Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-13-2011 Charter Packet
LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION QUARTERLY MEETING AGENDA 6:30 PM Thursday, January 13, 2011 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of agenda items 4. Open Mike / Public Comment 5. Minutes: Approve October 14, 2010 Present and Approve July 8, 2010 Joint and Charter Commission 6. Old Business A. Charter Amendments / Karen Marty / Commissioner Trehus B. Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest """"\ Please bring above materials from last meeting 6:30 PM 7. New Business A. Charter Contract with Karen Marty, expenses incurred B. Discussion of joint council meeting tabled from October 14, 2010 C. Memo from city council on odd year elections tabled from October 14, 2010 D. Meetings per year — By Laws / Commissioner Gunderson By Laws Article 3 Section 1 E. Robert's Rules of Order / Commissioner Sutherland F. Next meeting date, Thursday, April 14, 2011 Adjournment Caroline Dahl Christopher Lyden Kelly Gunderson Chair Vice Chair Secretary Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: FINAL DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION October 14, 2010 6:35 P.M. 11:12 P.M. Dahl, Lyden, Gunderson, Carlson (arrives at 6:38), Drennen, Minar (arrives at 7:25), Penn, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams (departs at 10:35) Aldentaler, Zastrow None Jeff Karlson, City Administrator (part) Dean Hausladen CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl called to order the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:35 pm on October 14, 2010. OPEN MIKE Chair Dahl invited the new City Administrator Jeff Karlson to address the Commission. Mr. Karlson spoke on his background and took questions from Commissioners on topics including the preliminary budget, status of the proposed auto racetrack, restructuring of city staff and other upcoming challenges for the city. SETTING THE AGENDA Commissioner Gunderson requests that item 7B Discussion of Upcoming Referendum be added to the agenda. MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Carlson to approve the amended agenda. Motion passes unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Dahl stated that minutes from the July 2010 will be voted on at the next meeting in January. OLD BUSINESS A. Roberts Rules of Order Commissioner Carlson clarified the procedure for "calling a question" during a meeting, according to Robert's Rules of Order. Two-thirds of commissioners' approval is required to call a question which ends discussion on a motion and brings forward a vote on the motion itself. Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 2 45 Commissioner Lyden as Vice -Chair is designated to help the Chair keep track of who would like 46 to be recognized to speak and in what order. 47 48 B. Possible Charter Amendments 49 Commissioner Trehus discussed two possible amendments that the charter has been previously 50 considering as well as adding Section 1.04 and amending Sections 3.09, 5.01 and 5.07. 51 52 Chair Dahl suggests that Commission decides what ballot questions to go forward with so that 53 the $1,500 allotted for the 2010 budget is used before the end of the year. 54 55 Commissioner Gunderson asked the Chair if the Commission's attorney will continue to work 56 with the Commission even though there is still an outstanding balance owed to her from 2009. 57 Chair Dahl stated that she recently requested an estimate from Ms. Karen Marty, attorney, for her 58 services for the possible amendments being considered. Ms. Marty replied with those estimates, 59 therefore, ifs the Chair's opinion that Ms. Marty will continue to work with the Commission in 60 the future. 61 62 Commissioner Minar arrives at 7:25pm. 63 64 Commissioner Trehus reiterated that the $1,500 allotted to the Commission cannot go toward the 65 outstanding bill to the attorney. Commissioner Trehus asked about the presentation to the City 66 Council on the Commission's 2010 budget increase request, with the line -item specifics 67 requested by the council. 68 69 Commissioner Drennen spoke on the submission to the City Council of the 2011 budget request 70 for the Commission. In that request, three ballot questions were projected. Commissioner 71 Drennen has not heard back from anyone with the City regarding the submission. Chair Dahl 72 stated that there was a City Council work session scheduled for the next week regarding the 73 budget for 2011. 74 75 Chair Dahl stated that the estimates from Ms. Marty were $2000 to work on the Tax Cap 76 amendment and smaller amounts for other amendment questions. Ms. Marty also stated that her 77 services needed for more than one amendment could be tied together for a better billing rate. 78 79 Commissioner Lyden asked the City Administrator, Mr. Jeff Karison, if the Commission's budget 80 request was included in the preliminary budget for 2011. Mr. Karison said he believed it was 81 not, but it could be brought to the City Council at the budget work session the next week. Chair 82 Dahl stated the budget request was submitted to the City Clerk and Acting City Administrator in 83 August. 84 85 Commissioner Trehus spoke on his handout with two drafts for adding Section 1.04. In Draft 1, 86 it is agreed upon to strike "not to exceed the monetary limitation set by the Minnesota ,.� 87 Legislature.' 88 2 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 3 89 Commissioner Gunderson asked Commissioner Trehus if it his opinion if the Commission 90 should work on all three amendments now. Commissioner Trehus suggested the Commission 91 rank the amendments and work on what they feel is most important now in 2010, with any 92 leftover budget money as well as future money going toward the other amendments. 93 94 Commissioner Trehus spoke on the amendments on Sections 3.09, 5.01 and 5.07 of the Charter, 95 as well as a funding loophole amendment regarding Section 8.04. 96 97 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to prioritize the four 98 drafts sections, in order to send them to the Commission's attorney. 99 100 After discussion that the three draft amendments of 3.09, 5.01 and 5.07 is possibly one question 101 and the motion does not include sending the Tax Cap amendment, Commissioner Sutherland 102 withdraws the motion. 103 104 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to discuss prioritizing 105 the possible amendments listed on the agenda. 106 107 After further discussion of an amendment for 8.04 that is not on the agenda, Commissioner 108 Gunderson withdraws her seconding of the motion. Commissioner Bretoi then seconds the 109 motion. , 10 111 Commissioner Sutherland request calls for division of the question to separate the Section 8.04 112 amendment. 113 114 Commissioner Sutherland calls the question, which passes unanimously. 115 116 Motion passes unanimously. 117 118 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Minar to divide the question 119 as: 120 1. Addition on Section 1.04 121 2. Sections 3.09, 5.01, 5.07 amendments 122 3. Tax Cap amendment 123 excluding amendment of Section 8.04, which is not on the agenda. 124 125 After discussion, Commissioner Gunderson calls the question, which passes unanimously. 126 127 Motion fails with Commissioners Sutherland, Minar, Gunderson voting yes; Commissioners 128 Lyden, Drennen, Turcotte, Trehus, Bretoi, Dahl voting no. Commissioners Carlson, Penn, 129 Storberg, Williams abstain. 130 31 The Commissioners then each gave their opinions on what order they want the possible 32 amendments to be worked. 133 3 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 4 134 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to prioritize 135 amendments for Section 1.04 as most important (1), then (2) "Tax Cap" amendment, next (3) 136 "Funding loophole" amendment and finally (4) amendments to Sections 3.09, 5.01, 5.07 to 137 present for review by the attorney. 