Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Not In Any Circumstance":
I think you were just MEAN.
**********
Perhaps you would like to be specific. In what respect do you think I was mean.
Do you know what David planned to talk about.
Did he intend to complain about a Councillor's conduct.
If that was his intent, would he have any reason to believe the Councillor would not respond.
If the complaint was about bullying , was the response likely to be belligerent? I think it might.
What rule would protect David from being humiliated ?
How could it be cited if David was allowed to take the first shot?
Where would it end?
Rules of Order have a purpose. The first principle is to maintain civil discourse.
Councillors must be free to express whatever views are relevant to a question. The requirement is it be done civilly without criticism and without impugning another's motive.
There are a few other governing principles but these are by far the most important.
Procedure also allows a chair's ruling to be challenged.
My ruling was not challenged.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Why would David be humiliated?
You have confused me.We know what he put up with but cannot speak up?
Normally you go into great detail. Please give us more information about what happened at last night's meeting.
Thanks.
A word of advice for anyone challenging or criticizing Evelyn’s knowledge of the rules . Don't ! unless you can challenge with fact about the rules, if anyone knows the lay of the land around the council table it's Buck hands down like it or not and thank god for it !!!!!!!
Having trouble with rules here. It is OK to mention a politician? So, my question would be if McRoberts has signed on to the case against Morris for breach of the Municipal Act. He is still around, healthy and active. Is he on board? He was in the room and confidentiality has been waived. Are we allowed to know? Stuff the bloody rules !
Post a Comment