I don’t have enough data on my phone to watch the video, but the central point still seems to have been missed.
If there were resolutions passed at the public meeting, the decisions have been properly made, even if the optics don’t look quite right. If there was an announcement without resolutions, there are questions about whether the decisions were properly made outside of a public meeting.
The general principle is that decisions will be made in public. Closed meetings are exceptions to the rule but are subject to oversight, ultimately by the judiciary. Whether the matters at issue appear to be important or not is irrelevant.
Perhaps those with better internet access might watch the video and listen for the magic words: moved, seconded, all in favour.
[quote=“BTravenn”]I don’t have enough data on my phone to watch the video, but the central point still seems to have been missed.
If there were resolutions passed at the public meeting, the decisions have been properly made, even if the optics don’t look quite right. If there was an announcement without resolutions, there are questions about whether the decisions were properly made outside of a public meeting.
The general principle is that decisions will be made in public. Closed meetings are exceptions to the rule but are subject to oversight, ultimately by the judiciary. Whether the matters at issue appear to be important or not is irrelevant.
Perhaps those with better internet access might watch the video and listen for the magic words: moved, seconded, all in favour.[/quote]
The sound was the best quality, but
I can’t see anything remotely secretive. And there is nothing to suggest that the optics don’t look right.
[quote=“BTravenn”]Some may disagree with you about the optics, but if all appointments were voted on and passed by resolution that’s the end of a matter.
Even a decision improperly made at a closed meeting can be cured by a resolution at a public meeting.[/quote]
Are you one of the people who would disagree with me about the optics. Are you suggesting that a decision was “improperly made at a closed meeting that was cured by a resolution at a public meeting?” I am going to assume not.
Someone thought that the new council was making decisions behind closed doors and everybody piled on. Was there a meeting? I don’t see any evidence of one. Were decisions made behind closed doors? I don’t see any evidence.
A motion was moved, seconded and passed. End of story.
Now I am not suggesting that they didn’t have informal talks ahead of time to see who might be interested in serving on which committees. Nelson wasn’t even present, but I am guessing that it will be no surprise for him to find out he is on the regional board. But that is just common sense and common courtesy to let people know that you are nominating them.
[quote=“BTravenn”]Some may disagree with you about the optics, but if all appointments were voted on and passed by resolution that’s the end of a matter.
Even a decision improperly made at a closed meeting can be cured by a resolution at a public meeting.[/quote]
Are you one of the people who would disagree with me about the optics. Are you suggesting that a decision was “improperly made at a closed meeting that was cured by a resolution at a public meeting?” I am going to assume not.
Someone thought that the new council was making decisions behind closed doors and everybody piled on. Was there a meeting? I don’t see any evidence of one. Were decisions made behind closed doors? I don’t see any evidence.
A motion was moved, seconded and passed. End of story.
Now I am not suggesting that they didn’t have informal talks ahead of time to see who might be interested in serving on which committees. Nelson wasn’t even present, but I am guessing that it will be no surprise for him to find out he is on the regional board. But that is just common sense and common courtesy to let people know that you are nominating them.
So what are the bad optics?[/quote]
Not having listened to the audio of the meeting, I have no opinion as to optics. Others might, but that’s not my concern.
I’ve already said that if the appointments were approved by resolution that’s the end of the matter, or if you prefer ‘end of story’.
Not having listened to the audio of the meeting, I have no opinion as to optics. Others might, but that’s not my concern.
I’ve already said that if the appointments were approved by resolution that’s the end of the matter, or if you prefer ‘end of story’.
Sometimes it’s best to turn the page and move on.[/quote]
Even though you hadn’t listened to the audio and even though you claim that you have no opinion as to optics, you did say earlier
[quote=“BTravenn”]I don’t have enough data on my phone to watch the video, but the central point still seems to have been missed.
