Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-06 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 6, 2012 7:00 PM 'City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1, Call to Order 2, Roll Call 3, Approval of Agenda 4, Approval of Minutes a, February 21,2012 5, Public Hearings a, 7:00 p,m, or later: Capital Improvement Plan 2013-2017 6, New Business 7, Unfinished Business 8, Visitor Presentations 9, Commission Presentations a, Commissioner report for the city council meeting of February 27,2012, Commissioner Trippler was scheduled to attend, There were no items scheduled for the planning commission at this meeting, b, Upcoming city council meeting of March 12, 2012, Commissioner Desai is scheduled to attend, There are no items scheduled for the planning commission at this time, 10. Staff Presentations a, Comparison of Robert's Rules of Order and Rosenberg's Rules of Order b, The status of planning commission appointments by city council c, Updated schedule for city council meeting attendance by planning commissioners 11, Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21,2012 1. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00 p,m, by Chairperson Fischer. 2. ROLL CALL AI Bierbaum, Commissioner Joseph Boeser, Commissioner Tushar Desai, Commissioner Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Tanya Nuss, Commissioner Gary Pearson, Commissioner Dale Trippler, Commissioner Present Present Present Present Present Absent P{.(?sf'nt >/ ';., Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve'th~'~ijlend~'i'as submitted, "'''', /...... . ',>..' Seconded by Commissioner Bieroaum;' Ayes - All The motion passed, 4. APPROVAL OF MINU"i'ES .' 1,:1 ", ,}:1 CommissionerTrippler mov~aii't0ii~~prove the Januarv 17, 2012, PC minutes as submitted, Seconded by Commissioner Desai. Ayes - All The motion passed, 5. PUBLIC HEARING a, Vacations of Edgemont Street, Arkwright Street and Alley rights-of-way, North side of RoselawnAvenue, East of McKnight Street i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report on the vacations of Edgemont Street, Arkwright Street and Aliey rights-of-way, North side of Roselawn Avenue, East of McKnight Street Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing, 1, David Li, 364 Toenjes Place, Maplewood, 2, Mayor, Will Rossbach, 1386 County Road C East, Maplewood, 3, Gina Fox, Attorney for Leonard, Street and Deinard, 150 South 5"1 Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, speaking on behalf of Maplewood resident Kathleen Delaney, 4, Kathleen Delaney, Maplewood, February 21, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 5, Tom Schuette, Azure Properties, Littie Canada, representing Richard Schreier. 6, Maurice Schneider, 443 Roselawn Avenue East, Maplewood, 7, Herb Toenjes, Jr, Maplewood, Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing, Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution vacatinq the followinq riqhts-of-wav on the north side .of Roselawn Avenue: . The easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street . The full width of Arkwright Street . The alley between Edgemont Street and Arkwright Street in Block 6 It is in the public interest to approve these vacations since: 1, These street and alley rights-of-way are not needed for any access or transportation purpose, 2, The Arkwright Street right-of-way is obstructed by a holding pond, 3, The vacations would return public right-of-way to the properties they were taken from, These vacations are subject to the conditions stipulated dated January 31, 2012, the engineering report by Steve Love Seconded by Commissioner Boeser, - Commissioner Boeser, & Trippler Nays - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner's Bierbaum, Desai & Nuss The motion failed, "1:Y: !.;. iii" >'!hi' 'I> h./ii:'; iwhY .ii'>::!::.: ',_' '- il\)'''' -,iii!\ 'U> Commissioner BierbaUrti1i.f~~ pliKhind:i:i!;ommission recommends to table the resolution vacatinq the followinq riqhts-of-waV.~~ the nQrth side of Roselawn Avenue until the applicant submits a full and completed development::plan. . Seconded by Commissioner Desai. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner Bierbaum, & Desai Nays - Commissioner's Boeser, Nuss & Trippler The motion failed, Commissioner Nuss moved to approve the resolution vacatinq the followinq riqhts-of-wav on the north side of Roselawn Avenue (but denyinq the easterly 10 feet of Edqemont Streetl: . Tho o3ctorly 10 foot of Edgomont Stroot . The full width of Arkwright Street . The alley between Edgemont Street and Arkwright Street in Block 6 February 21 , 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 It is in the public interest to approve these vacations since: 1, These street and alley rights-of-way are not needed for any access or transportation purpOi;e, 2, The Arkwright Street right-of-way is obstructed by a holding pond, 3, The vacations would return public right-of-way to the properties they were taken from. These vacations are subject to the conditions stipulated in the engineering report by Steve Love dated January 31,2012, Seconded by Commissioner Trippler, Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, Comrnissioner's Boeser, Desai, Nuss & Trippler Nay - Commissioner Bierbaum The motion passed. The final decision is made by the city council, at this time a date is unknown when this will be heard by the city council. 