John Ferguson tells court he'd do it all again

Former Saint John councillor John Ferguson says as difficult as the pension boards lawsuit against him has been, he would do it all again.

The pension board is suing Ferguson for allegedly defamatory comments he made starting in 2005 about the board's handling of the pension fund, which had a $47-million deficit at the time. The deficit has since jumped to more than $190 million.

On Monday, defence lawyer Rod Gillis asked Ferguson why he didnt just apologize to the board to make the lawsuit go away.

Ferguson said that the pension issue was too important.

Asked whether he would do it all again knowing what he nowknows, Ferguson replied, "I would."

Still, it hasnt been easy, Ferguson told the Court of Queens Bench.

The lawsuit, which has been before the courts for about five years now, has been especially hard on his wife and mother, he said.

It was scary, Ferguson said, because he didnt know if he had insurance as a councillor and was worried a lawsuit would ruin his family.

"I was scared, financially," he said.

The pension board put a lien on his home early on, the court heard during Fergusons approximately 10 hours of direct testimony.

The pension boards lawyer Barry Morrison also started his cross examination of Ferguson on Monday, as the trial entered its tenth week.

Justice William Grant told the jury the trial, originally scheduled to take six weeks, is now expected to run for at least 11 weeks.

Cross examination focuses on disability pension claims

Morrison quickly challenged Ferguson Mondayabout his claims that some city employees were improperly placed on disability pensions.

Ferguson has alleged that some employees were placed on disability pensions simply because they couldn't get along with their supervisors.

During a July 2006 council meeting, Ferguson said that disability pensions were costing the city an "extra" $5.9 million a year and that he had raised the matter with a "very senior person who sits on the pension board."

Ferguson said he had questioned his unnamed source about whether the situation was illegal and that the person replied:"Yes it is, but so is drinking and driving and people do that every day."

For years, Ferguson had refused to name his source, butwas eventually compelled to by a court order and he named former pension board member David Gould.

Gould, however, denied the allegation under oath.

Morrison asked Ferguson why ittook him 209 days to mention his alleged December 2005 conversation with Gould.

There was a council meeting 24 hours after the supposed discussion and pension problems were on the agenda, argued Morrison. "This was a confession. ... Here you have a bombshell admission," he said.

Ferguson replied that Gould had called the practice of awarding disability pensions to non-disabled employees as "boarding" and he wasn't exactly sure what "boarding" was.

He saw it as a breach of the act, not a criminal act, he said,much like howparking in certain areas is illegal, but not criminal.

Gould's confession was significant, but not blockbuster, Ferguson said.

Nevertheless,Fergusontold the courthe did make a motion calling for a third-party review of thedisability pension issue at the council meeting following his alleged discussion with Gould.

In addition, he said he also asked then-city manager Terry Totten about the issue.

Morrison alsochallenged Ferguson about not having any notes about hisalleged conversation with Gouldand about his memory. "Do you agree memory fades over time?" Morrison asked. "That's fair," replied Ferguson.

Morrison also accused Ferguson of being an actor, suggested he craves attention, andquestioned his math skills during his cross examination, which is expected to be lengthy.