New World Order

So, it seems that 10 years in as an elected official and I still am learning the ropes. Tonight, I was to learn that a board corporate can remove an elected trustee’s motion from the agenda by a simple majority vote, rendering their views silent to the constituents they were elected to serve and to whom they are accountable. To date, I was under the impression that democracy would not only allow but would demand that those whom the public has charged with representing them would grant a trustee the absolute authority to bring any issue into public board for discussion, regardless of views held, rational behind the motion or stance on a given issue. Apparently, this is not so or at least not with our board. This begs the question, am I wrong? If so, I would like to gain a better perspective of how such a process works to support ones elected voice in a society built on democratic ideology.

To be clear, I have previously voted to have items removed from the agenda. However, this has been limited to only two scenarios:

  1. when the mover of the motion makes the request to have their own item removed.
  2. when the matter is related to land, labour or law. As per legislation, these three types of matters cannot be conducted in public board. If or when an item of this nature has been inadvertently placed on a public agenda, it is the duty of all Trustees to ensure that the item be moved to an in-camera meeting to avoid breech of law.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to New World Order

  1. Pingback: Apology and a Reflection | grellblog

  2. Nancy thank you for your comment. I believe you are unaware of the nuance differences between the two situations which render the context completely different. In the case of the Jan 24th meeting, the item was about labor. Labor, by law, cannot be discussed publicly. Hence, to discuss the elements embedded within the sups contract meant that the item needed to be put on a future agenda so these discussions could occur at an in-camera meeting as defined in legislation prior to its public approval. Without this move, all trustees could do is vote yes or no to the motion without any dialogue pertaining to elements within the contract. So in essence, this move was to facilitate conversation that otherwise by law could not take place in public. At no time was it suggested the item would not be heard in the near future. In fact, by law the sups contract has to be approved in public and those who voted to remove it were fully aware it was coming back to public board (as stated on that day).These facts are in direct contrast to what was articulated on Tuesday. In fact, trustees clearly stated on March 21st that they wanted the items off because they did not have an appetite to hear them. This is what has me perplexed along with every politician I know. I have spoken with several and they have expressed deep concern. I hope this clarifies how vastly different the two scenarios are and how vastly different the intent. The first to allow board discussion the latter to stymie it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s