The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 5B - Rule Related to Parliamentary Procedure: Substitute on Substitute MotionROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN LY, COUNCILMEMBER SUBJECT: RULE RELATED TO PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE: SUBSTITUTE ON SUBSTITUTE DATE: 10/3/2012 CC: CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, CITY MANAGER Summary At its March 13" regular city council meeting, the council was presented a chairman's ruling on the allowance of a substitute motion on top of another substitute motion. As the then -Mayor and chairman of the body, I ruled that this was an allowable practice. The council then proceeded to appeal (overrule) my decision in a 3 -2 vote. After further research was conducted, I am confident that the council erred in its vote to appeal my ruling and should correct that problem. My ruling is defended by practices outlined in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10`" Edition, Rosenberg's Rules of Order 2011 Edition, and the previous practices of the council's actions. Robert's Rules of Order reign supreme as the parliamentary procedure the city council is to follow, as noted in the city's municipal code: 2.04.060 Section H: Robert's Rules of Order. In all matters and things not otherwise provided for herein, the proceedings of the Council shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. However, no ordinance, resolution, proceeding or other action of the City Council shall be invalidated, or the legality thereof otherwise affected, by the failure or omission to observe or follow said rules. In situations where Robert's Rules is unclear or not applicable, a governing body is able to make rulings which become precedent and is to be followed from that point on as accepted, and accurate, procedure. Background At the Match 13' regular city council meeting, I made a substitute motion to invite all three haulers to the negotiation table. I was immediately challenged on the legality of that motion as it was a substitute motion where another substitute motion was already on the ITEM NO. -,51) floor. After a brief recess where the City Attorney reviewed Robert's Rules of Order, it was decided that the Mayor (as his capacity of Chairman) can make a ruling and the council can override that with a majority vote. My ruling was based on a previous council practice where a councilmember made a substitute motion when another was already on the floor. Since it was not ruled out of order, that precedence should become continued practice and accepted as legal procedure for the body. An example of this is the U.S. Senate which still abides from procedures that date back to the creation of the body. Councilmembers proceeded to override (or appeal) my ruling in a 3 -2 vote, thus changing accepted and legal practice and ruled my substitute motion as illegal. Since the meeting, I have conducted research and found the following: 1. At its September 11, 2007 regular city council meeting, then - Councilman Gary Taylor made a substitute motion when another substitute motion was still on the floor. Neither the chairman (Mayor), not the parliamentarian (City Attorney) ruled it out of order, thus meaning such motions were legal. This then establishes the practice for such future motions in future city council meetings. This is reflected in the meeting minutes of September 11, 2007, page 14 of 17. 2. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10' Edition, notes that substitute motions are, and should be treated, as amendments. In this situation, substitute motions are in fact amendments to the main motion (though gutted for practical purposes) and amendments on amendments are allowable motions. Further, Robert's Rules notes on page 146 in the footnote, "It is thus possible to introduce a proposed `substitute for a substitute,' which cannot be amended, since it is a secondary amendment". This is reflected in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10 Edition, pages 146- 154. 3. Rosenberg's Rules of Order, a set of parliamentary guidelines adopted by the League of California Cities and encouraged to be adopted by its member cities, also notes that multiple motions should be allowed. On page 4 of 10, Rosenberg's Rules of Order details multiple motions before the body, noting that up to three motions can be presented. In such situations, the last (latest) motion is the first to be taken. Recommendation The city council should (1) override its ruling and allow substitute motions even when another substitute motion is on the floor; (2) issue an apology to the then- chairman and thanking him for making the initial, and correct, ruling. 2 Attachments Minutes of the September 11, 2007 regular city council meeting Robert's Rules of Order sections dealing with substitute motions Rosenberg's Rules of Order Res pectfull y submitted, J 'Wvv � Steven Ly Councilmember Minutes of the Regular Meeting ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL September 11, 2007 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Tran at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The pledge to the flag was led by Councilmember Low and the invocation was delivered by Pastor Jonathan Wu of Evergreen Baptist Church. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, Mayor Tran Absent: None Low, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tern Nunez and 1. PRESENTATION A. Presentation to Deputy Doug Jewett On the occasion of Deputy Jewett's promotion to Sergeant and departure from service in the City of Rosemead, Interim Director of Public Safety Don Anderson gave a summation of Deputy Jewett's years of service to the City. Lieutenant Jacob, Mayor Tran, Mayor Pro Tern Nunez, and Councilmembers Taylor, Clark and Low all thanked Deputy Jewett for his dedication and 17 years of service to the City of Rosemead. The City Council presented him with a plaque. Ron Esquivel from the Rosemead School District, Mandy Wong from the Asian Community Advisory Committee, Captain Shaw of the Temple Sheriff's station and Deputy Chivas all expressed appreciation for Deputy Jewett's service and congratulated him on his promotion. Deputy Jewett thanked everyone for their words of support and praised his colleagues, especially Lt. Jacob. B. Presentation to the Los Angeles County Fire Department in recognition of 9/11 Interim City Manager Chi discussed the important role firefighters played in the events of September 11, 2001. To remember that event the City Council and staff made a presentation to the members of the LA County Fire Department and presented them with a commemorative plaque. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 1 of 17 Mayor Tran, Mayor Pro Tem Nunez and Councilmembers Clark, Low and Taylor expressed appreciation for the sacrifices made by fire fighters and law enforcement on 9/11 and on a daily basis in the City. A representative from Station 42, one of the three fire stations in the City, thanked the Council and community for their support. Before moving forward to Public Comment, Mayor Tran discussed Ordinance 855. The ordinance was passed by a majority of the Council at a previous meeting. After careful consideration, Mayor Tran asked the City Manager to bring a revised ordinance back for Council review. Mayor Tran proposed the ordinance remain as stated in the current municipal code with the only change being an eight day advance notice provision. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Resolution No. 2007 -34 — Certification of Compliance with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires each city to annually adopt a resolution, following a public hearing, stating its compliance with the CMP. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2007 -34, finding the City to be in conformance with the CMP and adopting the CMP Local Development Report. The public hearing opened at 7:30 pm. Juan Nunez, residing at 2702 Del Mar, discussed negative impact of traffic congestion. The public hearing closed at: 7:33 p.m. Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion with a second by Councilmember Low to accept the staff recommendation as stated above, to approve Resolution 2007 -34. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, No: None Abstain: None Absent: None B. Property Maintenance Ordinance At the August 28, 2007 City Council meeting, the City Council was presented with a draft property maintenance ordinance. Based upon the Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 2 of 17 0 comments made by the City Council at that meeting, staff has researched and revised the ordinance to address those issues. Recommendation: That the City Council hold the noticed public hearing, receive public comment, and introduce Ordinance No. 854. The public hearing opened at: 7:34 p.m. Jim Clouet, residing at 3719 Ivar Avenue, spoke against the Ordinance. He expressed concern about the lack of definitions within the document. This would give code enforcement and City staff broad latitude in making judgments about issues such as abandonment, vegetation offenses and diminution of property values. Mr. Clouet suggested public outreach and education before proceeding with an Ordinance. Jim Flournoy, Rosemead resident, spoke in support of the Ordinance and felt it was long overdue. He referenced international standards he passed on to staff which he hoped were included in the Ordinance verbiage, as the International Building Codes which will be adopted next year include a property maintenance component. He pointed out the City has funds available to help the elderly and the infirm improve their property. Barbara Murphy, Rosemead resident, spoke in support of the Ordinance and code enforcement efforts to clean -up properties in the southern part of the City. Valerie Basquette, Rosemead resident, said she has many trees and requested a copy of the ordinance be provided to her to ensure her property is in compliance. Brian Lewin, Rosemead resident, spoke in support of the ordinance and indicated some fine tuning of components might be in order. In addition, he suggested that all proposed ordinances be made more readily available to the public. He suggested ordinances be posted on the City website and extra copies be placed at City Hall. The public hearing closed at 7:46 pm. Councilmember Taylor asked why the Rosemead Rehabilitation Appeals Board no longer meets to hear resident appeals regarding property code enforcement issues. City Manager Chi explained previous procedures took additional time. He advocated the proposed ordinance will produce better results by allowing staff to be proactive and was the result of council and community requests to make the city look nicer. Mr. Chi conceded the Ordinance has some onerous provisions and indicated changes had been made in the last two weeks to make the Ordinance more acceptable to Council. He stressed the proper enforcement of the Ordinance. Councilmember Taylor requested clarification on how the Ordinance was different from the Rehabilitation Board. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 3 of 17 0 0 City Manager Chi responded that the Ordinance will provide more tools to get results Councilmember Taylor commented the Ordinance specifies a resident can appeal the staff decision before a judge and asked for clarification on this. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson replied that a resident could appeal a decision before a judge at El Monte court. Mr. Anderson confirmed the City Attorney would be involved in the process. Councilmember Taylor surmised this would most likely require the resident and City to involve an attorney in the process which raises costs for both parties. He felt the proposed Ordinance is too extreme and will result in City Attorney charges at a couple of hundred dollars per hour. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson pointed out that in reality the new Ordinance will actually reduce costs because currently Building zoning codes are being used for enforcement. The new Ordinance specifically addresses property maintenance issues and will give the City the opportunity to recover costs and seek successful prosecution. Councilmember Taylor explained to Mr. Anderson, who confirmed he had never attended a Rehabilitation Appeals Board meeting, that the Council was able to address property maintenance issues and fine non - compliers through the Rehabilitation Board. