E-mail news updateTop headlines, by lunchtime! Latest crime reportsMost popular |
Breach of parliamentary rules at May 7 meeting Submitted by Peter Sanchez on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 3:21pm.
Now that a number of people have had a chance to look over Robert's Rules of Order, it has become clear that what aldermen Moran and Rainey did at the May 7 Planning and Development Committee meeting represents a breach of parliamentary procedure, as well as a show of disrespect for their fellow aldermen. Robert's Rules states that a motion to table another motion is used only in instances where another grave matter must be considered first. And, at a special meeting that has only one agenda item (like the May 7 meeting), a motion to table is inappropriate. Alderwoman Holmes' instinct to look at Robert's Rules was right on mark, yet Alderwoman Rainey's insistence that she knew the rules confused the situation, and unfortunately no one continued to look at Robert's Rules for a clear answer (relying instead on an inexperienced city attorney). > Unfortunately, no one at the meeting was forceful enough to say, let's stay here until we consult Robert's Rules thoroughly. In hindsight, this is what should have occurred. The bottom line is that it looks like a couple of aldermen conspired before the meeting to undermine parliamentary procedure, making a mockery of the City's decision-making process. Now that everyone has had a chance to research the issue, the aldermen who were going to vote against the skyscraper on May 7 should redeem the reputation of the Planning & Development Committee and demand a vote on Alderwoman Wynne's initial motion to reject the skyscraper at its very next meeting. |
Active forum topics
More Evanston newsEventsUpcoming events
 Latest commentsEvanston news elsewhere
|
So that's what Robert's Rules says. So what?
" At a special meeting, it is dilatory and out of order to move to lay on the table the matter for which the meeting has been called."
So that is what Robert's Rules says, but so what?
A majority of council members wanted to put it off for another day. Motion to table. Nobody objected, chair allowed the vote. Motion carried 5-4.
1-5-6: RULES OF PROCEEDINGS; PUNISHMENT OF MEMBERS:
The city council shall determine its own rules of proceedings
This takes precedence over anything in Robert's Rules, and the more general principle that legislative bodies are free to govern themselves is more important than some book, which is just a book.
Anonymous, posters the law and Robert rules
I do not have much interest in the council members political nonsense or Robert rules. One thing I do know is the city and the council members have little respect or knowledge of the laws.
Over two years ago I saw city workers working in an excavation I would estimate over ten feet deep. This is a clearly against the law in regards to OSHA, although the city does not have to follow it - they have some state rules - but exactly what those are is interesting. I was told at the time they had a safe excavation - since the slopes were safe - it was total nonsense. By the way - if someone had been buried alive it would have been a very interesting and expensive issue for the city - OSHA would come in any way since the state does have the inspectors. By the way CEO's have been put in jail for serious OSHA issues - such a chaining all the exit doors and workers dieding in a fire.
I have repeatly told the council it is in the minutes that they are not following the ADA - in their screw up process of development and public side walks. There have been mistakes - by the way the ADA is a civil rights act - interestingly enough the city staff published a letter and sent it to all the council members - on the issues I pointed out and did not sent me a copy. Ofcourse correcting all the screws up would cost the taxpayers plenty of money.
Several years ago the city staff and a state official decided to use a racial criteria to give out prostate cancer testing here. That is if you were a black male over 40 you qualified for the free test, and a white male over 50 you qualified. Most of the council members were confused when I stated this was a issue that was discrimination. Beyond the discrimination it is using a genetic criteria to give out government services something that goes beyond the intelligent of our council members to understand the problems with that issue. After a few meetings - the city decided to eliminate the racial criteria and follow the law.
Not too long ago a few of our more quality citizens were fighting in the street it was caught on the police cammeras - I asked to view the video - what I came to find out there was no policy, or procedure or safe guards - no one at the city knew the answer, the city law department finally called - the answer I got was go to court to get it. By the way we now have over 50 plus cammeras here recording things - is anyone concerned about this? - they may be even recording into your home. Ofcourse council members will continue to approve them every time there is a new crime committed in their wards, since they don't want to deal with the real problem anyway. ( too many criminals live here)
We have much bigger problems here than the nonsense of Roberts rules and who did and did not follow them in regards to a motion. We also have much bigger problems than Anonymous posters calling everyone a NIMBY - maybe all of you should start coming to some of the committee meetings which are not on TV - that is where the real nonsense is occurring.
