Again With The Rules Already

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "I didn't Mean":

Ummmm, who decides that it is RIGHT before it can be put to a vote? Some HIGHER authority than council?

****************

It's the point I have been trying to make. Rules of order governing debate should not be subject to dispute or disagreement,

Governments have had an accepted standard for hundreds of years.

Some lucky students acquire  debating skills in high school.  They learn "the rules".

Organisations and associations observe and practice a common standard.

The Parliament of Canada and Provincial Legislative Assemblies observe the same rules.

When the House meets, the first order of business is appointment of a speaker. An M.P.who enjoys the respect and confidence of all parties and who agrees to surrender his/her right to participate in debate, is appointed by a unanimous vote to the role.

He/she is then, according to ritual, dragged unwillingly to the Speaker's chair by the leaders.

The speaker does have authority. But not to participate in debate. The iron rule is impartiality. He/she casts the deciding vote in a tie.

I haven't researched the issue, so don't hold me to exactitude.I have simply observed. In all the years I've been observing, I've never seen a member challenge the rules.

Mostly what we see on television is Question Period. Members are chosen by party leaders to ask specific questions of the relevant Minister.

If the Minister goes on too long with the answer, the Speaker  simply rises in his chair and says"Minister" to indicate he should shut up now.Pages rise along with him.

I have seenmembers escorted from the Chamber. Usually for making an accusation of criminality against another member.There is no penalty for "disobedience" The requirement of the House is for the member to withdraw the accusation and render an apology. Usually willingly accorded.

If a member disrupts the proceedings, the member can be removed. Until he sobers up presumably or makes the required apology for a serious accusation.

No power exists to remove a member from the seat to which he was elected.

Markham had an M.P. a few years ago by the name of Jag Bahduria.

He was expelled from the Liberal Party for reasons of scandal.

Voters in Markham campaigned for months the right to replace him. They collected petitions to persuade the government. The government was unable to accede.

What voters had decided in an election cannot be put asunder.

The member sat alone excluded from\ participation. Until the end of the term. He sought the nomination again. He had his supporters. He did not succeed and the problem was finally resolved.

The municipality is a legislature in the same sense as the senior levels of government.Bylaws have the same force and effect. Provided they make sense and are enforceable.

It's no earthly use passing a bylaw that can't be enforced and doesn't have a hope in hell of standing up in a court.

No bylaw can be passed at the local level which contravenes the law of a senior level.

From my perspective, rules of order must be agreed upon by all members. There can be no room for individual interpretation. They must be applied consistently and impartially.Members must learn them, abide by them and respect them.

Continual points of order, interrupting a member who has the floor is harassment and bound to lead to exasperation and loss of cool.

A continual stream of questions, monopolising the time of council is not permissible.

A member cannot choose to use debating time for fact finding.

The rules call for the chair to recognise a member  indicating a desire  to speak.

On recognition ,the member shall address the chair.

The member shall speak to the question.

The member shall not stray from the question.

The member shall not repeat points made
.
The member shall be allowed A question.

When the member has completed his/her argument, the member will take his/her seat.

In the past, if an argument had already been made the same argument would not be repeated by another councillor.   A member might simply state agreement with an argument already presented or say nothing.

There is no requirement for a councillor to participate in debate. The requirement is to cast a vote.

There is no role for staff to participate in debate once a professional recommendation has been received their role is ended.

Right or wrong, decisions made are the prerogative of the elected and accountable body.

There is an obligation for all members to be mindful of time available to complete town business prior to adjournment. It doesn't just rest with the chair.

The problem of a council member using time to embark on a fact finding mission at every meeting is easily resolved.

It is not an orderly process and should not be permitted.

Council members receive an agenda in advance in order to make their inquiries and prepare for debate.They should have a position. At the same time they should be prepared to listen to others.

That's where agreement with the rules between Councillors is essential.We cannot function with different Councillors applying separate understanding of the rules.

It brings the process into disrepute.

I rest my case.