Editor:
If you decided to skip Monday Night Football and tune into a local council meeting instead, I hope you took your beverage and popcorn along because it was a marathon (although the last time I checked, these folks are actually paid to listen).
The slate of councillors over the last number of years did a lot of "rubber stamping" of issues that could have benefited from even minimal debate, so on Monday when our new council were faced with a fulsome meeting requiring participation and discussion, I don’t think they liked it. Sadly, many of them were past their bedtime, and they were none too happy about it.
Their solution to this, although not yet approved, is to move the discussion on all the "meaty" issues to a time during the day when working people will be unable to listen in or participate. More efficient, they say. Make sense?
For those who stuck it out till the 11:30 p.m. adjournment, there were a few highlights, the best being the new mayor finding a dubious loophole to dive through at the speed of light to avoid even addressing the issue keeping many in their seats to hear the decision on whether or not to halt the removal of the Royal City moniker. It was a clumsy, chaotic and somewhat cowardly move full of doublespeak and insulting to those waiting for a response.
The two new councillors from the Progressives group, who were not part of the previous council, did indeed put forward a larger than normal number of motions to be addressed, but it certainly was one way to test the waters to find out if they would be heard and to see if there were any independent thinkers in the newly elected mob.
It was disappointing to find the evening moving along like a rehearsed ping-pong match with a prepared set of responses and no support for some very reasonable motions.
I will withhold judgment (only temporarily), but it would appear we are in for a frustrating four years if council members ignore the fact that there are a variety of opinions they need to hear. The mere 27% of the population who voted did elect what appeared to be a slightly more diverse group of councillors than previously in power, but if motions continue to be defeated with the four mayor supporters repeatedly shutting out the two "others," there would be good reason for some self-reflection on the part of those purporting to represent public opinion.
Gail North, New Westminster