138 139 Commissioner Gunderson asked for clarification from Chair Dahl on "loopholes" amendments 140 because it is not on the agenda. Chair Dahl decided to allow discussion on the "loopholes" 141 amendment. 142 143 Commissioner Trehus recommended that a subcommittee draft a letter to the Commission's 144 attorney asking her to work on the amendments in the order voted by the Commission, until the 145 budget for 2010 is used completely. 146 147 Commissioners Gunderson, Drennen and Sutherland offer a friendly amendment to add "using 148 up to the remainder of our 2010 budget" after the work "attorney" in the motion. 149 150 Motion passes with Commissioner Carlson voting no. 151 152 Commissioner Sutherland refers the slate of the letter to the attorney to a subcommittee of 153 Commissioners Trehus, Drennen and Chair Dahl. 154 x'55 C. Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest 156 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to table this 157 agenda item to the January 2011 Commission meeting. 158 159 After discussion, Commissioner Trehus calls the question, which passes unanimously. 160 161 Motion passes with Commissioners Carlson and Dahl voting no. Commissioner Bretoi abstains. 162 163 D. Budget 164 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Trehus, to limit discussion 165 to one opportunity per speaker for a limit of three minutes. 166 Commissioner Sutherland calls the question, which passes unanimously. 167 Motion passes with Commissioners Drennen, Trehus, Dahl voting no and Commissioner Bretoi 168 abstains. 169 170 Chair Dahl summarizes the $1,500 bill from Ms. Karen Marty that is in arrears as well as the 171 memo from the City Attorney, Mr. Langel, on why the City should not pay the bill. 172 173 Chair Dahl also states that she has not received a response from the City regarding the submitted 174 budget request. 175 176 Commissioner Gunderson encourages all Commissioners to attend the Council budget work 77 session the next week. 178 4 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 5 179 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Drennen, to postpone indefinitely any 180 discussion of the bill in arrears to Ms. Karen Marty. 181 182 Commissioner Gunderson suggests sending a letter to Ms. Marty 183 184 Motion passes with Commissioners Gunderson and Carlson voting no and Chair Dahl abstaining. 185 186 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Drennen, that the Commission draft a letter 187 to Karen Marty in regards to our motion to postpone indefinitely any discussion as it relates to 188 the bill in arrears regarding the city audit of the Commission, providing a copy of said letter to 189 the City Council. 190 191 Chair Dahl asks if two Commissioners can bring back the issue for discussion. Commissioner 192 Sutherland states that this would close the issue. 193 194 Commissioner Minar calls the question, which passes unanimously. 195 196 Motion passes with Commissioner Carlson voting no. 197 198 Commissioner Drennen volunteers to write the letter and copy the Commissioners. 199 "x'00 Commission requests Chair Dahl send all Commissioners a copy of what was sent to the Council 201 on budget items letter and line items. 202 203 Chair Dahl will request the City add the Commission to the work session on Thursday, October 204 21st. Commissioner Gunderson requests the Chair send all Commissioners information of the 205 work session. 206 207 E. Discussion of Joint Meeting 208 Commissioners discussed the outcomes of the joint meeting with the City Council and possibility 209 of a second joint meeting. 210 211 Commission Drennen requested to clarify that Chapter 8 of the Charter was not specifically 212 discussed at the meeting, road construction was discussed. 213 214 Commissioner Williams departs at 10:23pm. 215 216 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg to set up a joint meeting with the City Council. Because 217 there was no seconding of the motion, the motion went no further. 218 219 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to delete wording 220 item E. A. of the agenda "to change Chapter 8" and item E.A.A.i. deleting "changing or amending Chapter 8". 22 223 Motion passes with Commissioner Carlson voting no. 5 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 6 - 224 Chair Dahl plays a recording of the portion from July 2010 work session. 225 226 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Carlson for purposes of discussion, that the 227 Commission declines the Council's request for a second joint meeting. 228 229 After discussion, Commissioners Sutherland and Carlson withdraw the motion. 230 231 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Minar to table agenda item 232 6.E to the January meeting. 233 234 Commissioner Sutherland calls the question, which passes with Commissioner Trehus 235 abstaining. 236 237 Motion passes with Commissioner Storberg voting no and Commissioner Trehus abstains. 238 239 NEW BUSINESS 240 241 A. Memo from City Council on odd year elections 242 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland to request of the 243 City to provide a cost breakdown of 2009 and proposed 2011 election costs. The motion is 244 amended by Commissioner Sutherland to add 2007 to the request. 245 246 Commissioner Minar states a potential conflict of interest because he is an election judge, paid 247 by the City and therefore abstained from the vote. 248 249 Motion passes unanimously. 250 251 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Lyden, to table item 7A to 252 the January meeting. 253 254 Motion passes with Commissioner Minar abstaining. 255 256 B. Discussion of upcoming referendum 257 Commissioner Gunderson gives an overview of the upcoming city referendum regarding the 258 reconstruction and addition of stoplights at the intersections of Lake Drive & Main Street and 259 Birch Street & Ware Road. 260 261 ADJOURN 262 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to adjourn the meeting at 263 11:12pm. Motion carried unanimously. 264 265 Respectfully Submitted, ry 266 267 Kelly Gunderson 268 Secretary 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 /"..N 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: FINAL DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION July 8, 2010 10:02 P.M. 10:45 P.M. Dahl, Lyden, Gunderson, Carlson, Drennen, Minar Penn, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams Aldentaler, Bretoi, Sutherland, Zastrow None None Bob Bennett CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl reconvened the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission 10:02 pm on July 8, 2010. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Minar, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to approve the minutes for January 14, 2010 and June 3, 2010. Motion passes unanimously. NEW BUSINESS A. Possible 2nd joint meeting with City Council Commissioner Turcotte stated he believes that forming a subcommittee with the council would be reducing voting power of the Commission. Chair Dahl stated she is not in favor of voting on a joint committee because there are three commissioners absent from the meeting and it would not be fair to vote without their input. Commissioner Drennen stated there is already a proposal from the Commission available to work off for a subcommittee. Second, if 4 Commissioners are on a Subcommittee, they still would need to bring back to the entirity of the Commission any work done in the Subcommittee. Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 2 46 Commissioner Gunderson states the agenda item is for a possible 2nd joint meeting. She then 47 asked if the Commission would like to amend the agenda to discuss the formation of a joint 48 commission -council subcommittee and then discuss inviting the council back for a 2nd joint 49 meeting. 50 51 Chair Dahl suggested the agenda item be tabled to the October meeting due to the absence of the 52 commissioners. 53 54 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Carlson, to table agenda item 3A, Possible 55 2nd Joint meeting with Council to the October meeting. Motion passes with Commissioner 56 Lyden abstaining. 57 58 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Minar, to add agenda item 59 3B to discuss forming a subcommittee with the City Council on addressing the issue of road 60 reconstruction. 61 62 Commissioner Penn is against the motion because of the absence of 3 Commissioners and of the 63 late hour of the meeting. 64 65 Commissioner Gunderson clarifies her motion is for discussion purposes only. The Commission 66 could then discuss adding the issue to the October meeting agenda or plan a special meeting 67 before October to discuss a subcommittee. 68 69 Commissioner Penn calls the question. 70 71 Motion fails with Commissioners Drennen, Turcotte, Minar, Gunderson voting yes. 72 Commissioners Storberg, Williams, Carlson, Penn, Dahl, Lyden, Trehus voting no. 73 74 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Penn, to discuss the request line item budget 75 and procedure to request additional funds above budget for the commission. 76 77 Commissioner Carlson states that the meeting agenda doesn't contain approval of the agenda. 78 Chair Dahl admits the omission due to the meeting with the council changed the format and will 79 note for future meetings. 80 81 Motion passes with Commissioners Storberg and Carlson voting no. 82 83 Commissioner Penn asks if a subcommittee is needed. 84 85 Commissioner Drennen states the commission would use past years budgets of the commission 86 and create line items of frame and amend, attorney fees, etc. 87 88 Commissioner Penn asked if we should do anything different than in the past. Commissioner 89 Drennen stated the past procedure was that the Commission made the budget request for the year 90 as one number and the Council gave the money to the commission. Now the Commission would 2 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 3 91 need to forecast a budget with detailed line items for attorney fees, secretarial services, office 92 supplies, printing, advertisments, etc. 93 94 Commissioner Drennen also stated that we need to come up with a procedure for asking for 95 additional funds if needed in the throughout the year. 96 97 MOTION by Commissioner Lyden, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to form a 98 subcommittee to create the line item requests and procedure to request additional funds above 99 budget, chaired by Commissioner Drennen, to include Chair Dahl and Commissioners 100 Gunderson and Penn. Motion passes unanimously. 101 102 B. Housekeeping items 103 104 Chair Dahl states that in years past, a plaque would be made to thank an outgoing commissioners 105 for their service. Chair Dahl would like to clarify that plaques be giving to commissioners after 106 they complete at least 4 years of service. Commissioner Carlson agrees with Chair Dahl's 107 proposal. 108 109 Commissioner Storberg states she is impressed by the commissioners of their professional work 110 on the commission. 111 112 MOTION by Chair Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to change Article 1 of the bylaws to 113 change the name of the commission to state "Lino Lakes Charter Commission." Motion passes 114 with Commissioner Minar voting no. 115 116 117 ADJOURN 118 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Minar, to adjourn the meeting 119 at 10:45pm. Motion carried unanimously. 120 121 122 123 Respectfully Submitted, 124 125 Kelly Gunderson 126 Secretary ,CHAPTER 1 AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY KAREN MARTY: Section 1.04. Charter Commission. The City shall have an ongoing Charter Commission with responsibility for maintaining and updating the Charter. All proposed amendments to the Charter must be reviewed by the Charter Commission. If the Charter Commission does not approve a proposed amendment and the amendment nonetheless is placed on a ballot, then the Charter Commission may take whatever action it deems appropriate to notify the public of the impact or effect of the proposed amendment. The City shall pay all Charter Commission expenses including, but not limited to, those incurred as described in the preceding sentence, those incurred in maintaining or updating the Charter, and those incurred to comply with state law or judicial order. CHAPTER 1 AMENDMENT PROPOSED THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Section 1.04. Charter Commission. The City shall have an ongoing Charter Commission with responsibility for maintaining and updating the Charter. The Charter C=ommissiona members shall receive no compensation, and trust be appointed by the Chief ,fudge of the local district court, All proposed amendments to the Charter must be reviewed by the Charter Commission. If the Charter Commission does not approve a proposed amendment and the amendment nonetheless is placed on a ballot, then the Charter Commission may take whatever action it deems appropriate to notify the public of the impact or effect of the proposed amendment. The City shall pay all Charter Commission expenses including, but not limited to, those incurred as described in the preceding sentence, those incurred in maintaining or updating the Charter, and those incurred to comply with state law or judicial order. COMMENTS BY KAREN MARTY: - A city charter is like a constitution: it should provide broad general guidance. Details which might change over time should be left out of a charter, and instead put in ordinances, laws, and bylaws. State law contains a fair amount of detail regarding charter commissions, and I do not recommend copying that into your charter. That would simply lengthen the charter, and limit your flexibility in the future. So, for example, the state law provision that a charter commission shall have "not less than seven nor more than 15 members" should be omitted. One provision in state law is that charter commission members shall be appointed by the chief judge of the local district court. I doubt if that would change (although there are no guarantees). However, if you feel strongly about including language regarding this in the charter, an additional sentence could be inserted, to state "The Charter Commission members shall be appointed by the chief judge of the local district court." As I recall, this became an issue when the city council indicated an interest in appointing the charter commission members. State law prohibits them from doing so. On the other hand, state law is silent regarding whether the city council, city staff, or the charter commission may make recommendations to the judge. At present, no one appears to do much lobbying. I recommend leaving this alone, unless and until it becomes a problem. The language proposed for Section 1.04 addresses three issues. First, it identifies the purpose of the Charter Commission (maintaining and updating the Charter). Second, it grants the Charter Commission authority to inform the public when it has concerns about a proposed amendment. Third, it clarifies that the City must pay Charter Commission expenses incurred in informing the public about a proposed amendment, maintaining and updating ("framing and amending") the Charter, and incurred to comply with state law (such as a data practices request) or judge's order. That last provision is designed