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson pointed out the new Ordinance does allow for a hearing in City Hall with a person appointed by the City Manager. Councilmember Taylor felt uncomfortable giving one person the ability to make the appeal decision versus five people on the Rehabilitation Board who might have more compassion and understanding for special circumstances such as illness. City Manager Chi replied the City had a process in place before which did not achieve appropriate results. The Ordinance will provide staff with a. tool to more effectively clean up properties whereas the previous process resulted in absentee landowners who came before the Rehabilitation Board which didn't warrant the type of attention, time and costs associated with pursing those cases. Mr. Chi asserted the new process will allow staff to handle things administratively and aggressive legal action will only be taken after at least two correction letters are served and staff has had the opportunity to engage property owners and appropriate action is still not taken by property owners. Mr. Chi assured the Council that staff will enforce the Ordinance appropriately in a manner consistent with Council direction and added that staff has no intention of taking a sick person to court. City Manager Chi offered Council can change the Ordinance wording if desired or if the staff person is not enforcing the ordinance appropriately, the Council can take it up with him. Councilmember Taylor reiterated he felt uncomfortable with only one person with the Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 4 of 17 authority. to approve an appeal and felt the five person Rehabilitation Board format was better. He asked who stopped it and why. Mayor Pro Tem Nunez pointed out that even Rehabilitation Board cases sometimes went to court and that current codes do not have strong language to ensure clean -up and aesthetic compliance. Mr. Nunez went on to say that during Rehabilitation Board meetings the Council sometimes asked inappropriate questions and gave inappropriate advice and felt the new Ordinance has a good chance of working. Mayor Tran interjected the Ordinance should be brought back because the Council had a lot of questions. He suggested previous procedures be compared with the new Ordinance and then fine tuned after Council discussion. . Councilmember Taylor pointed out the Rehabilitations Board had the authority to remove buildings if needed and advocated the appeal process be kept closer to home. City Manager Chi requested feedback from Council. Mayor Tran suggested the Ordinance be brought back at a later time. Councilmember Clark conceded the City might not have been proactively conducting code enforcement activities but felt the Ordinance as proposed was overkill. She opposed a portion of the Ordinance that gives residents 10 calendar days to contest a notice of abatement, after which an appeal goes to court. Ms. Clark was concerned about a resident loosing the right to an appeal if on vacation or doesn't see the notice. She asserted the Ordinance be changed before coming back to Council. Mayor Pro Tern Nunez asked how many resident contacts will be made before a notice is sent out. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson reported a notice will never go out before a personal contact is attempted. Councilmember Clark asked why that procedure is not specified in the Ordinance. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson responded that is how Council wants the Ordinances and indicated with Council's direction the process could be enhanced to educate the public about how valuable property clean-up is. He added the Ordinance will give staff the guidelines to educate residents. Mr. Anderson went on to say that an attorney was also involved with the Appeals Board and that the new Ordinance will keep enforcement at a staff level which is cheaper and more accountable to the City Council. Councilmember Clark asked again how the Ordinance specifies friendly education measures will be taken prior to serving property owners with legal notices. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson replied that that strongest appeal a resident has Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting. September 11, 2007 Page 5 of 17 i is to come to Council to adjust staff or adjust the Ordinance Mayor Tran suggested the Council review previous procedures and reiterated an attorney was involved with the Rehabilitations Board. City Manager Chi asked if he should schedule a study session on the topic. Mayor Tran asserted he wanted to bring back what had been done before. Councilmember Clark stated she was not satisfied with Mr. Anderson's response because there is no place in the Ordinance that specifies how residents will be approached other than the notice which contains a 10 day appeal period. She opposed the section that states the City can omit portions required in the notice and still have it be valid, but property owners are bound by the 10 calendar day provision. She also objected to calling each day an owner fails to comply a separate criminal offense. Ms. Clark felt these stipulations were draconian and need to be revised before the Ordinance is brought back. Councilmember Low commented some type of Ordinance is needed to ensure problems are taken care in response to resident concerns, but suggested staff revisits the wording to ensure it is not abused by future administrators. Ms. Low suggested the Council postpone the item to consider what can be done. Mayor Tran suggested the item be tabled to give staff time to address concerns. Mayor Pro Tern Nunez suggested the Ordinance be brought back as a whole along with the old codes so the Council can decide together what should change. He surmised that what might be confusing and what Councilmember Clark might want to see are administrative procedures that lead up to the end result of the code. Councilmember Clark disagreed with the idea of bringing back the same Ordinance without revisions. She felt it was a waste of time if statutes are contained which could be abused. Councilmember Low felt the old code along with the new code should be brought back with the opportunity to make changes. Mayor Tran suggested the item be tabled for now and the old version of code provided to the Council first. Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, with a second by Councilmember Low to table the Ordinance. Councilmember Taylor clarified that by old version, he wanted the concept of the Rehabilitation Board brought back for discussion because in his opinion the Board was able to resolve all issues brought before it. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 6 of 17 0 0 Mayor Tran stated he agreed that the Rehabilitation Board can still be a function of the new Ordinance which is why he wanted to bring the item back. Jim Clouet asked if residents could be informed when the study session takes place. Councilmember Taylor reminded Mr. Clouet agendas are posted 72 hours in advance. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE Jean Hall, residing at 3655 N. Muscatel, expressed dissatisfaction with the new majority citing issues such as abuse of power, the replacement of City staff, the replacement of Traffic and Planning Commissioners with friends and family as a form of repayment of support during elections and imposing a totalitarian form of government in the City. Lanny Aplanalp, residing at 4746 Fendyke, suggested the City adopt a more proactive approach to mitigate abandoned shopping carts by concentrating efforts to prevent the taking of carts rather than having City staff pick them up and returning them to stores. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson explained a contractor retrieves abandoned carts; City Code Enforcement officers also return carts to shopping centers. Juan Nunez, Rosemead resident, discussed a state code that prohibits removal of carts from shopping centers. Jim Flournoy, Rosemead resident, advocated the City should apply for Rivers and Mountain Conservancy grants. Mayor Pro Tern Nunez indicated the City will work with Councilmember Clark to initiate projects to stop washout before it gets into the river, etc. Mr. Flournoy also inquired about trail projects along the Edison right of way. City Manager Chi indicated staff is working on the Edison project. . Additionally, Mr. Flournoy indicated this topic was supposed to be on the agenda but was pulled off. He stressed the importance of leaving things on the agenda so Council can give direction, even if majority direction is to remove or table an item. Marissa Castro - Salvati, from Southern California Edison, thanked the City for its patience during the recent heat wave. She reported SCE is replacing downed transformers to deal with the problems that arose during the heat wave. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 7 of 17 0 0 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Resolution No. 2007 -36 Claims and Demands Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -36, for payment of City expenditures in the amount of $1,142,665.33 demands 58597 through 58642 and demands 60402 through 60476. D. New Commercial Vehicle Purchase The City Council approved $40,000 in the Fiscal Year 2007 -08 budget for the purchase of one (1) new commercial vehicle for the Public Safety Services Department. The vehicle will be utilized by the Field Services Division to assist in graffiti abatement, sign replacement, and other immediate City maintenance needs. Recommendation: That the City Council award a contract to Scott GMC, El Monte Truck Center in the amount of $36,700 for the purchase of one (1) Chevrolet Silverado truck. Councilmember Taylor made a motion with a second by Councilmember Clark to approve Consent Calendar items A and D as described above. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran No: None Abstain: None Absent: None B. Minutes July 17, 2007 — Special Meeting Councilmember Taylor made a motion with a second by Councilmember Clark to approve the July 17, 2007 minutes with a small correction on Page 6. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran No: None Absent: None Abstain: None B. Minutes August 14, 2007 — Special Meeting August 28, 2007 — Regular Meeting Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 8 of 17 0 0 Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, with a second by Councilmember Clark to approve the August 14, 2007 and August 28, 2007 minutes. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None Councilmember Taylor stated he voted "No" because he had requested a portion of the minutes be recorded verbatim and they were not because a majority of the Council did not approve his request. C. Utilizing City Facility until Midnight An applicant has requested the use of the Garvey Center for a private function until midnight on September 29, 2007. The rules and regulations for the facility usage indicates that all activities must cease by 11:00 p.m. and amplified music or sound that can be heard by the general public must cease by 10:00 p.m. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the extended usage until midnight with all music ceased by 11:00 p.m. Resident Juan Nunez spoke against the extended usage as he felt it would set a precedent if an exception is made. Councilmember Taylor clarified this has been done on several occasions in the past few years with no apparent complaints or problems. Councilmember Low made a motion, with a second by Mayor Pro Tern Nunez to approve the extended usage until midnight with all music ceased by 11:00 pm. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran No: None Abstain: None Absent: None E. CalPERS Contract Amendment Update On June 12, 2007, the City Council voted to approve a modified benefits package for employees. Based on direction given at that meeting, staff has been coordinating with CalPERS to finalize the implementation of the 2.7% @ 55 pension formula with the one -year final compensation calculation for miscellaneous employees. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 9 of 17 0 s On August 14, 2007, the City Council approved the Resolution of Intent to initiate this change with CalPERS. Now, in order to finalize the process, the City Council must approve an ordinance to formalize the City's intention of amending our contract. Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 856, amending the City's contract with CalPERS. Resident Juan Nunez began to discuss a CaIPERS health issue, but was reminded by Mayor Tran that the issue before Council was in regards to retirement benefits. Mr. Nunez did not have any comments regarding CalPERS retirement. Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion with a second by Councilmember Low to approve Ordinance 856 amending the City's contract with CaIPERS. Vote resulted: Yes: Low, Nunez, Tran No: Clark, Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None Councilmember Clark stated she voted "No' due to the high cost to the City. Councilmember Taylor stated the reason he voted "No" is recorded in previous minutes. 5. