An Understandable Misunderstanding

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Clarification":

"4. Members of Council will accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of Council, even if they disagree with the majority decision of Council"

To the extent that disagreeing opinions can be flaunted on Councillor's blogs or websites to the point that they become preachy!

******

The aforementioned  No. 4. is from the Code Of Conduct.aka
Ethics-a-la-Mormac

It means; even if a Councillor disagrees with a majority decision of Council;

Even if  logic in the majority decision is entirely lacking, in the opposing Councillor's opinion;

Even if  reasons for the decision, can't be proven but  highly suspect.

Even if  rational offered by  members of the majority is entirely spurious. Like observing that traffic runs east and west and north and south. 

A Councillor in  opposition is required to accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of the majority.

My daughter Theresa has gone out to plant trees in Aurora this morning.  The  program is sponsored by Neighbourhood Network.
Trees are supplied by  Conservation authorities. The man power for the project are young people from Aurora. Thousands are planted.

The Mayor's Litter gathering project is to-day. Also with the help of children from our schools.

The first year both  projects were scheduled, the Mayor. with majority support  refused to allow  trees to be planted in Aurora
because it was the same day of the Mayor's anti-litter project.

I did not vote with the majority.

I could  elaborate on what I believe to be the attitude of the Mayor and  loyal courtiers. I would derive  a great deal of satisfaction to  elucidate  on reasons for the  decision. .

And why the "wee,cowerin ,timorous beasties,"  obeyed her every command  and  never failed to provide the consistent votes
needed for absolute power. 

 I was and still am a Councillor.

We govern ourselves by majority rule.

 I respect the rule.There is no challenge here.

 I may not, in conscience, or in  law, heap coals of fire on the heads of those with whom I disagree.Nor they me.

Therefore, I cannot " accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of the majority"without breaching the first rule.

Besides being a severe test  of my vocabulary, barely adequate in acceptable language, it is not permissible for me to criticize  the  majority.  Them's the rules.

The  avenue open  to me in a society  governed by a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is to state and re-state  my position on a given issue, wherever and whenever the matter  may be raised in public or private conversation.

 Federally  legislated, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumps a Municipal Code of Conduct in every respect.

I saw no reason why litter could not be collected and  tree seedlings planted at that same time.

Subsequently, the electorate decided  at  first opportunity,  if the  attitude and decision of the majority was right.

I am content with that judgement.