to address the current problem where the Charter Commission has responsibilities under state law, yet has no funds to pay for its work — such as the Charter Commission's its duty to create and maintain various records, yet state law fails to address how the Commission may pay the costs associated with creating, storing, and retrieving those records. DRAFT CHAPTER 1 AMENDMENT FROM OCTOBER 14, 2010: Section 1.04. Charter Commission. The City shall have a Charter Commission comprised of 15 residents of the City in accordance with the requirements of the Statutes of the State of Minnesota. This Commission shall study the needs of the City and its stakeholders and propose amendments to the City Charter, review and act on proposals by the City Council, or by Citizen petition; and/or disseminate information regarding such proposals. The Charter Commission members shall receive no compensation, and shall be appointed by the District Judge. Upon expiring terms and other vacancies, the Charter Commission shall receive applications and submit them to the District Judge for appointment. The Commission may employ the legal and professional services necessary to its functions, the reasonable cost of which, when directed by the Commission, shall be paid for by the City. Tax Cap Amendment Section 7.13. Levy Limitations. The levy limitations imposed on the City by Minn. Stat. Sections 275.70 through 275.77 (2010) shall remain in effect even if the statutes are amended or repealed. The references in Minn. Stat. Sec. 275.71 to taxes levied in specific years shall be interpreted to refer to taxes levied in the year this amendment passes and each subsequent year. Comments: There are a number of ways to impose a tax cap. Mounds View and Fridley adopted detailed charter provisions, attempting to classify each fee or charge as included or excluded from the limit. Probably as a result, those provisions of their charters have been amended repeatedly. Lino Lakes could follow their model, but would have to figure out precisely which taxes and fees to include in the levy limits, and which to exclude. Those decisions would almost certainly become political, and take a great deal of time to complete. Instead of opening the floodgates that way, the language proposed above simply adopts the provisions currently in effect in state law. The City is already living with these limits. These state laws do allow the voters to approve increases, and so provide an option for the City to increase its levy. These state laws also contain provision which will allow the City to deal with emergencies, thus providing the necessary safety net. The language proposed above will keep these same limitations in place indefinitely. Draft Ballot Language: Should the City Charter be amended to permanently adopt the levy limits that are currently imposed by state law? Referral to the Lino Lakes Charter Commission STAFF ORIGINATOR: MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND Julie Bartell, City Clerk October 14, 2010 Odd Year Elections The city council received the attached staff report at their work session on October 4, 2010. The report is in response to a council member suggestion that the city consider moving its election year from odd to even years as a cost saving measure. Since a change to the election year would require a charter amendment, the council is respectfully requesting that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission review the question and provide feedback to the council. Also attached is a draft of the minutes of the work session relative to this topic. The council requested that the pros and cons that they discussed be provided for your review. WS — Item 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item #6 Date: October 4, 2010 To: City Council From: Julie Bartell, City Clerk Re: Odd Year Elections Background Chapter 4.01 of the Lino Lakes City Charter establishes that "A regular municipal election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each odd numbered year... ". The rationale for holding a municipal election exclusive of the even - year state and federal level elections is not clearly stated in the city's records. Costs. The proposed budget for the city's cost of the 2011 election is $14,060. A change to even year would save that bi-yearly expense in its entirety. A change would also mean that the staff time devoted to elections during those odd years could be directed to other work. Charter Amendment. A change to the election year would require an amendment to the city charter. The amendment process is governed by state statute which provides more than one method by which a home rule charter can be amended: 1) Petition — a petition meeting the requirements of state law can be submitted by citizens and the question would be brought to the voters; 2) Amendment proposed by the council — the council may propose an amendment by ordinance and, after review by the charter commission, may present it to the voters; 3) Upon receiving a recommendation from the charter commission, the council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance with an affirmative vote of all council members (with a post approval waiting period of 90 days). Terms of Office. Any change to the municipal election year would obviously result in a question regarding the terms of office for the council members and mayor. Changing the election year may result in either the addition or loss of one year to the terms, possibly impacting both sitting council members and those individuals who are up for election/reelection. Requested Council Direction Staff is presenting the idea of pursuing a change to the city's current practice of odd -year municipal elections as a possible cost savings and efficiency measure and requests direction from the council regarding your interest. If the interest is present, the council should discuss the form of charter amendment that could be pursued. Staff would then be able to put together a possible schedule for either a council vote or inclusion of a question on the 2011 ballot. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 25 2°1 a CITY OF LINO LAKES EXCERPT OF MINUTES DATE MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT October 4, 2010 : October 4, 2010 : Councilmember Gallup, O'Donnell, Reinert, Roeser and Mayor Bergeson : None Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Mike Grochala; Director of Public Safety Kent Strege; City Engineer Jim Studenski, City Clerk Julie Bartell The following is an excerpt of the minutes of the above date relating only to Item 6 on the meeting agenda. 6. Odd Year Elections — City Clerk Bartell explained that the concept of the city changing from an odd to even year election cycle for municipal elections is being brought forward at the request of two council members who presented it as an efficiency and cost saving possibility. Of the eighty plus cities in Anoka County, only two cities have their municipal elections in odd years (Lino Lakes and Circle Pines). She explained that the requirement for the current practice of odd -year city elections is included in the city charter so a charter amendment would be required for a change. The process for charter amendments (as set forth by state statute) was reviewed. Ms. Bartell noted the biyearly costs associated with holding an exclusive municipal election; the costs would be saved entirely along with staff's work and time associated with the election process. She also noted that any change to the election cycle would obviously result in an impact to terms of office for the council and mayor positions. It is advisable that any change in terms be determined and included in the enacting ordinance so it is clear up front. Staff is seeking direction from the council on their interest in further discussion or moving forward on a change and, if appropriate, on what type of amendment the council would seek. The council discussed possible scenarios of enacting a change, including how long a process would take. There was recognition that if the charter commission were to make the recommendation to the council, the process would be shorter and the savings would come quicker. The charter commission meets quarterly and has a meeting in October. The mayor remarked that municipal officials are at the bottom of the totem pole and the reason he sees for having off year elections is to give necessary attention to local questions. Joining with the larger election world would also mean some loss of the non- partisan nature of the municipal elections perhaps just by association (campaign signed displayed together). A council member noted that the savings are not extensive and they are actually saved only biyearly. Another council member suggested that the concept is worth exploring. