Anna is doing politics 101 you know in council meeting are private you can’t discuss it in public so what do you do, you bring it up in public knowing full well you will get voted down on it, then she can go to the public and say same ole same ole I tried to change it, if she really was concerned about it she could have walked out of the in council meeting when the vote was being conducted as a protest and just stated I think that vote should be public not do this crap after the fact, for it does look like typical political crassness which is what she also ran against if i’m right
I totally agree that council meetings can be private but shouldn’t voting from elected officials be public? I understand the need for an elected group to discuss sensitive issues away from the public eye. What I don’t understand is the need to keep any voting secret from the people who elected them. Correct me if I’m wrong but MPs voting record on issues is public knowledge isn’t it?
What ever the situation, you are now stuck with Gord Howie for 2 more years. At the most, all you will get is a 1/4 time Administrator that we are all paying $120+ a year. In my opinion, we are paying for the space he occupies when he does decide to stay at City Hall and do some work.
what we need to do is hire a mayor from out of town. i dont think either of the choices we had were good enough.
i know you cant “hire” but be nice [/quote]
What I was getting at in response to your comment and joking about it, bringing someone in to run for mayor which we can not, the issue of Bedard being on council since Adam was a foreskin now, who does not live in Rupert but in port Edward yet she sits on our city council. She claims that she owns property in town. So I was joking and I guess that I confuse people with words.
Making the motion might not have been against the rules, I’m not sure. However, had Council passed the motion (a motion that wasn’t even seconded) they would have been breaking the FOIPPA, as Mayor Musellem stated. Ashley also brought it up a second time–even after her motion was defeated–after which the Mayor reminded her of the FOIPPA, which states that information from a closed meeting can’t be released for at least 12 years (to paraphrase).
I don’t really care–the vote doesn’t matter to me. Public or private the result is the same. I don’t even mind that she broke the rules… everyone makes mistakes. What I DO mind is people glorifying her attempt to breach the FOIPPA. Just a few months ago this same Councillor tried to have former Mayor Pond censured and Mr. Howie fired because of a similar offense.
If this was a basketball game, Ashley would have been called for an intentional foul. Does she have to like it when someone blocks her play? No–but that doesn’t mean she’s allowed to start flailing her elbows.
This type of attitude really disappoints me. Can you honestly say that you know exactly what Gord Howie does on a daily basis? What do you base your opinion on? I’m all for scrutinizing those that hold public office and hold them accountable when needed. Opinionated and factless attacks such as this are pointless and not all at all productive.
Attempting to pass a motion isn’t an “intentional foul.” It’s not even a foul at all. It’s a bad analogy. You said “Making the motion might not have been against the rules, I’m not sure.” Then you go on to say “I don’t even mind that she broke the rules.”
Was Anna’s attempt to get a motion passed “against the rules” ? If not, then your analogy isn’t a good one.
To equate attempting to pass a motion with Herb Pond illegally signing a contract is just bullshit, and you know it. It’s her job as a councillor to bring up motions, to try and get people to vote with her. It wasn’t Herb Pond’s job to illegally sign a contract. It’s not a “similar offense.”
I’ll tell you what disappointed me the most from the meeting, though, and it had nothing to do with Anna:
It was Sheila Gordon-Payne saying “hallelujah” when the Pacific Coast School motion was finally passed. That was the ultimate in irony, as if “hallelujah” could wash out the guilt for her sinking the original motion in the first place.
If all she had done was make a motion this would be a different conversation–maybe. She made a motion to break the FOIPPA. Is that allowed?
The main problem is that she brought it up for a second time, after her motion was pretty clearly defeated, and even mentioned the specifics of a conversation that happened during the closed meeting.
Are you saying she was in the right trying to revive the issue for a second time? If it’s okay–where does it end?
Whatever–I think it’s pretty clear that she was in the wrong… but if you or anyone else wants to count rule breaking as righteousness on her part, that’s fine. Just don’t get mad at the Mayor for pointing out that she’s not playing fair.
