The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Join the Private Sole Circle. ‘ Sell Your'House. Paymelf. A Fiddle E §tep_Dancing Lessons All afis levels welcome 905-862-2476 “Ontario Style By Renowned Champion Fiddler Teacher of 25 Years SH 905-895-0289 m.bbhsy.ca This message brought to you as a community service 0! The Economist/ Sun-Tribune A llttle time can make a HUGE dlflerence In a child’s life! One of our many exciting programs is sure to fit your schedule BY SEAN PEARCE spea rce@yrmg. com A war of words is raging in Aurora followâ€" ing the integrity commissioner's dismissal and it appears the fight_m_ay be far f_rom oyer. Much has been made in recent days of the timing of now-former integrity commissioner David Nitkin’s departure â€" council voted to remove his powers and duties just one day after he submitted a report to the town â€"â€" but Mayor Phyllis Morris said the decision had nothing to do with the report and everything to do with the inability of the integrity com- missioner to follow Aurora’s code of conduct. “We called the meeting previously, so it's just a coincidence we got (the report) the day before," she said of Mr. Nitkin’s firing. “(Peo- ple) can speculate on things all they like.” - Mrs. Morris said it was’clear quite quickly Mr. Nitkin was following a different set of rules as requests were made for personal impact statements and for those involved to meet. “That was problematic for those of us who wished to follow the Municipal Act,” she said. “In all fairness, however, (Mr. Nitkin) realized that would be a problem for us." Regardless, the fact remains such things were not requirements under the town's code of conduct. Mr. Nitkin, Mrs: Morris said. seemed to follow his own code at times. “He had posted his own process and I truly believe that he believed that we had endorsed his process," she said. “There was no motion of council that endorsed it; it's regrettable." Similarly, there were apparently early warn - ing signs that processes were not compatible. Whether the fluny of e-majl correspondence from councillors to the commissioner and back constituted the political interference to which Mr. Nitkin refers remains a mystery. In any case, Mrs. Morris said all of the e- mail communiqués became an indication of trouble. “He made so many communications, all on his eâ€"mail, and that was part of the prob- lem," Mrs. Morris said. “I don't agree there was political interference, but that was his belief The ruling from Mr. Nitkin is in and has been sent to the complainants and the coun- cillor at the centre of the complaint. A por- tion of that ruling has been posted online by Councillor Evelyn Buck and states the code of conduct complaint, as written, was not accepted and an investigation would not take place. Firing had nothing to do with report: mayor This statement of complaint. as is. is unac~ ceptable and no investigation or inquiry shall take place, the decision reads, noting the complaint is ill-formed, incomplete and inap- propriate. The way it was crafted, politicized and communicated, it may be seen to be wholly political. The decision also makes ref- erence to political interference. .What does all of that mean? It really depends on who you ask. Some councillors are calling this an out» right rejection of the complaint. while others are saying not so fast. Read Debora Kelly’s column on this story on Page 6. In any event, the decision needed to be made public, Ms Buck said, adding she couldn't reveal any further information about the rest of the document. She said she became convinced posting the decision was the right thing to do in light of how the filing of the complaint was made public by some mem- bers of council last month. “I'm not sure if I can (release more infor- mation), because it's unknown territory," Ms Buck said. “At this moment, I've revealed the decision, because I felt people had a right to know what that was. It is a confidential docu- ment submitted to me by Mr. Nitkin." Some councillors have already gone on record and classified the report as a vindica- tion for Ms Buck, who said she was satisfied with the findings. The complaint has been dismissed, she said. “I could look at it (as a vindication)." Ms Buck said. “The complaint was dismissed on the basis of how it was publicized and put together." However, while Mrs. Morris and other sources confirmed what Ms Buck has pub- lished is accurate. it's also incomplete, the mayor said. “She's selectively posted from the opinâ€" ion." she said. The rest of Mr. Nitkin's correspondence indicates his ruling was not to absolve any- one of anything, Mrs. Morris said. adding it dealt primarily with the format in which it was submitted. Ilis ruling, in fact, doesn't even address the content of the complaint. she said. “lfanything. (Mr. Nitkin) encouraged us to resubmit it." Mrs. Morris said of the report. So, what happens now? The report will be dealt with at the next council meeting and made. public from there. A statement from the complainants will be forthcoming. There will be an opportunity to respond to the report when it comes to council in the fall, Mrs. Morris said, noting the public will have, the opportunity to see it. Mrs. Morris also said the complaint may well be re-worked, re-filed and submitted to the next integrity commissioner appointed by the town as no comments were made as to the alleged contraventions of the code. Either way, Ms Buck said she isn't (‘on- (‘erned and doubts the town will even be able to find a new commissioner. let alone one who will rule against her. DAVID NITKIN: Integrity commis sioner was fired one day after sub mitting his report to the town.