674 replies to this topic

[Ismo07]

It's not really new. The previous Council introduced a new Council Procedures bylaw in 2021 that states "all members of the public may address Council during the public participation portion of the meeting only with respect to items appearing on the Agenda."

This has come up enough times so far during this Council's term that all the speakers at the meeting were well aware of it. The member of the public who was asked to leave was previously asked to keep to the agenda items at the meeting before this one. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

Well what is new is that the Chair couldn't handle the person well enough that Bylaw was called in.  I'm surprised they would have bylaw in hand.  They did not handle this very well.  If he had 15 seconds left it would've taken that till he timed out.  This was bad behaviour.  I've watched many people speak their minds in a Council setting.  It's not a discussion just a chance to evaluate if what was said is worthwhile.  It doesn't bode well for them and really doesn't look good.  Let the fellow finish and be done with it.

[Mike K.]

Then the mayor asked if some statement by another caller was a 'threat.'

 

This week C. Szpak sat in for the mayor.

[HappyValleyGirl]

Well what is new is that the Chair couldn't handle the person well enough that Bylaw was called in. I'm surprised they would have bylaw in hand. They did not handle this very well. If he had 15 seconds left it would've taken that till he timed out. This was bad behaviour. I've watched many people speak their minds in a Council setting. It's not a discussion just a chance to evaluate if what was said is worthwhile. It doesn't bode well for them and really doesn't look good. Let the fellow finish and be done with it.

Were they at a Langford Council meeting after 2021? Staff started intervening well before the speaker's time ran out and he ignored them.

[Mike K.]

Staff don't chair the meeting, though. They have to speak through the chair.

[Ismo07]

Were they at a Langford Council meeting after 2021? Staff started intervening well before the speaker's time ran out and he ignored them.

 

I guess what I'm saying is let the person have their 3 minutes, even if they go off topic a little.  It doesn't matter in the end cause it doesn't start a conversation, it's just the public giving council something to think about.

Edited by Ismo07, 29 March 2023 - 09:03 AM.

[Mike K.]

Yes, so much can be avoided just by letting people run out their time. It's not like this fellow will be there every week.

 

Just let people air it out.

[HappyValleyGirl]

Yes, so much can be avoided just by letting people run out their time. It's not like this fellow will be there every week.

Just let people air it out.

I fully expect him to be at many meetings.

[Mike K.]

We were under the impression that you wanted more voter engagement and less voter apathy in Langford.

[Stephen James]

Imagine starting a little Facebook group because you're frustrated at how things in your municipality are being done and want a place to express it. You never had any intention of running for public office or becoming a public figure. Next thing you know your little group blows up bigger than you could have imagined and it influences an election outcome.

I think it's completely understandable that this person does not want to come forward no matter how much a local radio host demands on know who they are.

Thats a lovely little story...

[Stephen James]

I also like Adam but I agree that he is overplaying his hand here. Unless there is some campaign financing rule that has been broken, I could care less who organizes facebook groups. 

 

I think that most people just want to give the new Mayor and council a chance and then see how things work out. So far they seem pretty reasonable people.

I think what Adam is trying to do, correctly, is to point to the connections, in case anyone might want to reverse this nightmare: 

(at the moment, very few do... 37%)

 

Look, I had D Thompson stand in my doorway and bald-faced lie to my face, and then literally turn and run away when I started asking good questions. He literally hustled off! He tells me there is absolutely no connection between him, JC, SK, CL, MD... when a first year graphic designer driving around with me pointed out that all their signs have the same design style and colour palettes. (This comment about design, btw, is part of a long list pages of the circumstantial details that point to NDP corrupting our local politics.)

 

What I think Adam is trying to help the community understand is this:

We've been caught flat-footed, if we thought our local politics was honestly brokered... it's not.

Our local politics is hostage to an effective NDP organizing system, starting in Together Victoria and morphing/renaming/reconstituting when necessary to get the stink off the brand. They're happy to make all populist promises so they can do their "good works", and they'll leave us suffering unamalgamated, despite a "special majority" voting in favour, because it makes this corruption possible. One result is we have nakedly ambitious true-believers (with little practical experience and all the hubris there is, lol) running a city they seem to care little about, hoping for the phone call from their prophet. (dogma is always religion)

 

The system is getting better and anyone who wants to win against it needs to apply at least the same effort, money, and good strategy. No-one yet seems to want to badly enough. As long as this is allowed to continue, the NDP will apply the same strategies in Langford and Saanich just as soon as they see an opportunity (and they did.)

[Nparker]

...Our local politics is hostage to an effective NDP organizing system, starting in Together Victoria and morphing/renaming/reconstituting when necessary to get the stink off the brand....

This.

To be fair though, it doesn't seem as though the other major provincial political party has any interest in securing the CRD for themselves. As long as this imbalance continues, the NDP machine will win every time.

[HappyValleyGirl]

We were under the impression that you wanted more voter engagement and less voter apathy in Langford.

Absolutely I do.

[HappyValleyGirl]

Thats a lovely little story...

Thank you.

[HappyValleyGirl]

I think what Adam is trying to do, correctly, is to point to the connections, in case anyone might want to reverse this nightmare:
(at the moment, very few do... 37%)

Look, I had D Thompson stand in my doorway and bald-faced lie to my face, and then literally turn and run away when I started asking good questions. He literally hustled off! He tells me there is absolutely no connection between him, JC, SK, CL, MD... when a first year graphic designer driving around with me pointed out that all their signs have the same design style and colour palettes. (This comment about design, btw, is part of a long list pages of the circumstantial details that point to NDP corrupting our local politics.)

What I think Adam is trying to help the community understand is this:
We've been caught flat-footed, if we thought our local politics was honestly brokered... it's not.
Our local politics is hostage to an effective NDP organizing system, starting in Together Victoria and morphing/renaming/reconstituting when necessary to get the stink off the brand. They're happy to make all populist promises so they can do their "good works", and they'll leave us suffering unamalgamated, despite a "special majority" voting in favour, because it makes this corruption possible. One result is we have nakedly ambitious true-believers (with little practical experience and all the hubris there is, lol) running a city they seem to care little about, hoping for the phone call from their prophet. (dogma is always religion)

The system is getting better and anyone who wants to win against it needs to apply at least the same effort, money, and good strategy. No-one yet seems to want to badly enough. As long as this is allowed to continue, the NDP will apply the same strategies in Langford and Saanich just as soon as they see an opportunity (and they did.)

NDP? I thought Adam was accusing the Greens of being behind it. You guys need to figure out what your narrative is.

[Stephen James]

Absolutely I do.

populism = down is up

[Stephen James]

NDP? I thought Adam was accusing the Greens of being behind it. You guys need to figure out what your narrative is.

oh. you were wrong.

[HappyValleyGirl]

populism = down is up

I said I fully expect Scott Perry will be at future meetings. I welcome it.

[HappyValleyGirl]

oh. you were wrong.

https://mobile.twitt...081335802966016

Nope. I'm absolutely right.

[Stephen James]

https://mobile.twitt...081335802966016

Nope. I'm absolutely right.

you're using this? to redirect away from the NDP?

these efforts are funny, and proving the point lol.

 

You need sto spend more time listening to Adam, maybe...

[HappyValleyGirl]

you're using this? to redirect away from the NDP?
these efforts are funny, and proving the point lol.

You need sto spend more time listening to Adam, maybe...

I'm saying that Adam has been claiming that the Greens were behind it. That is a fact.