Gloves came off and a very very nasty meeting took place with the Mayor trying to bend a council member to her will.

By Pepper Parr

June 22nd,  2022



The gloves were off when Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Councillor Stolte took at it during a City Council meeting Tuesday afternoon..

Several months ago there was a complaint made by a staff member to the Integrity Commissioner about a statement Councillor Stolte had made when being interviewed by the Gazette.

The comment had to do with the difficulty Stolte was having getting an administrative assistant.

Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte

When Stolte made the statement  during a long interview she did not say who the staff member was who had decided that she did not want to work as an assistant to a member of council but wanted to return to the Clerk’s Office to further her career.

The staff member, Georgi Gartside was not identified in the article – I didn’t know who the person was who didn’t want to work with Stolte.

Apparently Gartside believed that anyone who was familiar with what goes on at city hall would have been able to figure out who it was that quit the job.

Personally I thought that was a bit of a stretch and apparently so did the Integrity Commissioner who decided there was no public interest in proceeding with an investigation – providing Stolte made a public apology.

There was a lot of back and forth between Stolte, Gartside and the Integrity Commissioner on the content of an apology – when all that was worked out Stolte advised the Clerk that she would read her apology during the Councillor Comments at the end of the meeting.  Gartsdie was fully aware of this.

The Mayor took it upon herself to revise the agenda, which she has the right to do, and put the apology at the top of the agenda.  Stolte was not aware of the agenda change until the Mayor announced it at the beginning of the meeting.

And that is when things got ugly – very ugly.

The Mayor, who was not in the Council Chamber, she was at Western University watching her daughter graduate, took part virtually.

Weird as it was Councillor Stolte was the Deputy Mayor who would take over chairing the meeting when the Mayor excused herself to take part in the graduation event.

As the Mayor was proceeding with the meeting she made a comment about “All questions will be stated succinctly and not used as a means of making statements or assertions. That is section 49.3 of our procedure bylaw.”

It would appear that the Mayor was getting ready for a contentious meeting – which she certainly got.

Mayor Marianne who is close to the end of her first term as Mayor: Will there be a second term?

The Mayor then announced that there was some “… agenda management to deal with this morning.

“There are four items on today’s agenda that we are going to bring forward and deal with at the top of our agenda in accordance with our procedure bylaw section 32 which covers agenda changes.

“So as I introduce each item that we will deal with I’ll provide the rationale for bringing it forward.

“The first item is an Integrity Commissioner matter.

“A member of staff filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner against councillor Stolte that she violated several provisions of the council code of good governance.  The recommended resolution to that complaint by the Integrity Commissioner was a public apology by the counselor. The Apology had been agreed to by the staff member and the councillor. The details of the complaint and resolution are included in a disposition letter from the Integrity Commissioner.”

At this point there was a point of order raised by counselor Stolte

The Mayor said: “I will finish my remarks and then I will take the point of order. Typically these disposition letters are not made public by the Integrity Commissioner. ”

Stolte interrupted saying “there’s a point of order” which the Mayor did not appear to want to recognize. 

The Clerk appeared to agree saying “I would recommend just hearing the point of order read by the member.’

Stolte then said: “Mayor, I do believe that you understand protocol that a point of order, which has now turned into a point of privilege is to be dealt with before you continue with your remarks. I was really hoping to not have to say this today but I actually have prepared a statement because unfortunately I was expecting this.

Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte who has yet to file nomination paper for the October election.

“This is entirely unprofessional and inappropriate for you to be discussing this matter. While there was a complaint made to the commissioner the Integrity Commissioner deemed that it was not appropriate to come before Council in the form of a report which it sounds as though you have taken it upon yourself to do of your own accord.

“That’s entirely unprofessional. The only reason this is being made public is because of a private agreement that I made a promise to a staff member that I wanted to rectify. It’s a private agreement and a promise I made to a staff member that has been agreed upon. I will be dealing with it during statements by members as you were already informed. As I said it’s entirely inappropriate that you make an attempt to bring that forward now and turn it into yet another political circus for your own selfish gain.

“I think you should be ashamed of yourself.”

“Thank you, counselor,” said the Mayor “I will ask that all those remarks, especially attacking my integrity be struck from the record as violating the code of good governance.

