AGENDA #10a

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Council

FROM:            Councilmember Mark Kleinschmidt

SUBJECT:       Changes to Town Council Procedures Manual

DATE:             November 8, 2004

Although we began addressing some of these issues at our last Council meeting, I do not recall how far we got, or what decisions were made.  Therefore, I will just include all of the edits I am interested in making.

1.  I.B.8 (p.5) – Distribution to the Public.

Include a reference to availability on the town website.

2.  I.C.7(c) (p.7)

Eliminate language referring to unusual urgency.  First sentence to read:  It shall take a unanimous vote of the Council members present for a petition to be acted upon immediately upon its presentation.

3.  I.C.10 (b) (p.11) – Motion moving the previous question.

I believe a motion to move the previous question should require a supermajority.  According to Robert’s Rules this kind of motion requires ¾ of members present in order to pass.  I believe we should follow this traditional Robert’s Rule.  Insert after the third sentence the following:  A ¾ vote of Council is required to pass such a motion.

Explanation:

So you want the Council to stop talking about a particular issue and just go ahead and vote?  There are a few ways to do this, here are two:

a) call the question

Translation:  Hey everybody, I would like us to stop debating and if everyone agrees with me let’s just go ahead and vote.

Note the “everyone agrees” language.  In effect, “calling the question” requires unanimity.  Therefore one person can say, “No, I would like to talk about this a little longer” and thereby defeat the call of the question and extend debate.

Or

b) Move the Previous Question:

Translation:  Hey everybody, it seems that most of us, including me, believe we’ve heard enough and are ready to vote. So, let’s vote on whether we should end debate and move on to a vote on the issue.

A successful Previous Question motion will end debate even if one or people want to keep talking.  This is like a cloture vote in the U.S. Senate.  It can be used to end filibusters.  When this motion is made and there’s a second, a vote occurs without any discussion.

It’s important that a Previous Question motion receive a supermajority to protect the minority interest which theoretically might sway the majority.   The supermajority requirement helps to ensure that important points aren’t missed in the discussion and the minority opinion has an opportunity to be expressed.  Just imagine the circumstances under which a Previous Question motion is made.  They are rare in Chapel Hill because we are usually very respectful of each other.  Recall CM Wiggins mention at our last meeting of the single time such a vote had occurred during her tenure on Council.  It followed a very spirited and highly emotional debate and was likely full of a great deal of unease.  Because these situations are rare and only occur at very difficult times for the Council, we should be very careful with how we handle such situations.

It doesn’t add much to improving the civility of the situation if only 5 CMs can shut down the other 4 before their positions are fully aired.  Remember the Mayor can always admonish a CM if a particular member’s arguments become repetitive.  If there is going to be a situation where a minority opinion is quashed, I believe it should occur only when such action is supported by at least ¾ of the Council. 

4.  II.D.2.e.2 (p. 29)

            This section reflects the changes we made last spring to filling vacancies on the Housing and Community Development Board.  I continue to believe that it is a good idea to fill a “resident of public housing” seat with an at-large appointment when recruitment efforts fail to find a suitable applicant, but I think we should be more thoughtful about our approach.  Given the importance of having public housing resident representation on the board, I think the Council should require itself to make some kind of finding that the recruitment effort was satisfactory before it fills the seat with an at-large appointment.  All that would be necessary is to follow what the HCDB did last year.  Before suggesting the vacancy be filled with an at-large appointment, the HCDB described the recruitment efforts.  At the time, all agreed that the recruitment efforts were reasonable and carried out in a diligent manner.   I believe that it was vital that Counsel was highly confident that best efforts were made to fill the seat with a resident and would like our process to reflect the need to make such a finding.  Here’s the paragraph with suggested additional language in boldface:

If a seat designated for a resident of public housing remains vacant after one year of recruitment efforts, the Council shall assess the quality and effectiveness of the recruitment efforts and if dissatisfied with those efforts shall direct further more directed recruitment.  Should Council be satisfied that reasonable recruitment efforts have been conducted and no suitable public housing resident is available, the seat shall be filled by an at-large Chapel Hill applicant.

5.  II.F.1 (p. 40)

            I believe we should add website posting to the list of where Commission and Advisory Board vacancies are advertised.

6.  II.F.7.b (p. 45)

            I am not convinced that the change in language from “surrounding areas” to “adjoining jurisdictions” is the best course.  I suggest we do not change the language or hear more about why this suggestion was made.  A change to “adjoining jurisdictions” would prohibit appointments from Hillsborough, Mebane, Pittsboro, and even Chatham County.  It is not difficult to foresee a situation where such an appointment might seem prudent.