HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet 06-27-11 WorkshopTICS OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a Workshop on
Monday, June 2i, 2011,
1. Review and Discussion of Robert's Rules of Order.
2. Adjourn.
Planning Commission Workshop
Date: 6/27/11
ITEM: Review and Discussion of Robert's Rules of Order
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
At the June 131" meeting, the Planning Commission briefly discussed the Commission's rules of conduct
for meetings and requested the item be considered at a workshop. The Commission is asked to review
the documents provided at the last meeting in addition to an article provided in the packet regarding
Robert's Rules of Order and to have a discussion on how the Commission would like to proceed.
The City Attorney has confirmed with Staff that the Commission has the ability to set its own rules for the
purposes of running a meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. "The Commission Will Come to Order' — Planning Commissioners Journal
FEATURE
• • •' • • ' '
spart of my work, I often
observe planning commission
meetings. I appreciate the consci-
entious efforts of members to examine com-
plex aspects of specific issues under the
principles of the comprehensive plan,
adopted public policy, and development
regulation. This is a difficult enough task in
itself; yet, under our system of government
these processes of deliberation and decision
must comply with established procedures,
To structure their efforts, many plan-
ning commissions have adopted, and come
to rely upon, Robert's Rules of Order, in one
or another edition. I doubt, however, that
many commissions have either a clear
understanding of parliamentary procedure
or the ability to effectively apply Robert's
Rules.
In this short article, I want to summa-
rize the essential features of parliamentary
procedure, and review some of the prob-
lems planning boards face in using Roberts
Rules. The "Model Outline of Motions for
Planning Commissions," which follows this
article, seeks to adapt Robert's Rules to better
meet the particular needs of today's plan-
ning and zoning boards. The Model Out-
line of Motions represents a simpler and, 1
hope, more understandable set of proce-
dural rules to guide a planning or zoning
board's deliberative processes — and, of
equal importance, promote public under-
standing of commission deliberations.
I. WHY HAVE RULES
OF PROCEDURE?
I am aware that many planning com-
missioners will read this discussion and the
Outline with little enthusiasm, if not with
real dread. Permit me to argue three reasons
for understanding and applying parliamen-
tary procedures. First, failure to adopt and
follow formal, fair, and coherent procedures
erodes public confidence in planning.
Where planning is an optional power of
local government, such an erosion of confi-
dence could endanger planning altogether.
COMMENTARY ON ADAPTING
THE RULES OF
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONS,
ZONING BOARDS & BOARDS
OF ADJUSTMENT
by David.]. Allor
Even where planning is a mandated power
of local government, public participation
could be reduced to a paralyzing conflict
over proper procedure. Second, failure to
consistently apply procedures could result
in a deprivation of individual rights and
damage to individual interests. Third and
finally, failure to consistently apply proce-
dures would invite litigation against the
local unit of government.
These considerations do reflect certain
basic principles of self - government. First, as
Henry Roberts notes is "the right of the
deliberate, majority to decide" — which is
immediately coupled to the second, the
right of the minority to secure "considered
judgment after a full and fair `working
through' of the issues involved." (Robert's
Rules [1915] 1971). Moreover, such proce-
dures assure that all members of the body
are treated equally, and that all are free to
participate fully in the discussion.
Parliamentary procedure seeks to pro-
vide for both efficient and effective deci-
sion- mating and both open and full debate
of issues. they are closely allied to constitu-
tional requirements of due process and to
common law concepts of reasonableness,
non - arbitrariness, and non - capriciousness.
Perhaps, the best advice on the balance
between discipline and reasonableness
comes from Henry Robert himself:
Know about parliamentary law, but do
not try to show off your knowledge. Never be
technical, or more strict than is absolutely
necessary for the good of the meeung. Use
your-judgment; the assembly may be of such a
nature through its ignorance of parhamen-
tary usages and peaceful disposition, that a
strict enforcement of rules, instead of assist-
ing, would greatly hinder business; but in
large xsemblies, where there is much work to
be done, and especially where there is liability
to trouble, the only safe course is to require a
strict observance to the rates.
Roberts Rules (19 15 edition)
2. PROBLEMS Wrrn ROBERT'S RULES.
The prededing quotation, while con-
taining valuable advice, also reflects the first
of three weaknesses within Robert's Rules.