“However, the reason I wished to continue with my remarks was to provide the basis for why they were being made in the first place. So it’s really important and helpful to be allowed to finish what we are doing here and I think once you hear the balance of my remarks you will understand.

“A point of order” said Stolte interrupting the Mayor who was not going to be interrupted saying “… to finish my remarks that the statement that has been made will be explained if I’m permitted to finish.

“The staff member has asked for this to be made public. The staff member has asked for this to be dealt with at the top of the meeting and it is the mayor’s prerogative to do that. So we will proceed with this I’m going to proceed.”

Councillor Nisan interrupts “your worship may I make a point of order?”

The Mayor responds “Sure. Counselor thank you

Nisan continues: “I’m gonna try to be helpful as well. there’s a lot of emotions in the various rooms  – I want to take the opportunity to have the floor on the point of order and suggest Councillor Stolte if she does not wish to proceed this way that she requests a vote on the matter.  That will require a two thirds majority and then we can we can move forward with a mutual understanding and put the point of orders to bed.”

Stolte responds: “I’m having issue with the fact that I asked for a point of order and a point of privilege and was denied and instead councillor Nisan was granted a point of order.

Stolte continues: “This is not a matter for public discussion. This is not a matter for public debate. This is not the business of counsel to be dealing with what has already been determined. The process where it is to be given was determined is not your place to decide, it’s going to be a publicly debated matter whether you like it or not that is not your place to do.

“I will leave this meeting if required to do so because I am not going to compelled to partake in a political circus for a private matter that is between myself and employee of the city. We had come to a mutual agreement on how to best deal with that. It is not the business of Council.

“It is not the business of the mayor to make it a public spectacle. Do I need to leave the meeting?”

Mayor:  Thank you, councillor. Do I now have the floor the Mayor asks the Clerk who responds: “Yes, as presiding officer you do.

Mayor “Thank you. Am I permitted to complete my comments?

City Clerk Kevin Arjoon at a council meeting

Clerk: Well, there was a point of order though. So if you want to just like determine the point of order and then kind of then you can proceed on to your comments.

Bedlam takes over with the Clerk saying: “hold on, hold on one at a time please one person at a time … if we need to take a recess we will do so. The fact of the matter is a staff member has requested that this be put on the public agenda for a public apology and as requested the item be heard at the beginning of the council meeting.

Stolte: Yes. And there has been an explanation as to why that is not appropriate.

Mayor: Okay. Counselor Stolte You do not have the floor. Please do not interrupt.

Stolte: “Well, what I’m asking is a privilege to cease this conversation.  Are you marching ahead and refusing to seize this topic? Is that what I’m understanding?”

Mayor: I’m trying to complete the comments around why this item is appropriate and I am telling you it is inappropriate?   Are you refusing to do that?

Stolte: “Okay, so I just want to know who has the floor.”

Clerk: ” So I just want to jump in just to give some clarity here. So the point of order will be taking precedence over any other matter and a member will not be permitted to enter into debate or introduce any motion not related to the point of privilege.

“Section2.3 of the Procedural bylaw is the Chair will decide upon the point of privilege and advise the members of the decision, than section 2.4 is the chairs decision is final unless a member immediately appealed the decision. And then section 2.5 is if the decision of the chair is appealed. The chair will immediately call a vote on the decision. The vote will occur without debate and the results will be final based on a two thirds vote.

“So that’s in the procedure by law.”

Stolte: sir. “I’m requesting clarification from the mayor whether it was her decision on my point of privilege and if she’s refusing to acknowledge my request to cease this conversation until the appropriate time during statements of members later today?

Mayor: “So my decision in respect of the staff member who is here to hear the apology from you, that the apology be heard at the beginning of the meeting. That is the way we have ordered the agenda so I can turn it to you to make your apology now if you wish. And that’s how we will proceed.”

Stolte: “I will be making any statement that I need to make during statements by members as you were made well aware of.”

Mayor Meed Ward chair a city council meeting

Mayor: “So the staff member who brought the original complaint is on the line now. The staff member has requested that the apology agreed to by the counselor be heard at the top of the council meeting that is now so that they can be present to hear the apology if so the staff members on the line and they would like to be present to hear the apology rather than wait till the end of the meeting. So I will turn it to you counselor Stolte to read the agreed upon apology.”

Hands began to be raised by different Councillors who wanted to speak.

