Municipal Councilors in Small Town Newfoundland, censored from discussing public matters, publicly.

I am a municipal counselor out in Musgrave Harbour Newfoundland who had been evicted from their elected seat using collusion and targeted policies and procedures, that only I would most specifically be directly affected.

In our last council meeting, the councilors unanimously agreed to schedule a special meeting to discuss policies and procedures, but this has yet to happen.

I have found standing on a point of order in the rules of procedure for the town, as well as Roberts Rules of order. Now that it has been found, the Town Clerk claims that it was not part of the document, and that if it were, she was going to ask the councils to rescind the conditions.

Its interesting that we can consider to eliminate the exception to the rule to discuss a serios issue, but we can’t discuss the serious issue as urgently.

I have asked to see the official Rules Of Procedure least 5 times since this was said, as well as the minutes of which the words were removed.

I have yet to be acknowledge on the question or be provided with the information.

My elected seat had been vacated after my fellow counselors leveraged, and weaponized the municipalities act, using a remote attendance policy with the stipulation that one could not be unvaccinated, as a reason they could not attend Council meetings in person, and require remote attendance accommodations through, Google meet, or telephone.

On April 27th 2023, I had called a point of order on a policy that has been implemented in my absence, a policy I believe to be a direct measure taken against me and to prevent accountability and transparency.

I had provided my items to be put on the addenda, and the town was well aware and forewarned of my concerns and intentions, even as to what I would do If the meeting were called to an end.

The town had much advice and many opportunities to consider my concerns privately. They had been offered mediation by human rights, but it has been declined, as well, we have sent back and forth many settlements that did not solve any of the problems at hand.

No one wanted to talk things out, and no one wanted to say any of the fact out loud.

At the time of the meeting, The town clerk photocopied the original document, and provided it to all before the meeting beginning, so they are fully aware of my claims and should be acting on it.

It’s almost as though they think I’m going away, still.

The document was submitted before the meeting began and accepted as supporting documents for the evening.

Generally, a point of order must be raised at the time the rules are broken or else it would be too late.

For example, if a motion was made and discussion began on it, it would be too late to raise a point of order that the motion was not seconded. If such a motion was adopted without a second, it remains valid and not having a second becomes irrelevant.

Exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be raised at the time of violation include that a point of order may be raised at any time a motion was adopted in violation of the bylaws or applicable law, in conflict with a previously adopted motion (unless adopted by the vote to rescind it), or in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

The ruling of the chair may be appealed to the assembly in most cases. A majority vote against the chair's ruling is required to overturn it.

Everything that happens in these meetings is public domain.

There is no legal pathway to prevent councilors or even attendees from recording these meetings.

As an example of this, during COVID we were told by the government to broadcast meetings when Public Health restrictions prevented attendance.

This is because it is a right for anyone who is interested to hear everything, without copyright, editing and censorship.

We as a council had agreed unanimously to get a lawyer to see if the town was permitted to enforce the policies that I called out as illegal, but this action was not taken and it was apparently assumed I wouldn't proceed legally, despite my many warnings to the contrary.

When the town did finally seek legal counsel, they were told not to proceed against me but they ignored this expert advice.

Today, not only do these illegal policies still stand; but new ones have been created, and the old ones have been strengthened and reinforced.

Since writing this, the town has taken my advice, and rescinded the Vaxpass policy, but I’m not clear on the extent of the rescind. My intention was to remove all policies as it pertains to vaccinations due to them being discriminatory as much as prohibiting people with red hair from running for politics.

Nothing the town does can supersede the law.

I wish to Motion to Rescind of entire policies for:
(1) Remote Attendance Policy
(2) Recording Policy
(3) Social Media Policy
4) Policy as pertains to councilors talking about public discussions and decisions before minutes are published a month later.
5) VaxPass Access and related Vaccination Policies