Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Change that to "discussion stifled"

Yesterday I discussed the stifling of open discussion during Council meetings. But upon further reflection, I want to add to it.

Over the past year or so, there have been several times when I've been denied permission to speak.* However, I don't recall a time when I challenged a denial and was again rejected. So it's been my experience that discussion is allowed. And I needed to say that. Additionally, I do see a benefit in moving meetings along when the hour is late.

Nonetheless, it does seem to me that every time I challenge the denial of "the floor" that I end up getting publicly chastised for a comment... or my question goes unanswered... even though it often takes five minutes to explain why the hour is too late to answer a yes or no question.

Furthermore, as I mentioned yesterday, it'd be simple enough to split an agenda into two meetings.

Anyway, I decided my headline yesterday "Discussion prohibited - what's new?" was too strong. But the basic premise of the stifling of discussion remains. And I'm tired of it.

Tim White

* though they're not necessarily part of the public record

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they suppose to be using Robert's Rules for running the TC meetings?
Did Matt Hall ever get a crash course on how it works?
You need to bring it up to his attention, this is not the Matt Hall Meeting.