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 4, 2010 45 A question was posed by council regarding the city's sign regulations and the previous 46 direction to report on how the regulations should be amended to recognize the longer 47 absentee balloting period. The current regulations do not allow campaign signs to be 48 posted for the full absentee balloting period. Community Development Director 49 Grochala noted that he is working with the city attorney on that issue as well as another 50 constitutional concern about the city's sign regulations; he anticipates bringing forward a 51 change for consideration after the first of the year and in time for next year's election 52 period. 53 54 City Clerk Bartell added that there is additionally some language in the city charter that 55 does not correlate with recent election law changes at the state level and staff will be 56 reporting on that soon. 57 58 There was concurrence that the discussion on the matter will continue and the council 59 would like to request feedback from the charter commission. Staff should provide to the 60 commission the pros and cons mentioned at this meeting. 61 2 From: jean.vigerOci.lino-Iakes.mn.us To: denali2010@q.com CC: julie.bartell@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us; dan.teschC@ci.lino-Iakes.mn.us Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:23:59 -0600 Subject: Election Expenditure Reports Good Afternoon Caroline, The election is over...well, all but the recount. Julie informed me that you requested the election expenditures for 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 and the proposed budget for 2011. The expenditures are listed below: 2003 — Net Budget - $13,450. - Expended $8166.19 2005 — Net Budget - $12,479. - Expended $8435.85 2007 — Net Budget - $28,571. - Expended $8837.62 (Capital Outlay, $15,000 budgeted for new voting systems) In 2007 Anoka County Elections directed cities to budget $15,000. each year for new voting equipment. In 2008 AC suggested we hold off as there was not a "certified" system on the market. 2009 — Net Budget - $14,464. - Expended $8239.89 2011— Net Budgeted $14,060. — Budget not approved yet We cannot foresee a special election, a recount or the voting equipment breaking down when we set our budget. Just one Accu -Vote system has a price tag of over $4500.00. Fortunately we have not had to spend the money set aside for such things, but it's there if we need it. At the end of the year the remainder $$$ goes back into the general fund. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Jean Viger, Deputy Clerk City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651-982-2402 651-982-2499 FAX iean.viger@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:12:01 -0500 Subject: Charter Mtg: Simplified Roberts Rules -Agenda item for next meeting From: clsutherland©gmaii.com To: denali2010@q.com; talkette@yahoo.com Chair Dahl/Secretary Gunderson, Please share this communication with the other commissioners. In reviewing and trying to create a simple reference sheet for use in our meetings utilizing Robert's Rules more effectively, I discovered that the `motion to divide question' is used to consider the motion more carefully, however it requires a 'second', is not debated, can be amended and does require a majority vote to move forward -none of which was followed. The correct motion would have been to, "object to consideration of the question given my rationale of the item in question not being on the agenda", which does not require a second, is not debated, can not be amended and requires a 2/3 vote. The action would have been for the chair to immediately take the vote by asking, "Shall the question be considered?" the meeting would then continue based on the outcome of that vote. Attached are two documents that attempt to hone in on those items most commonly used or misused, a small grid of common motions, their order of ranking, and how they are handled by the assembly. I am requesting time on the agenda, prior to business items to review these items with the assembly. This will provide an opportunity for open dialogue to fully understand the impact and importance of utilizing these motions correctly. The end goal as cited from my RR book "is that a group of people get together, thoroughly discuss the issue, fix the objectionable parts, and reach a conclusion". I apologize for introducing a not commonly used motion incorrectly last night, and look forward to working from a shared understanding at our meetings going forward. Also from my new understanding, the referendum item should not have been included in the business portion of the agenda as it did not relate to the workings of the assembly but rather was 'open discussion' which could be placed before business items. (Each business item, old or new, on the agenda is considered a proposed motion). However, this may be an item to review with a parliamentarian, as there were other questions about the agenda. Thank you for your time, cordially, Commissioner Sutherland My Strengths are: Relator, Strategic, Individualization, Command and Achiever. "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts", Winston Churchill. "Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan "press on" has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race", Calvin Coolidge. FAQ: How do you deal with a "friendly amendment"? /'�9 nswer: 3n occasion, while a motion is being debated, someone will get up and offer what he or she terms a "friendly amendment" to the motion, the maker of the original motion will "accept" the amendment, and the chair will treat the motion as amended. This is wrong. Once a motion has been stated by the chair, it is no longer the property of the mover, but of the assembly. Any amendment, "friendly" or otherwise, must be adopted by the full body, either by a vote or by unanimous consent. If it appears to the chair that an amendment (or any other motion) is uncontroversial, it is proper for the chair to ask if there is "any objection" to adopting the amendment. If no objection is made, the chair may declare the amendment adopted. If even one member objects, however, the amendment is subject to debate and vote like any other, regardless of whether its proposer calls it "friendly" and regardless of whether the maker of the original motion endorses its adoption. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 154.] Isn't it always in order to move to table a motion to the next meeting? Answer: This question confuses the motion to Lay on the Table with the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. The purpose of the motion to Lay on the Table is to enable an assembly, by majority vote and without debate, to lay a pending question aside temporarily in order to take up something else of immediate urgency. In ordinary societies it is rarely needed, and hence seldom in order. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 201-210; see also p. 127 of ROAR In Brief.] How can I get an item on the agenda for a meeting? Answer: For a proposed agenda to become the official agenda for a meeting, it must be adopted by the assembly at the outset of the meeting. At the time that an agenda is presented for adoption, it is in order for any member to move to amend the proposed agenda by adding any item which the member desires to add, or by proposing any other change. It is wrong to assume, as many do, that the president "sets the agenda." It is common for the president to prepare a proposed agenda, but that becomes binding only if it is adopted by the full assembly, perhaps after amendments as just described. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 363, 1. 8-20; see also p. 16 of RO: R In Brief] Is it true that the president can vote only to break a tie? Answer: No, it is not true that the president can vote only to break a tie. If the president is a member of the assembly, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, speak in debate and to vote on all questions. However, the impartiality required of the presiding officer of an assembly (especially a large one) precludes exercising the right to make motions or debate while presiding, and also requires refraining from voting except (i) when the vote is by ballot, or (ii) whenever his or her vote will affect the result. When will the chair's vote affect the result? On a vote which is not by ballot, if a majority vote is required and there is a tie, he or she may vote in the affirmative to cause the motion to prevail. If there is one more in the affirmative than in the negative, he or she can create a tie by voting in the negative to cause the motion to fail. Similarly, if a two-thirds vote is required, he or she may vote either to cause, or to block, attainment of the necessary two thirds. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 392-93; see also Table A, p190 of ROAR In Brief] I have a question for the person who is speaking. Answer: Don't interrupt, it's not nice. Technically, Robert's Rules allows for you make a point of information and interrupt a speaker by saying, "Will the speaker yield to a question?" The speaker can then choose to let you ask the question or not. But since both the question and the answer will count towards to speaker's time limit, it is very impolite to use this in situations with extremely strict time limits (like at the national convention). In this case, it is best to wait until the speaker is done and then address the chair with your point of inquiry, who then has the right to decide whether or not to allow it. I have a question for the maker of the motion or someone who has already spoken. Answer: Make a point of information, and ask the chair if they will allow a question to so-and-so. If the chair allows it, direct your question through the chair to the person. Never address the person directly. • Can be made at any time, as long as no one is speaking. • The chair has the right to decide whether or not to allow the question. Source: http:%lwww.rohertsrules.com/'faq.html:~8, and httR/,'ww«.alpharhochi.or 'features/Ic2005'LC RR Guide.pdf Notation :"RONR" is the standard abbreviation parliamentarians use to cite Henry M. Robert 111 and others, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publishing, 2000). The standard citation to particular pages and lines is "RONR (10th ed. [for 'edition'], p. [for 'page' or 'pages'], I. [for 'line' or 'lines']. Robert's Rules of Order Made Simple Points The following three points are always in order: • Point of Order: .When a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated, s/he can make a Point of Order (or "raise a question of order," as it is sometimes expressed), thereby calling upon the chair for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules. • Point of Information: a request for information on a specific question, either about process or about the content of a motion. A point of information does not give the speaker the privilege to provide information. If you have information for the body, raise your hand to be put on the speakers list. • Point of Personal Question of Privilege: a comment addressing a personal need - a direct response to a comment defaming one's character, a plea to open the windows, etc. a device that permits a request or main motion relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly or any of its members to be brought up for possible immediate consideration because of its urgency, while business is pending and the request or motion would otherwise be out of order. Motions * All main motions must be seconded, and are adopted by a majority vote unless otherwise noted. * All main motions may be debated unless otherwise noted. Motions are of four five types: privileged, subsidiary, incidental, main and motions that bring a question again before the assembly. • Privileged motions have precedence over nearly all other motions. They fall within a list of precedence. • Subsidiary motions yield precedence to the privileged motions and take precedence over main motions. They fall within a list of precedence. Subsidiary motions assist the assembly in treating or disposing of a main motion (and sometimes other motions). • Incidental motions do not properly fall within the list of precedence, since they usually arise out of the business of the assembly. They may be proposed at any time, and must be decided as they arise. They fall within no list of precedence among themselves. • Original main motions and incidental main motions differ principally in the nature of their subject matter. Original main motions bring business before the group, and incidental main motions is a main motion that is incidental to or relates to the business of the assembly, or its past or future action. bring a question again before the group. Those motions are of the lowest rank and take precedence over no others. They fall within no list of precedence among themselves. • Motions that bring a question again before the assembly- Fall within no list of precedence among themselves. Like main motions, all of the motions that bring a question again before the assembly are usually made (and three of them can only be made) while no business is pending. The following Motions are in order of precedence: motions may be made only if no motion of equal or higher precedence is on the floor (i.e., don't do a number 9 (refer to committee) when the body is considering a number 7 (motion to extend or limit debate). 1. Fix The Time to Which to Adjourn - Sets the time for an adjourned meeting which is a continuation of the current meeting held at another time before the next regular meeting. 2. Motion to Adjourn - not debatable; goes to immediate majority vote. 3. Motion to Recess - not debatable. May be for a specific time. 4. Call for Orders of the Day - A demand to return to the regular order of business. 5. Lay on the Table - Misused 99.99% of the time. This motion is only used to set aside the pending motion to take up something more urgent, with the full expectation of returning to the motion. It is NOT intended to kill a motion and cannot be used for that purpose due to its high rank. .-�6. Move for the Previous Question; Motion to End Debate and Vote; Call the Question - A motion to close debate immediately and vote now on the pending motion. Applies only to the motion on the floor. Not debatable; requires 2/3 vote. 7. Motion to Limit or Extend Debate - can be general, or for a specific time or number of speakers. Not debatable. 