Comments on: This Week in YOUR Government http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/02/this-week-in-your-government-37/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=this-week-in-your-government-37 engaging our community in a vital and fair forum Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:41:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Amanda Kimball http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/02/this-week-in-your-government-37/comment-page-1/#comment-212 Amanda Kimball Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:02:29 +0000 http://www.davisvoice.com/?p=2168#comment-212 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. 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.

]]> By: Citizen http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/02/this-week-in-your-government-37/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Citizen Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:14:18 +0000 http://www.davisvoice.com/?p=2168#comment-211 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. 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.

]]> By: Kemble Pope http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/02/this-week-in-your-government-37/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Kemble Pope Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:09:42 +0000 http://www.davisvoice.com/?p=2168#comment-208 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. 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.

]]> By: Amanda Kimball http://www.davisvoice.com/2010/02/this-week-in-your-government-37/comment-page-1/#comment-207 Amanda Kimball Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:06:19 +0000 http://www.davisvoice.com/?p=2168#comment-207 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. 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.

]]>