HomeMy WebLinkAboutFwd Conduct of City Council MeetingsAll, FYI. David
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
_____________________________
From: Rob Grisar <robgrisar@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 11:42 AM
Subject: Conduct of City Council Meetings
To: Bob Hoog <b.hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, Mike Brown
<m.brown@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
Cc: Rocky Randels <r.randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, Angela Raymond
<a.raymond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, Wes Morrison
<w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org>, David Greene
<d.greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
________________________________
Warning-This email originated outside the City of Cape Canaveral mail
system. Please review the sender's address. Report any suspicious mail
to John DeLeo or Sam Thorpe
________________________________
Dear Mayor Hoog and Mayor Pro Tem Brown,
This email is in reference to the conduct of City Council meetings. I
am writing to express my personal exasperation with how these meetings
commonly progress and to suggest some remedies for the issues that I
have seen. I must tell you that the July 16th meeting caused me to feel
embarrassed for our city and its governing body.
It is nearly impossible and somewhat counterproductive to refer to
certain of my concerns by way of generalities. Consequently, where I do
mention names I apologize in advance for any perceived insult. It is
not my intention to hurt someone’s feelings. Rather, I simply wish to
point out issues that I see repeatedly and offer my thoughts on these
subjects.
With the above preface in mind, my concerns fall into the following
categories:
· Public participation;
· Procedures for handling agenda items;
· Personal conduct of the council members;
· City Attorney’s role
Public Participation
According to the rules of participation set forth on the meeting
agendas, public participants must complete a participation form, submit
same in advance of the meeting and limit their remarks to three minutes.
Notwithstanding these clear requirements, many participants fail to
follow the rules and the Council has allowed this in meeting after
meeting.
In regard to submitting the participation forms, some members of the
public just pop up in the midst of the meeting or raise their hand or
simply proceed to the podium. This practice is often tolerated by the
presiding member and the individuals are recognized until such time as
the meeting seems to be degenerating into disarray and babble, at which
point there is usually a call to order. The point here is that the rules
of conduct of the meeting are available to all and all should be
compelled to obey them. It is an unfair practice to permit certain
individuals, often persons who are obviously well known to Council, to
disregard the rules while requiring others to adhere to procedures.
In terms of the time limits for remarks, some members of the public
addressing the Council make every effort to observe the time limit. In
many instances I have seen participants bring written copies of their
remarks to the podium to endeavor to keep to the allotted time. Others
do not do so, but do respond properly when the allotted time has
expired.
However, at nearly every Council meeting I have attended some public
participants regularly disregard the time limit and the presiding member
has done little or nothing to curtail this practice. In some cases, the
presiding member has engaged the public participant in conversation
during their “three minutes” and allowed questioning back and forth to
council members and staff, effectively doubling or tripling the
individual’s time at the podium. Again, this is an unfair practice and
a significant disservice to those who choose to follow the rules set
fort by the Council for public participation. While questions from the
public are permitted, the question should be posed and then the public
participant should not be allowed to engage in a continued debate with
the Council.
Additionally, not for the first time there was quite a bit of
boisterous, rude behavior from members of the public at the July 16th
meeting. This behavior was very obviously instigated and promoted
during the meeting by Council Member Morrison. I call your attention to
the following two sections of the City Code:
Section 2-66 (h): Any person making impertinent or slanderous
remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the council shall be
barred from further audience before the council by the presiding
officer, unless permission to continue or again address the council is
granted by the majority of the council.
Section 2-66 (j): Disruptive behavior by members of the
audience including, but not limited to, fighting, yelling, throwing or
launching projectiles, audible use of electronic devices, and causing
loud noises is strictly prohibited.
Not only did this disruption occur, but it was allowed to continue,
was encouraged by Council Member Morrison and, in part, condoned by the
presiding member for a significant time period. Indeed, these same
citizens were allowed to hold private confabs within the council
chambers as the meeting progressed, further disrupting and distracting
from the official proceedings.
Please, bang the gavel and restore order and decorum.
Procedures for Handling Agenda Items
Sec. 2-66 (c) of the City Code states in part: When a motion is
presented and seconded, the motion belongs to the city council as a body
for consideration and disposition unless withdrawn by unanimous consent
of the city council. For some reason Council regularly engages in debate
prior to any motion being made. These discussions are often lengthy and
repetitious. Eventually, the presiding member calls for a motion and
then a second. If that is attained, then there is more discussion,
usually a repeat performance of the prior period of discussion.
I would simply point out to you that, if there is no motion, there is
nothing to debate. If there is no second to a motion, again there is
nothing to debate. Discussion only takes place when a motion has been
made and seconded. This is clear from the above cited section of the
City Code as well as Robert’s Rules of Order.
With reference to this issue of making motions and seconding same, I
can tell you that it is at times frustrating sitting in the audience
watching this Council stumble through the process. When there is a call
for a motion and for a second there is often a lengthy silence from the
dais. I am not sure what the problem is. While it is certainly
permissible to choose not to make a motion or a second, in which case
the agenda item will die, it is clear that someone on the Council has an
intent to move the item. If not, why would it be on the agenda in the
first place? Again and again I have witnessed these disturbingly long
silences, where not one member moves or seconds an item at the time that
the presiding member makes the call for same. Did the members not read
and research the agenda item prior to the meeting? Are they not paying
attention to the progression of the meeting? It is truly baffling.
