Procedures

Our dedicated blogger, Bernice, in her insomniac past midnight report has addressed several of the important actions and non-actions at last night's extended meeting. I have not had time yet to even review my notes which will have to wait until later today.

In the meantime, I would like to again revisit some of the procedural actions which seem to be common to this Council. In my opinion an entity that deals with a mid 8 figure budget and purports to operate under Roberts Rules of Order should abide by them and not conduct their meetings as if it were the monthly meeting of the neighborhood chow and drinking society.

This is not a picayune complaint. We are trusting our local governmental affairs to seven elected knowledgeable individuals who should be "professional", not amateurish in their transmitting business that may have legal implications. Their rules of procedure state that they follow "Robert's" yet they continually ignore its basics.

Last night a prolong 15 minute discussion on a $6,000.00 item was ultimately "withdrawn" by the City Administrator. According to both Parliamentary authorities, Roberts and Sturgis, once an item is opened for discussion it must proceed to one of three endings; approved , defeated, or tabled either for a specific period or indefinitely. The last tabling in effect 'kills" it.

The Council's acceptance of the withdrawal is in violation of the rules under which it operates. The intent was really to postpone action (table) until certain questions could be answered. Legally those two resolutions are still open items. The Council had the opportunity to correct its mistake before adjourning the meeting.

I have less problem with the way changes in a resolution are handled, although the rules under which they operate are specified in both authority's books.

The Council routinely discusses the changes in a resolution that they wish to make and then votes on the "as amended resolution" -this is the term they use. The correct procedure is to introduce the resolution for action. If changes are desired a motion to amend the resolution is made and voted upon. If it is passed then the original resolution as amended is then voted upon.

My next problem has to do with the 'Consent Agenda". The Council in its agenda states " ALL MATTERS LISTED WITH AN (*) ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS UNLESS A COUNCILMEMBER OR CITIZENS SO REQUEST,IN WHICH EVENT, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY UNDER NEW BUSINESS IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE LATTER ON THE AGENDA.

If a $6,000.00 item can be on the agenda not under the "consent" cloak, how routine are items that involve thousands of dollars? Is the Council's time so valuable that they can not take a minute to vote approval of that type of an item? What is being done is a perversion of the intent for a "consent agenda".

During the public comment period before action on resolutions and ordinances several speakers made comments or ask questions about items that remained on the consent agenda. The Council President graciously permitted them to speak due to their ignorance of the Agenda statement. If the individuals are unaware that they must request the item to be removed from the "Consent Agenda" so they can talk about it, it should be the policy of the Council to automatically consider their comments as a request to take them off the Consent Agenda.

None of the above will change the outcome of action on any of the resolutions, because up to last night once it was approved at the Agenda Setting Session the vote was predictable. More about the happenings at last nights meeting subsequently. There is a right way and an ignorant way to conduct the city's affairs. Our Councilors are too knowledgeable to accept the latter course.