STAY CONNECTED TO VIBRANTVICTORIA
WHAT'S HAPPENING ON CITIFIED VICTORIA
The city may be counting on votor apathy when the referendum on the Johnson Street Bridge is held. Just because the people who supported the petition that brought the referendum on have been somewhat quiet lately, does'nt mean they will not rally again.
Voter apathy
Started by
Mike K.
, Nov 08 2009 06:39 PM
23 replies to this topic
#22
Barra
-
- Member
- 592 posts
Posted 06 June 2010 - 10:40 AM
I realize that often the decisions that elected officials make are disappointing, irritating, or irresponsible. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to vote for people that we believe will act in an ethical way and represent our point of view, or these people will never get elected. Also, you might consider those elected politicians that you DO support, when they are on the losing side of a debate - its a difficult role for them to be in, and a word (or email) of support will keep them going.
As far as the secret meeting, there are certain issues that must be discussed and debated in secret - these are called "in camera" meetings. This protocol exists not only for government representatives, but also at meetings of non-profit boards of directors, strata councils etc. There are specific and limited issues that referred to 'in camera' meetings and these are personnel issues and financial issues - esp. where they involve negotiating a contract. After the 'in camera' meetings, any decisions that are made must be made public, but not the details of the discussion. I'm sure that you can imagine, for example, a discussion on disciplining a staff member, reducing staff or terminating a staff member - this is a private matter that can be embarrassing and stressful to the person(s) involved. There may also be legal constraints around releasing information - terminations of senior staff usually involve a negotiated settlement that includes a confidentiality clause.
The problem with secret, or in-camera meetings is when issues are referred inappropriately, or if matters (reports etc.) are deemed to be confidential and they maybe should be made public. Then we have to rely on the ethical members of the group to pipe up and say - no this should be dealt with in public. It can be a difficult position to be in, and it takes a lot of guts for someone like Geoff Young to come out and say that Victoria Council has gone to far in suppressing information about the Johnson St. bridge re-hab.
As far as the secret meeting, there are certain issues that must be discussed and debated in secret - these are called "in camera" meetings. This protocol exists not only for government representatives, but also at meetings of non-profit boards of directors, strata councils etc. There are specific and limited issues that referred to 'in camera' meetings and these are personnel issues and financial issues - esp. where they involve negotiating a contract. After the 'in camera' meetings, any decisions that are made must be made public, but not the details of the discussion. I'm sure that you can imagine, for example, a discussion on disciplining a staff member, reducing staff or terminating a staff member - this is a private matter that can be embarrassing and stressful to the person(s) involved. There may also be legal constraints around releasing information - terminations of senior staff usually involve a negotiated settlement that includes a confidentiality clause.
The problem with secret, or in-camera meetings is when issues are referred inappropriately, or if matters (reports etc.) are deemed to be confidential and they maybe should be made public. Then we have to rely on the ethical members of the group to pipe up and say - no this should be dealt with in public. It can be a difficult position to be in, and it takes a lot of guts for someone like Geoff Young to come out and say that Victoria Council has gone to far in suppressing information about the Johnson St. bridge re-hab.
Pieta VanDyke
#23
Hotel Mike
-
- Member
- 2,235 posts
Hotel Mike
Posted 06 June 2010 - 10:58 AM
The city may be counting on votor apathy when the referendum on the Johnson Street Bridge is held. Just because the people who supported the petition that brought the referendum on have been somewhat quiet lately, does'nt mean they will not rally again.
Rally again to do what, Bingo? Seems the City did what was being asked...take another look at both options, seek public input, and hold a borrowing referendum. What do you propose?
#24
Bingo
-
- Member
- 16,666 posts
Posted 06 June 2010 - 11:47 AM
Rally again to do what, Bingo? Seems the City did what was being asked...take another look at both options, seek public input, and hold a borrowing referendum. What do you propose?
An Ipsos Reid poll of 800 is hardly public input, but I am suggesting that the people who signed the petition will "rally" to vote at the referendum.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
