Sticking to it

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
101

I don’t think that I chose the right words when I said “employee file”.  Let me rephrase.

I don’t think this argument should be about accountability or transparency, but rather whether it’s ethical to release information about employees (whether it be files, disciplinary records, or renewal of a contract), and what it could mean for that employee if the information is released.

As for a simple record of yes/no votes on in camera issues, I think it’s ridiculous.  You can’t see what the decisions were leading up to the vote.  Maybe there is some information that wasn’t released to the public, that they are then made aware of.  What happens when this information completely changes someone’s point of view on this subject?  If it does and they vote contrary to how they campaigned, there would be a huge outcry from the community saying “so-in-so broke their promise, why should we trust them again?”  You are then putting the councilors/mayor in a horrible position.  Do they vote with their consciences and end their political life, or do they vote against their conscience to keep their job?  The problem with a simple yes/no vote on in camera issues is that you are only provided a snap shot of what happened, with no context and no background.

102

I don’t understand the laws surrounding this issue but It’s probably fair to assume that the mayor, who has extensive experience in municipal governance, is correct.  He was elected based on his credentials and now a bunch of you are questioning his actions as well as eccentrics support of those actions.  There have been all kinds of eccentric quotes used in this thread but I havnet yet seen the one above used where it is stated that he assumes that the mayor is correct.  His following posts regarding rules being broken were based on the originally stated assumption. 

Bottom line, Ms. Ashley made a motion and it wasn’t seconded.  Game over, end of story.

103

[quote=“BoNeCrAcKeR”]
I don’t understand the laws surrounding this issue but It’s probably fair to assume that the mayor, who has extensive experience in municipal governance, is correct. [/quote]

You don’t have to depend on the mayor’s experience – you can look up the act yourself.  The only thing protected is the ‘substance’ of in camera discussions. Not their results, and not any votes, as long as those votes wouldn’t reveal the substance.

If everything that happened in camera was protected, then the mayor himself would be breaking the law by stating that the contract was renewed after the in camera meeting, right?

  Which was wrong.  He’s already admitted he was wrong.

  Technically, she attempted to make a motion, and failed in putting it before council.  So she didn’t break any rules, and didn’t break the law either. 

104

If what Mig says is correct and that publishing the results of the vote is not illegal than why hasn’t Ms Ashely written a letter to the editor about how they voted? lets face it she is playing politics 101 here, should the re-signing of Howie be in camera no, but what if something else that was talked about, pertaining to the re-signing had to be in private? knowing how the ppl voted without knowing what was said would be meaningless. Maybe the Mayor knew Ms Ashley was only playing politics when she brought it up a second time and that is why he dressed her down? Did she have a right to bring up the motion sure she did, she can bring it up as many times as she wants and still get the same results though, maybe instead of playing politics to embarass her fellow councillors maybe she should have asked why it was necessary to have the contract re-signing in private instead of being in public

105

I havent read the Act nor to I want to navigate through it to find the correct info. Forget about eccentric, can you show me where the mayor was wrong? Can you show me where Ms. Ashley was correct?

The Act may well allow this information to be released but it doesnt matter because the motion wasnt seconded.  Our elected officials chose not to release it whether it was based on legal requirements or by choice. 

I know eccentric he wrong to some degree but it is fair to point out that his opinion was always based on assumption.  He stated that but you never acknowledged it.

106

I didn’t say the Mayor was wrong.  I said Eccentric was wrong to say that Anna did anything against the rules, or that she broke the law.

It’s ok to present a motion, that’s not against the rules, and it’s not illegal.

And FOIPPA protects the “substance” of an in camera discussion.  Revealing a vote isn’t against FOIPPA, unless revealing it would reveal substance.  Clearly everything that happens in camera is not protected by FOIPPA, or else nothing could ever be reported out of an in camera meeting. 

BakerWriter posted the relevant information from the act earlier here: tinyurl.com/c6mr3s

As for showing you how Ms. Ashley was correct – she’s a city councilor, and she has the right to bring forward motions (in the same way other councilors can choose not second them.)

107

Thanks for posting to links to the info.

You didnt say the mayor was wrong so I’ll ask you now if you think that the mayor was wrong.

I agree with what Anna was attempting to do with her motion, or attempted motion, but disagree with her second attempt to bring it up.  It was out of order, had already been dealt with and should have been brought up in a less formal setting with her colleagues if she didnt agree with them. Did she have a right to do it?  Perhaps, but it was still not the right thing to do. 

108

It’s not out of order to bring a motion up again.  We had that discussion already a couple of pages ago. It’s perfectly fine.  Just like it’s perfectly fine to not vote for the motion, and to ask her not to bring it up again.

You don’t have to agree with Anna, that’s ok.  But eccentric didn’t just disagree with her, he said she broke the rules, said that she broke the law, then even said that she was given a technical foul.  All of which isn’t true.  And then he went on to equate Anna’s actions with Herb Pond’s breaking the law by signing an illegal contract.  Also not true.

