2013-12-16 study - audit report and council rules

Home Browse Search

business is handled with ordinances or resolutions. She wanted a place on the agenda where members could just talk about items of interest to them. Ms. Carr stated Mr. Sharpe was alluding to a new rule that was put in 2010, but the prior rules in effect were established in 2006 under Mayor Adams. She read Rule #9 from 2006 Council Rules, “Routine City business agenda items may be grouped under a consent calendar and voted on as one item, with no discussion”. She noted that Council no longer has a consent calendar. “Any item may be removed from the consent calendar and voted on separately by a request from a member of Council. Any Councilmember can add an item to the agenda by notifying the City Clerk before noon, the day of the meeting”, which she noted would now be a violation under the Sunshine Law. In 2010, Council adopted new rules stating any member of Council without a second could go to the City Clerk and say they would like to discuss the zoning code for nuisance houses and would be put on the agenda. Ms. Carr noted that while Mayor Welsch put on a spot for Council to talk, she also took off a spot where any member of Council could add it to the agenda without a second. She said now the Mayor is saying that it was never meant for voting but there was no mention that it would be only for discussion with no voting. Ms. Carr said as far as filibustering goes, she has seen more speeches pre-written being given by various Councilmembers and they were not from the side of the table where she was sitting. Ms. Carr stated her constituents expect her to represent their interests and to bring to Council items that need to be discussed such as the flooding, crime, shootings, and parking lot #4. She was elected because it was implicit and explicit that she would represent them. Ms. Carr stated the Charter states there are three mechanisms in which Councilmembers can bring something to Council for discussion: The ordinance, which is the City’s law; resolutions, which would be things like contracts; and finally by a motion. She stated that by establishing this, it said a Councilmember cannot make a motion to give the City Manager or staff, through the City Manager, any direction. Ms. Carr said the games that were played in the study sessions with delaying the session’s start and then the filibustering will happen again. She said this is a dysfunctional group that does not really sit down and talk to one another like a collegial group. Ms. Carr asked if it is so important to change the rules why was it not done in a Study session. She asked if it was not their responsibility to call everyone on Council and let them know. Ms. Carr said this is so important that they should not have been blind-sided. She said it was such an important issue the presenters could have picked up the phone and called her and said they did not like the way things were going, or too much time was being spent and at least discussed it with her or better, the entire Council. It is being done now because Mr. Price said it was not being done correctly; otherwise Council would have voted on something that would have taken away the rights of her constituents. Ms. Carr said when you gag her, her constituents are being gaged. She stated that is what is being said to her in many, many, many emails. Ms. Carr stated that she will hold certain councilmembers responsible and will tell her constituents directly that they no longer will have a voice through her. Mr. Kraft asked to clarify the use of the term gag rule. He said gag rule needed to be understood in its historical context. The gag rule refers to US Senate and Congress from the th 19 century. He said the gag rule was when Congress refused to hear any petitions related to slavery. Mr. Kraft said it was a little bit of hyperbole to call this a gag rule. Secondly, he stated people should not be accused of anything without any documentation, as happened when one member said, ”Four of you knew about this and three of us did not.” Mr. Kraft said in looking at the rules, the 2009 Rule #9 said anyone could put an item on the agenda; in 2010 that rule became Rule #11 but the two member rule was because of mistakenly omitted. Mr. Kraft said in the two April meetings, he stated that he noted there was a problem because in the rules Council did six months before; there was no provision for two people putting anything on the agenda. Quoting from the minutes, “Mr. Kraft said when the Council originally did the rules they left out some things that were needed in making of an agenda. The way things stood at the moment, technically only the City Manager could put the agenda together. One of the changes that made sense was any two Councilmembers could put something on the agenda”. Mr. Kraft 5