Mayor: “I have a couple of hands as well as Councillor Kearns and then I have Councillor Stolte

Okay. Going to Councillor Kearns go ahead”

Kearns: “The question perhaps to the clerk. Can you confirm that the statement that was read out previously was in fact part of the council script or not? Was this reviewed by the clerk’s and or city manager in order to be presented in this forum?”

Much of what members of Council say when they are chairing a meeting is prepared for them by either the Clerk or the Director of Communications.

Clerk: “through you Counselor to the chair to the committee to council. We didn’t write this in the script. This is the mayor’s remarks and the mayor is doing this as the chair of Council and the presiding officer”

Kearns: “Okay, so just as a follow up, I’m not sure I needed that information whatsoever from a third party. Is there a way to this now part of public record and something that was just brought forward solely by the chair.”

Clerk: “through you, counselor to the council in terms of By law section 32.2 it states that the mayor, the clerk or a member of council can bring forward an amendment to the order of the agenda. So that’s the rule that the Mayor stated when she started the remarks. There was a request from the staff member of the complainant that this matter be held at the beginning of the meeting.”

Mayor: “To be clear the remarks were pre circulated to the complainant, the director of HR the city clerk Kevin Arjoon, the city manager.  So everyone was aware that we were reordering the agenda. All of this was discussed by all parties in advance (apparently Stolte was not aware of the plan to re-order the agenda) as the way to deal with the matter.

“In respect of the city staff members desire to have the item publicly disclosed and to have the public apology made at the beginning of the council meeting. So all we are discussing right now is that this item be heard at the beginning of the meeting which is the chair of the meetings prerogative to reorder.

“The agenda item would otherwise have been held during statements by members. If I had been permitted to finish my statement that would have been made clear to everyone that typically if there is no other provision provided for in the procedure bylaw the matter will be dealt with during statements by members.”

Stolte begins to speak.

Mayor cuts in: “you don’t have the floor. It’s really important for the balance of this meeting that people do not unmute and speak unless they have the floor.

Mayor Meed Ward during better days.

“So we we will proceed. The item was to be dealt with under statements by members exactly as it unfolded just now. At the request of the staff member who is present and on the line right now. The request was made to have it at the beginning of the meeting while she can be present and tune in and not have to wait till the end of the meeting to hear the apology that was directed towards her.

“So that is why we reordered the agenda and all of that was discussed in advance by all parties at the pre-meeting this morning.  So there are no other items of business. I will turn the floor to Councillor Stolte to offer the apology to the staff member.  Is Councillor Stolte in chambers

Perhaps city manager can advise whether Councillor Stolte is present in chambers to offer her apology.

Meed Ward was not in the Council Chamber and was not aware that Stolte had left her seat.

Meed Ward, seeing that there is no one present. said “We will now turn to and I do apologize to the staff member who’s on the line you will have to watch the balance of the meeting. We don’t know when we’ll get to it but it will come up later in the meeting.”

It was a brazen use of power on the part of the Mayor who was determined to force Councillor Stolte to do what the Mayor wanted and not what had been determined previously as an acceptable way to handle this matter.

It was not a pretty picture.

Is this the issue that former Mayor Rick Goldring will use to run again?

Not mentioned at the meeting is the fact that Georgie Gartside was Meed Ward’s assistant when she was a Councillor.

At that time none of the people working as councillor assistants wanted to work with Meed Ward.  Gartside accepted the job on the understanding that she could leave if things did not work out.

They did work  with the Council member and Gartside worked with Meed Ward for eight years.

Quite why Gartside needed a public apology is not clear.  Insisting that the apology be read out at the beginning of the Council meeting so she could hear what she had already read suggests a level of vengeance that has taken hold in the office of the Mayor.

Stolte did not reveal who it was who quite the job as assistant.  The Integrity Commissioner decided that while it was not a matter for Council – they would not issue a report providing Stolte apologized.

This is the second time the Integrity Commissioner has come forward with a decision that is at best questionable.



Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

20 comments to Gloves came off and a very very nasty meeting took place with the Mayor trying to bend a council member to her will.

  • Stephen White

    Matters pertaining to Human Resources such as discipline, termination, hiring, etc. are rarely if ever discussed in a public forum. The reason for this is to maintain confidentiality and privacy. Often, issues arise in these forums which are delicate and sensitive in nature. It is important to allow participants to maintain their dignity and self-worth. An apology would fall within the ambit of an “in camera” (a.k.a. private) meeting.

