In recent published comments, Mayor Cecil Clarke suggested that because the Municipal Government Act was ignored in the past, it is perfectly acceptable for our current elected representatives to continue thumbing a collective nose at a statutory mandate to follow the rules.  What the Mayor and Council repeatedly did "in camera" (in secret), as opposed to "in public," was a breach of the governing legislation. 

The Act is online - I read it.   (As a former union leader, I can state absolutely that these types of back room deals are never acceptable.) 

In defense of the breach(s),  Mayor Clarke reportedly stated that it is a longstanding practice he inherited from previous CBRM councils, and there is no desire to change anything; so what's to champion.  

So, that vague political hyperbole makes it acceptable to breach, and continue to breach, statute based law?  Nope. Not much of a defense.  

The case for continuing the back room sessions is not playing out well in the Court of Public Opinion.  Nor would it play out well in a Court of Law: it's a Statute - it's binding - on everyone - including the Mayor! 

The Jury is in: Cecil Clarke is a serial politician; not a lawyer, therefore his opinion on the law should be given the weight it deserves.  

As an elected leader, no one should have to ask him to champion for change to an illegal precedent - he should just lead. 

Stephen J.W. Drake is a lawyer living in River Ryan