0
A little courtesy was all it needed
30 September 2009
[indent]
A certain level of professional courtesy is required to keep things civil and fair at the council table. We should, in a perfect world, behave in a manner befitting of representatives of the public, defending our collective democracy, and not merely individuals or cliques spoiling for a fight, squabbling over territory and trying to make sure we gain the most advantage out of a meeting.
We should respect one another, even if we don't necessarily like one another. And we should respect the ideals of democracy and put them above personal agendas.
Should, not do.
Which is why I was deeply disappointed, Monday, when the mayor and his Stepford supporters refused to defer a motion put forward by the Deputy Mayor, even through she was ill, and could not be there to present and defend it.
Even though I quickly asked for a deferral, the mayor allowed the motion's opponents to speak at length against the motion, then vote against the deferral, and then vote against the motion.
In a political climate where civility, respect and courtesy reigned, the motion would have been deferred out of respect for the missing proponent. There would have been no procedural harm in waiting a week to hear it.
The motion as presented to council read:
The motion was, as I understand it, a respectful attempt to curtail the mayor's tendency for ignoring council at the annual Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) conference. She wanted to be sure that council met collectively with government officials and ministers, not merely The One of Nine.
It clearly states the mayor is the spokesperson at any meeting, but just requests the rest of council be informed of and invited to attend these meetings. It's unfortunate that we need a motion to accomplish what should be automatic in our political process.
At the last AMO conference, the mayor, DM and several members of council attended (including myself). But we had no collective meetings with anyone. Other municipalities had arranged meetings as groups and were eager to attend. After all, a collective front is much stronger than an individual one. The DM and I spoke to a few of their delegations, all of whom were surprised that Collingwood had none arranged.
In a previous year at AMO, we were trying to resolve the issue of getting AO15 customs status for our airport (an issue still unresolved after five or so years trying). The mayor arranged to meet with the federal minister then responsible for Canada Customs (Stockwell Day) personally, and refused to allow anyone else to join the meeting. This despite the fact the mayor does not sit on the airport board.
It was only when Minister Day was called to an unexpected meeting and had to turn over the meeting to an executive assistant that the mayor abruptly decided he didn't want to attend. In the end, our DM led the delegation of a dozen that included the mayors from Town of the Blue Mountains and Wasaga Beach, and councillors from Wasaga Beach, Clearview and Collingwood. It was a good example of regional effort and collective democracy, even though it didn't get us much further in our fight.
The point was that it had been scheduled by the mayor for a one-on-one without the involvement of anyone else on our or any other council, not even members of the airport board who know the issue and can argue the reasons for our request.
This is what the DM, I believe, was trying to avoid. It's his l'etat c'est moi attitude that sidelines the rest of us. The motion was likely seen by him as a move to challenge his exclusionary style of politics. She wants a little more light of democracy to shine on council. It's been kept under a basket most of this term.
The mayor and his supporters wouldn't hear of it being deferred. I made the request to defer it, but the mayor allowed the opposition - his supporters - to comment at length on their disapproval, even though the DM could not respond or explain, let alone defend it. Councillor Labelle even commented that it would take too long to go through the introductions if a delegation was present to make a meeting effective.
Only after they had all had their own say was the deferral presented - and as expected it was defeated. then the motion was defeated, too.
I consider my request for a deferral an act of professional courtesy for a colleague. I would have supported a similar deferral if, say, the mayor presented a motion but was not available to comment on it. Clearly the message is that professional courtesy of this sort has no place in our local political culture and in future similar deferrals will not be tolerated.
I covered local politics for the EB for a decade, and found most municipal councils to be, on the whole, polite, civil and respectful of one another. This one isn't. The culture the leadership has created won't show a colleague the basic courtesy of deferring a motion for a week so the mover can speak to it. That's a sad comment on what we've become.[/indent]
We should respect one another, even if we don't necessarily like one another. And we should respect the ideals of democracy and put them above personal agendas.
Should, not do.
Which is why I was deeply disappointed, Monday, when the mayor and his Stepford supporters refused to defer a motion put forward by the Deputy Mayor, even through she was ill, and could not be there to present and defend it.