8. Postpone to a Certain Time - Postpones the current motion to the next session or to an adjourned meeting. 9. Motion to Refer to Committee - applies only to the main motion. Refers question to a specific group with a specific time and charge. 10, Motion to Amend - must be voted for by a majority to be considered and to be passed. Postpone Indefinitely — Kills the motion without directly voting it down _2. Main Motion - what it is you're debating and amending. Motions can also be classified according to purpose or special situation: To modify a motion: Amend (Subsidiary) To suppress debate or hasten action: Call for orders of the day (Privileged) Previous question (Subsidiary) Limit debate (Subsidiary) Suspend rules (Incidental) Take from the table (Main)(Motions that bring a question again before the assembly) Make special order of business (Main)(not a classified motion in and of itself. It is often tacked on to a motion to postpone, or during the adoption of an agenda) To delay action: Postpone to a definite time (Subsidiary) — The motion that almost always should be used instead of lay on the table. To lay on the table (Subsidiary) — Almost Never in Order. Refer to committee (Subsidiary) To prevent action: Postpone indefinitely (Subsidiary) Object to consideration (Incidental) ^Withdraw a motion (Incidental) To consider more carefully: Extend debate (Subsidiary) Divide question (Incidental) Committee of the whole (Incidental) To change a decision: (Motions that Bring a Question again before the assembly) Reconsider (Main) Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted (Main) To maintain rules and order: Question of privilege (Privileged) Point of order (Privileged) Appeal from decision of chair (Incidental) Parliamentary inquiry (Incidental) Request for information (Incidental) To close a meeting: To fix time of next meeting (Privileged) Adjourn (Privileged) Recess (Privileged) Glossary emend n amendment is a motion to change, to add words to, or to omit words from, a pending n original motion. The change is usually to clarify or improve the wording of the original motion and must, of course, be germane to that motion. An amendment cannot interrupt another speaker, must be seconded, is debatable if the motion to be amended is debatable, may itself be amended by an amendment to the amendment, can be reconsidered, and requires a majority vote, even if the motion to be amended requires a two-thirds vote to be adopted. The chair should allow full discussion of the amendment (being careful to restrict debate to the amendment, not the original motion) and should then have a vote taken on the amendment only, making sure the members know they are voting on the amendment, but not on the original motion. The assembly can order the previous question on this motion the same as any debatable motion. If the amendment is defeated, another amendment may be proposed, or discussion will proceed on the original motion. If the amendment carries, the meeting does not necessarily vote immediately on the "motion as amended." Because the discussion of the principle of the original motion was not permitted during debate on the amendment, there may be members who want to speak now on the issue raised in the original motion. Other amendments may also be proposed, provided that they do not alter or nullify the amendments already passed. Finally, the meeting will vote on the "motion as amended" or, if all amendments are defeated, on the original motion. An amendment to an amendment is a motion to change, to add words to, or omit words from, the first amendment. The rules for an amendment (above) apply here, except that the amendment to an amendment is not itself amendable and -mat it takes precedence over the first amendment. Debate proceeds and a vote is taken on the amendment to the amendment, then on the first amendment, and finally on the original motion ("as amended," if the amendment has been carried). Only one amendment to an amendment is permissible. Sometimes a main motion is worded poorly, and several amendments may be presented to improve the wording. In such cases it is sometimes better to have a substitute motion rather than to try to solve the wording problem with amendments. An individual (or a group of two or three) can be asked to prepare a substitute wording for the original motion. If there is unanimous agreement, the meeting can agree to the withdrawal of the original motion (together with any amendments passed or pending) and the substitution of the new motion for debate. Point of Order This motion permits a member to draw the chair's attention to what he/she believes to be an error in procedure or a lack of decorum in debate. The member will rise and say: "I rise to a point of order," or simply "Point of order." The chair should recognize the member, who will then state the point of order. The effect is to require the chair to make an immediate ruling on the question involved. The chair will usually give his/her reasons for making the ruling. If the ruling is thought to be wrong, the chair can be challenged. A point of order can interrupt another speaker, does not require a second, is not debatable, is not amendable, and cannot be reconsidered. Requests and Inquiries a. Parliamentary Inquiry. A request for the chair's opinion (not a ruling) on a matter of parliamentary procedure as it relates to the business at hand. This opinion is not subject to appeal. Point of Information. A question about facts affecting the business at hand -directed to the chair. The chair then directs all questions "through the chair" to the member. A member should only address the chair. c. Request for Permission to Withdraw or Modify a Motion. Although Robert's Rules of Order specify that until a motion has been accepted by the chair it is the property of the mover, who can withdraw it or modify it as s/he chooses, a common practice is that once the agenda has been adopted, the items on it become the property of the meeting. A person may not, therefore, withdraw a motion unilaterally; he or she may do so only with the consent of the meeting, which has adopted an agenda indicating that the motion is to be debated. Similarly, a person cannot, without the consent of the meeting, change the wording of any motion that has been given ahead of time to those attending the meeting -for example, distributed in printed form in advance, printed on the agenda, a motion of which notice has been given at a previous meeting, etc. If a person does want to change the wording, they must move to substitute or amend before the body can consider the changed motion. The usual way in which consent of a meeting to withdraw a motion is obtained is for the mover to ask the consent of the meeting to withdraw (or change the wording). If no one objects, the chairperson announces that there being no objections, that the motion is withdrawn or that the modified wording is the motion to be debated. If anyone objects, the chair can put a motion permitting the member to withdraw (or modify) or any two members may move and second that permission be granted. A majority vote decides the question of modifying a motion -- similar to amending the motion. A two-thirds majority is needed for permission to withdraw a motion, as this has the effect of amending the agenda. Motions Related to Methods of Voting A member can move that a vote be taken by roll call, by ballot or that the standing vote be counted if a division of the neeting appears to be inconclusive and the chair neglects to order a count. Such motions may not interrupt another speaker, must be seconded, are not debatable, are amendable, can be reconsidered, and require majority votes. By-laws may specify a secret ballot for such votes as the election of officers which is not