This Week in YOUR Government
Monday, February 1 – Friday, February 5, 2010
For those who might like to review the City Council Meeting Ground Rules, you will find them here. (We wouldn’t want you to have to do a great deal of painstaking research in the bowels of City Hall to unearth them. The Davis Voice is at your service and fully in support of civil discourse.)
Many public meetings are video-streamed live on the Internet and archived for later replay. Watch your government in action:
The following are your opportunities to participate in the public process this week. Click on links for full agendas, locations and back-up documentation.
Monday, 1 February 2010
6:30 pm – CITY – Open Space and Habitat Commission
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
2:00 pm – COUNTY – Yolo County Office of Education Child Care Planning Council
6:30 pm – Davis City Council – public hearing on Carlton Plaza Senior Assisted Living Care Facility, resolution adopting a Memorandum of Understanding with Program Administrative and Support Employees Association (PASEA), West Village Annexation Analysis (consider staff’s and the Council subcommittee’s assessment that revenue-generation potential for the West Village project is insufficient to cover short and long term costs to annex and service West Village.)
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
5:30 pm – CITY – City of Davis/Yolo County Visitors Bureau 2×2
5:30 pm – COUNTY – Yolo 101: Yolo County presents an informational evening discussing the function and goals of county departments. Anyone can join us for this short introduction to “what the County does.”
Thursday, 4 February 2010
5:00 pm – CITY – Safety and Parking Advisory Commission
7:00 pm – Davis Joint Unified School District Board of Education - reduction of Board stipends, draft resolutions eliminating positions for 2010-11, discussion of renewal of Davis instructional parcel taxes, presentation on Adult Education program.
Notice from the City of Davis
The City of Davis, ASUCD and Tandem Properties have partnered to conduct the 3rd Annual Davis Renters Survey.
This survey will allow the City of Davis / UCD Student Liaison Commission to:
- Inform City Council & City Staff about renters issues.
- Inform landlords & apartment managers about renters experiences & how they can better serve renters.
- Create a renters education program for new renters.
The survey will close on February 28, 2010. Those who complete this survey will be entered into a random drawing. Tandem Properties has donated a random drawing prize of: 1-40″ Samsung LED LCD HDTV. To be included in the drawing you must include your name and email address on the survey.
Complete the survey (hosted by SurveyMonkey.com)
Thank you Susan, for making these rules of order so readily accessible. I am confused as to whether the council is following these rules because they specifically say ” The presiding officer may limit time for discussion in the interest of time. The presiding officer has the right to cut off conversation that is too personal, too loud, or too crude.” At last Tuesday’s meeting, Councilwoman Greenwald claimed that the presiding officer did *not* have this right. Furthermore, if I’m not mistaken, a staff member looked up the rules to verify that even a simple majority vote was not sufficient to close discussion, as that actually required a 4-1 vote. It’s not clear to me whether this was simply a poor execution of the rules herein, or if some additional document exists that is causing ambiguity.
Amanda – you point out an interesting procedural conflict here. A 2/3 majority is necessary to “Call the Question” which basically ends the debate on the motion at hand. Since we have a Council of 5, that means you need 4 votes to effectively end discussion and vote on the motion at hand.
Rosenburg’s Rules of Order inform the City Council Meeting Ground Rules about how discussion and debate is managed. The Chair, or presiding officer, thus has limited ability to “limit time for discussion” by giving equal time to each member, then cutting off a member who goes over time. The Chair should also try to keep members civil by enforcing the regulation that they must be recognized in order to speak and not allowing “Personal, loud or crude” language.
Parliamentary procedure is only as powerful as the person exercising it… there are plenty of perfectly reasonable maneuvers to ensure a fair and full discussion… and there are also plenty of maneuvers to lengthen discussion to the point of obstruction (see U.S. Senate filibuster).
I know that is unsatisfying, but it is a fine balance to protect the minority’s ability to speak without letting a tyranny of the minority interfere with the timely execution of the people’s business.
Some people claim that our current council majority consistently “shuts down” the minority, while those that follow closely know that only one member of the minority makes this claim… Many claim that there is not enough parking downtown, while I know for a fact that the garage at 4th & G is rarely over 40% full… Perception and reality diverge widely, and I can only hope that reasonable people prevail.
I hope people will turn out tomorrow night to address the behavior last week. It is truly embarrassing that after the ENORMOUS turn-out of young adults concerned about homeless issues, they are provided an atrocious example of behavior by our own council members. I hope these young adults don’t lose their passion for participating in the political process… but to honest, I can’t blame them if they do after the display last week.
Thanks, Kemble. It is too bad that anyone on the council feels like they are consistently “shut down,” but the simple solution is using a time clock, setting time limits in advance, and sticking to them. It might not make the minority feel any less shut down, but it will eliminate the credibility of such claims. Additionally, discussion needs to end as soon as it becomes personal, i.e. when comments move from objective statements such as “that is not true” to personal statements such as “you are a liar and you always do this to me.” One way to avoid tyranny is to have the council itself vote on this issue, as it did last week in ruling Sue’s personal comments to Ruth out of order.