第四步 / 6 - 议会公开发言 (Delegation)
将您的声音直接带入公众议事厅。这是市议会流程中至关重要的一步，确保程序的透明度与公众监督。 (Taking the voice to the public chamber.)
checklist 操作指引
查阅议程时间表
访问市政府官网，确认即将召开的市议会会议日期及议程，确保您的发言安排在合适的会议批次。
准备5分钟讲稿
市议会规定每位发言者限时5分钟。请提炼核心观点，确保陈述清晰、简明、有力。
提交登记表格
使用下方模板向市书记官 (City Clerk) 发送邮件，正式登记您的公开发言意向。
发言建议
-
gavel
聚焦程序问题 避免把尚未说明的程序问题写成既定事实，集中说明公开记录缺少哪些信息。
-
handshake
保持专业与尊重 使用客观、理性的中立措辞，这有助于增强您发言的公信力。
-
fact_check
坚持事实为基础 引用具体的条例、会议记录或公开文件来支撑您的观点。
Delegation 法理基础
非议程事项的 delegation 需要向 City Clerk 提交书面意向、主题摘要和希望 Council 采取的具体行动，并遵守 Richmond 公布的提交期限及可受理范围。
登记请求不保证获准在特定会议发言。模板因此说明公开记录尚未回答的问题，并提出一个明确、可执行的公开报告请求。
查看 Richmond delegation 官方规则登记邮件模板
5分钟现场发言稿范文
Mayor Brodie and Members of Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I am here regarding the formal petition submitted under section 82 of the Community Charter concerning Resolution R26/14-10.
I want to begin with something very clear:
This petition is not a defence of the disputed AI-generated image.
Council has every right to condemn racism and discrimination.
The issue before you is whether government should also follow basic standards of fairness when it uses a formal Council resolution to condemn an identifiable private citizen.
On July 27, Council passed R26/14-10.
The resolution characterized a citizen's messaging as discriminatory, formally requested an apology, and directed that the matter be forwarded to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
Those are significant uses of the institutional authority of municipal government.
Yet important questions remain unanswered.
Did every member of Council have the complete original publication before voting?
Did Council have a complete and reliable translation?
Was the affected individual told that Council was about to formally consider action concerning him?
Was he given any opportunity to respond?
Did Council know what material had already been removed or what response had already been made?
And what exactly happened after Council directed that this matter be forwarded to the BC Human Rights Tribunal?
These questions matter even if Council strongly disagrees with the individual.
Procedural fairness is not a reward that government gives only to people whose speech we approve of.
It exists precisely because government possesses far greater institutional power than an ordinary resident.
Today this issue concerns Jason Liu.
Tomorrow it could concern a resident with completely different political beliefs, ethnicity, religion, or views.
The principle should remain the same.
Our petition therefore asks Council to reconsider or rescind R26/14-10.
If Council continues to believe that a statement against discrimination is necessary, Council can adopt a new resolution expressing that principle without making adverse findings against a private individual before a fair process has occurred.
We also ask Council to establish a simple safeguard for the future:
Before Council formally condemns an identifiable private resident, ensure that Council has the complete factual record and, where appropriate, provide that person notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.
That is not weakness.
That is accountable government.
You can oppose discrimination and protect procedural fairness at the same time.
We respectfully ask Council to do both.
Thank you.