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Release of Personnel Investigation Report — Requested by Councilmember Taylor At the August 28, 2007 City Council meeting, Councilmember Gary Taylor requested that an item be placed on a future agenda to vote on the distribution of a report prepared by an outside investigative firm dealing with a pending personnel issue. Councilmember Taylor has submitted this request in writing. Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction to the City Attorney and staff with regard to releasing the information being requested by Councilmember Taylor to the entire City Council. Councilmember Taylor read portions of his letter submitted as part of the Agenda packet in response to a letter dated August 14, 2007 stating City Attorney Garcia's. report release denial. The content of Mr. Taylor's letter refuted City Attorney Garcia's reasoning for denying City Council access to two reports discussed with Council in response to a lawsuit initiated by a City employee. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting. September 11, 2007 Page 10 of 17 0 0 Councilmember Taylor asserted he was not asking for the documents as a member of the public, but rather as a member of Council charged with the responsibility and obligation to carefully review what actions need to be taken to protect the rights of employees and City residents. Mr. Taylor asked why the Rosemead City Council"as the "Client" has to waive exemption and authorize disclosure to it self. Councilmember Taylor claimed the City Attorney was making personal conclusions and personal opinions for all elected officials and employees of Rosemead. Mr. Taylor asserted the investigation, which reported the experiences of 22 City employees, revealed a hostile work environment and identified several areas of concern other than the accusations against Mayor Pro Tern Nunez. Mr. Taylor felt the information is being withheld at the expense of employee jobs. Mr. Taylor asked Assistant City Manager Saeki to expand upon a conversation regarding previous Planning Administrator Brad Johnson. City Attorney Garcia cautioned Mr. Taylor to keep the discussion to the topic listed on the agenda. Councilmember Taylor referenced an article from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on September 8, 2007 in which City Attorney Garcia indicated Mr. Taylor was not entitled to the report. City Attorney Garcia explained Mr. Taylor was not entitled to the report because he was requesting it as an individual Councilmember. He indicated if the Council wants to receive it, a majority of the Council needs to request it. Councilmember Taylor asked how the Council is supposed to make a decision if none of the Councilmembers have received a copy and the City Attorney is the sole holder of the information. City Attorney Garcia replied Council held a closed session to discuss report contents. Councilmember Taylor reported the investigator only covered one of the two reports during the closed session. Councilmember Low felt Councilmember Taylor might have been talking about a different meeting. She felt the closed session was very educational. Ms. Low stated she understood Councilmember Taylor's concerns and suggested they further discuss the topic in closed session. Councilmember Taylor indicated he would not participate in closed session on this topic with City Attorney Garcia. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 11 of 17 0 • Councilmember Low explained the City Attorney can explain matters to the Council in closed session and indicated Councilmember Taylor was missing information by not attending closed session. Councilmember Taylor replied he did attend the initial closed session, received information and then received contrary information at a subsequent session. As a result he felt he had no choice but to go public in order to receive the report. . Councilmember Low asserted that Councilmember Taylor did not have all of the information and urged his attendance at closed session. She added that the City Attorney may have information he can't disclose in public, but may in closed session. In response, Councilmember Taylor recited the people he contacted and specific dates he requested reports: March 21, March 27, April 5, April 19, April 24, June 26, July 3, July 4, July 17, July 26, August 2, August 14, and September 5, 2007. Councilmember Low indicated the City Attorney must have a reason for not releasing the reports and felt they will be released eventually. Councilmember Taylor advocated City Attorney Garcia does not set policy and reviewed the number of staff changes including two City Managers, an Assistant City Manager, two City Attorneys, City Clerk, Director of Parks and Recreation, Planning Director, two Finance Mangers, an Accountant and one or two Parks and Recreation employees that have taken place in the past two years. Councilmember Low conceded she agreed with Councilmember Taylor's letter but suggested they go into closed session to receive reports. Councilmember Taylor asserted he wanted reports prior to going into closed session. Mayor Tran suggested reports distributed in closed session. Councilmember Clark interjected they needed to vote about getting reports. Councilmember Taylor made a motion with a second by Councilmember Clark to get the reports. Councilmember Low clarified the motion was to get the reports in closed session. Mayor Tran confirmed that was the motion. Councilmember Taylor clarified it was the report he wanted, not the claim and indicated he wanted the reports ahead of time. Mr. Taylor asked the Council if in 34 years, if anyone could say he ever gave away a confidential report to the public. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 12 of 17 • City Attorney Garcia replied he could say Councilmember Taylor gave away confidential information. Councilmember Taylor replied this is why it would go to the Grand Jury and then proceeded to read an article about a conflict of interest case in which a judge determined a public official can be guilty of corruption even if the official relies upon an opinion from a public City Attorney, a subordinate of the City Council. Mr. Taylor claimed information was being covered up at the City of Rosemead. Mayor Tran stated he would do this: support Council making report available at the next closed session meeting with the appointed JPIA attorney present to make the determination as to whether to make the report public. Councilmember Taylor clarified he wanted copies of both reports in open session. He indicated the JPIA attorney already told him he would not get the reports. Councilmember Low made a substitute motion to receive reports in closed session if the JPIA attorney approves it. Councilmember Clark asked if Councilmember Low's motion was to only receive the reports if the JPIA attorney approved the report release. Councilmember Low indicated that was her motion and commented that if the attorney doesn't approve the release there must be a valid reason. City Attorney Garcia clarified the current discussion included the report being released in closed session. The remaining issue was if that report would be available out of closed session. He suggested that that decision be left up to the JPIA attorney and suggested that be the motion. Councilmember Low agreed that was fair. Mayor Tran supported it with a second Councilmember Clark referenced an August 25 newspaper article regarding a similar case pertaining to Baldwin Park School District to make the point that releasing an investigative report is not without precedent. Councilmember Clark also referenced a September 8 th Tribune article in which the City and Mayor Pro Tern Nunez denied allegations; she felt this statement was crucial. Councilmember Taylor asked Councilmember Low to clarify her motion Councilmember Low asked Mayor Tran to assist with the clarification. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 13 of 17 Mayor Tran recited the motion: Bring back the report at the next closed session and make it available to the Council; the report will only be released outside of closed session if the JPIA appointed attorney feels it is appropriate. Councilmember Taylor wanted to also have the reports sent to the Grand Jury, the LA District Attorney, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. Councilmember Tran asked what the other report Councilmember Taylor was referring to as he was only aware of one report. City Attorney Garcia replied one was the Alconin issue and wasn't sure about the other. Councilmember Taylor insisted there were two reports. Councilmember Low clarified her motion: Get the report in closed session and leave it up to the JPIA attorney to advise whether the report is released out of closed session. She added that the probability is the Council will read it and give it back to the attorney. Councilmember Taylor made a substitute motion on the substitute motion to have the two reports sent to the Grand Jury, the Los Angeles District Attorney, the State Attorney General and the Department of Justice. City Attorney Garcia commented if Councilmember Taylor's motion is approved, it would constitute an automatic waiver of privilege, as all four of the entities referenced by Mr. Taylor are not part of the City. Councilmember Taylor advocated he felt a cover up was taking place because the City Attorney was telling the Council they could not read the report. City Attorney Garcia clarified he wasn't saying the Council couldn't — he was saying Councilmember Taylor could not. Councilmember Taylor replied the rest of the Council doesn't want to read the report. City Attorney Garcia replied if the rest of the Council doesn't want to read the report, then only Mr. Taylor does. Councilmember Taylor replied he felt the rest of the Council was negligent for not wanting to read the report. Councilmember Low asserted Mr. Taylor should not speak for the entire Council; Ms. Low clarified she had never said she didn't want to read the report. Mayor Tran asked if Councilmember Taylor had a second to his motion; he did not, so it died for a lack of a second. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 14 of 17 0 Mayor Tran went back to the motion on the table: To have the report ready at the next Council meeting for Council distribution in closed session and have the JPIA attorney determine if report can be released out of closed session. Councilmember Clark asked if the motion would allow Councilmembers to take the report with them out of closed session. City Attorney Garcia clarified council members can take it, but not in public. Mayor Tran called for the question. Rosemead residents Jim Flournoy and Juan Nunez reminded the Mayor they had submitted speaker request cards to speak on the item prior to a vote. Resident Juan Nunez advocated the public has a right to know how money is spent. Resident Jim Flournoy advocated that Council should not be allowed to take reports with them out of closed session as this might harm the City's case. He also indicated staff can be counseled separately about hostile work environment issues without identifying where information came from until legal trials are over. The Council voted on the substitute motion made by Councilmember Low with a second by Mayor Tran to have the report ready at the next Council meeting for Council distribution in closed session and have the JPIA attorney determine if the report can be released out of closed session. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Tran No: Taylor Abstain: Nunez Absent: None Councilmember Taylor indicated he voted "No" because he wanted to receive the reports ahead of time, prior to the closed session, as the JPIA attorney has already determined he can't have the reports. Councilmember Low pointed out the Council will have the information prior to making a decision even if they can't take the information out of closed session. Councilmember Taylor replied the information in the report needs to be verified; he indicated he had already asked former employees what their comments were and wanted to see if the report information is consistent. Councilmember Taylor made a motion with a second by Councilmember Clark to have this section of the minutes recorded verbatim. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 15 of 17 No: Low, Nunez, Tran Absent: None Abstain: None B. Approval of City Manager Contract Agreement On August 28, 2007, the Rosemead City Council voted to appoint Oliver Chi as City Manager. In addition, the Council directed the City Attorney and Mayor negotiate a contract agreement for City Council approval. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the employment agreement between the City and Oliver C. Chi, authorizing his appointment as City Manager of the City of Rosemead. Mayor Pro Tern Nunez made a motion, with a second by Councilmember Low to approve the City Manager contract with Olive C. Chi. