Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Interesting Tidbit":
Bash away till the cows come home , it helps to reinforce the fact that it was the worst of the worst, and hopefully never to be repeated,Even better when one of the former members brings it up
*********
Before we leave the issue, not necessarily for all time, I need to mention another point attempted apropos of nothing at Tuesday's meeting.
The motion on the table, moved by Councillor Gaertner seconded by Councillor Ballard, was direction to staff to recruit a new Integrity Commissioner. It failed on a vote of seven to two.
In support , Councillor Ballard hammered home the contention that even though a Councillor has not signed the Code of Conduct, all Councillors are bound by it.
The comment had no connection to the motion on the floor, nevertheless,Ballard was not called to order. A point of order could have been called from the floor but I forbore.
It is such a waste of time.
Failure of a Councillor to understand the rules of debate and failure of the chair to provide leadership and guidance is a continuing problem.
It can create resentment. No good can come of it.
The Code and its consequences are the subject of litigation before the courts, identified as abuse of authority and abuse of public resources .
Just to touch for a minute on validity of The Code.
It's useless if it can't be enforced.
And it can't. It Isn't worth a tinker's damn.
Not a smidgeon.
Zilch, Zero.Nada and Nil.
It isn't worth the paper it's been hundreds of times copied on.
It's not worth the powder to blow it away.
It's a gigantic bluff.
First is clause requiring all members to sign .
Three times, legal means were sought to make that happen.
Nuthin'
It requires all members to "read and understand" .
It presumes competence to do so.
Think about that. How many times have we heard a question asked, an explanation given, sometimes more than once, and the plaintive cry in response "I don't understand"
Remember Stephen Granger.
Another clause purports to compel a member, who disagrees with a majority decision to explain "the attitude" of the majority.
How can a person who opposes, understand others' support,, let alone explain it?
And when I did, did they appreciate it?
The record shows not.
Still another compels a member in disagreement to hush up and never speak of the matter again.
Yeah Right!!
I'm told the same Code of Amazing Righteousness and Virtue has been endorsed by other municipal politicians.
What does that teach us?
Sunday 18 September 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
so Gallo didn't vote to support an integrity commissioner?
I'm surprised how in one meeting he can voice his opinion on how he perceives there to be a "bashing of past council", during an item of debate that is of no relation, and also not vote to enact the very issue he supported that term.
He's certainly earning his title noodlehead.
"Failure of a Councillor to understand the rules of debate and failure of the chair to provide leadership and guidance is a continuing problem." It sounds like the blind leading the blind. Can we not get these people up to speed with some training? If not, why not hire a knowledgable, experienced, impartial individual to "referee" the meetings to ensure that proper procedure is followed at all times and to control the meeting. If this could be accomplished it would be a small price to pay (per meeting) and I'm guessing a lot more would be accomplished, resulting in a more efficient and effective use of time at Council meetings.
Post a Comment