The text, now more than a cenmry -old, is
not written in a manner coherent to speak-
ers accustomed to the contemporary use of
the English language. The complexity of the
language undermines the ability to under-
stand and apply the procedure. More seri-
ously, misunderstandings of the language of
parliamentary procedure aggravate suspi-
cion of deception or manipulation within
debate. Again, dual requirements must be
addressed: parliamentary procedure must
be comprehensible as contemporary lan-
guage but be sufficiently disciplined to ful-
fill the requirements of law.
The second weakness is largely histori-
cal. In the early years of its independence,
the United States of America felt a strong
need to give discipline to the processes of
self-government. Thomas Jefferson's Manu-
al of Parliamentary Practice (1801) sought to
guide the conduct of the national congress.
Both Luther S. Cushing's Manual of Parlia-
mentary Practice (1845) and Henry M.
Robert's Rules of Order (1876) extended
procedures to non - legislative bodies and
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L I N U M B E R 20 1 F A L L 1 9 9 5
voluntary associations. Yet, many manuals
focus upon large legislative bodies, where
contending interests, perhaps politically -
partisan interests, reinforce a "win- lose"
rather than "argument -to- consensus" con-
ception of decision - making. The rigidity of
certain procedures impairs the collaborative
exploration of alternatives.
Two examples are important. First, par-
liamentary procedure disallows discussion
of an issue in the absence of a motion; how-
ever, if a motion is made, the subsequent
discussion is constrained to that motion.
Many deliberative bodies employ the
option of `Recessing into a Committee of
the Whole" to enable broader discussion.
This is impracticable on a regular basis and
often confuses the public. Second, small
deliberative bodies (those of three to five
members) may do well to delete the
requirement for a "Second" to motions. It
would be unfortunate for an otherwise
good motion It) "die for lack of Second " In
both cases, the ultimate decision should he
based upon the quality of the deliberation,
not technical considerations of motion -
making.
The third weakness of Robert's Rules
relates to the application of parliamentary
rules to the special nature of planning and
zoning boards. Unlike the large, elected or
self - constituting assemblies considered by
Henry Robert, the work of planning is guid-
ed by deliberative bodies which are small,
appointed in staggered terms of office, and
obligated to conform to provisions of state
statute and/or municipal charter.
In general, the work of planning com-
missions and zoning boards are taken to be
quasi- legislative, their actions are most fre-
quently recommendation,, to a legislative
body, rather than definitive actions (except,
in those states where a planning commis-
sion makes final decision on plat
approvals). Where a board of adjustment
hears requests for variance or appeals of
administrative interpretation, its actions are
taken to be quasi - judicial and are final
(except as they may be appealed to the
court). These peculiarities were not envi-
sioned by Robert.
Four other issues also merit discussion:
First, planning commissions, zoning
boards, and boards of adjustment often
must act within fixed time frames — for
example, within thirty days to make mcom-
mendation or decision. As a result, motions
to "Object to Consideration," "Lay on the
Table," or "'Postpone Indefinitely" are large-
ly inappropriate.
Second, and similarly, a motion to
"Reconsider" is very difficult to employ
within limited time periods, and taking into
account notice requirements.
Third, since the votes of commission
and board members should always be taken
by roll Call, the motion for the "Division of
the Assembly" is unnecessary.
Fourth, public hearings — so common
to the planning commission deliberative
process — are not directly addressed in
Roberta Rules. Robert" provisions for "Occa-
sional or Mass Meetings' offer little direc-
tion. For Robert, deliberative bodies did not
directly hear the testimony of interested
parties. While such information could be
introduced through committee report, reg-
ular deliberative sessions permitted only
commission or board members to speak. In
consequence, deliberative bodies in plan-
ning need to adopt a number of procedures
to facilitate the orderly participation of the
public, Such motions as "Open (or Recess
into) Public Hearing ", "Accept (written
materials) for the Public Record ", "Close the
Public Hearing ", and "Close the Public
Record" are essential features of due process
for planning- related decision- making-
3. SOME FINAL. OBSERVATIONS.
I wish to conclude these comments on a
very serious note. Each commission or
board member is under an obligation to
know the relevant statutes and codes, char-
ter provisions, and by -laws. If a question of
law or procedure arises, it should— if at all
possible — be referred to and answered by
legal counsel and settled prior to the meet-
ing. Recurrent questions to legal counsel on
matters of procedure within a meeting cast
doubt upon both the dedication and pre-
paredness of commission or board mem-
bers. Formal procedures can offer little
support to proper planning unless they are
clearly understood, consistently applied,
and broadly- accepted as both fair and
effective.