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Tran No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None Councilmember Taylor stated he voted "No" because he did not feel Mr. Chi has the required experience. Mayor Pro Tern Nunez stated he voted "Yes' because the previous City Manager had a 35 year career which began at Mr. Chi's current age. 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Funds In 1996, the California Legislature approved AB 3229 (Brulte) allocating $100 million for local police services. In 2002, the program was renewed and extended under SB 823 (Poochigian). The City of Rosemead has participated in this program over the last several years through the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) which is similar to the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) administered by the Department of Justice. In past years, the funds have been earmarked for various frontline police services. The city received approximately $100,000.00 for fiscal year 2005 -06 and fiscal year 2006 -07 which funded motorcycle traffic enforcement, a law enforcement technician, and special event overtime. The administration of this grant requires that it be agendized and that the City Council publicly discuss and approve the expenditure of these funds. Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 16 of 17 0 0 Therefore, for fiscal year 2005 -06 and fiscal year 2006 -07, these funds were once again budgeted and expended to offset the costs for motorcycle traffic enforcement, a law enforcement technician, and special event overtime. Captain Richard Shaw, Temple Station Commander is aware of this expenditure and concurs with this use of the COPS grant funds. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the appropriation of the COPS funds for fiscal year 2005 -06 and fiscal year 2006 -07. Councilmember Taylor made a motion with a second by Councilmember Clark to approve the appropriation of the COPS funds for fiscal year 2005 -2006 and fiscal year 2006 -07. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:27 pm. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on September 25, 2007 at 7:00 pm. Respectfully submitted: Nina Castruita CITY CLERK F-IN - Tireyan Y Tran OR Rosemead City Council Minutes Regular Meeting: September 11, 2007 Page 17 of 17 .0 , STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Nina Castruita, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the minutes from September 11, 2007, were duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead Community Development Commission on the 9th of October, 2007, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran No: None Abstain: None Absent: None kLu Nina Castruita City Clerk Rosenberg's Rules of Order REVISED 2011 Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for the east Century By Judge Dave Rosenberg LEAGUE C[TIES MISSION AND CORE BELIEFS To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. VISION To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities. About the League of California Cities Established in 1898, the League of California Cities is a member organization that represents California s incorporated cities. The League strives to protect the local authority and automony of city government and help California s cities effectively serve their residents. In addition to advocating on cities' behalf at the state capitol, the League provides its members with professional development programs and information resources, conducts education conferences and research, and publishes Western City magazine. @ 2011 League of California Cida. All right, reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dave Rosenberg is a Superior Court Judge in Yolo County. He has served as presiding judge of his court, and as presiding judge of the Superior Court Appellate Division.. He also has served as chair of the Trial Court presiding Judges Advisory Committee (the committee composed of all 58 California presiding judges) and as an advisory member of the California Judicial Council. prior to his appointment to the bench, Rosenberg was member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, where he served two terms as chair. Rosenberg also served on the Davis City Council, including two terns as mayor. He has served on the senior state of two governors, and worked for 19 years in private law practice. Rosenberg has served as a member and chair of numerous state, regional and local boards. Rosenberg chaired the California State Lottery Commission, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, the Yolo- Solano Air Quality Management District, the Yolo County Economic Development Commission, and the Yolo County Criminal ) ustice Cabinet. For many years, he has taught classes on parliamentary procedure and has served as parliamentarian for large and small bodies. II TABLE OF CONTENTS Aboutthe Author ............................................................................... .............................ii Introduction..................................................................................... ............................... 2 Establishing a Quorum ..................................................................... ..............................2 TheRole of the Chair ........................................................................ ..............................2 The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion .......................... ...........:..................2 Motions in General .......................... TheThree Basic Motions .................................................................. ..............................3 Multiple Motions Before the Body ................................................... ..............................4 To Debate or Not to Debate .............................................................. ..............................4 Majority and Super- Majority Votes ................................................ ............................... 5 CountingVotes .................................................................................. ..............................5 The Motion to Reconsider ................................................................ ..............................6 Courtesy and Decorum .................................................................... ..............................7 Special Notes About Public Input .................................................... ..............................7 1 INTRODUCTION The rules of procedure at meetings should be simple enough for most people to understand. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Virtually all dubs, associations, boards, councils and bodies follow a set of rules — Robert's Rules of Order —which are embodied in a small, but complex, book. Virtually no one I know has actually read this book cover to cover. Worse yet, the book was written for another time and for another purpose. If one is chairing or running a parliament, then Robert's Rules of Order is a dandy and quite useful handbook for procedure in that complex setting. On the other hand, if one is running a meeting of say, a five - member bodywith a few members of the public in attendance, a simplified version of the rules of parliamentary procedure is in order. Hence, the birth of Rosenberg's Rules of Order. What follows is my version of the rules of parliamentary procedure, based on my decades of experience chairing meetings in state and local government. These rules have been simplified for the smaller bodies we chair or in which we participate, slimmed down for the 21st Century, yet retaining the basic tenets of order to which we have grown accustomed. Interestingly enough, Rosenberg's Rules has found a welcoming audience. Hundreds of cities, counties, special districts, committees, boards, commissions, neighborhood associations and private corporations and companies have adopted Rosenberg's Rules in lieu of Robert's Rules because they have found them practical, logical, simple, easy to learn and user friendly. This treatise on modern parliamentary procedure is built on a foundation supported by the following four pillars: 1. Rules should establish order. The fast purpose of rules of parliamentary procedure is to establish a framework for the orderly conduct of meetings. 2. Rules should be clear. Simple rules lead to wider understanding and participation. Complex rules create two classes: those who understand and participate; and those who do not fully understand and do not fully participate. 3. Rules should be user friendly. That is, the rules must be simple enough that the public is invited into the body and feels that it has participated in the process. 4. Rules should enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. The ultimate purpose of rules of procedure is to encourage discussion and to facilitate decision making by the body. In a democracy, majority rules. The rules must enable the majority to express itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to also express itself, but not dominate, while fully participating in the process. Establishing a Quorum The starting point for a meeting is the establishment of a quorum. A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the bodywho must be present at a meeting for business to be legally transacted. The default rule is that a quorum is one more than half the body. For example, in a five - member body a quorum is three. When the body has three members present, it can legally transact business. If the body has less than a quorum of members present, it cannot legally transact business. And even if the body has a quorum to begin the meeting, the body can lose the quorum during the meeting when a member departs (or even when a member leaves the dais). When that occurs the body loses its ability to transact business until and unless a quorum is reestablished. The default rule, identified above, however, gives way to a specific rule of the body that establishes a quorum. For example, the rules of a particular five - member body may indicate that a quorum is four members for that particular body. The body must follow the rules it has established for its quorum. In the absence of such a specific rule, the quorum is one more than half the members of the body. The Role of the Chair While all members of the body should know and understand the rules of parliamentary procedure, it is the chair of the bodywho is charged with applying the rules of conduct of the meeting. The chair should be well versed in those rules. For all intents and purposes, the chair makes the final ruling on the rules every time the chair states an action. in fact, all decisions by the chair are final unless overruled by the body itself. Since the chair runs the conduct of the meeting, it is usual courtesy for the chair to play a less active role in the debate and discussion than other members of the body. This does not mean that the chair should not participate in the debate or discussion. To the contrary, as a member of the body, the chair has the full right to participate in the debate, discussion and decision - making of the body. What the chair should do, however, is strive to be the last to speak at the discussion and debate stage. The chair should not make or second a motion unless the chair is convinced that no other member of the body will do so at that point in time. The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion Formal meetings normally have a written, often published agenda. Informal meetings may have only an oral or understood agenda. In either case, the meeting is governed by the agenda and the agenda constitutes the bodis agreed -upon roadmap for the meeting. Each agenda item can be handled by the chair in the following basic format: First, the chair should clearly announce the agenda item number and should clearly state what the agenda item subject is. The chair should then announce the format (which follows) that will be followed in considering the agenda item. Second, following that agenda format, the chair should invite the appropriate person or persons to report on the item, including any recommendation that they might have. The appropriate person or persons may be the chair, a member of the body, a staff person, or a committee chair charged with providing input on the agenda item. Third, the chair should ask members of the body if they have any technical questions of clarification. At this point, members of the body may ask clarifying questions to the person or persons who reported on the item, and that person or persons should be given time to respond. Fourth, the chair should invite public comments, or if appropriate at a formal meeting, should open the public meeting for public input. If numerous members of the public indicate a desire to speak to the subject, the chair may limit the time of public speakers. At the conclusion of the public comments, the chair should announce that public input has concluded (or the public hearing, as