Coun. Susan Flowers wound up siding with unanimous opposition for her motion, following what she perceived as a successful healthy debate.
“I think I made my point,” laughed Flowers, following the 7-0 decision to quash her move to limit the number of motions each councillor can make to three within a calendar year.
Flowers, who introduced her first notice of motion to council two weeks ago, has been met with considerable feedback from both the public and her fellow council members.
The feedback has ranged from minimal support from those who feel that too many motions brought forward could support grandstanding to the majority sentiment that handcuffing council could pose more of a threat to a democracy than what it’s worth.
“The notices of motion have recently come out of the blue, surprising both council members and staff with little feedback from residents … if we are tapped into the community, listening to what residents need, and are working together, there should only be a few notices of motion per year,” said Flowers in her introductory speech on the reasoning behind her motion.
She challenged concerns that her motion was “undemocratic” by stating, “Democracy means everyone has a voice and we have all been voted in to represent all people of Cochrane.”
Coun. Alex Reed was quick to respond, imploring his fellow councillors to oppose Flowers’ motion by taking the hard stance that “meddling with democracy” was not a path worth venturing down.
“I ran, as most of you did, on a platform of transparency, yet here we are being asked to stifle open public discussion and democratic debate, which would seriously hamper our legislated responsibilities,” said Reed, adding that while he suspects Flowers’ intentions were constructive, he vehemently opposes her motion because “it violates everything I believe to be true about the principles and values of democracy.”
Coun. Tara McFadden, who also wound up voting against the motion, was the only councillor who expressed support of Flowers’ motion – emphasizing that other channels exist for councillors to bring important ideas forward outside of notices of motion. She added council and staff have their hands full with major strategic priorities ahead.
Coun. Morgan Nagel, who had expressed considerable distaste for Flowers’ motion upon introduction, emphasized that “burdening administration” was a poor reason to limit motions and that he felt his one motion per month since last fall’s election (five to date) was not unreasonable.
“It’s not like this system has been spiraling out of control due to my motions,” said Nagel, advising that he had spoken with the mayor ahead of introducing each motion and felt in no way that he had blindsided council.
Mayor Jeff Genung welcomed the conversation, but was in agreement with the majority of council.