I hope you will read through the "Model
Outline of Motions" set out on the following
pages. It is designed to make it easier for
planning and zoning boards to operate in a
manner that is fair and understandable, both
to the members themselves and to the public.
I wish to express my appreciation to the
many planning commission, zoning board,
and board of adjustment members with
whom I have worked to clarify decision -
making procedures. Many of the comments
in both the above essay and the outline on
the following pages have been taken from
notes made at local, state or national train-
ing sessions sponsored by the American
Planning Association. I also wish to thank
Professor Robert E. Manley, University of
Cincinnati, and partner in the law firm of
Manley, Burke, Fischer, Lipton and Cook,
Cincinnati, Ohio, for his constructive criti-
cism of the draft versions of this work. 6
David;. Allow Professor,
School of Planning, and i cis;
low, Center for [he SYUdv of
Dispute Resolution, Lover
ne, of Cincinnati. He is the
author of `Keeping Things in
Order, Planning Connnuresion
By-laws," and "Outline of
At of By -Laws fm- a
Planning Commission," in issue #14 of the Planning
Commissioners Journal. Ahor has also written The
Planning Commissioners Guide: Processes for
Reasoning Together (available f ion the APA Book-
store), and is a member of the American Institute of
Certified Planners and the Society of Professionals in
Dispute Resolution.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 20 / F A L L 1 9 9 5
1. CALL TO ORDER
NS I ND I NA I NV
Action of the chairperson to
bring the members, staff, and
audience into order.
2. CALL FOR QUORUM
NSIND INA INV
Action of the chairperson,
with confirmation by the secre-
tary, that the commission may
conduct official business.
3. CALL TO FOLLOW THE
AGENDA
NS INo INA INV
Action of the chairperson to
proceed with the agenda as pub-
lished, so that persons attending
and possibly wishing to testify
may know the order of issues to
be heard add decided.
4. Motion to AMEND THE
ORDER OF THE AGENDA
S I D I A I V
For very specific reasons,
other than those of inconvenience
or unpreparedness, a commssion
member- may move to alter the
order but not the content of the
agenda_
5. Motion to FIX THE TIME
TO ADJOURN
SINDIAIV
Once the order of the agenda
has been decided, a planning
commission is under an obliga-
tion to estimate how much of its
work it can reasonably and
responsibly conclude winhm a
single meeting. Where a public
hearing is required, the chairper-
son can impose reasonable but
equitable time constraints upon
public testimony.
6. Motion to APPROVE THE
MINUTES
NSINDIAIV
Action to approve the minutes
of a previous meeting. The min-
utes are amendable to improve
clarity, accuracy, and complete-
ness, but not to re -open debate
on a previously decided agenda
item.
by David J. Allot
The following outline modifies, withdraws, and inserts
motions into the order provided within Robert's Rules of Order
(Revised 1971 and Newly Revised 1990). However, the motions
are not presented in order of precedence, but in the order in
which they are most likely to appear within the meeting of a
commission or board. In this cralune, a single public hearing is
heard within a deliberative meeting.
Borrowing from Jon L. Lricson's Notes and Comments on
Roberts Rules (1991), each motion is coded in four categories:
requires Second (S), ornot (NS),
is Debatable (D), ornot (ND),
is Amendable (A), ornot (NA),
andrequiresVote (V), ornot CNV).
A simple majority is required, unless otherwise noted.
Immediately below the motion and its codes is a brief explana-
tion of the motion's use and relevance.
7. Motion to RECONSIDER
S I DINAIV
A procedural motion, used
where a commission member in
the majority on a previously
decided item wishes to have the
conueission reconsider its vote.
The motion is appropriate only
where: (1) crucial information, not
available at the time of the initial
vote, is now available, or (2) there
has been a Substantial change of
circumstances since the initial
vote. Great care should be taken
with respect to this motion so as
to not violate notice requirements
N nine lftni canons on action. If the
motion for RECONSIDERATION
is passed, the item is re- presented
in total, after wluch a new sub-
stantive motion may be made.
