NVP: Courteous and relevant comments are welcome. Anonymous invective is not. Use a consistent screen name so other readers can connect your contributions. Comments submitted without basic identification may not pass moderation.
The municipal elections are over for most candidates but some of the non-winners are using our Council meeting's public question period to beat out their drums of what they would be doing if they had received a majority of votes. They didn't win, and those on Council will be held accountable by the voters, the next time around if the majority agrees.
There is an easier way for members of the public to get Council's attention on any given topic, write letters to each one with cc: to the Press. Or write the Press directly and let them be the ones to decide if it's a newsworthy event or not. Let hem be the ones to create editorial cartoons.
North Van City Voices, North Vancouver Politics circulations are nowhere near the power of the North Shore News.
After all, aren't we doing it now, reading newspapers (on-line too) to then voice our opinions, here? Who's listening, eleven or twelve souls?
The public input part of the meetings is integral. It is possibly reported on by the Press, people watch the council meetings online and on Shaw Cable.
The North Shore News is selective on what letters are published. They have their bias.
The wishes of the public should have as many venues as possible and that includes council meetings, where the Chair, the acting Mayor, has the power to shut anyone down if they are being disrespectful.
Always a bit surprised by the folks that like the idea of censorship. Don't need web "handles", don't need screening from the nutty opinions, don't need self-appointed arbiters of what I may or may not read.
Obviously agree that invective and slanderous comments are unwelcome but I'm old enough to make up my own mind on content without the nanny state folks intervening.
I found this clause in the report puzzling "Providing several opportunities for public input at Council meetings dramatically increases the likelihood of arbitrary decision making by Council..."
Can the clerk, who wrote the report, please list the decisions that she thought were arbitrary?
How do you determine if there has been a 'dramatic' increase in the number of arbitrary decisions by council?
Is there an acceptable baseline of arbitrary decisions?
Council is perfectly capable of listening to multiple sources of input, considering how they will make the decision, and properly formulated a reasoned position. Staff do not hold a monopoly on logic and reason.
Anyone watching a City Council meeting would know that the Chair is the problem in more ways than one. Meetings are dysfunctional unless you're a favorite.
Of course we need to be respectful and conduct ourselves accordingly in meetings held under Parliamentary procedures,ie. Robert's Rules.
Be aware that this exposes CNV Council's wishes. They do not wish to operate under a democracy. Watch this item come up in the future, with an outright ban on public input. This is how they wish to hide their dishonesty.
Maybe I have become a cynic, but I suspect this was a carefully crafted brush-back pitch by the Mayor to Kerry Morris, which is essentially saying we can ban you while still sounding like we are defending democracy.
The RCMP have had to be put in place due to the conduct of Kerry Morris' conduct on two occasions. Restrictions are being put in place as Kerry refuses to follow the rules in place now. Thank God he is not sitting in the Mayor's chair.
21 comments:
NVP:
Courteous and relevant comments are welcome. Anonymous invective is not. Use a consistent screen name so other readers can connect your contributions. Comments submitted without basic identification may not pass moderation.
This was tried a couple times and failed miserably.
The municipal elections are over for most candidates but some of the non-winners are using our Council meeting's public question period to beat out their drums of what they would be doing if they had received a majority of votes. They didn't win, and those on Council will be held accountable by the voters, the next time around if the majority agrees.
There is an easier way for members of the public to get Council's attention on any given topic, write letters to each one with cc: to the Press. Or write the Press directly and let them be the ones to decide if it's a newsworthy event or not. Let hem be the ones to create editorial cartoons.
North Van City Voices, North Vancouver Politics circulations are nowhere near the power of the North Shore News.
After all, aren't we doing it now, reading newspapers (on-line too) to then voice our opinions, here? Who's listening, eleven or twelve souls?
The public input part of the meetings is integral. It is possibly reported on by the Press, people watch the council meetings online and on Shaw Cable.
The North Shore News is selective on what letters are published. They have their bias.
The wishes of the public should have as many venues as possible and that includes council meetings, where the Chair, the acting Mayor, has the power to shut anyone down if they are being disrespectful.
Anty newspaper that publishes the letters of Wendy Quereshi and Sue Lakes Cook can hardly be accused of being selective, never mind biased.
Always a bit surprised by the folks that like the idea of censorship. Don't need web "handles", don't need screening from the nutty opinions, don't need self-appointed arbiters of what I may or may not read.
Obviously agree that invective and slanderous comments are unwelcome but I'm old enough to make up my own mind on content without the nanny state folks intervening.
I found this clause in the report puzzling "Providing several opportunities for public input at Council meetings dramatically increases the likelihood of arbitrary decision
making by Council..."
Can the clerk, who wrote the report, please list the decisions that she thought were arbitrary?
How do you determine if there has been a 'dramatic' increase in the number of arbitrary decisions by council?
Is there an acceptable baseline of arbitrary decisions?
Council is perfectly capable of listening to multiple sources of input, considering how they will make the decision, and properly formulated a reasoned position. Staff do not hold a monopoly on logic and reason.
It appears to me that the Chair of the meetings is out of his depth in dealing with people.
The Chair (Acting Mayor) can shut anyone down at any time if they are being disrespectful.
What is the problem?
Anyone watching a City Council meeting would know that the Chair is the problem in more ways than one. Meetings are dysfunctional unless you're a favorite.
Of course we need to be respectful and conduct ourselves accordingly in meetings held under Parliamentary procedures,ie. Robert's Rules.
Be aware that this exposes CNV Council's wishes. They do not wish to operate under a democracy. Watch this item come up in the future, with an outright ban on public input. This is how they wish to hide their dishonesty.
"This is how they wish to hide their dishonesty."
Could you give some examples of past acts of dishonesty?
Maybe I have become a cynic, but I suspect this was a carefully crafted brush-back pitch by the Mayor to Kerry Morris, which is essentially saying we can ban you while still sounding like we are defending democracy.
Hasn't Mr. Morris been using the public input period to campaign? Isn't that sort of thing against procedure?
No, it is not. Mr. Morris is allowed to speak as long as he is not disrespectful.
The RCMP have had to be put in place due to the conduct of Kerry Morris' conduct on two occasions. Restrictions are being put in place as Kerry refuses to follow the rules in place now. Thank God he is not sitting in the Mayor's chair.
Kerry Morris would have had a better chance to be Mayor IF he had spent time, three terms as a COUNCILLOR, first.
Thank you to George Pringle for the last 2 comments ... give it up George
I don't think George is the only one who thinks that way about Morris.
I fail to understand how Mussatto can't shut him down if he is disrespectful. Perhaps I should watch a few meetings.
He asks questions politely, not disrespectful. Watch Mussatto go after John Harvey at the last meeting - for no reason at all. Anger problem.
So is Mussatto afraid of Morris? And not of John Harvey. At the DNV meetings Harvey is politely tolerated, and he speaks at almost every meeting.
Post a Comment