Curious how Councillor Richter was the only Councillor called out of order yet the other Councillors spoke to the motion and were not called out of order.
Richter maintains the Ward-Sparrow Councillor Muzzling Motion violates Section 2B (Freedom of Expression) of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
This was a Motion made by Councillor Ward, one which I seconded for a discussion. I believe it is misleading to call it the "Ward-Sparrow" motion, I also think it is unfortunate your video clip only shows one side of the debate with only your comments presented. As a veteran Councillor Kim Richter I would think you of all people would know one can second something to have a debate and discussion and not support the Motion itself. As I said in my comments I believe it is clear there are strong feelings on both sides of this argument and that it is clear this Council needs to work through these feelings, that is why I supported it to be referred for further discussion, preferably with a facilitator who can help work through the issue. I did not and would not have supported the motion as it was written, unfortunately that is not clear in your presentation here. It is a shame the Township's live web feed was down that meeting, and my husband did not attend, as yours did with his video camera. I think the residents would all appreciate hearing the full story on this issue and not one Councillors point of view. I look forward to working through this issue productively as a Council at a future meeting.ReplyDelete
Councillor Kim Richter's response to Michelle Sparrow's comment posted on her Facebook site at http://on.fb.me/10XD5IWReplyDelete
Councillor Sparrow: I have a video tape of the whole discussion. I have just viewed that entire tape again. After Councillor Ward read and moved his motion, you raised your hand immediately to second his motion. You at no time said you were "Seconding it for discussion only". You just simply raised your hand when the mayor asked for a seconder.
During the discussion, you NEVER said that you did not support the motion. In fact you said four times during the discussion that you felt there was: "a need within our council to deal with this issue."
Finally, for the record, bringing council family members into discussion on Council business is inappropriate and unprofessional.