1 |
On 12/12/20 10:34, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
2 |
> On 2020-12-12 15:42, Roy Bamford wrote: |
3 |
>> Now we have a council member appealing directly to council again ... |
4 |
>> that sends the message to the community, yet again, that the |
5 |
>> processes that council are supposed to enforce don't apply to council |
6 |
>> members. |
7 |
>> Will the damage from that message ever be undone? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I really don't get your point here. What's your problem? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Council members are community members like everyone else. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> So in this case, Matt, who is also in council, brought up the code of |
14 |
> conduct violations. Sure we can talk about the tone. But did anything |
15 |
> happen? Did we break any rules? Did we treat his request preferentially |
16 |
> in any way? |
17 |
> |
18 |
Either those were all rhetorical questions or I have been giving you far |
19 |
too much credit. In short, yes, to all of them. |
20 |
|
21 |
> From my POV his request was handled the same and is currently going |
22 |
> through the same process like any other request: It was brought to |
23 |
> mailing list, is getting discussed and a motion was formulated. If you |
24 |
> don't agree on this motion feel free to either convince the community |
25 |
> why this motion should get rejected or maybe formulate your own motion |
26 |
> you want to pass. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> |
29 |
I already offered alternative motions, none were included in the meeting |
30 |
agenda. |