6. NEW BUSINESS None, 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None, i> . 8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS ,.';<>'1; None, +k; 9. COMMISSION PRESEN+~tr:I(:1l:NS a, Mayor Rossbach was in the audience and reported on the city council meeting of February 13,2012, which Commissioner Pearson was the representative at Items reviewed were the planning commission's 2011 Annual Report, the Annual Review of the Rules of Procedure and the resolutions of appreciation for Jeremy Yarwood and Robert Martin which were passed by the council. b, Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend the city council meeting on February 27, 2012, however there are no planning commission items to cover at this meeting, 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Planner Martin stated that interviews will be held by the city council April 2nd and 9"" 2012 for openings on boards and commissions, , 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p,m, February 21,2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: DATE: City Commissions Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager Gayle Bauman, Finance Manager Capitallmproyement Plan for 2013 - 2017 February 1, 2011 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION The Capital Improvement Pian is an annually prepared document that begins the process for preparation of the 2013 Budget The Capital Improvement Plan is being released for review by the various Commissions and a Public Hearing on the CIP will be held at the Planning Commission on March 6, 2012, Following the receipt of recommendations from all the Commissions, the City Council will be asked to adopt the CIP, Adopting the CIP does not commit the Council to the proposed projects, nor implement the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for the 2013 Budget as we proceed to preparing that document. Each Commission shall review and comment on the impact of the assumptions and recommended projects within the Capital Improvement plan, A recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial should be made and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration at their Public Hearing on March 6th The Commission should appoint a member to attend the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission on March 6th, as well as to the City Council meeting on March 12th, when final adoption of the CIP will be considered, This year's CIP covers the years of 2013 through 2017 and is being prepared 2-3 months eariier than normal due to the need to add the East Metro/Marshlands Public Safety Training Facility into the plan, That project received state grant funds as part of the July State Bonding Plan approved as part of the State Government Shutdown settlement. That July approval occurred after the CIP for 2012 - 2016 , was adopted, We also need to have the Police Department Expansion project in the CIP prior to issuance of any bonds, so that we are not issuing dual bonds during 2012, Rather than amend the 2012- 2016 CIP, the City staff determined that the new CIP for 2013- 2017 would be prepared earlier. Background Information Instructions from the Assistant City Manager were provided to the Department Heads in October 2011 based upon available funding anticipated for the five-year planning period, The budget process starts with the assumptions of funding that might be available from 2011 as well as major capitai projects, Unlike 2010 when funds were available for MCC Pool and Phone system upgrades, it was assumed that no additional funds would be available for 2012 projects other than those programmed in the 2012 budget. The direct instructions were that only minimal new funds are available and that new proposals will likely require reductions in expenditures within other areas of the budget. This remains consistent with the Council's goal to establish Financial Sustainability into the overall planning for all areas of the City Budget. The CIP was prepared assuming no referendum, That can be changed as the process is evaluated, but the staff assumption is to attempt to implement goals without the benefit of a referendum, Attached to this report is a Draft of the 2013 - 2017 Capital Improvement Pian for review, The Transmittal Letter highlights the major projects and revisions within the Plan for consideration. The biggest revision is the inclusion of the new Fire Stations and expansion of the Police Department / City Hall, which adds $8,8 million in improvements to the plan, In addition, as noted previously, the East Metro / Marshlands Fire Training Facility has been added to the plan, The document explains each of the proposed projects, as well as analyzes the impacts on the budget for the various funds, along with the tax impact necessary to implement these projects as proposed, 2013 - 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE TWO Capital Improvement Plan Process The Council provided guidance in 2011 by adopting goals for the coming years, A clear goal of the Council was financial sustainability combined with a focus on funding for City facilities, The key issue involved a long-term vision for public safety facilities, The staff submits projects based upon those goals, and the finance staff analyzes the funds available for capital projects along with the impacts of the staff proposals, A number of revisions