8. Motion to RECESS INTO
PUBLIC; HEARING
SINDINAIV
To this point the commission
is in regular deliberative meeting,
it now may RECESS INTO PUB-
LIC HEARING in order to take
public testimony on a specific
agenda item. hating a poido
hearing, a commission member
may not make substantive
motions.
9. Motion to ACCEPT FOR
THERECORD
SINDINAIV
A procedural motion to officially
incorporate an application, agency
report, consultant' report, letter,
petition, or other written or visual
materials rain the public record_
10. Motion to CLOSE THE
PUBLIC RECORD
SINDINAIV
If die planning commission
wishes to proceed with debate on
die item, it must close the public
record. Both the record of written
and visual materials and the oral
testimony form the basis of corn
sideraron and decision. Where the
commission is to deliberate the
case at a future meeting, it may
leave the public record open for a
specific period of time, usually
two business days, to receive any
additional written materials.
11. Motion to CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING
SINDINAIV
A to motion made
when all public testimony has
concluded. the planning conerns-
sion has now returned to delibera-
tive meeting.
12. CALL TO ENTERTAIN A
MOTION
NS INDINA INV
After broad discussion and
deliberation among the members
of the planning conunission, the
chairperson may invite, but may
not make, a motion.
13. Motion to CLOSE
DELIBERATION
SINDINAIV
A Is credural motion to test
whether the planning commis-
sion is ready to move from delib-
eration to decision. For smaller
commissions, the CALL TO
ENTERTAIN A MOTION (see
412) would be sufficient to move
the commission toward substan-
tive motion.
14. Motion to APPROVE,
APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS, or converse
motion to DISAPPROVE
S 1» 1 A I V
A substantive motion (often
called the MAIN motion); it may
take one of two tones: (1) a
definitive action, or (2) a recom-
mendation_ Requires recitation of
reasons in support of the motion;
both the Mover and Seconder
Trust concur in the reasons and in
the conditions, if Bach are
attached. A tie vote constitutes
defeat of the motion. When a
motion to DISAPPROVE is
defeated, a converse motion
should be made to secure
APPROVAL or APPROVAL WITH
CONDITIONS_
15. Motion to AMEND the
Previous Motion
S I D I A I V
Amending morons may be
either procedural or substantive.
When a motion has been moved
and seconded and is within the
period of debate, it is subject to
substitution, alteration or perfec-
tion_ When an amendment is
seen as Trrcndl};" that is, compat-
ible with the previous motion by
[the initial mover and seconder,
the amendment may be incorpo-
PLANNING C O M M I S S I O N E R S JOURNAL / NUMBER 2 0 / P A L L 1 9 9 5
rated directly into the previous
motion by verbal assent; where the
amending motion is seen as
"unfriendly," it must be debated
and decided rust. All morons to
AMEND the previous motion
must be decided prior to delibera-
aor and vote on the MAIN motion
(see #14)_
16. Motion to RECESS
S IND I A I V
A procedural notion to permit
a very brief suspension of public
hearing or deliberative meeting to
facilitate commission operations or
for the comfort of the public Plam
Ding commission members should
avoid contact with interested par-
ties during recess.
17. Motion to DEFER TO
SPECIFIC TIME
S I D I A I V
Where testimony on a public
hearing or deliberation by the
commission on an agenda item
cannot be concluded within a sin-
gle session, a motion to DEFER
TO A SPECIFIC TIME, that is, the
immediately next meeting, is
appropriate. The defen-ed item
becomes the first aem in the suc-
ceeding agenda. Care must be
taken to not violate notice or time
Imitation requirements (as with
#'/, Motion to RECONSIDER),
18. Motion to EXTEND THE
IIME TO ADJOURN
S IND I A I V
Having already fixed the time
of adjournment (see #5, Motion to
FIX TIME TO ADJOURN), the
commission may nevertheless
extend such tine, but by a two -
thirds vote.
19. Motion to ADJOURN
S IND INAIV
While a motion to ADJOURN
is always appropriate, planning
commissions are obligated to
expedite items on the meeting
agenda. A Motion to ADJOURN is
best used when all agenda items
have been decided or remaining
items have been DEFERRED TO
SPECIFIC TIME (see #17).
An additional num-
ber of motions are neces-
sary to facilitate file
internal operations of the
commission or acknowl-
edge rights of its mem-
bers. The following
motions have no other of
precedence.
