When Is An Amendment Not An Amendment ?

Resident has left a new comment on your post "What!! What!!!":

What the heck happened? Isn't this outcome very similar to the motion to defer that was defeated earlier on in the evening.

You've gotta love politics. A well written motion is put on the table, it's hotly debated. Somebody suggests an amendment that cuts the legs out from under it and the original movers all vote against it - yet it passes

*************
An Amendment is not an amendment when it changes the intent of the original motion.

The normal process  if you can't vote for a motion is you vote against it.But that would be too too simple. 

What happened last night was a non amendment , moved by Councillor Humphryes,seconded by Councillor Thompson and supported by Mayor Dawe, in alliance  with Gaertner, Gallo and Ballard, to remove a clause from the motion ,which, as noted above "cut the legs right out from under it"

The castrated motion passed. It puts your elected Council, in the position of going cap in hand to a hitherto recalcitrant board now in charge of  negotiations.

It happened three hours after debate started. The town's business agenda was set side to accommodate  the crowd.

Only one  other item of substance was on the agenda.Three people  from an architect firm were in the Council Chamber to support a  presentation of the Director of  Parks and Recreationon  for a Teen Centre.

They left around eleven  A  fee  of course will be charged  for services not rendered. And maybe an add-on   for being forced to watch an indiginity performed on  an honorable institution of government .

Legal  fee for attending council for a consultation is $5000.

Twenty minutes are  allowed on a public agenda for public forum.The Mayor said, contrary to the Procedure Bylaw,  he would extend the time to thirty-five minutes. He did not request a vote to allow the bylaw to be waived.An hour later we were still listening to grossly exaggerated  statements in support of  an untenable and pigs trough scandalous  version of an agreement.

Councillors Abel and Pirri, mover and seconder of the motion , each told of  separate  futile attempts  over  many weeks to resolve the issue without the termination clause being cited. 

The Mayor, in a lengthy statement told of  earnest attempts  over the last year and a half  to win a modicum of collaberation from the  board and being  blunty told  it was not going to happen.

Susan Walmer was there working the crowd, handing out leaflets,
collecting names and addresses.  Catherine Marshall putting in her two cents and a host of others repeating the same fallacies over and over.

Hard, contrived  humourless  laughter  and  repeated applause for favoured speakers was permitted by the chair .

Finally, when all had been said and done and past time for the matter to be disposed, out of the blue,up comes a proposed  amendment which wasn't.

The vote was taken and lickety- split, we were a  mile  behind where we started .

 A self-appointed  board in possession of a valuable town asset leased to them for one dollar a year , utilities and maintenance paid   as well handing over a hulking sum  annually this year increased to  $356,000.

$325,000 is a full point in the tax rate.

This year,the town is imposing 4.77% increase  in taxes over last.
And presenting it as efficient fiscal management.

Three hundred and forty e-mails were received by  Councillors, all
displaying an astounding degree of ignorance and misinformation,
most likely  the responsibility of   Councillor  Ballard  and a board staff member   and probably two thirds from people who do not live in our town and pay no share of our taxes.

So  completely neutered was the motion, the  mover and seconder could no longer support it.

It was the first real test of the term. An issue pending for fifteen months.  The clock  ticks on.