A few weeks ago we reported on an action item before the city council in our post about 800 lb Gorilla in City Council! We discussed the mandates of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised and the role of a meeting chairman. Shortly after that, a PRU reader asked for a follow-up on the issue.
At the City Council meeting on 12/17/07 (minutes-.pdf) an amendment was offered by the Lord of the Manor, Alderman Rich DiPietro (2nd ward), to add the words "upon relinquishing the chair" to the motion by the unfriendly Ghost of the 6th ward, Alderman Thomas Carey, to allow the Mayor to participate in debate and discussion of matters before the city council.
Gee fellas, did you work out that motioning and amending business prior to the meeting?
The change to the procedure governing the Mayor's participation in debate and discussion "upon relinquishing the chair" does mean that some ward may on occasion not have a representative participating in debate and discussion.
So there's the update on the issue of the Mayor's participation in debate and discussion at city council meetings.
The PRU Crew has enjoyed a few laughs over this issue and its outcome.
DiPietro, sometimes you are a real piece of work.
Yes! We have no bananas!
January 3, 2008
Stupid Gets What Stupid Agrees To.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Double check the rules. My understanding of "upon relinquishing his seat" simply means he would have to come down to the podium with the rest of the pesants to express his opinion. Yes one of the Alderman would have to take his chair, but they are still allowed to participate as their ward representitive. This rule is set so that any Mayor wanting to participate could not purposely take any alderman (who might oppose the opnion) out of discussion. Anyway, that's the way I understood it. Feel free to double check. Also, this really isn't any different than before, past Mayors have been allowed to participate, only they had to ask permission from council, and then a vote. To my recolection none has even been denied. This simply avoids the past formalities.
Let's see now: If the mayor wants to speak in debate on an issue, he has to relinquish the chair to another alderman - who, in turn, cannot speak in debate while he holds the chair?
If Frimark wants to speak a lot, this could be entertaining: City Council musical chairs.
If I am sitting in the council meeting "viewing area", can I request that the mayor relinquish his chair to an alderman who WONT SHUT UP so that he cannot participate in a debate?
Anon@8:21,
You are right, up to a point.
A chairman of a meeting may, upon the formal motioning you mentioned, participate in debate and discussion. And no, such a motion has never been denied in the PR council, to our knowledge. PR Mayor's have ALWAYS had the right to participate in debate and discussion.
But a double check of the rules never hurts.
A chairman, any chairman, is not supposed to participate in debate and discussion unless the rules are suspended by a motion and a formal affirmative vote is had.
Something Frimark ALREADY had available to him, and was never denied.
An Alderman assuming the chair of a meeting MAY VOTE on any issue, because he is "a member of the assembly". But, as the chair, he should not be participating in any debate and discussion, unless a motion to suspend the rules is voted on in the affirmative, something that the Mayor could also ask for and has always received.
Right again. This isn't any different than before. That's the very stupid part.
It is absolute redundancy, orchestrated by that parliamentary go-to guy, DiPietro. The same guy who was so concerned about redundancy in policy that he very early on in this council's term saw to it the policy requiring disclosure of economic relationships was nixed from the procedures manual; claiming that it was redundant due to the ordinance that covererd the requirement.
This doesn't avoid the past formalities, it changes the formalities. We can all now look forward to the more time consuming theater production of the Mayor relinquishing the chair, and an alderman assuming the gavel.
The council may be smaller, but we sure don't think it's operating more efficiently.
Post a Comment