20. Motion to ADOPT or the
converse motion to REJECT
S I D I A I V
Action to incorporate, alter, or
eliminate policies which guide
the decision - making of the com-
mission or board. Policy adoption
requires only a voting majority,
adoption of, or amendment to,
by -laws requires a two - thirds
vote.
lEdimr's Note: For more on by-
how, sec David AI1m-s "Keeping
Things In Order: Planning Commi4-
simr By -Incas, in PCj #141,
21. Motion to REFER TO
COMMITTEE
S I D I A I V
Some larger planning com-
missions have provision in their
by -laws allowing referral of spe-
cific issues to smaller committees
for deliberation and subsequent
recommendation back to the full
commission. This does roe dele-
th
care power to e committee to
decide the issue.
22. Motion to DIVIDE A
MOTION
S IND I A I V
Where a motion has been
both moved and seconded and is
under deliberation, but where
that motion is considered as com-
plex. Any member of the com-
mission may seek to divide the
motion, thereby permitting aide-
pendent votes on specific issues_
Care must be taken not to divide
a motion in such a manner- as to
subsequently make contradictory
decisons among the features of
the divided motion.
23. Action to WITHDRAW A
MOTION
NS I NO NAIV
Where the Mover finds that
an initial motion is flawed, map -
lit opriate, or premature, the
Mover may seek to withdraw the
motion in whole. "this action is
not permissible if the original
motion is either subject to an
amending motion or has been
amended
24. Motion to SUSPEND THE
RULES
S I D I A I V
Where, in extraordinary con-
ditions, established Lures would
harder rather than promote effec-
tive deliberation, specific rules
may be suspended for specific
time within a meeting — the rea-
sons for such suspension should
be entered into the minutes of the
meeting. Any suspension of rides
requires a two-thirds vote. Great
care must be taken under a sm-
pension of rules to avoid the
appearance (or the fact) of unfair-
ness. No Dole may be suspended
which is otherwise required by
law.
25. Action to ROLE OUT OF
ORDER
NS IND I NA I NV
To assure the orderly progress
of a meeting or heating, the chair-
person may rule individuals —
whether members of the commis-
sion, staff, or the public — out of
order where (1) comments are
irrelevant to the item under dis-
cussion, (2) comments have
already been made, (3) the speci-
fied period of dine in which to
speak has expired, or (4) com-
ments are disruptive to the order
of the meeting.
26. Instruction to DISREGARD
NSIND INAINV
To assure the objectivity of the
hearings and meetings, the chair-
person may instruct the members
to DISREGARD comments and/or
written or visual materials that are
inFanmatory or prejudicial_ Such
comments, however, are retained
in any recordings or transcribed
minutes of the meeting, and in
the public record.
27. Motion to APPEAL THE
RULING OF THE CHAIR
SIDINAIV
A right of members of a com-
mission to challenge the action of
a chairperson, so as to ensure that
proper procedures are followed,
not to impede deliberation and
decision.
28. A POINT OF ORDER
NS IND INAI NV
A right of members of a com-
mission to request that the chair-
person follow proper order. The
intent is to assure proper progress
of deliberation, not to contest
action of the chairperson (as in
#27 Motion to APPEAL THE
RULING OF THE CHAIR)_ The
pours of order seek, to address an
immediate concern, not debate
larger procedural issues. Repeated
use of A POINT OF ORDER to
delay or ausnate decision is map-
Drops iate and damages the conn-
nuity of deliberation.
29. A POINT OF
INFORMATION
NS IND INAI NV
A right of members of a com-
mission to request the specific
inclusion or clarification ofrnat-
ters of fact from the chairperson.
30. A POINT OF PERSONAL
PRIVILEGE
NS IND I NA I NV
A right of any member of the
commission to express matters of
serious concern. For example, if a
member of the commission is
aware cis conflict of interest in a
specific case, that member should
at Cue time that the cases
brought forward on the agenda,
raise A POINT OF PERSONAL
PRIVILEGE. declare that a conflict
of interest exists. and withdraw
from all further participation on
that case As a special note. I
encourage that a rmetnber, having
declared a conflict of interest,
leave the chamber until that case
has been decided.
PL.ANN I N G COMMISSIONERS JOUR DAL / NUMBER 20 / FALL 1995