The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999 05 24 Regular Item G COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM G May 24. 1999 Meeting Consent Informational Public Beario Re ular MGR ~EPT. Authorization x REQUEST: The City Attorney requesting the City Commission to discuss rules of procedure for conducting regular and special Commission meetings, and to determine whether there is a need to amend existing rules of procedure. PURPOSE: The City Attorney has been requested by several Commissioners to place this item on the agenda to foster discussion and resolution of several procedural items, namely: ending time for meetings and means of extending meetings beyond any time currently or subsequently established; adjournment; exhaustion of discussion of agenda items prior to votes or other action, CONSIDERATIONS: The City Charter provides that the Mayor, or in his absence the Deputy Mayor or designated Commissioner, is to preside at City Commission meetings. The presiding officer makes the initial ruling on interpretations and applications of rules of procedure, but this is always subject to one or more Commissioners objecting to application of the rules and a majority of the Commission directing a different direction for the item or meeting. As long as due process of law is not violated, then this mode of conducting the meeting is appropriate. Rules of procedure are a tool. As long as the tool is working it should be used. This can allow for uniform proceedings and for precedents of prior actions to be followed in the future. This can give comfort to those that sit on the Commission and those that appear before it. But the tool must work. If it does not, then the Commission may want to modify it or discard it. Issues have been raised in the following areas: 1. Adjournment: Should the presiding officer, alone, be permitted to adjourn a meeting at which a quorum of Commissioners are in attendance? Should adjournment require a motion and vote prior to ending the meeting? 2. Meeting Ending Time. Should the 11 :00 P.M. meeting ending time "rule" of procedure be preserved, modified (as above, or otherwise) or abandoned? As a rule of procedure, this rule can be crafted to fit the Commission's needs. Some issues relating to this rule are discussed below. Regular Agenda Page 2 of2 May 24, 1999 If a predetennined hour for ending meetings arrives, should such issues as: (a) the current matter is continued to conclusion with a motion to end or continue the meeting only expected or permitted or required after the pending item is resolved by Commission action, tabling, or other conclusion; (b) a motion to extend the meeting must be called for prior to adjournment (i.e., it should not be a contest between one who wants to gavel a meeting to closure versus one(s) who may want to continue the meeting)~ (c) since any person can leave a meeting at any time, if the presiding officer must leave, or elects to do so, would the requirement for an opportunity for a motion to extend the meeting not be the best solution to accommodate those who want to stay, and the public, with the need of one(s) who must leave? 3. Conclusion of Discussion prior to Votes or Action. Does the Commission want to impose a rule of procedure that requires that the presiding officer shall inquire whether any Commissioner, the City Manager, or the City Attorney (or some or all), desires an opportunity to address an item prior to vote? Should this be the rule only if: (a) the party wishing to speak has not yet addressed this item (remember this could be a delaying tactic by a single member opposed to a proposed action, if one is allowed to delay a vote after having previously made their position clear on the issue); and, (b) there is no motion to call the question (thus where the majority is in favor of ending debate on the issue and is ready to act)? If this becomes the rule, the rule must include a provision that if this is violated, and a majority of the Commissioners present and voting do not want to reopen the issue (even if an objection is heard from one not pennitted to speak), then the action/inaction by the Commission stands. In other words, this rule should not become a basis for any challenge to the validity of the Commission action. This could be a "courtesy" rule that is set aside by implication upon a majority vote of the Commission on the item before it. FUNDING: None. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss. A Resolution setting forth Commission direction can be drafted. ATTACHMENTS: None. COMMISSION ACTION: