You need to read Robert’s Rules again, eccentric. It’s not a motion if it wasn’t even seconded. It wasn’t defeated - it didn’t exist. Jees, even after you admit you’re wrong, you still won’t admit you’re wrong.
Again, the question was: 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.
(Or do you just pick and choose the items to respond to on this topic?)
If that is the case, then I think we have a problem. Any decision made behind closed doors should be voted on publicly. The motion is simple and without debate.
Move to accept (whatever decision was made). Councillors votes are then recorded.
And I don’t have a problem with a councillor who may have voted against in camera but for whatever reason is prepared to accept the decision in public. People have the right to change their minds. But by not having a vote, we deny the opportunity for councillors to publicly state their opposition to a particular plan of action.
Edit: To ThePodunkian
I was responding to DWhite’s question about “how an in camera decision [is] made public and able to be acted on?”
He said he hoped “there is[was] 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.”
To which I said, “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.”
But isn’t that why the have the thing in camera in the first place? If Councillors are going to be able to speak negatively about a specific personnel choice in the open meeting, why have the original debate during the in camera meeting?
In any case, Councillor Ashley was able to express her disappointment that the voting results would not be made public–but she was not able to indicate whether or not she was in favour of the contract renewal… for all we know, she voted in favour of retaining Mr Howie.
Well thanks for the reply, but again, for the third time, a simple yea or a nay, no essay, no thesis:
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.
(We look forward to hearing your opinion on the concept of transperency of vote)
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That’s why the FOIPPA is about both freedom of information AND the protection of privacy. It’s not the 'Freedom of Information or the Protection of Privacy Act.
In our case it seems Council has chosen, by defeating Councillor Ashley’s motion, to air on the side of discretion.
I should change that–a Council should always be held accountable for decisions made, always–but sometimes releasing the votes might not be required to hold them accountable. Yea, it makes finger pointing hard, but one thing I learned from the contract mess in the Fall–while Mayor and Councillors can have differing opinions, they ultimately have to exercise their authority as a single, unified body.
The discussion is in camera where councillors are allowed to speak more freely. Perhaps say things that they wouldn’t or shouldn’t say in public.
The vote to accept the decision is made public. And it can be without debate. At least the councillors are on record.
Again thanks for your reply, but it’s a simple question with no real wriggle room, either you believe that the councillors elected by the population should be accountable to their vote or you don’t.
By accepting the premise that sometimes they don’t have to record their vote, leaves lots of room for potential trouble down the line on any number of issues.
So I can only assume by your commentary that you’re on board with hiding details even such non controversial ones as a simple record of a yes or a no…
That might be a wonderful concept in Orwell’s Animal Farm or the politburo of the old Soviet Union, but in a functioning democracy the key is accountability and transparency…
That can only happen when the votes are recorded and held up for public scrutiny.
Edit: To DWhite
I think I see what you’re getting at–there needn’t be any discussion, but at least the Councillor(s) who voted against the renewal of the contract could then use the vote to accept the decision publicly as a way to express their reservations by voting against making the decision public? If that makes sense… it makes sense as I write it.
We’ll agree to disagree.
By George i think you get it! :-D
(oh wait I re read your post perhaps you don’t get it after all!)
I would myself prefer to see all debate in an open forum except for those details limited by legal ramifications or personnel matters of a more personal nature, simply asking council to outline how they voted doesn’t seem to infringe on any of those caveats.
Ok, but what part do you disagree with the accountability or the transparency?
I just don’t see it in black and white like you do.
Let’s release the results of the vote. As Mig said earlier, what have they got to hide? Nothing. Well, let’s tap their phones too. They’ve got nothing to hide. The electorate needs accountability and transparency. What if they say something on the phone that the electorate should be aware of? I need some medical records too… and bank statements.
In fact, I think it’s clear that we do put restrictions on just how transparent and accountable people are required to be. The issue you and I are having is not, as you say, whether or not government should be accountable and transparent–we both agree it should. Rather, our issue seems to be at what point the restrictions should end, and if some of those restrictions can be situational in nature.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again–do I personally have any problem with the result of this vote being publicized? Not at all. I think we all have a pretty clear idea who voted which way anyways. I do, however, sympathize with Council’s decision to use discretion in this specific situation.
Edit: I think I should quit this thread. 
7 pages is too much already. Thanks for the discussion–debate certainly is a very important part of democracy.
I am not sure if you understand.
A decision is voted on in camera.
That decision should be made public by a vote to accept the decision (so it can be acted on).
People who opposed the decision can express their opposition by voting not to accept. It will still pass but at least their opposition is made public.
Some people for various reasons may have opposed the motion in camera, but now for other reasons may be willing to accept it in public. Their vote would be recorded as a vote in favour.
I am having a hard time believing that some votes are not made public.
You’re really grasping at straws here.
[quote=“eccentric”]
Let’s release the results of the vote. As Mig said earlier, what have they got to hide? Nothing. Well, let’s tap their phones too. They’ve got nothing to hide. The electorate needs accountability and transparency. What if they say something on the phone that the electorate should be aware of? I need some medical records too… and bank statements. [/quote]
You know that’s the logical fallacy that people use when they know they’ve lost the argument. You just didn’t bring up Hitler or the Nazis.
It’s like me saying that you want to hide everything from public view, so that government can function more efficiently, without having to spend time publicizing its workings.
Face it, every time you post, you sink your cause further and further, because you started the argument with a false premise in the first place.
I don’t think this argument should be about accountability or the transparency, but rather when it’s appropriate to release an employees personal file to the public.
How in any way, is outlining how each councillor voted on the issue releasing an employees file to the public?
That’s almost as diversionary a tactic as eccentrics sudden belief posted earlier, that the next thing the howling mobs would demand would be telephone taps and medical records.
Near as I can tell, all most of the posting public on this thread thus far are seeking is a record of the vote on the in camera issue.