Moved by Alderman Laking:

December 17th, 1973" -

Seconded by Alderman Ranger:

That ¢ the Strata Plan of Lot 369, District Lot 384, Group One, New Westminster

District, Plan 41628 (1602- 1604 Rnappen Street) prepared by Walter E. “Frith, B.c.

L.S., and dated October 19th, 1973, be and the same is hereby approved;

AND THAT His Norship the Mayor and City Clerk be duthorized to ‘sign the said

Plan on behalf of the City and affix the Corporate Seal thereto. Carried.
Aldermen Mabbett and Traboulay voted against the resolution.

His Worship the Mayor ‘then’ stated his intention to exercise his prerogative Mayor Scott

re City Hal
Motor Vek-.
icle Licence
ing issuing
operation:

this evening and bring the subject of the City Hall Motor \ Vehicle Licencing opera
tion back for discussion in view ‘of its vital importance. Mayor Scott referred
to the previous ‘Council meeting minutes and stated he had erred in declaring a
motion that the cit “V withdraw from the Motor Vehicle Licencing operation defeated
when the Aldermen were actually three in favour and three opposed as Alderman
Thompson's abstention from voting is taken as a vote in the affirmative and the
Mayor stated his affirmative vote would then create a 4-3 vote in favour, The
City Clerk explained that 1£ a member choeses to abstain from veting this is taken
to be a vote in the affirmative unless he or she actually leaves the meeting while
the vote is taking place, which Alderman Thompson did not do. Alderman Traboulay
inquired whether such a ruling would still be valid if the member stated his rea~
@"s for abstaining as a “conflict of interest" and the City Clerk advised it would
be. lis Worship the Mayor then asked whether or not Alderman Thompson was now pre-
pared to discuss the subject and whether he Was prepared to vete on it, and Alder-
man Thompson answered in the affirmative.

Moved by. Alderman Laking:

Seconded by Alderman Ranger:

That the question of the City withdrawing from the Motor Vehicle Licencing
operation be reconsidered, Withdrawn.

Prior to the question being called on the foregoing proposed resolution, Alder-
man Traboulay stated he understood that reconsideration of a motion must be made
at the same meeting at which the original motion was passed and the City Clerk ad-
vised that this was technically correct, but that there - is nothing to prevent
Alderman Laking from wording his resolution so as to refer only to the general ques~
tion of operating a motor vehicle licencing office. The City Clerk further explain-

d that the technical resolution to reconsider a question means to take a vote again

on the original resolution: however, he pointed eut his understanding that Alderman
Laking is quite prepared to accept the fact that last week the Council decided to

continue the motor vehicle branch operations, but wants the Council to reconsider

the subject again to see if the Council is still of the Same opinion, and if the