the case may be, is closed). Fifth, the chair should invite a motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who makes the motion. Sixth, the chair should determine if any member of the body wishes to second the motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who seconds the motion. It is normally good practice for a motion to require a second before proceeding to ensure that it is not just one member of the body who is interested in a particular approach. However, a second is not an absolute requirement, and the chair can proceed with consideration and vote on a motion even when there is no second. This is a matter left to the discretion of the chair. Seventh, if the motion is made and seconded, the chair should make sure everyone understands the motion. This is done in one of three ways: 1. The chair can ask the maker of the motion to repeat it; 2. The chair can repeat the motion; or 3. The chair can ask the secretary or the clerk of the body to repeat the motion. Eighth, the chair should now invite discussion of the motion by the body. If there is no desired discussion, or after the discussion has ended, the chair should announce that the body will vote on the motion. If there has been no discussion or very brief discussion, then the vote on the motion should proceed immediately and there is no need to repeat the motion. If there has been substantial discussion, then it is normally best to make sure everyone understands the motion by repeating it. Ninth, the chair takes a vote. Simply asking for the "ayes" and then asking for the "nays" normally does this. If members of the body do not vote, then they "abstain." Unless the rules of the body provide otherwise (or unless a super majority is required as delineated later in these rules), then a simple majority (as defined in law or the rules of the body as delineated later in these rules) determines whether the motion passes or is defeated. Tenth, the chair should announce the result of the vote and what action (if any) the body has taken. In announcing the result, the chair should indicate the names of the members of the body, if any, who voted in the minority on the motion. This announcement might take the following form: "The motion passes by a vote of 3 -2, with Smith and Jones dissenting. We have passed the motion requiring a 10 -day notice for all future meetings of this body." Motions in General Motions are the vehicles for decision making by a body. It is usually best to have a motion before the body prior to commencing discussion of an agenda item. This helps the body focus. Motions are made in a simple two -step process. First, the chair should recognize the member of the body. Second, the member of the body makes a motion by preceding the member's desired approach with the words "I move ... " A typical motion might be: "I move that we give a 10 -day notice in the future for all our meetings." The chair usually initiates the motion in one of three ways: 1. Inviting the members of the body to make a motion, for example, "A motion at this time would be in order." 2. Suggesting a motion to the members of the body, A motion would be in order that we give a 10 -day notice in the future for all our meetings." 3. Making the motion. As noted, the chair has every right as a member of the body to make a motion, but should normally do so only if the chair wishes to make a motion on an item but is convinced that no other member of the body is willing to step forward to do so at a particular time. The Three Basic Motions There are three motions that are the most common and recur often at meetings: The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision for the body's consideration. A basic motion might be: "I move that we create a five- member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser." The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is before the body, they would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be: "I move that we amend the motion to have a 10- member committee' "A motion to amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in some way. The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do away with the basic motion that is before the body, and put a new motion before the body, they would move a substitute motion. A substitute motion might be: "I move a substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year." "Motions to amend" and "substitute motions" are often confused, but they are quite different, and their effect (if passed) is quite different. A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on the floor, but modify it in some way. A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor, and substitute a new and different motion for it. The decision as to whether a motion is really a "motion to amend" or a "substitute motion" is left to the chair. So if a member makes what that member calls a "motion to amend," but the chair determines that it is really a "substitute motion," then the chair's designation governs. A "friendly amendment" is a practical parliamentary tool that is simple, informal, saves time and avoids bogging a meeting down with numerous formal motions. It works in the following way: In the discussion on a pending motion, it may appear that a change to the motion is desirable or may win support for the motion from some members. When that happens, a member who has the floor may simply say, "I want to suggest a friendly amendment to the motion" The member suggests the friendly amendment, and if the maker and the person who seconded the motion pending on the floor accepts the friendly amendment, that now becomes the pending motion on the floor. If either the maker or the person who seconded rejects the proposed friendly amendment, then the proposer can formally move to amend. Multiple Motions Before the Body There can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time. The chair can reject a fourth motion until the chair has dealt with the three that are on the floor and has resolved them. This rule has practical value. More than three motions on the floor at any given time is confusing and unwieldy for almost everyone, including the chair. When there are two or three motions on the floor (after motions and seconds) at the same time, the vote should proceed f rst on the last motion that is made. For example, assume the first motion is a basic "motion to have a five- member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser." During the discussion of this motion, a member might make a second motion to "amend the main motion to have a I0- member committee, not a five - member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser." And perhaps, during that discussion, a member makes yet a third motion as a "substitute motion that we not have an annual fundraiser this year." The proper procedure would be as follows: First, the chair would deal with the third (the last) motion on the floor, the substitute motion. After discussion and debate, avote would be taken first on the third motion. If the substitute motion passed, it would be a substitute for the basic motion and would eliminate it. The first motion would be moot, as would the second motion (which sought to amend the first motion), and the action on the agenda item would be completed on the passage by the body of the third motion (the substitute motion). No vote would be taken on the first or second motions. Second, if the substitute motion failed, the chair would then deal with the second (now the last) motion on the floor, the motion to amend. The discussion and debate would focus strictly on the amendment (should the committee be five or 10 members). If the motion to amend passed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (tire first motion) as amended. If the motion to amend failed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (the first motion) in its original format, not amended. Third, the chair would now deal with the first motion that was placed on the floor. The original motion would either be in its original format (five - member committee), or if amended, would be in its amended format (10- member committee). The question on the floor for discussion and decision would be whether a committee should plan and put on the annual fundraiser. To Debate or Not to Debate The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate. Accordingly, basic motions, motions to amend, and substitute motions are all eligible, each in their turn, for full discussion before and by the body. The debate can continue as long as members of the bodywish to discuss an item, subject to the decision of the chair that it is time to move on and take action. There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate on motions. The exceptions A apply when there is a desire of the body to move on. The following motions are not debatable (that is, when the following motions are made and seconded, the chair must immediately call for a vote of the body without debate on the motion): Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It requires a simple majority vote. Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately take a recess. Normally, the chair determines the length of the recess which maybe a few minutes or an hour. It requires a simple majority vote. Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. For example, the motion might be: "I move we adjourn this meeting at midnight." It requires a simple majority vote. Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires discussion of the agenda item to be halted and the agenda item to be placed on "hold." The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to the body. "I move we table this item until our regular meeting in October." Or the motion can contain no specific time for the return of the item, in which case a motion to take the item off the table and bring it back to the body will have to be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item (or to bring it back to the body) requires a simple majority vote. Motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion is to say, "I move the previous question" or "I move the question" or "I call the question" or sometimes someone simply shouts out "question.' As a practical matter, when a member calls out one of these phrases, the chair can expedite matters by treating it as a "request" rather than as a formal motion. The chair can simply inquire of the body, "any further discussion ?" If no one wishes to have further discussion, then the chair can go right to the pending motion that is on the floor. However, if even one person wishes to discuss the pending motion further, then at that point, the chair should treat the call for the "question" as a formal motion, and proceed to it. When a member of the body makes such a motion ( "I move the previous question"), the member is really saying: "I've had enough debate. Let's get on with the vote." When such a motion is made, the chair should ask for a second, stop debate, and vote on the motion to limit debate. The motion to limit debate requires a two- thirds vote of the body. NOTE: A motion to limit debate could include a time limit. For example: "I move we limit debate on this agenda item to 15 minutes." Even in this format, the motion to limit debate requires a two - thirds vote of the body. A similar motion is a motion to object to consideration of an item. This motion is not debatable, and if passed, precludes the body from even considering an item on the agenda. It also requires a two - thirds vote. Majority and Super Majority Votes In a democracy, a simple majority vote determines a question. A tie vote means the motion fails. So in a seven - member body, a vote of 4 -3 passes the motion. A vote of 3 -3 with one abstention means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is 3 -3, the motion still fails. All motions require a simple majority, but there are a few exceptions. The exceptions come up when the body is taking an action which effectively cuts off the ability of a minority of the body to take an action or discuss an item. These extraordinary motions require a two- thirds majority (a super majority) to pass: Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says, "I move the previous question," or "I move the question," or "I call the question," or "I move to limit debate," it all amounts to an attempt to cut off the ability of the minority to discuss an item, and it requires a two- thirds vote to pass. Motion to dose nominations. When choosing officers of the body (such as the chair), nominations are in order either from a nominating committee or from the floor of the body. A motion to close nominations effectively cuts off the right of the minority to nominate officers and it requires a two - thirds vote to pass. Motion to object to the consideration of a question. Normally, such a motion is unnecessary since the