Council Votes To Reimburse
Councilor BestwickFor Legal Fees
Councilor Bill Bestwick had requested that Council reimburse his legal fees totaling $14,392.27 which he incurred as a result of the alleged conflict of interest involving the contentious Boston Pizza Sign.
Councilor Bestwick of course removed himself from the room for the debate deciding whether to pay his legal fees or not. Councilor Unger at one point said he would support a motion to pay $2800.00 of the fee which is an equivalent amount said the city solictor charged for advice on the matter.
At the end of the day all of council with the exception of Councilor Pattje voted to reimburse Councilor Bestwick $10,000 to offset his legal fees.
The fact that a Councilor being paid less than $30,000 could be forced to spend thousands and thousands defending himself against questionable charges begs the question of who in their right mind would want to volunteer to serve their community in the present political climate?
Under the legislation a Councillor is able without cost to him/her self to seek the advice of the City's Legal representatives. Do we assume that our legal services are incompetent? Under what circumstances should such advice be set aside for private consultations seeking alternative advice? And how much should citizens be on the hook for such a situation, particularly when the matter was never settled one way or the other?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand in this case, the city legal counsel felt Bestwick was in conflict. Bestwick, and the lawyers he conferred with did not agree. Which of course is why this matter ultimately should have gone to court for a final decision and why Bestwick could not take advantage of free city legal counsel. This is the same legal counsel that helped protect (?) the city in their agreement with the hotel developers, remember?
ReplyDeleteAnother thorny side to this issue of course is how many people who could genuinely contribute to the community would never come forward knowing there is the potential for serious financial hardship if you must defend yourself on your own dime in court.
On the other side of the issue, are those accusers looking at financial hardship if their charge is found invalid?
IMHO if this case were not influenced by the Boston Pizza sign issue, it would never have seen the light of day.
A further comment:
ReplyDeleteIf an innocent council member is accused of a conflict of interest, and the only way to decide the matter is to personally fund a legal battle which could run into the tens of thousands of dollars .... who can afford the battle??
It simply makes financial sense to wave the white flag.
While I may agree that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, it seems to me that to place the costs of both sides of a legal issue to taxpayers is unreasonable. If our legal advisers are not competent then they should be changed. I do not suspect that anyone believes that the Councillor acted consciously to enrich himself, but rather that he may have erred unconsciously -a characterization in which he later concurred. Had he, on the advice of the city's solicitor, made the apology which he finally made there would be nothing additional to pay. I wish that I had even one free lawyer at my disposal, let alone a fleet of them who will be paid from the public purse.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, I am OK with Council's decision as it hopefully will keep them from a death spiral of bitterness and recriminations. And Councillors Sherry and Johnstone appropriately noted that by not taking the matter to court which would have decided who was to pay, Council accepted some responsibility in the matter.