Hi, In my personal view, a wiki is a work sheet where council can contribute whatever they like. Likewise for the motions wiki, i see it as a place where we can work out the language and hopefully come to something we agree on. But yes, only the motions that are made and seconded get voted on. What I have hoped would happen is that people would discuss the motions and their issues with them on the list so that following practices of openness and discussion we could arrive at agreed language by the time we had the meeting. Unfortunately we have less substantive discussion between calls then I hope for. For substantive motion to be voted on it needs to be available for at least a week before the meeting. Are you indicating that a motion should made and seconded at least a week before the meeting in addition to the proposed text being made available? If this is a practice that has the consensus of the council I am sure we could try to follow it. Council practice to date has been somewhat informal but been determined by practice and consensus, and certainly not following the procedures of formal rules of order. I do not think that having a motion seconded at a meeting is a detriment to credibility as I believe this is a very common practice in voting organizations. Of course as the procedures develop for the bicameral largely non voting council in the later half of 2009, things may work very differently. Another type of motion that I have included in the wiki are the procedurals one - these are generally the only motions I make, i.e. those that are required by the bylaws etc., I will endeavor to get seconders for them as early as possible. Though often the seconder comes out of the language negotiation phase we have in the meetings. Again it would be better for this to occur on the list before hand, but it mostly doesn't. If we want to get anything done, we need to do it when we can. a. On 7 Jan 2009, at 08:32, Philip Sheppard wrote:
To make all our lives simpler and in particular to make constituency consultation practical, could we desist from the recent practice of posting multiple contradictory motions on the same topic before a meeting ?It is less than helpful to have motions that have not even been seconded placed on the wiki and then discussed at a meeting. This is especially true when the same proposer has posted other motions on the same topic !
If a motion has any merit, then it should have found at least one other poor soul on Council to support it before it makes an agenda. To seek a seconder at the meeting itself, detracts from our credibility as a decision making body. Too often a motion seems to have been seconded at the last moment more on the grounds of "I like so and so and thus I will be nice and support their motion", rather than based on a rational view of the content of the motion itself as discussed with constituents.
Focus, efficiency, progress, - let these be our resolutions for 2009. Philip