Recreation and Parks District
Regular Meeting August 17, 2010:
The wonders of parliamentary procedure,
or Robert's v. Brown
The last item of new business concerned District parliamentary procedure. It was scheduled for 10 minutes on the agenda, but the ensuing discussion went on for much longer than that. Like most small town politics, it amounted to a tempest in a teapot with only slightly more than ego at stake.
The issue originally germinated at the beginning of the year, when four new board members joined Cathie Anderson, who has been on the board for 25 years or more. In the process, Jeffry Fawcett became the board president and Gary Helfrich was made a bystander.
Jeffry has a looser, more informal style than Gary. He lets discussion range, and, when he feels that a consensus has been reached or the discussion exhausted, he calls for a vote. That’s not the way Gary ran meetings. Gary preferred to have a motion and a second and then invite discussion, though he, too, was one to call for a vote when the time seemed right. Apparently, Jeffry got a call from the lawyer for the District, Malcolm Manwell, telling him that he needed to use the motion and second format during meetings. Jeffry wasn’t so sure. He consulted Robert’s Rules of Order, the classic text on parliamentary procedure, which assured him that small boards, like this one, were allowed to relax the standard procedure designed for larger assemblies. Cathie Anderson disagreed strongly, feeling it was important to get a motion and a second to provide an accurate record of who did what.
“If you are an outsider reading the minutes,” she said, “it looks like one person is doing everything.”
Lynn Watson appeared indifferent and Seth Murchison was willing to go along with Cathie’s proposal, telling her that if that was what she wanted, he “…was good with that.”
Then Gary piped up, supporting Cathie and the motion/second camp. “Even under Robert’s, for most boards of five people it is still customary to follow a similar process.”
Mr. Stuffalupagus
Seth suggested it might be a generational thing, causing Cathie to inquire if he was calling her “old.” Seth explained that if he came into the meeting as an outsider, he would be more comfortable in an informal setting.
Gary spoke again, positing that the standard procedure makes the public record more clear. “Motions and seconds show who supported what,” he said. “It let’s the public gauge the actions of individual director’s”
The lady to my left spoke up, defending Seth’s position by saying it was not a generational thing. She herself, with gray hair betraying a certain age, also felt that the informal meetings were more appropriate for the small community of Camp meeker. Jeffry seemed to agree, saying that in general, small boards use the informal mode because it “…expedites the business of the body.”
“I appreciate the ability of this board to conduct business less stuffily,” he said. And then added, for effect, “It’s a word. Mr. Stuffalupagus.”
Gary pointed out that the formal process has the advantage, when it comes down to making a decision, of making it clear when an action is being taken and it is time for the public to offer testimony. Jeff responded that under Robert’s, the motion and second begin discussion, they do not end it. Gary instructed him that the Board operates under the Brown Act, not Robert’s, and there must be public input. Whew! Things were starting to hot up in that little room, even with the heater broken!
Just the facts
Now, in case you aren’t aware, the Brown Act was designed to ensure that the public has access to local boards, with the intent of doing away with the proverbial smoke-filled room where all the real business gets done. Or, as the California Attorney General explains, “…the purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in local government decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies.”
What the Act does not do is determine the modus operandi of local boards; for that, we have Robert’s, and have had for several centuries now. Robert’s is really quite a magical compendium, for by following it, interlocutors can disagree in the strongest possible terms without descending into name-calling and fisticuffs. Quite necessary in any deliberative body, especially when it is a very large and very loud one.
Jeffry, who had helpfully photocopied pertinent passages from it for the public, picked up a well-thumbed copy of Robert’s he had brought with him. In general, he read, the rules for dealing with an agenda item are that the Chair may not raise motions and only votes to case of a tie. Motions must be made and seconded. Then there is the calling of the question and votes are cast. “Malcolm was concerned that I was getting in the habit of making motions, not getting seconds, and not calling the question,” he explained.
Making motions
Making motions
Cathie Anderson then made a motion to keep motions and seconds so the minutes would contain more information. Jeffry asked about calling the question and whether the chair can make a motion.
Gary, who has been to many meetings, tried to clear things up for us. He said that other boards in the county all use the standard form: motion (not by the chair); second; no calling the question; chair can vote; public input before the vote. It sounded utterly reasonable.
Lynn said she could go either way. Seth added that it wasn’t his preference, it wasn’t the process he would prefer, but if Cathie wants it…“I’ll second that,” he said, referring to her motion.
The lady next to me (who turned out to be Jeffry’s partner) pointed out that Seth was sounding a little wishy-washy. She told him it was ok to change his mind. Lynn decided she did want to think it over and Jeffry told her she could make a substitute motion.
After some effort describing to her how that process was supposed to work, Lynn made a motion to waive further discussion of Cathie’s motion until the next meeting. Seth seconded Lynn’s motion, suggesting it would be politic to wait for the absent Board member, Michael Ming, to be present before further discussion about procedure. The Chair asked if anyone wanted to call the question, which Seth then did. Cheryl Doran-Girard read the motion and a voice vote was taken. There were two ayes and one nay (the Chair did not vote).
Not quite done
But Gary wasn’t done yet. He insisted that when Jeffry consulted Malcolm, he ask about the legal aspects of the issue, not just the procedural. I got the impression that public input was suddenly very important to the former board chair. He, Fred and Hal all hustled out of the room at this point, accompanied by the short guy with whiskers.
The last item was director’s reports, and Cathie told us the Ice Cream social had been scheduled for Labor Day weekend and the newsletter was almost ready (it is now available to download). Seth reported that the Supper Club was set for August 30th. “Maybe short ribs, polenta, some veggies, dessert,” he said.
Cathie moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seth seconded. As all were in favor (I’ll speak for Jeffry, since he did not vote) the meeting was adjourned at 9:04 pm.
Next—
Procedural issues also arise at the regular meeting of the Harmony Union School District as they discuss the distinction between art and commemoration
Points of order
Can a president vote?
And these guys reproduce the page Jeffry photocopied,
It’s also in the agenda packet
No comments:
Post a Comment