2014-06-30 Study - Council Rules

Home Browse Search

far as saying if Council would address the conduct of Councilmember Kraft in a vote, he would not even worry about the twelve months. Mayor Welsch called a Point of Order stating that the study session was a discussion of the suggested rules change and to limit his comments to the rules. Mr. Crow said the Council with these rules has an obligation to take a vote on the actions of his colleague. He again noted that no one has told him how these changes would make Council work more effectively. Dr. Carr said Mr. Sharpe noted how it was done previously. One person was change to two Councilmembers somewhere and done. She said Rule 24 was unconstitutional as a single representative should be able to introduce official business. Dr. Carr stated that it was clear that some of the recommendations were made prior to coming to the meeting. She stated that the Sunshine Law RSMo 610 provides for penalties up to $5000 against the violating person or governmental body and can require person or government body to pay court cost. Dr. Carr said she was being forced to bring up the Sunshine Law violations. She noted that it was not allowed for her to reach out to other members of Council and it is not her job. Dr. Carr noted that she heard that person Mr. Sharpe spoke of, continued to put the item on again and again. She stated the Sunshine Law forbids her to poll her fellow members. She thought it should go to one and her compromise would be to leave it as it is. Dr. Carr stated Council was wrong in removing it from the agenda as it is a draft agenda and the things that can be done as change the order and add things but you cannot take way her right as a member of Council to make a motion to put a resolution on the agenda. Dr. Carr noted she received Mr. Pace’s email on his interpretation of Robert’s Rules but noted that he did not have the credentials as an official parliamentarian. She noted that she hired Ms. Dickey who was a registered parliamentarian to help her understand. Dr. Carr said noted she only takes advice from experienced persons. She noted that what Mr. Pace does not understand is that by amending you cannot deny a member’s right to make a motion. She stated proper amendments would include changing the order of consideration or adding or changing a specific time on any agenda item. Dr. Carr noted she had a bad habit of consulting experts, consulting the literature and not rely on her own understanding when it comes into question. She noted that to impugn Ms. Dickey’s integrity as a professional because she hired her is wrong. Mr. Kraft noted the resolution says that Council will not be taking things off the agenda but rather, as a compromise, you get one bite of every apple but you cannot bring it back. He noted that there has been no lack of two of his colleagues to consistently try to impugn him and did not feel they had a lack of a chance to attack him and say nasty things about him. He said it looked like a compromise to him: you get one shot at an addition and once it is over it will not be brought back. Mr. Kraft said the compromise of two people or one is academic, as if someone puts something on the agenda and no one seconds it, it is dead. Mr. Jennings tagged on to his original motion, “that any resolution that is the same or essentially the same will be considered out of order during the twelve month period. He noted that what he has learned from past experience is that the will of the board is the majority rule and when we join the board we have no individual rights. Mr. Jennings said it is the members’ job to talk to each other, to work together to make a decision. Each can bring ideas and proposals to the table but it is the will of the board that makes things happen. Mr. Crow said his question has not been answered as he did not understand how these changes would make Council work more effectively. He said to remove indefinitely is the bite of the apple that he is looking for they were sadly mistaken. Mr. Crow said by the end of the 6