Your Ideas For Windsor

Latest Comments

Privacy Policy



Blog Visitor Privacy Policy

Archives
City Child Care Centres
Written by Windsor Shadow   
Wednesday, 03 February 2010 10:20
Much has already been said about this issue and I'm not going to repeat it here. One thing I would like to draw attention to though, is the motion for deferral that was defeated.

Councillor Lewenza moved a motion to consult with daycare workers, parents, the County, the Provincial government and the Official Opposition. This omnibus consultation motion had no time line attached to it. I believe that it was Councillor Dilkens who stated he was willing to support a motion to defer, but not one as broad and vague as this one.

Had Councillor Lewenza moved a motion of deferral with a two or four week timeframe attached, the motion might have passed. By trying to delay an important issue for months with his vague motion, Councillor Lewenza ensured it's defeat. Once the deferral motion was defeated, Council had no choice but to move forward.

Sometimes it's easy to point fingers but difficult to ensure they're pointing in the right direction.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed
...
0
In fairness, Hatfield wanted to talk to everyone on the planet first. Lewenza just wanted parents and province (for what reason he thinks the Province cares about whether the municipality should directly operate a small percentage of the child care service, it beats me)
Newshawk , February 03, 2010
...
0
I think you better watch the Council replay again. Your facts are wrong.

On Lewenza's first Motion, his time period was a week or two AFTER the joint meeting was held amongst the relevant parties.

On his second Motion, the deferral time requested was 30 days ie until the beginning of March.

Anonymous , February 05, 2010
...
0
Anon, maybe you should go back and watch the video of the actual motion. His first motion, as voted on by Council did not include any specific timeline. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFTM24B1rbA)

Lewenza: defer this item until we can have that meeting at the nearest possible time with the province the county and the school board (1:05 of video)

Hatfield - (friendly amendment) - consult with the opposition leaders as well as the government at Queens Park. (1:30 of video)

Lewenza - (accepts Hatfield's friendly amendment) - would also include parents and community groups.

That was his initial motion before the report was actually considered. At this point it's a straight up motion with no comment or debate. Yay or nay and he lost the motion.

He did not introduce the 30 day time line until the end of the evening after Council had sat through all the presentation and Q and A. (2:00 of video)
Paul , February 06, 2010 | url
...
0
To be clear Lewenza's first motion as voted upon:

"Defer this item until we can have that meeting at the nearest possible time with the province, the county, the school board, opposition leaders as well as the government at Queen's Park and would also include parents and community groups"

No "week or two" was included anywhere within this motion.

The Mayor was even clear in asking him specifically for a time line.
Paul , February 06, 2010 | url
...
0
In his commnets, Lewenza talks about a week or two after that meeting.
Anonymous , February 06, 2010
Set the Facts Straight
0
Lewenza's first motion dis not specify a time frame but did say "...be DEFFERRED to allow a meeting to be scheduled as soon as possible..."

His second motion provided the time frame of "one month" for consultations.

Both motions were defeated, Halberstadt voting NAY on both.

There was no support for an open ended motion of a time specific motion. So much for your theory.
Line of Sight , February 17, 2010 | url

Write comment

smaller | bigger

busy
Last Updated on Wednesday, 03 February 2010 13:03
 

Election Countdown

left until the 2010 Windsor Municipal Election