When we were having the debate about whether the council should review city contracts between 20K and 50K (see my previous posting below), we were covering a lot of ground in our debate. Don Persson explained it was our duty to make sure we knew in advance where money was being committed; I agreed and pointed out we could easily and swiftly approve contracts as consent agenda items if they were provided to us in advance of our weekly council meeting. But Dan and Terry kept insisting that for the fifty annual contracts between $20,000 and $50,000, the council should not see them, and that Don and Denis and Marcie and I must simply be untrusting. I went on to point out that often the issue is priorities more than trust, e.g. when we spend money for new economic development studies it should be for areas of interest to the council….the mayor and staff may not know what we want. The debate went back to Terri, Don, Dan, and Denis a few times, and then I began asking for the floor again but not getting recognized. Then the mayor recognized Toni, who said that our finance director does a good job keeping receipts (which is true, but a bit beside the point), but then she closed by saying something unfortunate along the lines that we must just all be idiots, and she “called for the question.”
The mayor smiled and tried to end the debate, but I did not intend to be denied my opportunity to speak or to let the idiot comment go unresolved. So I declared a point of order, and pointed out that “calling for the question” does not stop debate by itself…it is a motion that must pass in order to stop the debate. Dan Clawson, an attorney and council member immediately responded that I was wrong, as did our city attorney. I reached for my guide on Roberts Rules of Order, stood up to present the facts to the city attorney, who could now tell by my demeanor that she must be mistaken. The chambers quieted down as the city attorney read from her copy, while I read along silently on mine; calling for the question needed a “second,” and a two-thirds vote to pass. The attorney then declared the motion which called for the question dead for lack of a second. I then asked for the floor, but before the mayor recognized me, Terry Briere called “second”, and the mayor recognized her “second” even though the motion was already dead.
While I rightfully should have had the floor, I did not make a fuss because I knew the motion would not get two-thirds of the council’s approval after the majority had all just been called idiots.
So, we took a vote on the “call for the question,” which predictably received three yes votes, and four no votes…my colleagues were ready to let me finish my comments. But instead of declaring the motion dead, the mayor asked the clerk to determine whether she had the necessary two-thirds vote to end debate! I guess the math got away from her…she was not sure if 3/7 was as high as 2/3! The clerk sighed and said, no, the motion did not get two-thirds of the council’s support. At this point my patience was growing thin, and I asked for the floor one more time. The mayor, looking angrily frustrated, panned around the council seemingly looking for some way she could change the situation so that I would not be allowed to speak….I felt like if there were a fire alarm lever behind her she may have pulled it. I asked again for the floor, pointing out I had now counted four times in a row that she refused to recognize me even though the majority of council members would have liked to hear what I had to say five minutes earlier. Crestfallen, she finally recognized me “…Misssterrrr Cooorrrrman…”
I kept my comments brief, pointing out that none of the council were idiots, and that all all seven of us have made valuable contributions to contract language in the past. We can improve these contracts, and give service to the taxpayers, merely by the seven of us taking a look at them in our council packets. This was not an issue of winning or losing power so much as a way to use eight elected officials to the taxpayers full advantage. Toni Nelson then clarified that she had not meant to call us idiots, and Don’s motion to review the contracts passed 5 to 2 on a roll-call vote. Yay!
Hi, Randy… the person from the “other” site here again. Thanks for pointing us toward that Council meeting — I watched it last night while procrastinating on housework, and found it thoroughly worth my time. I believe my earlier comments on re-election being easier for some than others shone through in the way those deliberations took place.
I had to laugh when the camera cut at one point in time to Howard and Terry sitting in the audience — if you haven’t re-watched it, check it out. It was right around the time that the call for the question happened.
Robert’s Rules of Order worked exactly how they were supposed to work there.
On another note, the campaigning by people up for election really needs to stop during the meeting. Re-watch the meeting and you’ll see what I mean. There were some shameless plugs in many cases.
I was watching the meeting Monday night and noticed that the mayor just would not recognize you during the debate. It was frustrating watching her call on the other councilmembers but not you. It was clear that the discussion was not finished when Toni called for the question. I was very glad that you had studied Robert’s Rules of Order and knew that you didn’t have to kow tow to the mayor. I enjoyed watching you stand up for your rights just as you stand up for our rights continuously. Way to go Randy!
An interested viewer