Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

3. Parliamentary Issues Ms. Shepard asked what issues the councilors wished to address. Ms. Taylor commented that on a couple of occasions she had sent an intended motion out in advance and another councilor had sent a similar motion. She felt that she had then not been allowed to make her motion. She said the most recent instance of this had to do with the transportation maintenance funding. Mayor Piercy remarked that she was unaware that a motion sent in advance would be considered first. Ms. Bettman observed that it was a courtesy to the other councilors to send a motion in advance, but she did not know if there had been a discussion of what chronological order the motions would be presented in. Ms. Solomon agreed that councilors send motions in advance as a courtesy, but she did not believe that was a guarantee that a motion would be presented or would be presented in the order it had been submitted. She thought that after discussion if there were four motions that could be potentially placed on the table and after the discussion it became clear that the majority felt one was the right motion over the other three, then it was somewhat of a waste of time to consider three motions that lacked support just because of the order in which they were submitted. Ms. Bettman noted that a councilor had the right to have a motion be heard. Ms. Taylor asserted that according to Robert’s Rules, one could make an amendment to an amendment. Mr. Clark observed that it was sometimes challenging for the Mayor to track the queue, especially when a motion was made and then an amendment was made. Mayor Piercy agreed that when there was a queue to speak to a motion and an amendment was made, it was sometimes difficult to discern who was going to speak to what. Ms. Shepard asked if there was council agreement on making amendments to an amendment. Ms. Solomon clarified that this could only be done once. Mayor Piercy said that in most cases she would honor motions that were submitted in advance, but she reserved the right to opt not to do so. Ms. Bettman understood that the council president would put the motion as crafted by staff on the table first and, in the course of the discussion, substitute motions or amendments could be placed on the table. Regarding an amendment to an amendment, she acknowledged that it was within the parameters of Robert’s Rules but she advised the council to be careful what it asked for. She said there had been many times when she wanted to amend an amendment, but it often made a complicated process even more “arcane and complicated.” She averred that it was hard for the public to track what the council was doing as it was. Mr. Zelenka concurred. He stated that having one issue to consider at a time it made it easier to track. Mayor Piercy asked if it was the council’s wish to continue with the current practice or to change the practice. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 8 Process Session