If the mayor said that the results of the vote are protected by FOIPPA, then he’s wrong.  As BakerWriter pointed out, FOIPPA protects the substance of a discussion.  A vote isn’t a discussion.  Unless revealing that vote would somehow reveal the substance of the discussion, then it’s not protected by FOIPPA. 

He may not want the voting record to be in public for other reasons, but to say that FOIPPA protects the voting record is not correct.  It doesn’t.  It protects the private matters discussed in camera.

Anna saying “I voted against renewing the contract” does not in any way reveal the substance of the in camera discussion.  No more than saying “Council decided to renew the contract in an in camera meeting.” 

In my opinion, some are hiding their voting record behind FOIPPA. 

Edit:  It seems the Podunkian has a post that sums up things more eloquently than I can:  tinyurl.com/alvsbt

109

You and I just disagree and that’s ok.  I do believe that Ms Ashley was out of order, well…let’s say out of line, in bringing up an issue that was already dealt with.  If the other members of council wished to have discussed it then someone would have seconded the motion. No doubt there was also discussion on the matter in the closed meeting and it was the choice of council as a whole not to have the voting results made public, whatever their reasons.  Like I said earlier, not even Gina Garon seconded the motion which is surprising because she was also a part of the concerned citizens group. Apparently we need another Anna Ashley to step up and make a stink about this issue too because all of City Hall, except for her, is corrupt. :unamused:

110

I’ve been trying to make sense of this thread, but its a little hard to follow how the events all went down.

It sounds like a motion was made regarding the city manager’s contract “In Camera” and then voted on.  If this is the case, then to the best of my knowledge and past experiences of Roberts Rules, the outcome of that vote must be kept private.  (Hence voting “in camera”)

Therefore the councilor was wrong for bringing anything forward on who voted for that motion, or hinting towards that they voted against it.

Now, if only the discussion took place “in camera” and then a motion was made to leave camera, and then the motion came forward, by all rights the councilor should be allowed to express how she voted.

However it does sound like the Councilor was wrong.  I haven’t read or heard what the Mayor said (so I don’t know if he was out of line) but it does sound like he needed to step in.

As for the comments regarding accountability and transparency that is great in Theory but not so great in practice.  People have already made the comments the councilor has to work with the Manager, so why would she risk damaging the relationship.  For what gain; I gained nothing from it and I doubt anyone else did.

I can give an example why “in camera” votes are useful and necessary.  I was on an elected body (not in Prince Rupert and not at any of the 4 main levels of government).  The body was much larger then the council and was made up of some very strong personalities and some more timid personalities. 

We had to vote on an issue that one member was very much for and was pushing the council to accept.  He was so much for it that he was bullying others into the vote.  I felt he was wrong but not too many people were willing to speak out.  Now before a motion to accept the issue was put forward, another motion was made to go in camera.  It went to vote, I voted against it (I do agree in theory that elected officials need to be accountable), but the motion was carried.

We asked all hired staff to leave as per “in camera” dictates and began discussion on the motion.  Turns out that by going “in camera” many of the more timid personalities felt comfortable to stand up to the person who was bullying and the said motion was made “in camera” and then defeated. 

Now you can look at this example and say that wasn’t fair to the voters, or that we weren’t very transparent or we were secretive, but here’s the thing.  Our council was there to make a decision, we were elected by the people we served, all the decisions we made received majority votes and we came to a conclusion.

That’s how politics works sometimes.  Human nature, tendencies and rapports influences our decisions.  Not very theoretical but I would say natural.

So if we go back to the example at hand, I think the councilor made a mistake (and was wrong).  She may have not liked how the vote went, she may have wanted to let people know how she voted, but she could not bring up the results of an “in camera” vote.

Live and learn. 

*sorry for the long post, if I have any of the details wrong please correct me.  Also I’ve found Roberts Rules gets bastardized and abused very easy so if there are any major errors please feel free to bring them forward.

111

I actually don’t disagree with her thinking the vote should be public, I’m indifferent. As for her breaking the rules, it appears I was right, but was making the wrong arguments… which is just as bad as being wrong.

To clarify, I never said she broke the law, I said she attempted the breach the FOIPPA–and I was unsure whether or not making a motion to that, if passed, would breach the FOIPPA was allowed. From what CC Dynamo wrote, I can’t tell if releasing the vote’s results would breach the FOIPPA, break Robert’s Rules, or both.

And again, to clarify, my statement about the intentional foul was an analogy. If you took it literally… wow.

112

I can no longer resist.   :-D   I have been an elected representative with three different local governments, and have been invited to lecture on parliamentary procedure and have worked in local government for a career spanning some 30 years - and none of it in or near Prince Rupert.  I am recently retired, but may perhaps come out of retirement to take on a contract here and there.

I have read the mayor’s assertion about 12 years and must say that it is misleading.  The release of information and the timing of when such information is to be released is the discretion of your elected body. 

