Philip Sheppard wrote:
While we are on the subject of procedures for Council...
a. It is bizarre to lay down now motions that reference a hypothetical outcome of a future GNSO vote. Please Avri check with legal services on the good sense and by-law compatibility of this.
Save yourself the trouble Avri, the bylaw cover neither the "bizarre" nor "good sense". C'mon Philip, surely you can do better. The *only* reason this motion has been tabled at this time is to provide my fellow councillors with the opportunity to review a motion before I table it at a council meeting. This is the process that we all agreed to and I'm simply following it.
b. A motion that proposes an outcome to a PDP that is 100% unconnected with the PDP terms of reference and any discussion (to wit Ross's motion) must be out of order. At best it relates by title only to the same issue. Avri, please check this out with legal services also.
The motion does not propose any outcome to the PDP. It is a proposal regarding how we will react to a possible outcome and make a communication to the board describing that possible outcome.
A Councillor may propose any nonsense they want at any time: Council is not obliged to indulge it. As a long standing member, I would prefer to see us act with common sense, propriety and rationality.
Why start now Philip? Again with your rhetoric. If you are looking to act with common sense, you might want to start by rethinking these sorts of statements. Objecting to a motion on emotional terms? Really. -ross