In Response to a Question

Hi

I think Bourinot's rules of order  for debate should simply have been adopted with changes to suit a council meeting. The  rest of the  procedure and  schedule and times of meetings ,should all have been handled in committee  and would not have needed much time.

In the last administration, at the beginning, the CAO  proposed daytime meetings. It would have meant the entire staff would not have to attend  for the whole meeting.They could be in their offices doing their own work until called upon. 

Thumbs were turned down on that idea or any other advice he had to give. Councillors are part-time ,they said.  They can't be expected to attend daytime meetings. 

Now we have an increasing number of 4.p.m.  meetings with only the member of staff present for the item being considered.

The new schedules have been become a regular feature.I may have missed the discussion.

Like agendas, with twenty-six items at one meeting plus presentations and delegations and other meetings with one item ,such as  the last one. How is that efficient use of time ?

When the Clerk presented  his  revision  to council on June 14th,  a solicitor sat alongside  to assure council , he found the bylaw  satisfactory as written. He was  retired legal counsel to the Region of Sudbury.

What was he there for?  Can't we do anything  without bringing in consultants to  fatten up the payroll ?

Last week, the Mayor told Councillors we could let the Clerk  know of further concerns we had on the procedure bylaw, by e-mail.

I did that already, every time I thought of something. Nothing came of that approach. I thought a list  might be compiled for council. The Clerk  can't change stuff now that the revision has been before Council.

It seems to me some of the boys decided how it should be, from stuff they learned at workshops for councillors. They've decided it's not worth spending time to get everybody on board  or even  a shared understanding.

I'm firmly of the view,  wording should be reduced to a minimum. It's far from there at the moment.  There should be no room for interpretation. If it gets passed in its present form, we will continue to spend as much time disputing rules as we do attending to real business
.

We should  discuss and agree  for example, whether  a point of order  means disagreement with a point being made in debate. It doesn't. 

Opposite views on an issue is debate.

Does a point of order mean a councillor can be interrupted because somebody  else doesn't understand or disagrees with the meaning of a word?

Or  somebody decides they know  better the meaning of improper conduct?

Why is it appropriate to record  comments of  non-elected delegates while the  Municipal Act  does not permit notes or comments made by elected representatives in the public record to be kept by the clerk?
 

Why is the person who can recruit two more to expand the time allowed to delegate, have fifteen minutes, while an elected representatives is to be limited to ten?

Why are non - elected allowed to come back again and again to press their case,  when  councillors are not permitted such excess? Nor should be.
 

This  crap was  introduced during the last administration  to  create a champion  for those who felt they  have the more authority than the elected, to participate formally in the decision making process.

At the end of the term, staff were directed to prepare a report of all that was accomplished by  volunteer advisory committees.  It was so much reading  it was directed to be condensed. That was done too. 

Staff time was  no object.

Doesn't anyone understand the reason we hold elections ?

My God, why is it  hard for people, who put their name up for office, tramp the street for weeks and knock on thousands of doors to be given the trust and confidence of the people, to understand the authority they have received on successful election.

The entire slant of the last administration was to remove authority from all  but one  and to denigrate the role of Council.

It doesn't look like  change  is intended in the current term.

I just recalled an exercise  from the Council of 2003/6.

We had  an interim CAO  until the deal with Power Stream was complete.  His contract was extended because the deal took longer. 

During the extension , he occupied some of his time with Councillors individually to hear their concerns with the procedure bylaw. He had been  CAO in the Town of Vaughan for a couple of decades.


He produced a revised bylaw. Can't say what became of it.