objectionable item can be tabled or defeated straight up. However, when members of a body do not even want an item on the agenda to be considered, then such a motion is in order. It is not debatable, and it requires a two- thirds vote to pass. Motion to suspend the rules. This motion is debatable, but requires a two- thirds vote to pass. If the body has its own rules of order, conduct or procedure, this motion allows the body to suspend the rules for a particular purpose. For example, the body (a private dub) might have a rule prohibiting the attendance at meetings by non -club members. A motion to suspend the rules would be in order to allow a non -club member to attend a meeting of the club on a particular date or on a particular agenda item. Counting Votes The matter of wonting votes starts simple, but can become complicated. Usually, it's pretty easy to determine whether a particular motion passed or whether it was defeated. If a simple majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then one vote more than 50 percent of the body is required. For example, in a five - member body, if the vote is three in favor and two opposed, the motion passes. If it is two in favor and three opposed, the motion is defeated. If a two- thirds majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then how many affirmative votes are required? The simple rule of thumb is to count the "no" votes and double that count to determine how many "yes" votes are needed to pass a particular motion. For example, in a seven - member body, if two members vote "no" then the "yes" vote of at least four members is required to achieve a two- thirds majority vote to pass the motion. What about tie votes? In the event of a tie, the motion always fails since an affirmative vote is required to pass any motion. For example, in a five - member body, if the vote is two in favor and two opposed, with one member absent, the motion is defeated. Vote counting starts to become complicated when members vote "abstain" or in the case of a written ballot, cast a blank (or unreadable) ballot. Do these votes count, and if so, how does one count them? The starting point is always to check the statutes. In California, for example, for an action of a board of supervisors to be valid and binding, the action must be approved by a majority of the board. (California Government Code Section 25005.) Typically, this means three of the five members of the board must vote affirmatively in favor of the action. A vote of 2 -1 would not be sufficient. A vote of 3 -0 with two abstentions would be sufficient. In general law cities in California, as another example, resolutions or orders for the payment of money and all ordinances require a recorded vote of the total members of the city council. (California Government Code Section 36936.) Cities with charters may prescribe their own vote requirements. Local elected officials are always well- advised to consult with their local agency counsel on how state law may affect the vote count. After consulting state statutes, step number two is to check the rules of the body. If the rules of the body say that you count votes of "those present" then you treat abstentions one way. However, if the rules of the body say that you count the votes of those "present and voting," then you treat abstentions a different way. And if the rules of the body are silent on the subject, then the general rule of thumb (and default rule) is that you count all votes that are "present and voting." Accordingly, under the "present and voting" system, you would NOT count abstention votes on the motion. Members who abstain are counted for purposes of determining quorum (they are "present "), but you treat the abstention votes on the motion as if they did not exist (they are not `voting "). On the other hand, if the rules of the body specifically say that you count votes of those "present" then you DO count abstention votes both in establishing the quorum and on the motion. in this event, the abstention votes act just like "no" votes. How does this work in practice? Here are a few examples. Assume that a five - member city council is voting on a motion that requires a simple majority vote to pass, and assume further that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Accordingly, the default rule kicks in and we count all votes of members that are "present and voting." If the vote on the motion is 3 -2, the motion passes. If the motion is 2 -2 with one abstention, the motion fails. Assume a five - member city council voting on a motion that requires a two- thirds majority vote to pass, and further assume that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Again, the default rule applies. If the vote is 3 -2, the motion fails for lack of a two- thirds majority. If the vote is 4 -1, the motion passes with a clear two- thirds majority. A vote of three "yes," one "no" and one "abstain" also results in passage of the motion. Once again, the abstention is counted only for the purpose of determining quorum, but on the actual vote on the motion, it is as if the abstention vote never existed — so an effective 3 -1 vote is clearly a two - thirds majorityvote. Now, change the scenario slightly. Assume the same five - member city council voting on a motion that requires a two - thirds majority vote to pass, but now assume that the body DOES have a specific rule requiring a two - thirds vote of members "present." Under this specific rule, we must count the members present not only for quorum but also for the motion. In this scenario, any abstention has the same force and effect as if it were a "no" vote. Accordingly, if the votes were three "yes," one "no" and one "abstain," then the motion fails. The abstention in this case is treated like a "no" vote and effective vote of 3 -2 is not enough to pass two - thirds majority muster. Now, exactly how does a member cast an "abstention" vote? Any time a member votes "abstain" or says, "I abstain," that is an abstention. However, if a member votes "present" that is also treated as an abstention (the member is essentially saying, "Count me for purposes of a quorum, but my vote on the issue is abstain.") In fact, any manifestation of intention to vote either "yes" or "no" on the pending motion may be treated by the chair as an abstention. If written ballots are cast, a blank or unreadable ballot is counted as an abstention as well. Can a member vote "absent" or "count me as absent ?" Interesting question. The ruling on this is up to the chair. The better approach is for the chair to count this as if the member had left his/her chair and is actually "absent.' That, of course, affects the quorum. However, the chair may also treat this as a vote to abstain, particularly if the person does not actually leave the dais. The Motion to Reconsider There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of explanation all by itself, the motion to reconsider. A tenet of parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subject only to reopening if a proper motion to consider is made and passed. A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass like other garden- variety motions, but there are two special rules that apply only to the motion to reconsider. First, is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider must be made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon. A motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The body, however, can always vote to suspend the rules and, by a two- thirds majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at another time.) Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only by certain members of the body. Accordingly, a motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the original motion. If such a member has a change of heart, he or she may make the motion to reconsider (any other member of the body — including a member who voted in the minority on the original motion — may second the motion). If a member who voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it must be ruled out of order. The purpose of this rule is finality. If a member of minority could make a motion to reconsider, then the item could be brought back to the body again and again, which would defeat the purpose of finality. If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is back before the body, and a new original motion is in order. The matter may be discussed and debated as if it were on the floor for the first time. Courtesy and Decorum The rules of order are meant to create an atmosphere where the members of the body and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. At the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to maintain common courtesy and decorum. Unless the setting is very informal, it is always best for only one person at a time to have the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to be first recognized by the chair before proceeding to speak. The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude. Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open. In the in terest of time, the chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body. Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? The general rule is "no! There are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be interrupted for the following reasons: Privilege. The proper interruption would be, "point of privilege." The chair would then ask the interrupter to `state your point" Appropriate points of privilege relate to anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person's ability to hear. Order. The proper interruption would be, "point of order." Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to "state your point." Appropriate points of order relate to anything that would not be considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For example, if the chair moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate without allowing that discussion or debate. Appeal. If the chair makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded, and after debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the chair is deemed reversed. Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of saying, "return to the agenda." If a member believes that the body has drifted from the agreed -upon agenda, such a call maybe made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers that the agenda has not been followed, the chair simply reminds the body to return to the agenda item properly before them. If the chair fails to do so, the chair's determination maybe appealed. Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a motion, the maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn, although the chair may ask the person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion, and any other member may make the motion if properly recognized. Special Notes About Public Input The rules outlined above will help make meetings very public - friendly. But in addition, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special rules that apply to each agenda item: Rule One: Tell the public what the body will be doing. Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is doing it. Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the public what the body did. LEAGUE CITIES 1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 658 -8200 1 Fax(916)658 -8240 w .cacities.org To order additional copies of this publication, call (916) 658 -8200. $10 © 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved. ®Printed oo rerydedpaper. R THE :S OP ORDER 510 i MAIN MOTION 109 §10 as referred to a comet tree that has though desiring to take some kind of action on the subject to 1 (13), the committee can be dis- I that a main motion has brought to its attention — wishes greater or less change in the proposal before voting Ier consideration of the question make its adoption. There are several means by which such a re- roposes action outside the scope i on suit can accomplished, scope e depending s on the co o ditins and degr ee o 5 )bject a defined in the bylaws or the in such cases are summarized below: t of order unless the assembly by that are open orizes its introduction. 1) After a main motion has been made and before the courses for obtaining a result that question has been stated by the chair, any member can rise and, with little or no explanatory comment, 10 t through a main motion, as de- quickly informally suggest one or more modifications in the ) above, involve parliamentary me- I mens (such as a two-thirds vote or motion, which at this point the maker can accept or re- 38 Application of this 8) for their adoption. The rules re- ject as he wishes (see pp. -39). method should generally be limited to minor changes 15 spend the Ruler (25), Take from the which there is unlikely to be a difference of opin- tend Something Previously Adopted about tee (36), and Reconsider (37), and ion. 2) After the question has been stated by the chair —al- newal of motions (38), should be e application of these methods, i though the assembly, and not the maker of the motion, can re- 20 then has control over its wording —the maker I quest unanimous consent to modify the motion (see then objects, however, the Motions pp. 283 -86). If any member form which in )y ich main moti ons are ntro- desired modification must be introduced in the of a motion to Amend, as noted below. es be in l 4. Additional 3) By means of the subsidiary motion to Amend (12), mem- 25 aecti with the handling of main bers can propose changes to be made in the wording and, within limits, the meaning of a pending main motion be- " WHICH THE PROPOSAL fore it is voted on. These amendments must be seconded, Such [AIN MOTION CAN BE IM- are debatable, and are adopted by a majority vote. amendments can take the form of either: 30 )REACTION IS TAKEN. As I proposed a) word -by -word or phrase -by- phrase changes in the -33), it is a general parliamentary e brought up in the form of a mo- main motion —of which several specific types are per - for the motion to Amend; or ic proposal) before it can be dis- mitted under the rules b a motion to substitute an entire new text of the main ) I assembly. it motion should be as ble before it is introduced. At the motion in place of the pending version (see pp. 35 fitly happen that the assembly —al- 146 -54). RULES OF ORDER 512 , to which it must be germane (pp. 129 — ondary amendment does not apply directly question. The terms amendment of the first zmendment of the second degree, or amend - nain question and amendment to the amend- Direct expressions, but the terms primary y are preferred. An amendment of the third t permitted, since it would make the parlia- iation too complicated. To accomplish the se, a member can say, while a secondary is pending, that if it is voted down, he will , r secondary amendment —which he can e briefly —in its place. Only one primary and one secondary amendment are permit- , but any number of each can be offered in so long as they do not again raise questions led. (See Filling Blanks, pp. 155 -60, how - )ecial method of amending highly variable as times, amounts, names, or numbers, by .1 alternative proposals can be pending at .C.) y a majority vote, even in cases where the be amended takes a two- thirds vote for tsidered. es and Explanation (with Forms) �TION AS TO FORM. There are three f amendment, the third of which is an in- ation of the first two. For each of these of the rules are different depending on lied with reference to a few words or to a or section; so that each process has two §12 AMEND 129 �. 1. First process: to insert, or to add. 1 a. To insert words, or, if they are placed at the end of the sentence or passage being amended, to add words. b. To insert a paragraph, or, if it is placed at the end, to add a paragraph. 5 2. Second process: to strike out.* a. To strike out words. b. To strike out a paragraph. 3. Third process: an indivisible combination of processes 10 (1) and (2) having the following forms: a. To strike out and insert (which applies to words). b. To substitute; that is, in effect, to strike out a para- graph, or the entire text of a resolution or main mo- t on, and insert another. (Note that substitute is a technical parliamentary term that is not applied to 15 anything less than a complete paragraph of one or more sentences, so that this term is not applicable to Form 3[a].) Forms 1(a), 2(a), and 3(a), relating to words, can be ap- 20 plied to change the wording within a single sentence, or oc- casionally within two or more consecutive sentences that make up a part of a single paragraph. Forms 1(b), 2(b), and 3(b), relating to a paragraph, can also be applied to a sec- tion, article, or larger unit. 25 The rules for each of the different forms of amend- ment are given in separate subsections beginning on page 133. DETERMINING THE GERMANENESS OF AN 30 AMENDMENT. As already stated, an amendment must *It should be noted that the application of the word `delete" to any form of amendment is not a preferred parliamentary usage, but the short- ened expression "to strike" is acceptable. I 146 RULES OF ORDER §12 f §12 AMEND 147 1 "Resolved, That the Citizens' Association endorse the Rockville site for the new Community College." MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to amend by striking out 5 "Rockville" and inserting "Chatham." (Second.) OFIAiR: It is moved and seconded to strike out "Rockville" and in- sert "Chatham." If the amendment is adopted, the resolution will be to "endorse the Chatham site for the new Community College." 10 Debate on the amendment is limited to the relative ad- vantages of the two sites. After the amendment is debated, the chair puts it to vote, as in the case already illustrated for Insert or Add. Debate on the resolution can go into the question of whether the association should express approval of any site. 15 3(b). To Substitute. A motion to Amend by striking out an entire paragraph, section, or article --or a complete main motion or resolution —and inserting a different paragraph or other unit in its place is called a motion to substitute, and the paragraph or resolution to be inserted is said to be offered (or 20 proposed) as "a substitute." A substitute can be offered for a paragraph or a main motion of only one sentence, and in such a case the paragraph proposed as a substitute can con- tain several sentences. (For the replacement of sentences within a paragraph, see below) A substitute offered for a 25 main motion or resolution, or for a paragraph within a reso- lution, is a primary amendment and can therefore be moved only when no other amendment is pending. If a motion pro- poses to replace one or more paragraphs that are involved in a pending primary amendment, it is a secondary amendment 30 to which the term substitute is also applicable.* A primary amendment to substitute is treated similarly to a motion to strike out and insert as described on pages "It is thus possible to introduce a proposed "substitute for a substi- tute," which cannot be amended, since it is a secondary amendment. 142 -45. It is open to debate at all times while it is pending with no secondary amendment pending; and such debate may go fully into the merits of both the original text and the substitute, since this is necessary to determine the de- sirability of the primary amendment. But for purposes of secondary amendment, the motion to substitute is looked upon as resolved into its two elements, the paragraph to be struck out and the paragraph to be inserted. In contrast to the rules for striking out and inserting words, however, when a motion to substitute is under consideration the para- graph to be struck out as well as the paragraph to be in- -. serted can be perfected by secondary amendment in any of the three basic forms (inserting or adding; striking out; or sulking out and inserting), since this is the procedure when either of the separate motions to insertor to strike outis ap- plied to the paragraph. For this reason, the paragraph to be struck out will practically always be susceptible to second- ary amendment. As in the case of a motion to strike out and insert words, the chair has the option of accepting only amendments to the paragraph to be struck out first, and then only amendments to the proposed substitute, there- after accepting either type of secondary amendment. Fol- lowing this procedure is likely to be more often indicated in I the case of a motion to substitute, particularly if a substan- tive issue hangs on such a motion, as in the example given below. After all secondary amendments have been disposed of and after any further debate on the motion to substitute, the vote is taken on whether to make this substitution. ` For replacing an unbroken part of a paragraph when t the put to be replaced consists of (or contains) one or more complete sentences, there is an option between offering the amendment as a motion to strike out the part and insert the new matter (that is, as a motion to strike out and insert), or moving it in the form of a substitute for the entire para- graph with only the desired part changed. Either of these 1 5 10 15 4 20 30 35 148 RULES OF ORDER §12 I motions, as applied to the same case, will present substan- tially the same question when it is made, but the effect of each of them is different as to permissible secondary amendment. If much of the paragraph is involved in such a 5 case, it is generally better to offer the desired amendment in the form of a substitute. If this method is used, however, secondary amendment can also involve the portion of the paragraph in which no change was proposed initially. In taking the vote on whether to make the substitution, 10 the chair should first read both the paragraph of the origi- nal text and the proposed substitute —as they stand at the time as amended. Even if the entire resolution or main mo- tion is replaced, adopting the motion to substitute only amends the resolution, which remains pending as amended. . 15 After a paragraph, section, or version of a resolution has been substituted for another, the substituted paragraph or resolution cannot be amended except by adding something that does not modify the paragraph's existing content —as is true of any paragraph that has been inserted. The para- 20 graph that has been replaced cannot be inserted again un- less a material change in the wording (or possibly, the place) makes a new question —as is true of any paragraph that has been struck out. If a motion to substitute is lost, the assembly has de- 25 cided only that the paragraph proposed as a substitute shall not replace the one specified. The same proposed new paragraph can still replace a different one, or can simply be inserted. On the other hand, the paragraph that was re- tained in the resolution can be further amended, or struck 30 out (if it is not the entire resolution); or it still can be re- placed by a different substitute. When a question is being considered by paragraph or u- riatim (28), it is in order to move a substitute for any para- graph or section at the time that the paragraph or section is 35 opened to amendment. But it is not in order to move a sub- §12 AMEND 149 stitute for the entire document until all of the paragraphs or I - sections have been individually considered and the point is reached when the chair announces that the entire paper is open t p o amendment. If a resolution is referred to a committee while a primary 5 amendment —or a primary and a secondary amendment —are 1 1 , pending, the committee can report by recommending a sub- y ; stitute for the resolution, even though the substitute cannot h' become pending until the other amendments have been voted on in their normal order. Thus, when a committee has to so reported, the chair first states the question on the second- ary amendment that was pending when the resolution was committed, puts the secondary amendment to vote, and then continues with the primary amendment to which it applied. As soon as this primary amendment is disposed of, the chair 15 states the question on the substitute recommended by the committee, and proceeds as he would with any other motion to substitute. ' r In a similar way, if a resolution is referred to a commit- tee while a substitute and a secondary amendment (either 20 i #3 . to the original or to the substitute) are pending, the com- ii �'. mittee can report in favor of either version, with any desired i ,11 recommendation as to secondary amendment; or the com- mittee can recommend rejection of the pending substitute I and propose a new substitute in its place. In all such cases, 25 the chair starts with the parliamentary situation as it was when the resolution was committed; he then proceeds as with any motion to substitute, and states the question on any new amendment (recommended by the committee) as soon as it is in order for that amendment to be pending 30 under the usual rules. The motion to substitute often provides a convenient and timesaving method for handling a poorly framed resolution, or for introducing a different and better approach to the real question raised by a main motion. While changes by separate 35 150 RULES OF ORDER §12 1 amendments are in progress, a member who feels that he has a better solution by substitution can indicate its features briefly and announce his intention of offering the substitute as soon as no other amendment is pending. If the member 5 wishing to propose the substitute thinks it appropriate, he can try to bring the pending amendments to an immediate vote by moving the Previous Question (16) on them. An amendment in the form of a substitute can also be used to defeat or work against the purpose of the measure 10 originally introduced. Such a stratagem can be utilized with a view either to converting the measure into a weakened form before its final adoption, or to substituting a version that is likely to be rejected in the final vote. It should be noted that a vote in favor of substituting an entire resolution 15 or main motion is ordinarily a vote to kill any provisions of the original version that are not included in the substitute. Properly applied, the rules for the treatment of motions to substitute automatically operate in fairness to both sides when there is disagreement as to the preferability of the 20 original or the substitute. Under the procedure of initially accepting amendments to each element of the primary amendment exclusively —which is generally indicated whenever such disagreement exists —the proponents of the original version are first given the opportunity to amend 25 their proposition into a more acceptable form in the light of conditions revealed by the introduction of the substitute. When this process is correctly handled as described on pages 143-44 and 146-47, it tends to ensure that the pro- visions of the version first offered receive appropriate con - 30 sideration, without impeding free debate of the proposal to substitute. By the requirement that internal amendment of the substitute be done before the vote on the motion to make the substitution, the members are protected from having to decide whether to reject the original version with - 35 out knowing what may finally replace it. §12 AMEND 151 Form and Example: 3(b). To Substitute. As an example i 1 of a motion to substitute, assume that the following resolu- tion is pending: "Resolved, That the Parish Federation un- dertake the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House, to be financed as far as possible 5 by a mortgage on the present building." I' Debate points strongly to a need for further investiga- ` i II [ion, but many members are determined to secure immedi- ate authorization. The meeting seems evenly divided, and the outcome is unpredictable. 10 1 MEMBER (obtaining the floor): I move to substitute for the pend- ing resolution the following: "Resolved, That the Parish Board be di- rected to engage appropriate professional consultants to make a survey of, and prepare a complete report on, the need, probable cost, feasible 15 methods of financing, and maintenance of a new service wing for the Parish House," (Second.) cFUtR: It is moved and seconded to amend by substituting for the { pending resolution the following: [reading the substitute submitted by I '^ Member A]. The motion to substitute proposes that the resolution just 20 ?!y3 read shall come before the assembly in place of the pending resolution. r !; [Debate.] li MEMBER L (who favors the pending resolution and is, therefore, opposed to the motion to substitute — obtaining the floor): I move to amend the proposed substitute by adding the words "within twenty 25 days." (Second.) `rs cFA[R: The chair believes it will be preferable to take any amend- ments to the pending resolution first, as permitted under the rules. Such amendments, if adopted, will affect the wording in which the pending resolution will come to a final vote if the motion to substitute 30 fails.* Accordingly, before entertaining the amendment just offered, the chair will call for any amendments to the pending resolution, which *If the members are familiar with the procedure for handling motions to substitute, the chair may omit the sentence preceding the asterisk. I I 152 RULES OR ORDER §12 §12 AMEND 153 l I he will first reread. The pending resolution is as follows: "Resolved, Brief debate shows that the proposed survey could not I'I a 1 That the Parish Federation undertake the construction and equipping be properly carried out in twenty days. Assume that this t ip of a new service wing for the Parish House, to be financed as far as pos- amendment is voted down. Bible by a mortgage on the present building." Are there any amend -i: °. 5 ments to the pending resolution? MEMBER B (who is in favor of the motion to substitute, but fears it 5 MEMBER (obtaining the floor): I move to amend the pending res- will fail unless some time limit is specified— obtaining the floor): I '. olution by striking out everything after the word "undertake" and in- move to amend the substitute by adding "within sixty days." (Second,) y serting the words "a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House." (Second.) The chair states the question on this amendment and (after 10 brief debate) puts it to vote. Assume that the amendment is 10 The chair states the question on this amendment, mak- adopted. In announcing the result, the chair continues: ing its effect dear, and, after debate, puts it to vote. For purposes of the example, assume that the proponents of the CHAIR: The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The pro - original resolution differ on the amendment, some voting posed substitute now reads, "Resolved, ... " Are you ready for the 15 for it, others opposing it. Also, since the adoption of this question on the motion to substitute? 15 amendment presumably would make the pending resolu- tion less objectionable to those who feel that the proposed After any debate (during which the substitute may be f ir- project is presently ill advised and who therefore hope that ther amended), the chair puts to vote the motion to substitute. the substitution will be made, most of those members prob- Both resolutions are read, usually by the chair —the pending 20 ably vote for the amendment. Assume that it is adopted. resolution first, then the resolution proposed as a substitute. 20 The chair announces the result as follows: CHAIR: The question is on the motion to substitute. The chair will l CHAIR: The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The pend- read the pending resolution first, then the resolution proposed as a ing resolution now reads, " Resolved, That the Parish Federation on- substitute. The pending resolution is: " Resolved, That the Parish Fed- 25 dertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping eration undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and 25 of a new service wing for the Parish House." The question is on the equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House." The resolution '3 motion to substitute. (Further debate on the relative merits of the proposed as a substitute is: " Resolved, That the Parish Board be di- pending resolution and the proposed substitute.) rected to engage appropriate professional consultants to make a survey h ,1 MEMBER L (who favors the pending resolution— obtaining the of, and prepare a complete report on, the need, probable cost, 30 floor): I move to amend the substitute by adding "within twenty' within sixty days." The question is: Shall the resolution last read be 30 days.' (Second.) substituted for the pending resolution? Those in favor of the cHAm: Before entertaining the amendment just offered, the chair motion to substitute, say aye.... Those opposed, say no.... I lls; i will again ask: Are there any further amendments to the pending too- ; lution? Pause. There being none, it is moved and seconded to amend ] g The chair announces the result of the vote and states the ` v 35 the proposed substitute by adding the words "within twenty days." question on whichever resolution is left pending, as follows: 35 l _ ; 1$4 RULES OF ORDER 412 -�.� 1 OHM": The ayes have it and the motion to substitute is adopted. The question is now on the resolution: [reading the resolution §12 r Filling Blanks d'u'ct- mg the employment of professional consultants]. - Filling blanks, al 5 Or: i self, is a closely relai ber of alternative ct CILIA: The noes have it and the motion to substitute is lot. The lost. main motion or prir question is now on the resolution [reading the resolution for food. same time. In effect raising campaign]. i Standard Characteri Z0 secondary amendme Regardless of which resolution is now endin may be further debate. tam cases it has disti In amending by If the motion to substitute has been adopted, the resolution now is in three alternatives ca pending the position of a paragraph that has been inserted, and it can no lon 15 be moved must be vote er amended except by adding nonmo g Other hand, of alternat ves is not if the motion to substitute has been lost, the resolution for the fund drive can be further to weigh all choices fair and logical orde amended; but in determining whether an amendment now offered re- sent' i ment are main motif p a new question and can therefore be admitted, 20 names of persons or ac- count must be taken of any motions to amend that were voted on before the motion to substitute was introduced, or while it was pending. created on of one m FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. The "friendly a) ra me ber can c term 25 amendment" is often used to describe an amendment fered ra ining a blank: of- by someone who is in sympathy with the purposes of the main motion, in No . Nod $32 build a "; the belief that the amendment will ei- ther improve the statement Propose "to add or effect of the main motion, Presumably to the satisfaction of its maker, or i o be will 3 ncrease o the chances of the main motion's adoption. Regardless of I whether or not the b) member can m ple, assume that maker of the main motion "accepts" the amendment, it must be opened to debate and voted That Lodge No. on for- mally (unless adopted by unanimous consent) and is han- n ot died under the same rules as amendments reate a blanl by generally (see 35 also pp. 283 -86), the sum 1 $300,0 specification stru RULES OF ORDER §51 reported from a committee of the whole .ere they have already been open to debate ;ndment —the chair puts a single question 'the committee's amendments together, ex- ,se for which a member asks for a separate ins: "Those in favor of adopting the cents recommended by the committee, ex- se for which a separate vote has been asked, ... Those opposed, say no.... " This is utting the question on the amendments in e then takes up the remaining amendments ly in their order. .nding the rules (25) or by unanimous con- . 51 -53), the assembly can allow the intro- of a motion to adopt all recommendations .port, without considering the amendments ly. ing a substitute. If a committee reports back L with a substitute that it recommends for t least the substitute should be in writing, case of any other report proposing amend - amendment was pending when the resolu- erred, the reporting member concludes his 1 by making the motion to substitute; for us: G MEMBER: The committee to which was referred , `Resolved, That the proceeds from the recent be- .Association from the Asquith estate be invested iu Consolidated Development Corporation," recom- for the resolution, the following substitute be 'olved, That the Executive Board be authorized to re- investment counsel with a view to determining ap- strnent of the proceeds from the Asquith bequest." §51 REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMITTEES 507 On behalf of the committee I move that the resolution but read be I substituted for the referred resolution. The chair then states the question on the motion to substitute. But if amendment(s) were pending when the 5 resolution was referred, then, before the motion to sub - stitute can be made, the question is first on the second- ary amendment if one was pending, then on the primary amendment that was pending. When these amendments have been voted on, the reporting mem- to ber makes the motion to substitute and the chair states the question on it (or the chair can state the question assuming the motion). In any event, the substitute pro- posed by the committee is treated as in the case of any other motion to substitute (see pp. 146ff.). If the mo- 15 tion to substitute is lost, the "original" resolution is open to further amendment; but if the motion to sub - stitute is adopted, the resolution thus substituted can be amended only by adding. (Regarding substitutes pro- posed by committees, see also p. 149.) 20 In regard to referred questions reported back, see also Resolutions Committee, pages 614 -15, 619 -21. A Report Containing Only Information. If the report contains only an account of work done or a statement of 25 fact or opinion for the assembly's information, it should generally be in writing, and always so if there is any possi- bility of its adoption by the assembly. Apart from filing such a report, however, no action on it is necessary and usually none should be taken. (See also Motion to Adopt an Entire 30 Report, p. 490, and Conditions for Amendment of a Report by the Assembly Before Its Adoption, p. 492.) Membership and Nominating Committee Reports, Re- ports of Other Kinds of Committees. When a membership committee reports on names of persons referred to the 35 dti- e of law ,aw. 'ar- d as the of flor and Ver- the the ash - date fool