HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummary MemoD5 AGENDA SUMMARY MEMO
Date: May 23, 2011
Commission Meeting Date: June 9, 2011
Sponsor: COMMISSIONER RICHARD P. DUNN II
Agenda Item: AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE II, SECTION 2-33 PERTAINING TO CITY
COMMISSION/ORDER OF BUSINESS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR SUSPENSION
OF AN AGENDA ITEM
Subject: FIVE-DAY RULE OVERRIDE — CHANGING UNANIMOUS TO MAJORITY PLUS ONE
Impact: CITYWIDE
Purpose of the Item:
The purpose of this item is to correct a parliamentary weakness in the override language
for the invocation of the five (5) day rule pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, §2-33(e),
which allows a commissioner to prevent any commission action on any agenda item that
is not distributed at least five (5) business days prior to a commission meeting.
The proposed amendment changes the vote from unanimous to a majority plus one,
allowing for all contingencies regarding the commissioners' presence at the meeting,
and it remains faithful to the supermajority concept of protecting the rights of a
"minority of one" commissioner. The only exception to the majority plus one voting
requirement is when the commission is conducting business as a quorum in which case
it is a simple majority.
Background Information:
The existing language, pertaining to the override of the invocation of the five (5) day
rule, requires a unanimous vote. Pragmatically, the unanimous vote requirement
creates a parliamentary impossibility because it would require the party invoking. the
rule to consent - this was a point that caused some concern during the enactment of the
five (5) day rule.1 As time has evolved, since the inception of the five (5) day rule, past
1 Comments during the first reading: Chair Sarnoff: "And I'm not arguing against the five-day rule. .. .
can support this if it were a four -fifth majority." Commissioner Suarez: "... it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of
sense for their to be a vote on invoking a rule because. if it's unanimous, I seriously doubt that q Commissioner's
going to vote against themself [sic] when they invoke the rule, so it doesn't make any sense to actually have a vote."
Comments during the second reading: Chair Sarnoff: ". . . I would suggest and strongly urge my fellow
Commissioners to allow this to be a four -fifths..." Commissioner Suarez: "... My preference is for it to be four -
fifths because, logically, if you can convince essentially the entire Commission, with the exception of the person
who's invoking the rule, it would make sense that -- it acts kind of like a mayoral veto override."
D5 Agenda Summary Memo 04.04.11
commission practice reveals that when a party invokes the rule and is persuaded by
their colleagues to relent, the party simply withdrew the invocation, and a vote avoided.
Past practice does not, however, address the issue of relieving the pressure if the moving
commissioner does not submit to the persuasiveness of the remaining commissioners.
The objective of the amendment is to prevent a "minority of one" from inhibiting the
commission from conducting city business either because of the administration's
untimeliness (in not submitting its items, substitutions, or alternates in a timely manner
for the commission to give careful consideration to the supporting materials) or due to
extenuating circumstances that may have necessitated providing substitutions or
alternate supporting materials or legislation outside of the required five (5) business
days before a commission meeting.2
So in keeping with the underlying intent of requiring a supermajority, the proposed
language would require a majority plus one vote. The language is simple, does not
create confusion that is normally associated with using a numerical fraction, and
practical in preserving the importance associated with the invocation of the five (5) day
rule.
The language also contains one exception to the majority plus one vote, and that is when
the commission is conducting business with just a quorum — in which case a simple
majority is required. The reasoning behind this exception is twofold: (i) the practical or
parliamentary impossibility of achieving a majority plus one with a quorum; and (ii) the
overriding interest of the commission's need to conduct the city's business without a
parliamentary impediment.
2 Interestingly, the county's 4-day rule and its counterpart at the committee level, the 3-day rule, each
exclude the submission of alternates or substitutes from the rules, in addition to a couple of other exceptions. The
city's 5-day rule, however, has no exception associated with the agenda. The City Commission procedural
experience reveals that, although the 5-day rule has been invoked only once, it's possible application has surrounded
the late submittals of either alternates or substitutions, not the agenda item itself. Given the county's exceptions, the
distinction between the city's 5-day rule and the county's 4-day is that the county's rules seems fashioned to insure
proper notice to the public of the item to be voted on by the county commission, and the city's rule is calculated to
protect the commissioner's access to information in timely manner.
2
D5 Ageada Su mmary Memo 04.04.11