Robert's Rules of Order

Robert's Rules of Order

The following e-mail thread discusses the use Robert's Rules of Order while President Hayes conducts Village business. The President has acknowledged that more could be done to encourage Public participation. No Village official has substantively responded to these emails.

-----Original Message-----

To: thayes <thayes@vah.com>; cblackwood <cblackwood@vah.com>; rbaldino <rbaldino@vah.com>; tglasgow <tglasgow@vah.com>; brosenberg <brosenberg@vah.com>; jscalletta <jscalletta@vah.com>; msidor <msidor@vah.com>; jtinaglia <jtinaglia@vah.com>; rlabedz <rlabedz@vah.com>; rhume <rhume@vah.com>; tkuehne <tkuehne@vah.com>; rward <rward@vah.com>; cperkins <cperkins@vah.com>; rrecklaus <rrecklaus@vah.com>

Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 11:44 am
Subject: The St. James Parish motion and Committee of the Whole (COTW)

Dear President Hayes and Village Trustees,

At the village board meeting on Tuesday, January 16, there was a genuine feeling among the residents in attendance that the board was not prepared to vote on the motion regarding the St. James Parish amendments. Fortunately, this can be avoided at future meetings if the presiding officer would utilize a basic principle of Robert's Rule of Order (RONR).

Simply, if a voting member is not prepared to make a main motion, then that voting member should not obtain the floor to do so. It is out of order for a voting member to take nearly ten minutes to craft a motion while collaborating with non-voting staff employees and the Petitioner's architect. In this case, the resulting motion was out of order regardless if a second was forthcoming. In instances such as this, if the presiding officer does not keep current business on track, other voting members should rise to the point of order. (18)

As we have discussed, new business should begin with a main motion. This action concentrates the assembly's discussion on the exact issue at hand. Thus, an enormous amount of time can be saved during meetings as opposed to having a long discussion, followed by attempting to craft the perfect main motion. This would prevent what occurred before the vote on Tuesday. Motions should be timely and precisely moved by a voting member and then exactly repeated by the President. Also, 'So Move' is not a motion. (3)

Suggestions to improve transparency and democracy at Committee-of-the-Whole (COTW) meetings.

As we all have learned from the 2018 Budget and tax levy increase, much needs to be accomplished at the COTW to include meaningful public input and transparency. The President who occasionally asks for public comment at the COTW does not meet this end. In my opinion, the following are substantive steps that would improve transparency and democracy at the COTW:

1.) No first motions should be made at the COTW. Extended discussion on a particular topic could occur at the COTW, but only with a Pubic Comment section included on that agenda. Then, all resulting motions should be made or the resumption of a motion that was previously referred to the COTW, is discussed, and voted upon in New Business at the next regular board meeting. 

2.) A Public Comment section must be included on all COTW agendas.This would remove the arbitrary, if any, requests by the President for public input.  

3.) The public needs to be informed that they are able to participate at the COTW. Currently, very few residents are aware of this and an extensive marketing campaign should be undertaken to inform the public they are now invited for open comment at the COTW. 

4.) Following RONR principles would improve time efficiency at regular board meetings and would allow business originally scheduled at the COTW to be absorbed.(14)

In my view, it is in the self-interest of the village board and the village to encourage meaningful public input and to follow RONR as outlined below. This would give ownership and empowerment to the public on all decisions, favorable or not, made by the village board.

As always, please accept my comments as constructive, in an attempt to assist you to the best of my ability with every effort to be accurate in reference and interpretation.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this with you further. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely,

Keith Moens

-----Original Message-----

To: thayes <thayes@vah.com>; cblackwood <cblackwood@vah.com>; rbaldino <rbaldino@vah.com>; tglasgow <tglasgow@vah.com>; brosenberg <brosenberg@vah.com>; jscalletta <jscalletta@vah.com>; msidor <msidor@vah.com>; jtinaglia <jtinaglia@vah.com>; rlabedz <rlabedz@vah.com>; rhume <rhume@vah.com>; tkuehne <tkuehne@vah.com>; rward <rward@vah.com>; cperkins <cperkins@vah.com>; rrecklaus <rrecklaus@vah.com>

Sent: Sun, Nov 12, 2017 4:18 pm
Subject: RONR and Amending the Sign Code Modification

Dear President Hayes,

Finally, after 45 minutes of discussion, on Monday, November 6, Trustee A moved: 'to adopt the corridor recommendation for digital signage as presented in the verbiage indicated on the action or amendment to Chapter 30, Sign Code, to add articles V, 'Electronic Message Signs''. Trustee B hastily seconded the main motion prior to Trustee A being finished with making the motion. Trustee B was out of order to interrupt the making of a main motion.

Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) Comments: The main motion is now on the floor and belongs exclusively to the assembly. The motion maker did not need the permission of the President to make a motion since she had already obtained the floor. Following the making of the motion, the President must immediately and clearly restate the question as moved and seconded to ensure everyone understands the wording of the motion. In this case, an error was made in that the motion should have stated Chapter 30, Article VII instead of Article V.

Also, the discussion of new business should begin with a main motion. This action concentrates the assembly's discussion on the exact issue at hand. Thus, an enormous amount of time can be saved during meetings. This is opposed to a discussion for 45 minutes, followed by attempting to craft the perfect main motion for a straight up or down vote with no proper procedural amendments codified within the motion. (See Making Main Motion below).

But as can easily occur, Trustee C wished to address the notification distance of 250' in the standing main motion. Trustee C should have done so by moving to amend the main motion. All voting board members have the right under the use of RONR, as prescribed by Village code, to amend the main motion and it does not require the permission of the President. Allowing voting members to amend standing questions provides a way for the assembly to democratically change the verbiage of the main motion to reflect the will of all on the board. (4), (5).

RONR Comments: If Trustee C had moved to amend the notification distance, the President would then restate the main motion as amended and ask for a second on the amendment.  The amendment is then discussed as it is germane to the main motion and voted upon. If the amendment passes, the main motion is then discussed and voted upon as amended. Had the amending process been properly followed, it would have given an avenue for other voting members to weigh in on whether or not they wanted an extended notification distance as well. (See, Amending a Main motion below)

Summary: The RONR amendment process democratically ensures that the will of the board is codified within the language of the statement that is requiring action. The final motion passed should contain precise language that reflects the will of all board members. Rather than as what happened on Monday, when the main motion is voted upon based on some vague commitment by non-voting staff members to write a follow-up memo explaining how they measure 250'. (See, Fixing the Double Standard below)

As we have previously discussed, RONR training would correct the above parliamentary irregularities. 

Please accept my comments as constructive, in an attempt to assist you to the best of my ability with every effort to be accurate in reference and interpretation.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this further with you. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely,

Keith Moens

-----Original Message-----

To: thayes <thayes@vah.com>; cblackwood <cblackwood@vah.com>; rbaldino <rbaldino@vah.com>; tglasgow <tglasgow@vah.com>; brosenberg <brosenberg@vah.com>; jscalletta <jscalletta@vah.com>; msidor <msidor@vah.com>; jtinaglia <jtinaglia@vah.com>; rlabedz <rlabedz@vah.com>; rhume <rhume@vah.com>; tkuehne <tkuehne@vah.com>; rward <rward@vah.com>; cperkins <cperkins@vah.com>; rrecklaus <rrecklaus@vah.com>

Sent: Wed, Jun 14, 2017 10:19 am
Subject: RONR training for board and staff

Dear President Hayes,

Since we have one new board member, this is an opportunity to provide training to board and staff in the proper use of Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) as referenced in the Arlington Heights Municipal Code (AHMC). I have offered suggestions for training and cited sources in the addendum below.

As we have previously discussed, RONR training would correct the following parliamentary irregularities at village board meetings: 

Making a Main Motion  

Once a main motion has been moved and a second is not needed in a small board (1), the President must immediately state the question and call for debate (2). The motion is now on the floor and belongs to the assembly, not the motion maker or anyone else. In other words, a non-voting member, such as the village attorney or village manger, cannot craft or massage a main motion followed by a 'So Move'. 'So Move' is not a motion. A main motion must be stated in a precise and timely manner by a voting member, not a staff member (3). 

Amending a Main Motion 

There are two degrees of amendments that can be proposed to modify the wording of a main motion. A voting member must move to amend the main motion, it must be seconded, debated, and passed with a majority vote. A non-voting member is not allowed to massage the main motion with the motion maker to amend the language (4), (5). 

With all due respect, nowhere in RONR is it cited that the motion maker is allowed to amend the main motion after it is on the floor and discussion has begun. In fact, one of RONR' s main principles is to not allow the motion maker to manage the main motion. This is to ensure that all voting members have a democratic voice in amending the main motion for the final question (6). 

Laying a Motion on the Table 

At the April 17 board meeting, a trustee was out of order by moving to table agenda item 12b, Chapter 28 Text Amendments to a future date. Since there was no motion on the floor in the first place to table, tabling a motion was out of order (7),(8).  But, even if a motion was considered tabled, there was no motion to Take From the Table at the June 5 board meeting (9). The combined parliamentary action regarding the approval of Chapter 28 Text Amendments was all out of order. 

