2002_0107_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

issues are resolved through common sense, not by reference to Roberts' Rules of Order. Such hyper-technical rules of procedure baffle the public, baffle the meeting members, and encourage unproductive debates -- leading to the next step of hiring a"parliamentarian" to try to interpret un-interpretable rules. I suggest a simple rule 9 that the presider at Council meetings shall decide all procedural issues that arise at a meeting by balancing fairness with efficiency; if another member of the body objects to the presider's ruling they may raise a point of order appealing the presider's ruling and a majority of the quorum may reverse the presider's ruling. Proposed Rule 10. No Comment. Proposed Rule 11. Appears to violate Minnesota statute 412.121 stating that "the Council" shall choose an acting mayor from the current council members. Proposed Rule iZ. Question the delegation of power from the Council as a governing body to the Mayor alone to choose these various liaisons and representatives. Proposed Rule 13. Question the authority of the Mayor or any member of the Council to allocate office space in a Plan B form of government. Proposed Rule 14. Question the intent and effect of making the Mayor the "official spokesperson for the City," and giving the Mayor apparently unlimited "authority to establish" the Mayor's own "policy to carry out this duty." Does this mean no other Council Member may comment to the media on city issues? What if the Mayor says something about City policy that is contrary to the views of other Council Members, or contrary to the position adopted by the Council as the governing body? Does this also mean that the Chief of Police cannot respond to a media request to comment on a law enforcement issue, or the Parks and Recreation Director cannot comment on a parks issue? Or must all these persons - other Council Members, Department heads, etc. - first clear their comments with the Mayor? Again, what if they disagree? �