Motion to have Junad's comments stricken from the record
Oh, Junad, you really have outdone yourself. The original posting was on the subject of Roberts Rules and parliamentary procedure, and you responded by saying that you do not have much interest in Roberts Rules. Then, to demonstrate your lack of interest, you proceeded to give a rant that was dilatory and out of order, on the subjects of OSHA, ADA, security cameras, and prostate cancer screening..
Prostate cancer screening? Really?
Several years ago the city staff and a state official decided to use a racial criteria to give out prostate cancer testing here. That is if you were a black male over 40 you qualified for the free test, and a white male over 50 you qualified. Most of the council members were confused when I stated this was a issue that was discrimination. Beyond the discrimination it is using a genetic criteria to give out government services something that goes beyond the intelligent of our council members to understand the problems with that issue. After a few meetings - the city decided to eliminate the racial criteria and follow the law.
Wow!
This may be 'discrimination', as you call it, Junad, but not all 'discrimination' is ilegal. As African-American men have a much greater risk of getting prostate cancer, and it tends to appear at an earlier age among them, most doctors who support prostate cancer screening will say that African American men should start earlier (40) while for others there is not much benefit to starting before 50 unless they have a family history of prostate cancer.
Targeting certain public health programs towards populations that are at risk just makes good sense, and is neither illegal nor unethical. Why are you, or even the council members, micromanaging this?
This demonstrates a problem with our Evanston activists (NIMBY's). Instead of letting people with knowledge of public health guide the health program, NIMBY's think that they know best. Instead of letting aldermen and budget directors decided the costs of repairing the current Civic Center or moving to a new building, NIMBY's think that they know everything. Instead of letting property owners decide how to develop their property, the NIMBY's think that they know best.
Worst of all, instead of listening to the advice of those who are knowledgeable in architecture ( like Blair Kamin of the Tribune, who says that a tall, graceful building belongs in Evanston - even though he doesn't like this building ) we have allowed people who know nothing, absolutely nothing at all, about architecture try to get this tower shortened.
Anonymous - no name poster - do some home work!
Since you claim such great knowledge - why don't you state your name? If not your professional qualifications if any? What do you know about public health? The law? Are you a doctor or researcher in the field of genetics?
The staff involved with issue were not all that well qualified by the way.
Maybe you should research the issue more - I did not feel like giving - you or the other Anonymous posters an education.
On you comment "As African-American men have a much greater risk of getting prostate cancer, and it tends to appear at an earlier age among them, most doctors who support prostate cancer screening will say that African American men should start earlier (40) while for others there is not much benefit to starting before 50 unless they have a family history of prostate cancer."
By the way you quoted the city web site - they changed the criteria to state those with a family history get screened - while before they where just used the racial criteria. Do alittle research - on the what the city did!
By the way are you an Architect? "Worst of all, instead of listening to the advice of those who are knowledgeable in architecture ( like Blair Kamin of the Tribune, who says that a tall, graceful building belongs in Evanston - even though he doesn't like this building ) we have allowed people who know nothing, absolutely nothing at all, about architecture try to get this tower shortened."
Since you claim some knowlege of Architecture? It appears quite a few Architects have spoken out on this issue here - I assume you think them all
NIMBYS?
By the way are you an
By the way are you an Architect? ....Since you claim some knowlege of Architecture? It appears quite a few Architects have spoken out on this issue here - I assume you think them all NIMBYS?
No, Junad, I am not an architect. That is why I listen to those who are knowledgeable about architecture, like Mr. Kamin.
I suggest that you take a look at his blog here , where there is a discussion of the tower. I have refrained from posting, since it is a discussion about architecture and I do not pretend to know much about the subject.
While many good postings ( and some silly postings too, like some guy named vito who compares the tower to an 'extended middle finger' ) are there, I was especially impressed by an aside comment by "Dave", who wrote:
And a place with ample parking is a place I (and many others) obviously don't want to be; a parking shortage signifies the economic vitality and desirability of a location, and thus any added congestion or parking shortage is, to me, a feature not a bug.
