In a situation I feared would happen but hoped it wouldn't - in a tie vote at Monday's Quesnel Council meeting, Quesnel Councillor Sushil Thapar was told that he would stay home and not be allowed to attend this year's UBCM
Prior to the meeting - Quesnel Council's Executive Committee consisting of Mayor Mary Sjostrom and Councillors Ed Coleman and L-A Roodenburg made the following recommendation to Quesnel Council:
“The recommendation of the Executive Committee is to allow Councillor Thapar to attend the annual UBCM convention, on behalf of the City of Quesnel, due to the importance of the UBCM convention. In allowing this request by Councillor Thapar, Council requests Councillor Thapar to keep his communications with, and about, the Mayor and other members of Council respectful"
However - Quesnel Councillors Mike Cave, L-A Roodenburg and Scott Elliot voted to deny permission to Thapar to attend the UBCM Convention in Victoria in late September
As Mayor Sjostrom noted...
“when (Quesnel) Council makes a decision that’s the decision (Quesnel) Council makes and that’s what we go with.”
For myself - I was profoundly disappointed with this decision and to deny travel to UBCM because of pure personality conflicts was not the right reason to deny travel. To deny travel to a duly-elected official must be for a profound reason including misspending his/her travel budget or a recent (not past) action that puts the reputation of the municipality in question
As of right now - either Quesnel Mayor Mary Sjostrom or one of the 2 other Councillors who voted in the affirmative (yes vote) can ask that a re-vote take place at the next Quesnel Council meeting, currently scheduled for Tuesday, September 4th
Read the story from the Rush/Wolf here
1 comment:
Give your head a shake Steve. Councillor Roodenburg voted against the motion to allow Councillor Thapar to travel. She is on the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee gave Council the recommendation to allow Councillor Thapar to travel, therefore, Councillor Roodenburg, a staunch mayor supporter, either changed her vote after Executive Committee, or, if consistent, voted against Executive Committee and the mayor twice; once at Exec Committee and once at Council. "Why" is the question. In tabling executive committee's recommendation, the mayor stated it was perhaps an "olive branch" to Thapar, and that she would be disappointed if Councillor Thapar went to UBCM and behaved disrespectfullly. Following this and prior to the vote, Councillor Thapar, in debate, noted the mayor's husband had physically threatened him in the council gallery and that he had witnesses, and that all he had to do was go to the police and fill in the paperwork about the threat. Then the vote came. The mayor voted to let Thapar go to UBCM. Roodenburg voted against. The vote was defeated in a tie. How strange eh?
Post a Comment