If there were resolutions passed at the public meeting, the decisions have been properly made, even if the optics don’t look quite right. [/quote]
Look, I am not directing any criticism at just you. And despite my defense of council, I am as guilty as the next person who wrote on this thread because all of us wrote as if something (not sure what but something) might have been done ahead of time when, in fact, NOTHING was done except PERHAPS the usual courtesy of asking around to see who might be interested in serving on which committee.
I believe council was unfairly maligned. There is no evidence to suggest that they did anything untoward or secretive or improper. Now I will turn the page.
I would be very surprised if there was no discussion before the meeting. Some appointments would be more interesting than others, and the two City representatives on the SQCRD board are paid about a $1000 a month honouraria, which is pretty good for attending a monthly meeting. Of course the council members are going to talk about the appointments. There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as it doesn’t turn into a meeting where decisions are made, because closed meetings are subject to legal requirements.
Sure seemed to me that Joy was not very happy at the 1st council meeting. Could be a long 4 years for her because I think the “New Blood” has taken over and she will not have as much influence as before. Maybe she was one who preferred much more behind the scenes meeting?
Ultimately, I don’t think this council will be any more transparent than the last one. Lee Brain will write his P.O.V on a facebook site, choose to answer questions he wants to, and make the same decisions behind closed doors as did his predecessor.
The real reason people elected Lee is he seems so gosh darn nice. Jack is a pompous jerk. And that’s how they’ll be judged.
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
The real reason people elected Lee is he seems so gosh darn nice. Jack is a pompous jerk. And that’s how they’ll be judged.[/quote]
Perhaps we should let Mayor Brain govern for more than a week before we write him off? Agreed. Jack is arrogant. He completely underestimated Lee.
Expectations are unreasonably high for Mayor Brain from his supporters and detractors. Todays society is accustomed to instant credit, instant messaging etc ,we may have lost our patience gene. Results from our Mayor especially in these times and this town will take time. So everyone PATIENCE.
I am with hitest and uartz1949. It’s been a week and already
a. the council has been accused of a secret meeting prior to selecting committee members (false)
b. the council has been accused of not following proper procedure for changes to by laws (false)
c. a councillor has been accused of being upset at not having influence because she looked unhappy or sounded unhappy or …
d. the mayor has been accused of just posting whatever he feels like on facebook
and e. the council will continue to be as non transparent as the last one with decisions being made behind closed doors.
I love it.
By the way, I know previous councils were not as forthcoming about what might have been discussed behind closed doors, but what decisions were ever made behind closed doors.
[quote=“DWhite”]… It’s been a week and already
c. a councillor has been accused of being upset at not having influence because she looked unhappy or sounded unhappy or …
[/quote]
There’s more to this than councillor Thorkelson looking not very happy. There’s an interesting article in North Coast Review that outlines the discussion and points of disagreement between councillor Thorkelson and Mayor Brain in particular. Joy was seeking to add to the list of accepted recommendations on how to proceed with Lot 444 that the Legacy Corporation hire an environmental protection officer and provide ‘resources’ (trans: money) for attending the Environmental Assessment Process.
Mayor Brain (wisely) suggested that a report from staff may be in order as to the costs of that new hire. To that might be added the timing of hiring someone.
< northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … -cost.html >
Unless I missed something there are no firm commitments from Imperial/Exxon to do anything on Lot 444. They simply have an option to purchase the site and an agreement (details unknown) to carry out some investigations on the property. If those investigations do not include land altering activities there would not seem to be anything for a civic environmental protection officer to oversee. Nor at this point is there an Environmental Assessment Process for a City representative to prepare for, monitor or attend.
Councillor Thorkelson’s proposal appears to be premature.
[quote=“DWhite”]… It’s been a week and already
By the way, I know previous councils were not as forthcoming about what might have been discussed behind closed doors, but what decisions were ever made behind closed doors.[/quote]
“… there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.” (former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, although some say he got the idea from political philosopher Jeremy Bentham).
Agreed. They’re given a reasonable amount of time to bring about change. Jack had two terms in office. The people of Prince Rupert fired him. Mayor Brain will have his time to bring forth his vision of Prince Rupert.