "F" was mayor!

Posted by: ammonra on October 5 2009 8:47 AM

An interesting conundrum, we need information about an in-camera motion to properly understand what happened to an in-camera report.

Posted by: gus on October 5 2009 9:29 AM

You got it ammonra! I am really not sure what know how people voted or how Skakun voted would help the matter.

If there was such a motion, what does it matter how Skakun voted? It is likely that the majority would have voted for it, and it is likely that he would have voted for it as well since he would be between a rock and a hard place at that time if he felt he was guilty and he thought he could get away with it.

A vote for it would not show that he was innocent of the act. Nor would a vote against show that he was guilty.

Being a fly on the wall, however, would have brought much better context to the vote. If this goes to trial, the crown might go there to provide some context. Maybe they have already done so.

Posted by: downnotout on October 5 2009 9:44 AM

why hide anything everything should be on the up and up no secrets

Posted by: metalman on October 5 2009 3:16 PM

No secrets?! why, that just would not be politics! They don't want the great unwashed electorate to know what really goes on behind closed doors, it would not be good for us and we probably wouldn't understand anyway, right Mr. Campbell?
metalman.

Posted by: MrPG on October 5 2009 4:31 PM

It seems everything bad in the world can be traced back to Gordo eventually.

Posted by: Harbinger on October 5 2009 5:42 PM

I make a motion we abolish the parliamentary system. All those in favour...?

Posted by: floger on October 5 2009 6:32 PM

Come on do you think the new leader at city hall will make a decision he could not even when he was on council . And hay poor Gordo can;t be blamed for everything all you ndp ers can vote in ms whats her name oh ya James haven;t heard much of her lately............

Posted by: lmorge on October 5 2009 7:07 PM

Having no involvement in it, I think the investigation is biased. Does not the commission itself have jurisdiction over these matters themselves? It does say that there is a time limit within which to make the complaint after it was alledgedly committed. Perhaps counsel jumped the gun feeling that they needed a speedy investigation done to respect the limitation period. I think it kinda stinks and the police should have been left out of it. Neutral. Now in this matter they are looking like the arm of certain interest in city counsel.