Chair Caslin and Mr. D'Angelo, 

After attending the most recent Council meeting on May 18 it is obvious to all the citizens of Niagara that the complainant behind the complaint in Regional Council Report CL-C 42-2107 (which deals with Andy Petrowski attending a Pelham Town Hall meeting last spring) does not qualify under the Municipal Act to submit a complaint.

Notwithstanding that Mayor Augustyn falsely publicly stated that the identity of the complainant behind the report in question was his "Town Council", when he knew it was the 'Town Of Pelham Incorporated", in either case neither party is eligible to complain according to the Municipal Act. Section 223.4 (1) (a) of the ACT names precisely the three parties who can lodge a complaint (ie. make a "request") with the Region's Integrity Commissioner to consider an investigation (ie. "an inquiry"). The three parties are 1) "council" as in Regional Council which retained the Integrity Commissioner, 2) "a member of council" ie. a Regional Councillor, and 3) "a member of the public" ie. a citizen/individual at large.

Neither Pelham Town Council, as falsely identified by Mayor Augustyn at the recent Regional Council meeting, or the "Town of Pelham Incorporated" satisfies any of the three categories defined by the Municipal Act. It's astonishing that Mr. Mascarin, a former Town of Markham lawyer, claims to be qualified for the position of Integrity Commissioner (IC) considering he did not immediately dismiss the first complaint on the basis just described above. Is it possible that your IC never expected that a Councillor would expose publicly the (illegitimate) complainant? Not difficult to imagine given the IC's interpretation (??) of your complaints process (is there even one?) which supposedly protects both the identity of the accuser and the actual complaint.

In any event, Mr. Chair and Mr. CAO, are you going to permit Mr. Mascarin to bill the taxpayers of Niagara for his unauthorized report and attendance at Council to defend same? Further, given what appears to be a conscious attempt to conduct and bill for inappropriate work, are you planning to dismiss outright all three complaints based on the obvious grounds of bias and prejudice. Finally, will you force Mr. Mascarin to identify precisely the names (and topics) of any Niagara, Councillor or citizen, who lobbied the IC supposedly after the the Reports were made public or for you expect us to pay blindly for "anonymous" lobbyists?

Gentlemen, the Region has no right to use our taxes to pay Mr. Mascarin for his first report and probably all three against Andy Petrowski. Nor should the Region use our tax dollars to pay for any calls made to Mascarin other than those placed by the complainant or the recipient.

Kindly justify yourselves if you think me and the rest of Niagara's taxpayers should finance this egregious conduct? I look forward to your prompt reply.

http://newsalertniagara.blogspot.ca/2017/06/the-great-niagara-railroad-company.html

An Exorcise
in
Contempt
Wed 6/7/2017 11:22 AM