When it comes to closed meetings, Prince Rupert City councillor Anna Ashley is hoping that more information can be given to the public about what’s being discussed behind closed doors.
Or no closed door meetings… the people do have a right to know whats being said/done with their money and their city services. What do they have to hide?
By my reading of the new reports, what councillor Ashley would like to see revealed is not personal information, or information the disclosure of which might compromise legal proceedings or negotiations, but simply the topics that are being discussed, eg ‘community awards’, but not who is being considered, or Watson Island, but not legal advice received or ‘deliberations’ about negotiating strategies (if any).
However, it appears that even this fairly modest proposal may be too much for the Mayor, who seems to prefer the way things are. Each mayor during the post-Lester era seems more secretive than his predecessor.
No doubt some information (especially personal privacy) should be kept confidential and excluding the public may be the only way of doing that, but it doesn’t follow that there should be a total ban on virtually all information. How would the city’s interests be prejudiced, for instance, if citizens were informed that the council will be having a private meeting to discuss, for instance, Watson Island, a topic that we have not heard about in quite some time?
Anyone who has been part of a decision-making body understands the parameters of open and in-camera agenda items.
There is a reasonable expectation that this body conduct its business openly so that the shareholders (perhaps the public) may understand and support decisions that are and have to be made. Going ‘underground’ or in-camera continually does not provide shareholders with this opportunity. This, in turn can and often does, lead to a breach in trust that has been created between the decision-making body and its shareholders.
Round and round it goes.
Look at any such body (Chiefs and their salaries for instance) that attempts to operate secretly and I am quite sure you will find that trust is not a partner.
Maybe they’ll have a closed door meeting on closed door meetings. That would be awesome.
I believe that we should lobby for a Mid-Term Election on Mayors and half of City Council .
And quite possibly lose these brilliant Tea Party people? Unthinkable. Or is it?
I think they were going to talk about why they ad no fireworks as kids were very upset,some say they need to buy fire works
that can be used in high wind.
[quote=“ajaye46”]I think they were going to talk about why they ad no fireworks as kids were very upset,some say they need to buy fire works
that can be used in high wind.[/quote]
Are you for real?..90 hm/hr wind proof fire works?..AJ…why dont you volunteer the value of your pension (or half pension now) to provide fudnig for such a thing.
Dont be F’n ridiculous…
[quote=“ajaye46”]I think they were going to talk about why they ad no fireworks as kids were very upset,some say they need to buy fire works
that can be used in high wind.[/quote]
You’re such a moron Ajaye like give your head a shake as to what you are saying
[quote=“ajaye46”]I think they were going to talk about why they ad no fireworks as kids were very upset,some say they need to buy fire works
that can be used in high wind.[/quote]
You know, Ajaye, I’m starting to wonder if you’re actually smarter than you let on. Whenever serious issues concerning the city are discussed you seem to interject with banal comments that shift attention away from the issue at hand towards speculations about your level of intelligence or lack thereof. There’s a pattern. Perhaps you’re really a fifth columnist acting on behalf of elements within the city government that are intent on disrupting discussion about how the city really operates.
For your info, councillor Ashley has submitted a Notice of Motion, which means that the following resolution will have to be considered at the next council meeting:
“THAT staff put more specific information about topics/issues that council is discussing in closed meetings, beyond what is legally required, on the agenda of closed meetings given to the public, and that each clause be fully explained as per the community charter, not just stated by number.”
Acting as a blocker or diversion is a subversive act that requires intent. Intelligence is not a necessary ingredient.
I have a friend who went to china and they do have fireworks that are designed to work in highwind he said australia used them for
there olymic games,the problem with some folks htmf is they need to see things at all levels and dont judge so fast.
HAHA!Classic hijack and hook,line and sinker!!!
[quote=“ajaye46”]I have a friend who went to china and they do have fireworks that are designed to work in highwind he said australia used them for
there olymic games,the problem with some folks htmf is they need to see things at all levels and dont judge so fast.
AJAYE THIS IS FOR YOU TO READ IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ
Ajaye 6 months ago you told us that CN was buying the Watson Island site.
The only thing that anyone can bank on is that you have always been wrong about everything you’ve said. Every time you make a statement or prediction, the exact opposite happens.
So if you think that the City Council is looking at buying wind-proof fireworks, the only thing that we can be certain of is that they are not doing so for sure.
One can only hope that the postings here continue to bring about positive change. The mayor and council seem to have taken the “No you may not” blog concerns to heart. Let’s keep moving in a forward direction folks. Fireworks scmireworks, is this important?
Maybe your mayor will follow Gordo’s move and do the right thing for the people.
It will be interesting to see if the Mayor uses his power to require reconsideration as a way of countering councillor Ashley’s upcoming motion about closed meetings. That seems to be what he is implying:
"… I believe if the council wishes to put down [ie provide information] beyond what is legally required, then whatever decisions the council arrives at we should have those reviewed by legal counsel to make sure that we are not overstepping ourselves in trying to inform the public of what we do on their behalf,” he told council. (see Northern View article)
That certainly does not sound like whole hearted support for the motion. A mayor can require that any resolution (or bylaw) the council passes be reconsidered within 30 days. The second vote is final. The mayor cannot veto anything, but reconsideration can be used to discourage support.
If the Mayor really supports ‘transparency’ or similar fine words that he used before the last election, he would support the motion. If he has genuine apprehensions about how to implement the motion, tabling the motion pending legal advice would be a logical next step. But saying ‘if you pass the motion I’ll send it to the lawyers’ doesn’t make much sense unless he plans to order reconsideration.
Whatever his strategy, it seems quite clear, though, that Mayor Mussallem is not enthusiastic about making decision-making more open.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Whatever his strategy, it seems quite clear, though, that Mayor Mussallem is not enthusiastic about making decision-making more open.[/quote]
Yes, His Worship is indeed sending some signals here and one aspect is abundantly clear…that His Worship has a very high view of himself - so much so that he considers his decisions to be above scrutiny and without comment.
Fear mongering authoritarian (dictatorial) rulers feel they must operate in such a way. In fact history is littered with the carcases of such cranks and misfits but there’s always another to step forward - supply and demand economics.