suspendable under any circumstances. Postpone Indefinitely Despite its name, this motion is not one to postpone, but one to suppress or kill a pending main motion. If an embarrassing main motion is brought before a meeting, a member can propose to dispose of the question (without bringing it to a direct vote) by moving to postpone indefinitely. Such a motion can be made at any time nothing other when than the main motion is pending except when a speaker has the floor. If passed, the motion kills the matter under consideration. It requires a second, may be debated (including debate on the main motion), cannot be amended, can be reconsidered only if the motion is passed, and requires a majority vote. Refer When it is obvious that a meeting does not have enough information to make a wise decision, or when it seems advisable to have a small group work out details that would take too much time in a large meeting, a member may move: "That the question be referred to the committee" (or "to a committee" --not named). A motion to refer cannot interrupt another speaker, must be seconded, is debatable only as to the propriety or advisability of referral, can be amended, can be reconsidered if the group to which the question has been referred has not begun work on the matter, and requires a majority vote. If a motion to refer is passed, the committee to which the matter is referred should report on the question at a subsequent meeting. Sometimes the motion to refer will state the time at which a report will be required. Table (Lay on the Table) Sometimes a meeting wants to lay a main motion aside temporarily without setting a time for resuming its consideration but with the provision that the motion can be taken up again whenever the majority so decides. This is 'ccomplished by a motion to table or to lay on the table. Tabling should only be used to take up something very urgent and then return to the tabled motion. Adjourn A member can propose to close the meeting entirely and immediately by moving to adjourn. This motion can be made and the meeting can adjourn even while business is pending, providing that the time for the next meeting is established by a rule of the association or has been set by the meeting. In such a case, unfinished business is carried over to the next meeting. A motion to adjourn may not interrupt another speaker, must be seconded, is not debatable, is not amendable, cannot be reconsidered, and requires a majority vote. Recess A member can propose a short intermission in a meeting, even while business is pending, by moving to recess for a specified length of time. A motion to take a recess may not interrupt another speaker, must be seconded, is not debatable, can be amended (for example, to change the length of the recess), cannot be reconsidered, and requires a majority vote. Source: Sonoma State University Academic Senate Common Motions and Ranking: The motions below are listed in order of precedence. Any motion can be introduced if it higher on the chart than the pending motion. ( YOU WANT TO I YOU SAN' I IN 1 ERRUPT? 1 2.--? I DEBATE? I AMEND? I VOTE? § 21 Close meeting I move to adjourn No Yes No No Majority § 19 Suggest for benefit of body or register complaint Point (question) of privilege' Yes No No No None, Chair rules § 17 Lay aside temporarily I move to table.. .' No Yes No No Majority § 16 Close debate I call the question No Ye No No 2/3 § 14 Postpone to a certain time I move to postpone the motion to... No Yes Yes Yes Majority § 13 Reter to committee I move to refer the motion to... No Yes Yes Yes Majority § 12 Modify wording of a motion I move to amend the motion by... No Yes Yes Yes Majority § 11 Kill main motion I move that the motion be postponed indefinitely No Yes Yes No Majority § 10 Bring business before the body I move that [ or to] , . , No Yes Yes Yes Majority Incidental Motions - no order of precedence. Arise incidentally and decided immediately YOU WANT TO I YOU SAY IN 1 ERRUPT? I eu? DEBA IL? AMEND? VOTE? § 23 Enforce rules Point of Order' Yes No No No None, Chair rules § 24 Appeal chair's ruling I appeal from the decision of the chair Yes Yes Varies No lvlajority § 25 Suspend rules I move to suspend the rules which. .. No Yes No No 2/3 § 26 Avoid main motion altogether I object to consideration o - the question Yes No No No 2/3 § 27 Divide motion I move to divide the question No Yes No Yes Majority § 29 Demand hand count I call for a division Yes No No No None, Chair rules § 33 Parliamentary law question Parliamentary inquiry' Yes No No No None § 33 Request for information Point of information Yes No No No None First Order of PriviJe tggestion for the benefit of the body would. be -disorder in the meeting, tampering with papers, bad heating or ventilation, etc. Second order of privilege: A complaint involves personal threats or attacks, dlness. desire to be excuxd. Those of the second order are usually never ruled to interrupt bu..,..ness. Formal RR language - I move to lay on the table... 'Formal RR language - I move the previous question 1A Point of Order asks for the enforcement of a parliamentary or loml rule_ It must be made immediately after the error has occurred exoept it dear violation of Constitution or By -Laws. A Parliamentary inquiry is used when you are not sure of parliamentary procedures for a specific instance and want clarification Source. Jim Slaughter, Certified Profesional Parliamentariari-Teacher, ivww.Mitskughter_com with editorial comment by L. Holmstrom Vega Robert's Rules Example This document will walk you through a situation at a meeting in which Robert's Rules is used to make, amend, and vote on a motion. This example should be mad after understand definitions of basic Roberts Rules terms. 1) Motion: I move that all meetings be limited to one hour_ Emily is narcoleptic and cannot be of use longer than an hour a) Point of information: All meetings or just chapter meetings? [Note: the point of information may be called out at am time, without gaining the floor.] Response: The motion says says all_ Chair calls on next person i) Friendly amendment: I would like to make a friendly amendment to reword the motion to read ``I move that all chapter meetings be limited to one hour - This is an opportunity for the chair to ask for unanimous consent rather than having a vote_ Chair asks if there are any objections. If there are no objections the chair can declare the amendment accepted_ However, somebody objects, (1) Now it is open to debate_ Discussion ensues_ (a) A member calls to move to previous question - instantly alis for a vote on the amendment_ Chair states the question: -I move that the motion be changed to read, 'I move that all chapter meetings be limited to one hour" A voice vote is taken The motion passes iniarnmously now move back to the original motion, with the new wording b) Someone decides to question why we have chapter meetings_ Someone says (internipting them) -point of order, his statement does not apply to the question at hand." This ends the debate on why we have chapter meetings. since it is an entirely different topic for discussion_ c) Motion is made to to lay it on the table, and it must be seconded. This would put off the discussion until a future meeting. It is not debatable, so a vote is taken immediately Did not pass d) Motion is made to move to committee to discuss Emily's medical hi _ A discussion ensues on whether it needs to be sent to committee' i) Call to question_ Chair states, A motion has been made to move to coirnnittee Vote Does not pass e) Back to original motion This would be a good point for the chair.motion at hand is -1 move that all chapter meetings be limited to one hour" Discussion Move to previous question ends discussion f) Vote on motion Passes_ (see Voting section)