Can't Find The Comment

I received last week contending a councillor who does not agree with a majority decision has the responsibility to explain to the public the "attitude" of those who made the decision.

I think my own attitude might be relevant.

I run for office on the promise, I will exercise my best judgment, communicate constantly and  express myself openly and honestly.

I swore my Oath of Office on the same principle

I do that.

I spend considerable time doing it. I probably work as hard as any person in a full-time occupation.

I exult in the new media that provides me the opportunity to be in daily contact with people who elected me and whoever else chooses to read it.

Responsibility to explain the "attitudes" of councillors who arrive at different conclusions to myself ,I did not seek nor did I make a commitment to that end.

If I were compelled  to put into words, in a council debate, my understanding of the thought process of others, I would be in breach of a rule of order; the one prohibiting criticism of a councillor or a  decision of council.

There are different ways I might describe attitudes of persons who do not think as I do. None of them, during thrust and parry of  a substantive argument, likely to be complimentary or  the least bit welcome. All of them carrying  potential for mayhem and disruption of a council meeting.

That the code made me do it, would be small comfort either to the majority or their friends.

I do not do that. 

As long as a councillor can justify his/her decision, I think that's what electors expect.

It worked for me down through the years.

Though I do occasionally wonder,how long a person needs to be successfully engaged to be credited with competence, knowledge and experience?

Is there a factor involved  here that's not easily recognisable?