Exactly, Dave. I have heard several people complain that this tower, and other developments, will create 'congestion' or parking problems. I say: GOOD! Parking problems are GOOD! They are a sign of a healthy neighborhood.
"Dave", if you are out there, congratulations! And now I will go slightly off topic:
I am interested in supporting this tower more for economics and human rights (freedom from NIMBY oppression ), not architecture. I would like more parking problems, more congestion, and more national chain stores in Evanston. Yes, I mean that, I am totally serious.
Parking problems, as Dave pointed out, means that people WANT to come here. A sign of a good neighborhood.
Congestion - bring it on! It too means that people want to come here. And as others have pointed out, it makes our streets safer. (In congestion, cars go slower and are less likely to knock over pedestrians and cyclists. Also drivers pay more attention in congestion.)
National (and even regional) chains! Yes Yes Yes! Hooray for Peet's and Argo and Starbuck's. Hooray for Whole Foods and Borders and Barnes and Noble. CVS and Panera are great!
I am tired of seeing people trash these places. Let's set the record straight:
a. Chains got to be big by doing their jobs well and providing what their customers want! That is why we go there!
b. Economy of scale! Not just in purchasing paper cups and forks, but even in designing the menu and interior! Really, there is no local coffee place with an interior as clean and well-designed as Panera or Argo.
c. Usually their pay and benefits are better. People can work their way up to become managers at Panera or Cosi, Starbucks, and I suspect that some of their positions offer benefits.
But what about our poor local businesses? Won't the evil chains make it impossible for them to afford rent, and run them out of business?
d. If the national chains can afford to pay the high rent, it is because they have greater sales. This means that they are doing a better job of attracting customers, and paying more sales tax, than the local stores did. Bring them on!
e. It is not even true the chains hurt local businesses. Chain stores often HELP local businesses by attracting traffic. ( Oh no, traffic!). Yes, chain stores bring more people in to Evanston, who will then pass by the local stores and maybe buy something.
( Notice how few local businesses, other than those in the 708 Building who will lose their leases, have come out against the tower? )
Again, I refer the reader elsewhere:
Out of the Pan and into the NIMBY
A used book store in Evanston I have shopped at a couple of times said the large new project across the street with the parking garage helped his business by (surprise!) bringing more foot traffic by. And that’s what I want; I want used book stores, not short buildings. Whatever we can do in terms of planning to keep Amaranth Books viable and the downtown vibrant should be our responsibility, rather than making sure everything is appropriate scale and that every project would be approved by a majority of the voters. Thank god for the city’s aldermen.
f. Most of all, chain stores are yet another sign of a healthy neighborhood. It means that companies want to invest in our city. Show me a neighborhood in Chicago without a Starbucks - would you want to live there?
g. Last, but not least, I know that some of you are saying: "But I want Evanston to be unique. I don't want the same chain stores that are everywhere else..."
Well, I don't care if you are a jaded world traveler and want charming and unique stores to amuse you in Evanston, not the same stores that you saw elsewhere. I am not a tourist, I live here, and I want quality stores that I can go to every day. Good local merchants and restaurants will survive. Those that do not deserve to survive should not.
You want a place with available parking and no chain stores and charm and no highrises? We have such neighborhoods in Evanston - try the corner of Church and Dodge.
To Robert's Rules or not to Robert's Rules
Well, if we use Robert's Rules then the motion to table was completely uncalled for and out of place (this comes straight from Robert's Rules). If we don't use Robert's Rules, then they should have voted on Wynne's motion first and the motion to table second, since that is the order in which they were introduced. Either way, what happened at the meeting was shameful regardless of how you look at it. To argue that they should have voted on the motion to table first, when it came second, is simply absurd.
Shameful display
I saw this meeting on the cable channel on Saturday.
A few comments and questions:
1. During the discussion of rules, one of the aldermen made the distinction between Roberts Rules and Council rules. Council certainly is not required to religiously follow Roberts Rules. I could not find the Council's rules published anywhere, so I am not sure if they are identical to Roberts Rules.
