Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop
I think the issue is (from the Ottawa Citizen report) that the motion with the objectionable wording was passed by council. Now there's back-tracking, with the result being the motion will be re-worded. As such, the wording was, by association, endorsed by many in the passing of the motion. Classic example of group-think without thinking.
|
That's not true at all. This motion was typed up before the council meeting, dropped in front of them and most of the council never read the thing. They did discuss the crux of the matter - rotating charities - but they didn't have time to read all the wording in the typed motion.
Even if they did - what exactly were they to do? Vote against a motion they believed in? Abstain from a vote so something you believe in might be defeated? A vote for the motion was *NOT* an endorsement of how the motion was written.
That's just my opinion. Or maybe it's not, because I live in Ottawa where we all group-think and don't have any rational opinions of our own.
BTW - CUSA is going to look into having motions sent to execs BEFORE meetings so people can actually read them if they so wish. Might be a good idea.