There are different municipalities across British Columbia that approach these matters differently.  Some have had the practice of releasing as much of the results and CONTENT of Closed Meetings (which used to be termed or known as “In-Camera”) as possible.  The protection of Confidentiality of the Closed Meeting extends only in so far as the confidentiality is required to deliberate a matter.  Once it has been deliberated and a decision made, it becomes the public domain in the absence of a “records management bylaw” - a bylaw which can also provide for the release of information that once confidential or stipulate the length of time documents will be kept confidential.  It is not too dissimilar to the “Official Secrets Act” that the senior level of Government uses (UK) and the Access to Information Act & the Security of Information Act (Canada) in that it would provide rules around the release of documents, information, including Council deliberations. 

In the matter here, yes, the voting public has every right to know how it’s Council voted on the matter respecting the City’s top employee.  In many communities throughout British Columbia, more progressive Councils will even include stakeholder groups in the community (being groups that interact with the City) to meet potential candidates for the City Manager or CAO position.  The City Manager or CAO position is one of the small handful of positions in a community that are seen are community leaders and they need to be reflective of the community’s values and of Council’s values if they are going to be truly effective and build goodwill. 

I am not sure that I am seeing that in your situation in Prince Rupert, particularly when I go back and read some of your previous threads. 

Additionally, you seem to have a situation whereby you have a mayor who when was starting out in local government some 20 years ago, was hired by or mentored by the current City Manager when he was working there in first incarnation. 

Furthermore, releasing the breakdown of a vote held in a CLOSED MEETING is in no way a contravention of the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act.  The City’s own interim corporate officer even clarified that for the Council Members - so no, it was somewhat off-base for the mayor to take the rather harsh approach that he did.  He should not have attempted to pre-empt an elected officials right to speak on a matter - she was elected just like all the others there.  Once you stray into the realm of attempting to silence an elected member of a council, you essentially rob voters of one of their representative voices.  They are all equal and have an equal right to speak. 

113

Okay, so another post from another experienced person and I’m wrong again… I’m dropping it. :stuck_out_tongue:

114

Seek and ye shall find.  Even if you don’t like what you find.  (I noticed others have posted as I typed.  Sorry if this is repetitive)

from:  straight.com/article-169810/ … amera-vote

But Woodcock, who is seeking another term with the Coalition of Progressive Electors, told the Straight that she wants a clarification of rules governing in-camera meetings, especially if the subject would have an impact on taxpayers’ money.

“It’s really frustrating because there are times I may not agree with some of the decisions that are being made in-camera, but I really can’t come out and object to them in the public realm,â€

115

In the above quote, do you mean in theory or in our example?  That is, the council should release the voting results vs that the councilor was not wrong in bringing forward the motion.

I ask the question in terms of proper procedure of Roberts Rules.

116

I lied, one more question. Why do you want to know? I appreciate that it increases the overall feeling of accountability and transparency–but what do you really gain from knowing how the votes fell?

Annnnd one more (bad) analogy. Let’s say–for the sake of my argument–that when renewing a teacher’s contract, the superintendent of the school district and the principal and vice principal of the school involved each have one, equal vote.

The superintendent and the vice principal both want to keep you on staff, but the principal wants you to take a hike. For the sake of accountability and transparency, would you want the students and parents of the school to know that the principal no longer has faith in your abilities?

117

Extremely poor analogy, Eccentric

118

[quote=“DexterMorgan”]
The release of information and the timing of when such information is to be released is the discretion of your elected body.  [/quote]

My point all along is that the elected body didn’t even second Ms Ashley’s motion so it was their choice to not release the info.  Based on your above quote they were well within their rights.

What then, is the point of Ms Ashley trying to bring the issue up for a second time in the same meeting?

119

LOL, you didn’t exactly “drop it” for very long

120

[quote=“eccentric”]
I lied, one more question. Why do you want to know? I appreciate that it increases the overall feeling of accountability and transparency–but what do you really gain from knowing how the votes fell?[/quote]

I want to know, because I as a voter, will not vote for any councillor who voted to extend Mr. Howie’s contract.  I will also actively campaign against councillors who voted to extend Mr. Howie’s contract.

Basically, in the next municipal election, I want to have a website “ivotedforhowie.com” with a list of councillors. 

I don’t want to know the details of his contract, or his personal information.  I want councillors who voted to extend his contract to have the guts to stand by their decision.

By saying that we can’t know how councillors voted because of FOIPPA, the mayor is saying “sorry, you can’t know how we voted because we don’t want you to know.  We’ll use FOIPPA as an excuse, though, so we can cloud the issue, and people like eccentric can talk about that instead of the real issue.”

FOIPPA protects the SUBSTANCE of In Camera discussions.  A vote is not SUBSTANCE (unless revealing a vote reveals substance, of course, which it wouldn’t in this case).

Now, that being said, ask yourself again why these councillors and the mayor don’t want you to know how they voted?  It’s not about FOIPPA.  Don’t let them (or eccentric) use that as an excuse.  

They don’t want you to know how they voted, because they don’t think you have the right to know how they voted to spend your money.  

If you see one of the councillors on the street, ask them, point blank, how they voted.  If they bring up FOIPPA, or won’t answer you, then don’t vote for them again.  Make it clear you don’t think they should try and hide behind FOIPPA.

Eccentric, have you been banned from HTMF in the past?