More importantly, according to the City Code :
1-5-6: RULES OF PROCEEDINGS; PUNISHMENT OF MEMBERS:
The city council shall determine its own rules of proceedings
So, unless someone can find a law that overrides this, I would interpret this to mean that Council is NOT bound by Robert's Rules. It is not even bound by its own rules for parliamentary procedure, as it has the authority to change its rules whenever it wants - so long as it does not conflict with the City Code, or state or federal law. [ Just as the United States House and Senate can make up their own rules ]
The aldermen discussed the matter , and the majority of them agreed to table the motion. The chair did not rule this out of order, and , if I recall correctly, no objection was made to the motion to table by any of the other aldermen. [Someone, please let me know if this is correct. I will try to watch again.]
What is your point, Peter? That you disagree with the decision of the chair (who did not support the motion, but did not rule it out of order) and at least five other aldermen (who supported it) on a point of parliamentary procedure?
2. One thing I do remember is that the aldermen - both the pro-table and against-tabling factions - agreed that the motion would be tabled, and not brought up until AFTER THE PLAN WAS COMPLETED. There was even talk of removing it from the agenda, until a parliamentarian ("inexperienced city lawyer"?) pointed out that rules require it to be on the agenda - as a tabled item - for future meetings. Still, there was unanimous agreement in the council to not bring it up at the next meetings, and to givenotice to everyone before it is brought up. So how can you suggest that the aldermen now "demand a vote on Alderwoman Wynne's initial motion to reject the skyscraper at its very next meeting ."
You are asking these aldermen to just back out of the agreement that they all made, right?
And yet you accuse the pro-tower people of 'undermining parliamentary procedure' and being willing 'to do anything' and showing 'disrespect for their
fellow aldermen'?
3. I noticed that after the meeting concluded, a NIMBY in the audience went up to the aldermen's table and started haranguing one of the aldermen who voted to table. She said something like 'you're supposed to represent us ..blah blah blah', and that is when the camera cut off. Of course, everyone has the right to insult their elected officials - but I question the propriety of doing so in the council chambers like that, even if the meeting had concluded. It was a 'shameful display'.
What is the goal of having these large crowds attend the council meetings - often interrupting the proceedings with applause or disapproval - and then haranguing aldermen afterwards? It certainly looks like you are trying to intimidate the aldermen into supporting the NIMBY agenda.
You certainly have the right to express your opinion to your aldermen - and even other aldermen - and they have the right to consider it or ignore it as they see fit. But we cannot allow our elected officials to be bullied in council chambers by a self-appointed group of NIMBY's.
Chair's Prerogative
Alderman Holmes, as Chair of P&D, after Alderman Baptiste stated that she needed to exercise her obligation as Chair, (to decide which motion was in proper order) declared that in the absence of further direction from either the P&D rules, or the City's legal assistant (who was not familiar with either a set of council rules, nor Robert's Rules - but just happened to have a set of P&D rules), she wanted to ensure that she was "on solid ground." She then pulled out her book and attempted to review RRoO. Having now watched this meeting several times, I'll agree that Alderman Holmes allowed Alderman Rainey to insist "that there has to be something to table" and allowed the motion.
Clearly, Alderman Holmes intended to follow Robert's Rules, stated her desire to do so more than once, and did her best to do so. Given that she did not actually review the rules at the meeting, and that the item is still on the agenda as a tabled item, and despite the oral agreements of some, not all, of the alderman to not take it from the table, it is still in order to do so. That matter was not voted on. Obviously, if aldermen (Tisdahl, Hansen, Wynne, and of course, Bernstein) who so forcefully declared their opposition to the proposal, truly wanted to have that vote, more than one should be willing to take it from the table at tonight's P&D meeting. That remains to be seen.
This discussion skirts the issue that one alderman , who displayed a lenghtly explaination as to how and why those who are not engaged in the process convinced him not to vote for the project, turned around and voted to table the matter. That is the real issue here and will have to be faced in the near future one would imagine.
For readers this blog who are interested in parliamentary procedure, I will suggest that you refer to the actual book, rather than the on-line version. The most recent 10th edition begins its discussion of the aforementioned rules in Section 17, LAY ON THE TABLE, on page 200. Significantly, among other rules that question allowing the motion to supercede the motion already on the floor, which had been moved and seconded, as Peter mentioned, Robert Rules states: " At a special meeting, it is dilatory and out of order to move to lay on the table the matter for which the meeting has been called."
Post new comment