[quote=“MiG”] … Bikeshedding can result in discussions that, whilst on-topic, nevertheless effectively drown out other discussions on more significant issues."
Perhaps there’s a more important and more complex issue that is being ignored?[/quote]
I think that it is worse when a position is stated under the guise of ‘questions’ or ‘concerns’, rather than being clearly presented and defended as an argument.
Chien22’s gambit seems to be as follows:
Get readers’ attention by questioning whether Board Chair Last is in a conflict of interest because she may own a business that is impacted by the decision under discussion, and if so whether she will abstain.
After several posts it is not clear that Mrs Last even owns a business, let alone whether she may be in a conflict of interest under Part 5 of the School Act, such that she should abstain < bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws … .xml#part5 >. All that has been offered is innuendo, which is unhelpful.
Imply that Trustee Biel is “slamming those in poverty” and “alarmist” by raising a concern about students being away from the school nutrition program for another week, while Trustee Gruber is “rational” by pointing out that the students are away from the program even longer in the summer. So nutrition would not be a problem for a additional week because it is an even bigger problem in summer? If the nutrition program does not address a need, why do they have it? Hopefully trustees are free to raise questions and express concerns without being labelled in negative ways.
Then characterize the questions and concerns that others raise as being something other than what they said.
Old Major pointed out that while the board has been discussing the issue the PRDTU has taken a position in favour of the extension. Their rationale, we are told in reply, is unknown and perhaps unknowable, and also off the ‘menu’ for some unexplained reason. Furthermore, Old Major was ‘changing the channel’. Why is asking what an important stakeholder like the PRDTU thinks changing the channel? Perhaps it is an attempt to widen the conversation in a way that should be helpful.
Crazy Mike asked how the proposed change would benefit the students. That’s a fair question, but later we are told that Crazy Mike is an imaginary character in a restaurant engaged in a ‘mini rant’ about something unknown. The implication seems to be that we can ignore Crazy Mike and his question.
By my reading Crazy Horse found merit in Chair Last’s question about how 10 minutes a day replaces a week of class, but is inexplicably urged to help vote the board out. Why that leap should be taken is unknown.
After critiquing comments from Crazy Horse, Old Major and Crazy Mike, there is a closing comment about “such negativity toward the Board and the elected Provincial Government”. How is that inferred from their diverse comments?
I could say more but I’ll wrap up with this.
Old Major wondered whether the Board is building a ‘case’ against the change. An inference was then drawn that Old Major suggested that the Board wants to make a case rather than consult. I am doubtful that Old Major was going that far. In any event we are told that “a recent court ruling indicated going into a consultation with a plan and your mind made up is not consultation”.
If the reference is to BCTF v BC (2014 BCSC 121) there is no problem going into a consultation with a proposal or plan (or ‘case’) to talk about; the consultation has to start from something concrete. The problem was that the government had started “from the position that its mind is made up no matter what the other side presents by way of evidence or concerns” (para 192; also see para 351 on ‘meaningful consultation’) < courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ … 21cor1.htm >.
Reading the Black Press article that was cited I don’t get the impression that the Board has made up it’s mind. Some have questions or concerns, but there is nothing wrong with that so long as they keep their minds open to other views or positions before making a decision. The Board appears to be approaching the issue responsibly.