"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

A Natural Conclusion

The first item of business after being sworn into office is adoption of a Procedural Bylaw.

Witnin the Bylaw is a requirement to reviewRules of Order within  the first six months.

Council did that. A consultant was hired . New Rules were submitted and approved.

Old rules allowed for a Councillor to speak for thirty minutes. No-one ever did.

Older rules permitted a Councillor to speak once during  debate. Unless the Councillor had something new to say.

A question could be directed to staff. Presumable to support a point being made in debate.

Under old rules an elected representative had time needed to contribute whatever input he/she had before debate closed and the vote was called.

The rules resembled  the Public Planning Meeting .Members of the public are given every opportunity to be heard  before the public portion of the meeting is closed and Council debate begins.

It's ironic that  a member of the public has unlimited opportunity to express opposition or support to a planning  application, but  elected representatives,under to-day's  rules of order are restricted (two minutes)

Times  past, not every member of Council felt compelled to speak on every issue. Nor did they think it worthwhile to repeat an argument already made.

Endless questioning of staff was unheard of. The only staff present was the Clek and Deputy.

A Councillor was expected to be prepared to argue a position . Stand up.speak up and shut up.

Watching  nine people carrying out separate fact-finding ,fishing expeditions in the course of the decision-making process does not engender confidence.

Council meetings were not  televised  in the day.

Last night 's meeting  had an interesting turn-up for the book.

I had a motion on the table for a review of the Farmer's Market Bylaw.

Currently Market vendors  are required to have  representation for purposes  of communication with the Town. I  believe there's a lack of clarity about what represents representation.

Neither the current chair or vice chair are vendors.

Because of the  motion on the agenda, the Chairperson of the Market Executive,was granted delegation status to speak to the issue.

Delegation status provided  five minutes to speak.

If the motion did get on the table. an elected representative has  two minutes to speak.

The motion did not receive a seconder. Did not get on the table for discussion.

The only input on the issue  during a Council meeting came  from the non-elected,non-vendor chair of the Market.

In the circumstance,the elected representative was disrespected by elected representatives.

It is my position, when an elected representative is dis- respected, the electorate is dis-respected.

It's a natural conclusion.

Time moves on. Things change.  They do not  necessarily improve.


Anonymous said...

I am a bit confused. There was a council meeting or GC where it seemed to be agreed that electioneering at town events would be kept to a minimum. I read today that Cllr G is to have a booth at the street sale with ' inter-active ' somethings and actually flinched. I am sure it borders on the acceptable like calling yourself Mayor without waiting to be elected but it still feels weird so early in the year.
Some historical perspective would be appreciated. Like if this happened n 1940. ??

Anonymous said...

more selective editing... or is it censorship?

Anonymous said...

Most councillors and the mayor constantly demonstrate disrespect for some of their own and don't realize that in the process they are thumbing their noses at the people responsible for their being present at the table - the voters.

An interesting fact - voting is mandatory in Australia.

How would that sit with Canadians?

Anonymous said...

Voting mandatory does not equal voting intelligently.

How many Aussies actually make an informed vote when they have to vote?

Anonymous said...

Granted, but how many Canadians make an informed vote ? Yet occasionally, we get it right,

Anonymous said...


That is a rather silly comment.

How many of the just under 40% of eligible Aurora voters who actually voted in the last municipal election voted intelligently?

If someone is going to the trouble of voting, because they have to or because they want to, one would think voters would give a bit of thought as to how they mark the ballot. And then again, maybe not.

Anonymous said...

Why is that silly?

If you are forced to do something, why can you expect that they will do it with an informed method?

Hell, they can spoil the ballot and still be legally correct.

You can ASK me to do something or you can TELL me to do something a certain way. You can't do both.

Anonymous said...

you are kicking sand again

Anonymous said...


If you live in a democracy I would bet that men and women have fought and died so that we have the fundamental right to vote for those we wish to represent us.

If someone votes out of ignorance or mutilates a ballot that person should not be entitled to the rights, freedoms and way of life that those who have voted intelligently on the basis of their analysis of the candidates and the parties that they represent should enjoy.

If you think that people vote out of stupidity then we are in real trouble.

We probably are anyway when you look at the planks and platforms and promises political parties make. Most of this is untenable. Hudak's jobs promises have been trashed by a number of economists publicly recognized as experts.

Anonymous said...

& Wynne has been bailing out a developer for hundreds of thousands of dollars -
So I think you and I agree that voters should not be ignorant, but disagree about what ignorance entails ?
We just vote.

Anonymous said...

Hudak promises pie in the sky 1 million jobs and is rightfully slammed
Wynne and the liberals promised the hst would create 600000 jobs and green energy 200000 jobs
Equally bs
Yet only Hudak is taking any heat
Is this the informed electorate you are talking about?

Anonymous said...

Charges laid against Ornge