    This is a procedural error. The City Clerk and others should have known this. The apology should have been issued privately to Ms. Gartside, and that should have ended it. This is not the Salem Witch Trials, and we are not conducting auditions for Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible”.

    • Mary Hill

      This was not an HR issue. Gartside felt she had been “harmed” publicly by Stolte by way of Stolte’s Gazette interview. I am nit arguing the merits of her claim. The Integrity Commissioner who has jurisdiction agreed to close the matter in a manner that was acceptable to both Gartside and Stolte. That settlement called for Stolte to make a public appology. Stolte was to read her appology at the Council meeting – a public forum.

      The Tuesday fracas only happened because the Mayor at the request of Gartside (we don’t have any evidence to suggest manipulation) had the item where Stolte would read her appology moved from last to first place in the agenda order. In my view Stolte jumped the gun and started to raise points of order and privilege because she wrongly assumed the Mayor was going to get into all the whys and wherfores of the actual matter. MMW was not going to do that nor did she do that. If only Stolte had sat on her hands, zipped her mouth for just a couple of minutes she would have realized her fears would not be realized.

      I’m writing alot about this because too many people see Stolte as a victim. She is not a victim.

      • Hans Jacobs

        I agree with Mary Hill. I have read of no evidence of manipulation regarding the agenda. To suggest otherwise is no more than unfounded and unfair speculation. Based simply on the facts presented so far, it appears that MMW has been very patient with a councilor who behaves as if the rules don’t apply to her.

  • Marie

    The Mayor seems to have a cheerleader posting lengthy comments on the articles that suggest there’s a problem. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

    • Mary Hill

      “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” is the quotation. In this case you are the “lady”. As replied to you elsewhere mist commenters here in the Gazette forum obviously have a severe anti MMW bias and show it in supporting someone who has broken the City’s Code of Good Goverance on ar least 2 occasion over the past 6 months, and quite possibly with her language and behaviour at the Tuesday meeting. Stolte may and probably does have the best of intentions, but the end never justifies the means.

      Whether it is Stolte breaking the CoGG or the truckers depriving others of their freedoms not following the rules is unacceptable. If you don’t like the rules, seek change in a democratic manner.

      Stolte has made silly mistakes. If she had not made such a big deal out of things last Tuesday the entire matter would have been dealt with and would not be dead and buried. She only has herself to blame for Tuesday’s circus.

      • Jim Thomson

        The Mayor broke the code of good governance when she said she would continue her statement before hearing Councillor Stolte’s point of order.
        It was the Mayor who created the circus by trying to move the councillor’s remarks to the top of the agenda. The Mayor stated that it was an integrity commissioner matter, There was nothing from the integrity commissioner on the agenda. If the mayor had only wanted to move the members statement then why did she introduce it as an integrity commissioner matter?

        This could all have been avoided if the Mayor had informed Councillor Stolte beforehand that the agenda was being reordered and gotten Councillor Stolte’s agreement to the change.

        You appear to be so pro MMW that you have called Councillor Stolte an abuser and the staff member a victim.

        • Mary Hill

          Jim, I won’t comment upon your note that the Mayor broke the CoGG. I do not have knowledge of the CoGG.

          You are right the hullabaloo might have been avoided had the Mayor informed Stolte of the change in the agenda order. I say might. It probably would have been the better course of action. I suspect though Stolte would still have gone off like a Roman candle.

          It’s not a matter of me being “so pro MMW”. It’s a matter of me wishing to see each participant in this matter in a true light. You and others here have championed Stolte not only in this matter but in the Bateman matter too. On both occasions a third party arbiter has found Stolte at fault. And yet you all clamour to her defence. Why? In my view because you are “so anti MMW” you blind yourselves to the actual facts.

          The facts are Stolte said things in an interview with the Gazette that she thought were just “background stuff” and not part of the on the record interview. How naïve is that for a politician not to understand that anything said to a journalist is on the record. That is a well known position when dealing with a journalist.

          In the background stuff she said something about someone (not named) that Gartside and those familiar with the situation would have recognized that the person referred to as being Gartside. The Integrity Commissioner agreed with Gartside. So in that instance yes Stolte abused, harmed, or whatever word you want to use, Gartside. So, yes, Gartside was the victim. Stolte at no point has been a victim in this.