Even though I quickly asked for a deferral, the mayor allowed the motion's opponents to speak at length against the motion, then vote against the deferral, and then vote against the motion.
In a political climate where civility, respect and courtesy reigned, the motion would have been deferred out of respect for the missing proponent. There would have been no procedural harm in waiting a week to hear it.
The motion as presented to council read:
Quote
WHEREAS Council is invited each year to make delegation requests to various Provincial Ministers or designates at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Conference,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council approve a policy for the delegations that are scheduled through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing by the Town of Collingwood with the various Provincial Ministers and/or their designates at the AMO Conference providing the following:
• All members of Council be advised of the meetings that are scheduled as requested by the Town, and confirmed by the various Ministries;
• All members of Council attending the AMO Conference be invited to join the various meetings;
• The Mayor is the Official Spokesperson during the meeting unless he/she otherwise designates.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council approve a policy for the delegations that are scheduled through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing by the Town of Collingwood with the various Provincial Ministers and/or their designates at the AMO Conference providing the following:
• All members of Council be advised of the meetings that are scheduled as requested by the Town, and confirmed by the various Ministries;
• All members of Council attending the AMO Conference be invited to join the various meetings;
• The Mayor is the Official Spokesperson during the meeting unless he/she otherwise designates.
The motion was, as I understand it, a respectful attempt to curtail the mayor's tendency for ignoring council at the annual Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) conference. She wanted to be sure that council met collectively with government officials and ministers, not merely The One of Nine.
It clearly states the mayor is the spokesperson at any meeting, but just requests the rest of council be informed of and invited to attend these meetings. It's unfortunate that we need a motion to accomplish what should be automatic in our political process.
At the last AMO conference, the mayor, DM and several members of council attended (including myself). But we had no collective meetings with anyone. Other municipalities had arranged meetings as groups and were eager to attend. After all, a collective front is much stronger than an individual one. The DM and I spoke to a few of their delegations, all of whom were surprised that Collingwood had none arranged.
In a previous year at AMO, we were trying to resolve the issue of getting AO15 customs status for our airport (an issue still unresolved after five or so years trying). The mayor arranged to meet with the federal minister then responsible for Canada Customs (Stockwell Day) personally, and refused to allow anyone else to join the meeting. This despite the fact the mayor does not sit on the airport board.
It was only when Minister Day was called to an unexpected meeting and had to turn over the meeting to an executive assistant that the mayor abruptly decided he didn't want to attend. In the end, our DM led the delegation of a dozen that included the mayors from Town of the Blue Mountains and Wasaga Beach, and councillors from Wasaga Beach, Clearview and Collingwood. It was a good example of regional effort and collective democracy, even though it didn't get us much further in our fight.
The point was that it had been scheduled by the mayor for a one-on-one without the involvement of anyone else on our or any other council, not even members of the airport board who know the issue and can argue the reasons for our request.
This is what the DM, I believe, was trying to avoid. It's his l'etat c'est moi attitude that sidelines the rest of us. The motion was likely seen by him as a move to challenge his exclusionary style of politics. She wants a little more light of democracy to shine on council. It's been kept under a basket most of this term.
The mayor and his supporters wouldn't hear of it being deferred. I made the request to defer it, but the mayor allowed the opposition - his supporters - to comment at length on their disapproval, even though the DM could not respond or explain, let alone defend it. Councillor Labelle even commented that it would take too long to go through the introductions if a delegation was present to make a meeting effective.
Only after they had all had their own say was the deferral presented - and as expected it was defeated. then the motion was defeated, too.
I consider my request for a deferral an act of professional courtesy for a colleague. I would have supported a similar deferral if, say, the mayor presented a motion but was not available to comment on it. Clearly the message is that professional courtesy of this sort has no place in our local political culture and in future similar deferrals will not be tolerated.
I covered local politics for the EB for a decade, and found most municipal councils to be, on the whole, polite, civil and respectful of one another. This one isn't. The culture the leadership has created won't show a colleague the basic courtesy of deferring a motion for a week so the mover can speak to it. That's a sad comment on what we've become.[/indent]
Dick Hill