All that Mayor Musellem did was announce it–there may, however, have been a motion to announce the renewal during the closed meeting. No idea.
My thoughts were exactly what DWhite’s were regarding possible issues that might arise were these kinds of votes made public. With every negative vote, Mr. Howie loses power. That’s what I meant said privacy.
And let’s face it–Councillor Ashley made her motion to reveal the vote… it wasn’t even seconded. That might be a hint how the vote went.
Read my recent edit–it just missed your post. Perhaps privacy was not the right word.
And no, I don’t think a record of how the individual Councillors voted on this specific issue is important. Records in general, yes–but it doesn’t have to be all or none.
Edit: Did you remove your post?
[quote=“eccentric”]
My thoughts were exactly what DWhite’s were regarding possible issues that might arise were these kinds of votes made public. With every negative vote, Mr. Howie loses power. That’s what I meant said privacy.[/quote]
So you don’t want anyone to know how councillors voted, because Mr. Howie might “lose power” ? So FOIPPA is now about protecting the power of people?
Woah.
Another classic eccentric line to keep for future reference.
In your opinion, the “power” of a unelected official is more important than democracy. Check. Got it.
But I’ll give you this: You’ve successfully muddied the issue so much, that nobody remembers when you said that Anna broke the rules, and then compared it to a foul in a basketball game. Care to take that back and admit she didn’t break any rules? And yes, I removed my post after seeing your edit.
You can belittle me all you want, but you know exactly what I mean.
I’m still not sure she hasn’t broken the rules. If she didn’t break the rules, it’s pretty clear she was acting quite unorthodox–or else the six other elected officials sitting with her are in the wrong, as some of you are pointing out.
As I said earlier, we can chalk this up to Councillor Ashley’s outstanding righteousness if we want to… that’s fine with me.
Huh? Wasn’t that exactly what you were doing to Anna?
What exactly do you mean by taking away power? How does FOIPPA protect his power?
You said she broke the law, then you said she broke the rules, then you said she was illogical, all based on something you are now completely ignoring.
“Councillor Ashley broke the rules–plain and simple” is what you said.
This is your standard operating procedure, Eccentric. Make a claim, and when someone asks you to back up your claim, you move on to something else.
I challenge you to admit you were wrong when you said that Anna broke the law, that she broke the rules, and that she was illogical.
[quote=“MiG”]
Huh? Wasn’t that exactly what you were doing to Anna? [/quote]
No.
It protects his privacy. With privacy comes, in my opinion, a fair expectation that he’ll be supported by the Mayor and Council who voted him into his position. Revealing which Councillor(s) voted against his appointment might adversely affect his ability to do his job.
Edit: We’re the kings of post modification, it seems. Friggen leap frog.
Like I said, you want to confuse two issues here, because you were clearly wrong when you said that Anna broke the rules.
Anna was absolutely correct to bring up a motion, and council was just fine to not support it (or even second it for a debate). That’s how it works. That’s not breaking the rules.
Now you absolutely won’t admit you were wrong to say she broke the law, broke the rules, and was illogical. But that’s ok, the fact that you keep wanting to change the topic to something else will serve as your admission that you’re wrong.
Again, I’m not sure. So no, until I’m shown that she was allowed to make that motion, and then attempt to make the same motion again, I won’t admit it. Prove me wrong–this is your standard operating procedure, pick one thing I say and focus on it with the hope I’ll back down, without ever really refuting what I said.
So there you go–I’m not sure. Show me your wisdom, since you seem sure she didn’t break the law, she didn’t break the rules, and she was logical.
You’re ignoring her second attempt, and the fact she mention specifics about the deliberations during that second attempt.
Eccentric, ask your mother if Anna broke the rules
No thanks. Howwwever, can you clarify what I asked earlier of you? You may have missed it through all the posts.
I was just curious, since you seem to know more than some, if a Councillor can bring up a defeated motion over and over again?
So that’s what it’s come down to – you think you can just make claims and then demand that people prove you wrong?
The ultimate in logic. Thanks Dick Cheney. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction! You can’t prove they don’t!
[quote=“eccentric”]I was just curious, since you seem to know more than some, if a Councillor can bring up a defeated motion over and over again?
[/quote]
It wasn’t over and over again, but yes, you can, as two people have already stated.
Also, you could just google it: tinyurl.com/bp3k6y
Again–I’m still not sure she didn’t break the rules. You assume there was no motion made during Council to publicize the vote.
But, for argument’s sake, I’ll admit it–I’m wrong, according to what you’ve posted and the information that’s available.
And, to go back to my original, and intended, point–the way she acted, there is no need to be so harsh on Mayor Musellem and the other Councillors, simply for not agreeing with Councillor Ashley.
[quote=“eccentric”]
Again–I’m still not sure she didn’t break the rules. You assume there was no motion made during Council to publicize the vote.[/quote]
I assume what? I’m not sure what you mean. Even if there had been a motion, one can move to reconsider a motion. I think you need to read Robert’s Rules.
I was under the impression that a motion to reconsider could only be made once, but reading it over a few times, that’s not right. This is, though:
“Under Robert’s Rules of Order and some other authorities, the motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted on the prevailing side in the original vote.” Emphasis my own.
Since she was pretty clearly not on the prevailing side of her own failed motion, there you have it.
Edit: Then again, she didn’t actually attempt to make a motion the second time, she expressed that she did not intend to make a motion. I’m still not sure she was in the right when she gave specifics of the discussion during the closed meeting.
Ok enough of the round and round, simply put, do you or do you not believe that the councillors should be held accountable to their votes, if they vote one way in camera but then don’t want to have that vote recorded publicly, then we have a wee democratic deficit at work I’m afraid.
Remember, there was no call for discussion of personnel issues, just the simple record of vote on the issue of a senior civic officials contract extension, I have not read anything on these many pages of chaff, that show me that we don’t deserve to know how six councillors and a Mayor may have cast their vote on this issue.
Would somebody answer my question.
How is an in camera decision made public and able to be acted on?
I am hoping there is a motion to accept the decision of the in camera meeting. At that point a councillor can agree or disagree and the vote is recorded. The vote inside the in camera meeting becomes meaningless.
If there is not a motion to accept (and frankly I will be stunned if there isn’t) and councillors who opposed the motion do not have a chance to voice their opposition then we have a real problem.
Well, there wasn’t in this case, it seems. Mayor Musellem simply announced all the appointments made during the in camera meeting, which included Mr Howie’s contract renewal.