If no council member is willing to take the step of making a motion,
then the presiding member may do so in accordance with Section 2-66 (d)
which provides the following: “The presiding officer may move, second
and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as
are imposed by this division upon all members, and the presiding officer
shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a council
member because of his being the presiding officer.” Please use the
authority granted by this section and move the meeting along.
Personal Conduct of the Council Members
City Council meetings have often degenerated into a saddening spectacle
of personal arguments. Inevitably, this begins with Council Member
Morrison droning on endlessly and repetitively about a subject, stating
his point, restating his point, reiterating his restatement and
restating his reiteration ad nauseum, often with references to some
supposed groundswell of public opinion in support of his position. At
times it is obvious that he has gathered a half dozen of his
constituents, all of whom display studied ignorance of readily available
information, to bolster his arguments. As a debating tactic this is,
well, . . . .debatable. It is clearly designed to engender a reaction
from other council members or the audience or even staff members present
at the meetings. Once the process begins, it quickly goes downhill with
Council Member Morrison engaging in a back and forth, usually with Mayor
Hoog and/or Mayor Pro Tem Brown, with members of the public chiming in
from the floor.
While I can understand the frustration felt by presiding members, as
well as the other council members, as they are subjected to these
juvenile tactics, I do urge all to please refrain from engaging Council
Member Morrison when he proceeds down this path. He is simply baiting
you and hoping you react. Recognize this disruptive tactic for what it
is and just ignore it.
At the same time, you must be cognizant of the rights of any council
member to discuss issues. There is a growing tendency on the part of
the Council to disregard Council Member Morrison’s observations, no
doubt due to his prior performances at meetings. On several occasions I
have noted that Council Member Morrison has presented some very cogent
points regarding agenda items that other council members and staff have
missed. I urge you to not be in the habit of dismissing him out of hand
based on previous conflicts. Per City Code Section 2-66 (e): “Every
council member desiring to speak for any purpose shall confine himself
or herself to the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and
indecorous language. A member once recognized shall not be interrupted
when speaking unless the interruption shall be to call the council
member to order or as otherwise provided in this division.” Council
Member Morrison has the right to blather on repetitiously if he so
desires as long as he sticks to the subject at hand and does not violate
any conduct otherwise prohibited. I found it disturbing at the July
16th meeting that he was inappropriately interrupted by both Mayor Hoog
and Mayor Pro Tem Brown and both were clearly out of order by doing so.
That being said, there are avenues for the Council to end the unending
diatribes. First, one debate tactic that is often employed by Council
Member Morrison is to ask a question of the other council members. If
no one responds, then Council Member Morrison will have to push on alone
having failed to instigate the kind of back and forth he clearly wants.
But there is a much simpler and official way of ending the agony. It
presumes that there has been a motion and a second, which circles back
to my point that debate should not begin until there is a motion on the
floor. City Code Section 2-66 (i) provides that: “Members of the city
council shall have the privilege of closing debate ("call the question")
on any pending motion by obtaining a minimum of two-thirds vote of the
city council.” It would seem to me that such an action is obtainable in
most of the situations that I have observed in the recent past. Since
two thirds of the Council would be 3.3 members, it would obviously take
the vote of four to close debate. It is far past time for the Council
to exercise its right to not be abused by Council Member Morrison and,
as needed, employ this code section and move the city’s business along.
If you are unclear about how to use this code section or the coincident
segments of Robert’s Rules, I urge you to consult the City Attorney.
And this brings me to my final point.
City Attorney’s Role
At multiple meetings I have observed council members flounder and
fumble through procedures. Meanwhile, the City Attorney sits mute on
the sidelines. The City Attorney is being paid for his time sitting in
these meetings, whether he stays silent or speaks. Section 2-127 of the
City Code states the following: “The city attorney or the assistant city
attorney in his absence shall be available to the city council at all
meetings, unless excused by the council. He shall act as parliamentarian
at all meetings and shall advise and assist the presiding officer in
matters of parliamentary law.” I implore you Mayor Hoog and Mayor Pro
Tem Brown, whichever of you is presiding at a meeting, to avail
yourselves of his services in order to efficiently and properly conduct
the people’s business. For his part, it would not seem to be out of
order for him to occasionally step in and remind Council of what the
appropriate action is where he sees the Council unsure of procedure or
straying from the appropriate course.
Thank you for spending the time reading and considering what I have put
forth here. Please understand that, having myself served for over 40
years in government, including several years working for a city manager
and myself both conducting and participating in public hearings, I am
acutely aware of the difficulties involved in municipal government.
Whether I happen to agree with your politics or not, I applaud all of
you for giving of yourselves for the betterment of our City.
Warm regards,
Rob Grisar
425 Buchanan Av.
Cape Canaveral
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
ichholz