Yea–I’m pretty sure. Can someone make a motion to go out and stab someone? Can someone make a motion to break a different law? If the motion is defeated, the law was never broken, right? So it’s okay for Councillor Ashley to try and break the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, just so long as she doesn’t actually break it?
And, as I said before, I’m taking what Mayor Musellem said as the true: That in camera matters are dealt with confidentially, and that, in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that information is not released for at least 12 years.
Yea–I’m pretty sure. Can someone make a motion to go out and stab someone? Can someone make a motion to break a different law?[/quote]
They sure can.
Or, by a motion in council. Otherwise, how do you think anything that happens behind closed doors ever gets reported or acted on?
They agreed to extend Mr. Howie’s contract behind closed doors, right? How do you know that? Because Council agreed to disclose that information.
You seem to think that revealing anything from an in camera meeting is illegal. That’s not the case at all. Think about it for a second. If that were the case, then you could not act on anything decided in camera.
Anna was raising a legitimate motion, to ask that council reveal the vote that happened in camera. If it had passed, it wouldn’t have been illegal.
Again, if you think Anna did something against the rules, then point out the rule. Otherwise, you’re wrong.
And don’t try to move the goalpost here, eccentric. You’ve said repeatedly that Anna has broken the rules. Well, let’s have it, what rule was broken? Don’t move the conversation on to something else, don’t try to muddy the water, don’t shift the topic.
It’s actually three years longer than Mayor Mussallem said.
Cabinet and local public body confidences
12 (1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or any of its committees, including any advice, recommendations, policy considerations or draft legislation or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the Executive Council or any of its committees.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) information in a record that has been in existence for 15 or more years
This is a major flaw in the FOIPPA. As an investor (and it is a term I use because I invest my tax money for a better living environment) it seems to me that we have an issue of partial disclosure. Council might have been able to state how they voted. Would that have killed anyone? Hardly. In fact if you make a decision stand by it. Inform the public how you voted.
This is not just a Prince Rupert problem but provincial issue that I believe needs to be addressed.
I agree with eccentric on this one. The motion was brought up and there wasn’t even a seconder. Perhaps if someone had seconded the motion just for the sake of discussion the Anna wouldn’t have felt compelled to bring it up again. Bringing up an issue that was already defeated for the second time in a meeting was wrong and possibly just inexperience on her part. We don’t have to agree with the results of Anna’s motion but there is a process that needs to be followed. If councillors keep bringing up and re-hashing things that have been defeated and they individually do not agree with just to argue their point it will make for a pretty dysfunctional environment. Remember, each of these councillors are regular members of the community who have been chosen by the residents of the community to serve on council. Not one of them even seconded her motion, not even Gina Garon who was a part of the concerned citizens group. What does that tell you?
What would have happened had Anna’s motion passed and the information on the vote made public?
What would happen to individual council members if they publicly stated that they did not agree with a decision made in camera?
Are there legal ramifications? Could a councillor be censured? Lose their position?
As BakerWriter mentioned this is a provincial issue. Perhaps Anna could raise the issue at the Union of BC Municipalities.
Cabinet and local public body confidences
12 (1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or any of its committees, including any advice, recommendations, policy considerations or draft legislation or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the Executive Council or any of its committees.[/quote]
Great, so it wouldn’t be against that to just give a result of a vote, would it? Saying “Counselor Smith voted against the motion, Counselor Black abstained.” isn’t revealing the substance of deliberations.
I’ve been part of in camera discussions in other organizations where individuals insisted on having their negative votes or abstentions noted for public record.
It also wouldn’t be against FOIPPA for individual counselors to reveal how they voted. It wouldn’t be against FOIPPA for Anna to publicly say “I voted against the motion.” It’s not revealing the substance of the discussion.
Nonetheless, I still don’t think she broke any rule by bringing forward a motion.
Which is the basic problem. We don’t want to know about the deliberations and the private information discussed. That’s clearly protected by FOIPPA. We want to know how you voted. THAT’S not protected by FOIPPA.