          Please stop using your severe anti MMW bias as a justification for Stolte breaking the CoGG. There is no justification for doing that.

          • Jim Thomson

            I never approved of Councillor Stolte breaking the code of good governance.
            I though she got the slap on the wrist she deserved.
            I’ve also never seen her going off like a roman candle.

            How do you know what the Integrity Commissioner decided?
            Did the Integrity Commissioner say that Councillor Stolte abused Gartside?
            Have you seen his report?

            Oh wait there was no report. A report would have been on agenda.

  • Penny Hersh

    Councillor Stolte did make mistakes with regard to the City’s code of governance and she has paid the price.

    The problem as to when the apology was read seems to be directly related to the fact that the mayor would not be present when councillor comments are read toward the end of the meeting.

    We will never know what Ms Gartside wanted or didn’t want.

    It was not the mayor’s place to take control of what was decided by the Integrity Commission to be a private matter between Councillor Stolte and Georgie Gartside and not be part of a council meeting. Especially in the way she handled it.

    • Mary Hill

      Penny, have you read this one or any of the articles published by the Gazette on this matter. U less you have some non-public information the Mayor stated the reason to move the item to the top of the agenda was for the convenience of Ms Gartside. So she would not have to sit through discussion of all the other items on the agenda. Do you have any evidence that the move was not at the request of Ms Gartside but was so the Mayor would not miss seeing Stolte squirm on the hook of her own making.

      Thought not !

      I’m sure the Gazette’s reporters will be asking Ms Gartside for her perspective.

      Ms Hersh are you serious? The Mayor did not get involved, pass any comment at all about the Stolte/Gartside matter. She simply facilitated Gartside’s wish to hear the apology and get out of there. Are you saying the Integrity Commissioner stated the apology had to be dealt with as the last agenda item?

      How can it be a private matter, Ms Hersh, as you suggest, if the Integrity Commissioner has required a public apology?

  • Hans Jacobs

    If the rules give the mayor the right to change the agenda and she exercised that right, I don’t see that there should have been a problem here. The problem appears to have been created by a councilor who tried to insist on controlling the timing of her apology. The reason for that is not very clear. Simply delivering the expected apology at the time specified in the revised agenda would have avoided the unnecessary friction and drama.

    • Jim Thomson

      I guess no one told Councillor Stolte that they were going to change the agenda.
      There would have been no problem if the Mayor hadn’t decided to revise the agenda so she could make her comments. She wouldn’t have been able to make her comments as she had to leave the council meeting early for a family matter. I would say the Mayor abused her position.

      • Mary Hill

        Jim, what were the Mayor’s comments. Please go back and read them here in the Gazette. Her comments were simply and solely to explain why the item had been moved to number one on the agenda. That reason being the victim of all of this, Ms Gartside (not Stolte) did not wish to have to sit through the entire council meeting to hear the promised public apology. There would have been no way to say when the council would get to that item. However, by going first Ms Gartside would hear the apology, leave the meeting and get on with her own business. The Mayor did not make any comment about the matter itself. Stolte made a huge issue out of it being moved to the front of the agenda for no good reason. She had her statement ready. All she had to do was read it and the entire matter is behind her.

  • Denise W.

    I want Shawna as mayor. She seems to be the kind of person we should embrace.

  • Mitch

    I feel so badly for Ms Stolte. It’s all inside baseball to us taxpayers. I hope Shawna will run again. This Mayor is worse than Goldring.

  • Mary Hill

    Ms Hersh you are mistaken. Councilor Stolte has again shown her naivety or stupidity in not acting within the City’s code of governance. Did the Mayor break confidentiality rules in the Bateman matter? Nope, that was Councilor Stolte. Did the Mayor talk outside of school about a staff member? Nope, that was Councilor Stolte.

    Councilor Stolte is not the victim. She is the one who broke the rules twice. Ms Hersh do you side with the criminals or with their victims?

    The reporter writes:-

    “ Personally I thought that was a bit of a stretch and apparently so did the Integrity Commissioner who decided there was no public interest in proceeding with an investigation – providing Stolte made a public apology.”

    How does the reporter know that is how the Integrity Commissioner thought. An investigation obviously was not needed because the two parties agreed on a public apology by Coucilor Stolte as a resolution.