Addressing the Village President 

As we have discussed AHMC 2-206,#2 means that 'discussion of questions should be directed to the Village President' (10). It follows that if you are directing questions to the Village President, then the trustees should address that person as the Village President. This is consistent with RONR. Since there is no Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem in Arlington Heights, RONR clearly states that the presiding officer is to be addressed as President or whatever may be his or her official title, which is President or President Pro-Tem (11), 

Committee of the Whole (COTW) 

The village use of the COTW is probably the most curious RONR aberration of all. The Village Code directs when the COTW is to meet and the general subject matter, but it does not state its specific business and how it is formed (12).  Using RONR, a COTW is established by a voting member moving to Commit or Refer a pending question to a committee, seconded and approved by the majority (13). After the committee meets, it rises and reports the results back into the main meeting, at which time that committee is then dissolved. Pending questions must be moved to a COTW by a voting member of the body not by a village employee (14). 

The village use of COTW should be called what it is; an even less structured board meeting. In 2016, 57% of public board meetings were conducted as a COTW. These meetings are not tape recorded, have no Citizens To Be Heard, initiates, and passes new business. The new business is then reported into Old Business of the main board meeting and then rubber stamped with yet another vote. New business covered in the COTW should be on the formal agenda as New Business of the main board meeting. 

Adjourning a Meeting

The motion to adjourn requires a second, is not debatable nor amendable and is out of order in a COTW. (15), (16), (17).  For example at the COTW of June 12, the President was out of order on two occasions regarding adjournment. First, the President called for adjournment in a COTW. Second, after the motion to adjourn was seconded, the President allowed a non-voting member to debate whether the meeting should be adjourned or not.

Fixing the Double-Standard

Your claim that strict adherence to RONR would impede 'free flow of ideas' is false. Free flow of ideas is exactly how RONR is structured along with a proven process that ensures decisions by a representative body are democratically agreed upon. As we have seen in the past, the subjective use of RONR 'as a guide' has opened the door to undemocratic approval of motions and amendments, as described above.

Finally, the village board is well recognized for strict compliance of rules to decide on many issues. Why then doesn't the board strictly comply to RONR rules to conduct meetings? This is a double-standard. Long standing practices of subjective compliance to RONR may not be the best defense to continue in such manner and as a result has lead to many bad habits.

Please accept my comments as constructive and in an attempt to assist you to the best of my ability with every effort to be accurate in reference and interpretation.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your coments.

Sincerely,

Keith Moens

Addendum:

                

Recommended Reading and Seminars:

• Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11^th Edition, (RONR), Copyright 2011, by: Henry M. Robert III, 669 pages, ISBN 978-0-306-82020           Amazon: $14.72

• Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised IN BRIEF, Copyright 2011, by: Henry M. Robert III, 176 pages, ISBN 978-0-306-82019-9                        Amazon: $5.09

• The National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) can offer seminars conducted by certified parliamentarians.

The Village should reimburse the board and staff to purchase the above books or attend an NAP seminar on using Robert's Rules of Order.

                                  Cited References

1. RONR 11^th Edition, p.487 to p.488, Procedure in Small Boards, (not more than 12 members), Rule #2, 'Motions need not be seconded'
2. RONR 11^th Edition, The Stating of the Question by the Chair, p.39: 7-11
3. RONR 11^th Edition, The Making of a Motion, p. 32 to p.35.
4. RONR 11^th Edition, Section 6, Subsidiary Motions, Chapter 12, Amend, p.130 to p.133
5. AHMC, Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #6-6
6. AHMC,  Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #1, & Section 6-112, Proceedings, Rule (a) 
7. RONR 11^th Edition, Lay on the Table, p. 209 to p.212.
8. AHMC, Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #6-2
9. RONR 11^th Edition, Taking a Question from the Table, p. 213
10. AHMC, Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #2,
11. RONR 11^th Edition, Pattern of Formality, p.22 to p. 23.
12. AHMC, Section 2-203, Committee of the Whole, Rule (a),(b).
13. RONR 11^th Edition, Commit or Refer, p.168 to p.171.
14. RONR 11^th Edition, Committee of the Whole, p. 531 to p. 538 and p.533 footnote #1.
15. RONR 11th Edition, Committee of the Whole, p.534, rule #6.
16. RONR 11th Edition, Adjournment, p.233 to p.236.
17. AHMC Rules of Procedure, Section 2-206, Rule #6-1.
18. RONR, 11th Edition, Incidental Motions, Point Of Order, p. 70 to p.71 and p. 247 to p. 249.