0
Preferential treatment?
22 September 2009
[indent]
Number of times the audience applauded for speakers who spoke against the proposed zoning bylaw that would allow commercial vehicles in residential driveways at last night's public meeting: ten.
Number of times the mayor interrupted the audience to remind them that applause is not appropriate in a public meeting: none.
Number of times Councillor Chadwick reiterated issues raised by BIA members about having patios located on the far side of the new sidewalk: one.
Number of times the mayor interrupted Councillor Chadwick during his comments: one.
I had to wonder last night if the unusual reticence on the part of the mayor to tell the audience to shut up and behave - he's done it many times at public meetings in the past - was a show of partisanship over the issue. After all, there were VOTE members in the audience speaking out against the proposed zoning change. I could not otherwise fathom the reason he did not follow his normal course and interrupt their applause to chide the audience about their exuberant behaviour.
Was it preferential treatment? There have been precedents involving VOTE this term.*
On the other hand, he did interrupt me when I was asking questions about some design issues for the downtown revitalization (issues brought to me by concerned residents and BIA members).
He didn't say anything like, "Excuse me, Councillor Chadwick..." - no, he just barged in, like someone shoving his way into a queue, taking control of the conversation. The mayor even defended his impolite action when I pointed out that, under the Procedural Bylaw, I have the right to speak without interruption. But when you're The One of nine, the bylaw is mere tissue paper. He continued to talk over my objections.
But of course, I'm used to it after three years of being frequently interrupted by our mayor in mid-sentence. I don't mind being challenged - that's part of the process - but I do take umbrage over bad manners. Confrontational interactions do not make us a better, more cooperative, cohesive and effective council.
The head of council sets the tone for the rest of us and is our model of behaviour, but perhaps I was brought up differently. I find it difficult to act in a rude and impolite manner. In my youth, politeness was not merely preferred in our home, it was demanded. I suppose that's an old-fashioned attitude these days.
I do wish we had met in Council Chambers, though, instead of at the LTC. A meeting at the LTC means it's not televised. I'm sure there are a lot of other people in this town who would have liked to hear the comments made last night.
~~~~~
* Calling a special meeting of council at the Leisure Time Club to accommodate VOTE's schedule comes to mind. That meeting was called to allow VOTE to harangue councillors in a public forum, and control of the meeting was handed off to VOTE executives. Since I believed that was not procedurally or democratically appropriate, I did not attend. Another precedent: repealling the heritage approvals from the Admiral Collingwood development, which conveniently got VOTE out of a potentially expensive OMB hearing, but left the rest of us with water-filled hole - "Carrier's Pond" as it is now known - on the main street.
[/indent]
Number of times the mayor interrupted the audience to remind them that applause is not appropriate in a public meeting: none.
Number of times Councillor Chadwick reiterated issues raised by BIA members about having patios located on the far side of the new sidewalk: one.
Number of times the mayor interrupted Councillor Chadwick during his comments: one.
I had to wonder last night if the unusual reticence on the part of the mayor to tell the audience to shut up and behave - he's done it many times at public meetings in the past - was a show of partisanship over the issue. After all, there were VOTE members in the audience speaking out against the proposed zoning change. I could not otherwise fathom the reason he did not follow his normal course and interrupt their applause to chide the audience about their exuberant behaviour.
Was it preferential treatment? There have been precedents involving VOTE this term.*
On the other hand, he did interrupt me when I was asking questions about some design issues for the downtown revitalization (issues brought to me by concerned residents and BIA members).
He didn't say anything like, "Excuse me, Councillor Chadwick..." - no, he just barged in, like someone shoving his way into a queue, taking control of the conversation. The mayor even defended his impolite action when I pointed out that, under the Procedural Bylaw, I have the right to speak without interruption. But when you're The One of nine, the bylaw is mere tissue paper. He continued to talk over my objections.
But of course, I'm used to it after three years of being frequently interrupted by our mayor in mid-sentence. I don't mind being challenged - that's part of the process - but I do take umbrage over bad manners. Confrontational interactions do not make us a better, more cooperative, cohesive and effective council.
The head of council sets the tone for the rest of us and is our model of behaviour, but perhaps I was brought up differently. I find it difficult to act in a rude and impolite manner. In my youth, politeness was not merely preferred in our home, it was demanded. I suppose that's an old-fashioned attitude these days.
I do wish we had met in Council Chambers, though, instead of at the LTC. A meeting at the LTC means it's not televised. I'm sure there are a lot of other people in this town who would have liked to hear the comments made last night.
~~~~~
* Calling a special meeting of council at the Leisure Time Club to accommodate VOTE's schedule comes to mind. That meeting was called to allow VOTE to harangue councillors in a public forum, and control of the meeting was handed off to VOTE executives. Since I believed that was not procedurally or democratically appropriate, I did not attend. Another precedent: repealling the heritage approvals from the Admiral Collingwood development, which conveniently got VOTE out of a potentially expensive OMB hearing, but left the rest of us with water-filled hole - "Carrier's Pond" as it is now known - on the main street.
[/indent]
