Kings County councillors not to communicate with hangar owners involved in lawsuit

Kirk Starratt
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Coun. Pauline Raven wants to see greater transparency surrounding in-camera items.

Kings County councillors have been forbidden to talk to anyone involved in a Supreme Court action that was launched against Kings County recently.

Council passed a motion coming out of the late night deliberations at the July 8 meeting that no councillor is permitted to communicate, either directly or indirectly, with any of the adverse parties involved in the legal action surrounding the Sept. 30 closure date.

This directive encompasses both corporate and personal capacities. All communication with those parties must now come through the chief administrative officer and/or the municipal solicitors.

No airport news

Members of the Waterville airport community were holding their breath that county council would revisit the date of the airport closure.

Gary Dunfield said comments made by Warden Diana Brothers at a meeting of the airport relocation committee on July 4 led him to believe council would deal with the closure date issue on July 8.

Dunfield, who is the Annapolis Valley Flying Association Waterville Airport taskforce chairman, said the warden indicated there would be big news coming out of the meeting for the airport.

During the public comment period before the in-camera, William Young said those in the airport community “anticipated some news tonight regarding the closure of the airport.” He said a request from Coun. Jim Winsor to add to the agenda discussion of a motion to extend the closure date of the airport “makes perfect sense.” However, Winsor’s motion was defeated. Young urged councillors to give this serious consideration during their in-camera session.

Brothers said she believes this is a case of misunderstanding. She said at the relocation committee meeting that council would be dealing with the airport issue at an in-camera session on July 8.

“I did not ever say anything would be coming out of that in terms of a motion,” Brothers said, pointing out that she has “no authority” to give such an assurance.

Brothers deferred further comment until she has time to review her records of the relocation committee meeting.

Not on agenda

Coun. Pauline Raven pointed out early in the July 8 session that items to be discussed in-camera that evening were not listed on the agenda. She said this is not transparent and “not the best practice.” Raven showed the solicitor a possible way to describe in-camera items with more transparency “tonight and in the future.” She said there were four items to be discussed.

“I was hoping that we could start with that transparency tonight,” Raven said.

The in-camera items included the Waterville airport litigation; trail construction between Wolfville and New Minas; consideration of a provincial proposal for completion regarding Owen Road; and funding for a fence relating to a sidewalk project in Canning.


Organizations: Kings County council, Supreme Court

Geographic location: Wolfville, Owen Road, Canning

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • concerned citizen
    July 12, 2014 - 19:17

    Its a landlord / tenant dispute. The LL suddenly kicked the tenant out for no reason and the tenant has nowhere to go ! The tenant asked about the terms of his contract but the LL refused an answer ? The tenant wants to sit down and talk about this but the LL refuses ?? And so there is no option left for the tenant but to go to Court ? And so Lawyers for both parties have probably advised their clients not to talk to one another about this dispute until it can be resolved ?

  • Mark Levack
    July 10, 2014 - 17:21

    Is that even legal? Abridging the charter right of freedom of expression for councillors? Not to mention the questionable ethics of denying them the right consult with their constituents and conducting in camera meetings. Not very democratic, I'd say.