    The Clerk (not the Mayor) said “ The fact of the matter is a staff member has requested that this be put on the public agenda for a public apology and as requested the item be heard at the beginning of the council meeting.”

    It seems Councilor Stolte thought the matter was going to be debated by her colleagues. If she had allowed the Mayor to finish her remarks the Councilor would have learnt that was not the case. Just moving the matter from last to first on the agenda. Maybe Councilor Stolte was hoping the matter would go un-noticed at the end of the meeting.

    The reporter states “It was a brazen use of power on the part of the Mayor who was determined to force Councillor Stolte to do what the Mayor wanted and not what had been determined previously as an acceptable way to handle this matter.”

    How does the reporter know the staff member agreed to have the apology made at the end of the meeting in the “member statement” item of the agenda. The last agenda item. Maybe the staff member had simply agreed to the apology being made at the meeting without a specific time within the meeting being agreed to. The Mayor, at the request of the staff member re-ordered the agenda items, as is the Mayor’s perogative. The Mayor acted at the request of the staff member.

    The reporter also says “At that time none of the people working as councillor assistants wanted to work with Meed Ward. Gartside accepted the job on the understanding that she could leave if things did not work out. They did work with the Council member and Gartside worked with Meed Ward for eight years.”

    It seems like Gartside found the Mayor perfectly OK to work with, contrary to the reporter’s insinuations.

    The reporter writes “Quite why Gartside needed a public apology is not clear. Insisting that the apology be read out at the beginning of the Council meeting so she could hear what she had already read suggests a level of vengeance that has taken hold in the office of the Mayor.” Why? Well, Gartside had been publicly negatively called out by Councilor Stolte during her loose lips conversation with the Gazette. So she wanted a public apology. Yes, probably vengeful, but also understandable and appropriate. Is the Gazette being critical of the victim wanting her justice?

    As it was Councilor Stolte during the council meeting used words that likely breached the City’s code of good governance. Councilor Stolte’s 3rd breach!?

    Stolte wanted the matter dealt with quietly. But by erupting the way she did Councilor she just drew huge amounts of attention to it. Not a smart bunny!

    Editor’s note: Georgie was not “publicly negatively called out by Councilor Stolte.” The woman’s name did not appear in the story and was not known by the reporter.

    • Jim Thomson

      The mayor should know that a point of order means that she has to stop her remarks and deal with the point of order. It’s not something that can wait while she finishes her remarks.

      Georgie Gartside hardly appears to be the victim. She got agreement for a public apology
      and then complained that it wasn’t going to be at the top of the agenda.
      Was she doing the Mayor’s bidding to further her carreer?

  • Penny Hersh

    What is missing from this article is the “body language and tone” that one can only see by watching the video of the council meeting associated with this exchange. Supposedly, it will be available within 24hours of the meeting on the city’s website.

    There was no question that the Mayor had decided to once again demean Councillor Stolte. I have to ask the question WHY? This exchange proved 2 things to me. One ,that the present mayor feels she can run roughshod over anyone who challenges her and also that the only other person on council who tried to stop this was Councillor Kearns. The other councillors sat mute and allowed this to take place – SHAME ON THEM. Councillor Nissan of course did what he could to back up the mayor while this shameful exchange was taking place.

    I hope that there are some serious consequences associated with what took place yesterday. It was not only offensive to those who had to sit through it, but also those of us who watched it and last but not least to Georgie Gartside.

    I have worked with Georgie, who is not only an extremely nice person, but also one who is very professional when dealing with residents, and what transpired yesterday was not what she would ever have wanted to take place.

    Residents deserve a council that works together with mutual respect for one another. What occurred yesterday was disgraceful. Leadership starts at the top.

    • Mary Hill

      “I have worked with Georgie, who is not only an extremely nice person, but also one who is very professional when dealing with residents, and what transpired yesterday was not what she would ever have wanted to take place.”

      Then, Ms Hersh blame the person who created the brewhaha. That is Councilor Stolte who obviously mistakenly thought the Mayor was going to weigh in on the matter itself. All the Mayor did was provide the innocuous reason for the matter being moved to the front of the agenda.

      Stolte would have been better served just sitting on her hands and keeping her mouth zipped.

  • Jim Thomson

    The Mayor after 12 years doesn’t understand the rules.
    I hope Councillor Stolte files a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner.