No Muse Today

The first thought in my head  this morning was something I can't tell you about yet.

I wakened from a dream that wan't  a nightmare but wasn't  pleasant either.

I don't know about  the budget.  If there were were no changes,it means the entire budget was approved as presented and as the Mayor intended.

It means I can't vote for it. I have to provide reasons. There are so many, I have to be selective.  It requires substantial thought and preparation. It won't make a difference. Except to people who think as I do and know at least  their voice was heard.

I dreamed  the moment had arrived and I was unprepared. The Mayor came to pick me up in a vintage  Rolls Royce. It was khaki coloured. The place was a church. It was filled with mourners. People were standing three deep in the aisles. I had to get into the  farthest seat from the aisle, against the wall,  in the last row. I had a small boy to look after  and  I  had to prepare my comments without anyone seeing

The mourner bit,I think, was from  news images  of North Korea.

The church was St.Mary's, Irvine.Ayrshire Scotland. Where I was baptised  before the date on my birth certificate, made my First Confession,First Communion  Confirmation  and married.

How weird was that! 

First  inclination in any debate, is to heap scorn on the heads of all who disagree. It would be easiest.  But not  smartest. And it's not allowed.

It contributes nothing to  debate. The obvious response would be name-calling. It might be fun to stretch one's imagination in that direction but it would certainly not be civil or  regarded as  proper decorum even in whatever sense that is in these changing times.

Which bring to mind something else that has been bothering me in the last year.

The  debate system we have pits  the  elected  directly against  the appointed  in any challenge to a recommendation.

It should not be. But when  Councillors request  staff to provide a  rational for  their  position, it is unavoidable.

The situation gets messier when  Councillors insist on introducing the question of staff competence by commenting on their excellent  work.

It's a slight against the Councillor challenging the recommendation.

It's a goody-goody two shoes  innuendo.

Any point introduced into a debate calls for a response.

How would it be if the person on the receiving end, decided to argue the point  in a public meeting about how well staff  can be perceived to be doing their job.

How does someone with weeks of experience  of public business rationalise  the comment?

What comparator can be used from limited experience ?

Take the time the Treasurer left his seat in a hissy fit , accusing me  of  accusing him of fraud because of the methodology  he  used for calculating water rates.
According to Councillor Ballard,  all  department heads took  umbrage and  left the meeting in support of their wrongly accused  colleague.

Everybody, except  those with ears to hear , thought I should  apologise.

I did no such thing.

Turned  out I was right about faulty methodology and people with meters being overcharged  for years   for  water.

I  accused no-one of fraud. 

My phraseology is usually carefully constructed.  

I  have yet to  receive  an apology for being wrongly accused by any person..

Things can easily and quickly turn  messy and  mean  and not  easily forgotten  in a public debate. 

This council spent months discussing  rules. If there's no  sense of what's right, rules make little difference.