In 2018, voters elected a council that promised to take actions directed at one individual, my friend Benny Marotta. From the outset, this was a dangerous path.

Municipal Councils are supposed to govern fairly, for the benefit of the entire community. They are not empowered to weaponize bylaws or council decisions to pursue political vendettas.

Yet isn’t that what happened? The former council’s actions not only struck me as politically motivated, but a precursor to what courts might recognize as acting in “bad faith.” You cannot vote for people who engage in such conduct and then complain when taxpayers bear the financial consequences of their actions.

Taxpayers aren’t just innocent bystanders here — you elected them.

What makes it worse is that this wasn’t an entirely rookie council fumbling in the dark. Mayor Betty Disero had 26 years on Toronto city council and even ran for mayor there. Gary Burroughs spent a decade as lord mayor and another 14 years as a regional councillor, including four as regional chair.

And then there was lawyer Stuart McCormack, who put together early drafts of the resolution in support of the interim control by-law that was the centre of our case, despite, to my knowledge, having no municipal law experience. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead with the interim control bylaw anyway without seeking proper legal advice in advance.

With such backgrounds, the argument that “they didn’t know better” simply doesn’t hold water with me.

In my opinion, these were not rookies making innocent mistakes; these were seasoned officials making deliberate choices.

Leadership is about setting the course, and as far as I’m concerned, the leadership on that council steered the town down the path that resulted in the settlements reached last month.

Clear examples of problematic conduct occurred on Dec. 5, 2018, during what was billed as an “emergency” meeting. That night three items were passed:

1. An interim control bylaw, which Ontario’s highest court has since struck down as unlawful.

2. A tree bylaw, not crafted for environmental purposes, but to initially target a single resident. Ironically, this bylaw reduced our tree canopy because the town stopped planting trees and diverted funds to prosecuting private property owners, who now don’t plant trees, so they don’t have issues later.

3. A resolution to partner with SORE to oppose Benny, an action that has cost taxpayers millions.

In my view, each of these measures was ill-advised. Taken together, they exposed the town to significant legal and financial risk. For context, only a handful of municipalities in Ontario have ever been hit with bad-faith lawsuits. Niagara-on-the-Lake has had two, emerging from actions taken during one council session.

And yet, some of the same people are back, organizing a residents’ association and advocating to elect another slate of councillors that could end up like the former batch. If voters let that happen, then they should have their eyes wide open to the potential risks that lie ahead.

At the end of the day, accountability rests with voters. If you choose candidates who promise quick fixes or politically motivated crusades, don’t be surprised when the law catches up and the bill arrives at your doorstep.

Governance requires responsibility, transparency and respect for the law. Niagara-on-the-Lake deserves leaders who understand that — and voters who demand it.