| 1 |
Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 2 |
> So my point is that the whole of the council should consider the |
| 3 |
> objections of an individual council member, so that potentially bad |
| 4 |
> things don't end up accepted based on some kind of an uninformed |
| 5 |
> majority vote or concensus. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Probably the best way to accomplish something like this is for a council |
| 9 |
member to publish their no vote BEFORE the actual council meeting so |
| 10 |
that there is actually time to discuss it. The actual council meeting |
| 11 |
isn't really a great forum to resolve issues - there just isn't that |
| 12 |
much time. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I appreciate the fact that council members are avoiding huge amounts of |
| 15 |
back-and-forth on the mailing list, but waiting until the last minute |
| 16 |
for a surprise "no" vote isn't helpful either. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think one of the great things Donnie has done for the council is to |
| 19 |
push the discussion into the mailing list well in advance of the |
| 20 |
meeting, and to defer issues that haven't gotten properly hashed out |
| 21 |
on-list. If something really needs interactive discussion that is one |
| 22 |
thing, but going into a topic cold just results in a lot of "shooting |
| 23 |
from the hip" and not much constructive progress. |
Archives