A unanimous vote?
The vote of censure that was reported to be unanimous has been questioned by people at the meeting and watchers of Cogeco. Some observers claim that Councillor, I really am too old for this bulls**t, Spooner voted Nay thus making the final vote 5 to 2. But confusion reigns and until BS speaks up we won't know.
But the BurdReport has obtained an email from M Mutton between her and the Manager of Legislative Services (the tallyman for the votes) this email states the reason for changing the vote count from 5-2 to 6-1:
But the BurdReport has obtained an email from M Mutton between her and the Manager of Legislative Services (the tallyman for the votes) this email states the reason for changing the vote count from 5-2 to 6-1:
Subject: Re: vote tally
Councillor Mutton:
Councillor Spooner informed me that I had made an error and that he had voted 'yea' and not 'nay' which was what I had heard and in response I advised the press accordingly of Councillor Spooner's correction to me. I would ask that you speak directly with Councillor Spooner in regards to this matter. The original record showed that the vote was 5-2 regarding the motion. I met with Councillor Spooner this morning and he confirmed same and he will contact you as well.
- Lorraine Brace
But a person that I spoke to this morning told me that BS had told him/her on Monday evening, after the meeting, that he had indeed voted NO. So what gives?
Only the shadow knows!! Until we all view the tape.
15 comments:
Whether the vote was unanimous seems irrelevent. We are still left with 2 problems:
-we don't know if someone has a conflict of interest on the contract or not
-the very poor governance that results from the childish behviour of our bad boy councillors
Now what can we do about that?
DJO
I'm sure I heard him say 'Nay'
In a democracy, there is nothing irrelevant about a vote. If instant video replays are a good enough source for determining goals in NHL games, surely they are good enough for deciding votes in Cobourg Council meetings. So, let's look at the tape and get a decision.
Sorry Grandpa your're out of luck. The Ref in chief, the guy in the skybox - the Cogeco guy, says no dubbing and he only supplies tapes when subpoenaed. So unless you have better pull than me no more looks at the tape, we should have known the rerun was yesterday afternoon.
And so far, BS ain't laid his cards out on the public domain table.
We seem to be forgetting that Coun. Mutton has yet to provide any proof and won't back up her accusations (if they can even be considered that strong ...) so maybe she spoke too soon.
We all know she does her homework (almost to a fault sometimes), so why didn't she stand up with her proof.
I don't know, it seems like a waste of time to me anyway, but that question remains.
To Anonymous: Proof of what? She simply asked a question about something that may have, could have, should have, must have or whatever-have happened at a town committee meeting at which she was not a participant. It is relevant to her as a councillor because it is a committee of the town that effectively determines how an "unspecified" (but over half a million dollars) amount of taxpayer money will be spent and she is an elected councillor. The question she asked concerns the logistics of the committee meeting. She wants to know if there were " any declarations of interest" or "if there should have been any declarations". No accusations were made. It is abundantly clear that the rest of council wants to divert the attention from the proper issue to an imaginary one of her making an "accusation", which she did not do. I can say this because I was there when all of this happened. The big problem is that the accusations of her making accusations is completely fraudulent but the public is buying into their deception, as you seem to have. No accusations - no names - no impropriety by Mutton - just a concern that potential conflicts could escape detection if the proper process is not followed, and that's included in her responsibility, and all the others', as councillor. And yes, as you wonder, the question she actually asked that raised all this has still not been answered, leaving the question 'Was or is there a potential conflict?' If that is not an important issue to you, then I wonder what would be!
According to a story in Northumberland News, she is concerned about the confidentiality of the people she has questions about, which makes me wonder if she is sure of her facts. Not that there is something wrong with asking to find out, how else do us humans learn anything. In that case, protecting their confidentiality is courteous and makes sense.
You are quite mistaken, Anonymous. Coun. Mutton made no accusation whatsoever. She dared to ask a simple question, that a simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed. I call on you to prove your quasi-slander of Coun. Mutton that she made an accusation, by telling us just what accusation she had made. C'mon, tell us. Go ahead, put words into Coun. Mutton's mouth that weren't there.
Um Wally, I said "if they can even be considered that strong ...)" meaning I don't think accusations is the right word, but it's the one being thrown around.
So, she simply asked the question on the off-chance chance anyone on the committee might possibly have a conflict of interest? Does she do this with every committee then?
I honestly think it's all ridiculous and a giant waste of time (my own now that I'm commenting on it a second time), but why would she ask a question about a conflict of interest in open council if she doesn't believe someone on the committee might have such a conflict?
Therefore, if she does believe it (and I'm no mind-reader, so I'm not saying she does Wally - oh and where's your proof it's not an accusation?) she should have provided some facts to back her question up. Tell me someone's wife answers the phones for AECOM or something to justify it all, etc.
Otherwise, is she just throwing the words 'conflict of interest' into the wind to see if they'll stick? She's definitely no dummy, so you'd have to think she brought this up for some reason, so why not out the person instead of hinting at it or questioning it (if you don't believe she hinted at something)?
Like I said, I don't care, so I'm not defending or attacking anyone on council. I just wonder why the question was asked in the first place.
Why Mutton asked the question is nothing more than speculative fiction.
It is ludicrous posturing that suggests anyone has to provide proof of something that didn't happen. An accusation has a specific definition. Look it up in a dictionary if common sense does not assist you. The only reason I might ask a question about something is to clarify or illuminate something of which I am ignorant.
It is also ludicrous to expect that every question asked by anyone to anyone, has to have a preamble to it. She didn't hint at anything. She asked a question, just a simple question.
So she simply asked if anyone had a conflict of interest, without suspecting someone did?
I find that hard to believe.
Or else she'd do it every time a committee made a recommendation.
At the beginning of every council meeting, one of the pre-requisites is the question from the chair asking "if there are any declarations of interest". Applying the logic that Anonynous supports, the question would therefore imply that someone on that council must have a conflict of sorts. As Wally says - how ludicrous is that? Perhaps Anonymous would like to reconcile this reality with his or her argument for us. Now I'm dying of curiosity...
and by the way, just because some idea or interpretation is being "thrown around" doesn't make it the truth. That's often the problem with such situations - folks who have only snipits of information get into the fray and start propagating untruths and half-truths by simply repeating them, which can have the effect of making them appear factual because of their wider-spread dissemination. Lynch mobs are a prime example of the ultimate result of such dissemination. It's why juries are sequestered. A responsible person ensures the veracity of any statement or claim before repeating it with the implication that it is a verified truth. Just hearing it repeated does not make it factual. arrrg!
I find it interesting that so many people want to attribute something nefarious to Coun. Mutton. The moment there is an empty space, it is filled up with malevolent projections; which reflects totally on those filling the empty space. Anonymous wants so badly for their suspicions to be true. They are airy nothings -- that none are poet enough to make anything of.
Post a Comment