are made in the project submittals based upon the analysis of finance, as well as management priorities to achieve the attached CIP plan, This document reflects the final accumulation of that process, Summarv of CIP The 2010 - 2014 CIP was approved at a $77,76 Million level; while the 2011 - 2015 CIP was approved at a reduced $65,74 Million level. The 2012 - 2106 CIP was approved at $65,32 Million, The proposed draft of the 2013 - 2017 CIP is at $76,883,880. This is an increase of $11 ,5 million from last year's plan, The reasons are the addition of the City Hall/Police Department Expansion project, which added $6,78 million to the plan; replacement of two Fire Stations, which added $2,0 million to the plan; and the addition of the East Metro/Marshlands Fire Training Facility, These three public safety facilities added $9 million to the plan. In addition, the Hillcrest Redevelopment Proposal has been added to the 2017 project list adds $4,5 million, As noted below, staff is recommending consideration of reductionsin the proposed projects that reduces the total approved CIP projects by about $10 million, In previous years, each project would be analyzed, and management would determine that a number of proposed projects should be removed from the next 5 years of consideration and listed in the Declined Category, During this year's CIP, the Commissions and Council will be provided with financial impact analysis and determine if projects should be declined, That decision will be made by the Council prior to adoption of the CIP, which is planned for March 12th after all Commissions have commented on the plan, The proposed 2013 - 2017 CIP can be divided into sections based upon the need for new revenues for 2013, as well as projected impacts in future years, as follows: 2013 Budget Impact-' 2012 Tax Levy 2013 Tax Levy 1. Debt Service Fund: $4,208,103 $4,208,529 2. Capital Improvement Projects Fund $ 145,000 $ 180,000 3. Fire Truck Replacement Fund $ 50,000 $ 50,000 4. Public Safety Facilities Fund: $ 200,000 $ 200,000 5. Redevelopment Fund: $ 0 $ 40,000 6. Maplewood Area EDA Fund: $ 0 $ 89,270 7. Ambulance Fund: $ 350,000 $ 350,000 8. Maplewood Community Center Fund: $ 460,000 $ 460,000 9. Recreation Program Fund: $ 175,000 $ 175,000 10. Park Development Fund: $ 0 $ 0 . - Note: Impact shown is based on capital projects; does not include analysis of annual operating expenses. 2013 - 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE THREE Explanation by Fund 1. Debt Service Fund a, Annual projections: i. 2012 Budget: $4,208,103 ii. 2013 Projected: $4,208,103 Hi. 2014 Projected: $4,578,642 iv, 2015 Projected: $4,418,783 v, 2016 Projected: $4,494,917 vi. 2017 Projected: $4,313,834 b, What does this investment provide? i. New Fire Stations: 1, A new station within the South Leg of Maplewood on or near the 3M Campus is to be built in 2012 - 2013 without the need for a referendum, We have assumed that we could implement an assessment to a partner and then sell bonds for both the assessment as well as the Fire Station expense to provide for the $5,0 million expense. This proposal is expected to involve an agreement with 3M to provide Tax Increment Financing for expansion of facilities and jobs on their campus, 2, Refurbishment/replacement of Fire Station #7 at Hazelwood and at County Road C in 2014 - 2015 at a cost of $3,5 million will be paid from the Public Safety Expansion Fund and will not require City Bonding. This assumes that the Century Avenue, Londin Lane and McMenemy Street stations are abandoned; the property sold at a value of $2.5 million by 2014, This funding would then be used for the construction of new Fire Station #7 at the same location and improvements at the Gladstone Station. This is discussed under the Public Safety Expansion category, ii. Police Department Expansion beginning in 2012 - 2013 1, A space needs study has been completed documenting that our Police Department has only 45% of the required space for their operations, This project proposes to expend $4,0 million in 2013 and a second phase of $3,38 million in 2014, This would be through the issuance of CIP Bonds and would include departments moving to the unfinished vacant space at Public Works and expanding the Police Department into existing space at City Hall. No referendum is necessary to make this work. Hi. Continuation of a Reduced Street Reconstruction Program 1, The streets program was significantiy reduced in the 2012 - 2106 CIP, and continues to invest at reduced levels through 2016 and then expands in 2017, In the interim, projects such as TH 36 - English; the Gladstone project and overlay of MSAS streets are implemented that do not require significant impacts to debt service, c, Financial Issues with this plan? i. Debt Service exceeds 2.0% of Market Value in 2013 - 2015 1. It has been a policy to keep debt service levels at or below 2,0% of taxable Market Value, The tax levy for Debt Service remains steady in 2013; however, property values have fallen, In addition, the inclusion of debt for the Police Department Expansion; New Fire Stations and Street Reconstruction Program will push the percentage above 2,0%, Projections are that the debt level will return below 2,0% in 2016, Some adjustments should be considered, 2013 - 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE FOUR Debt Service Fund Icontinuedl ii. Debt Service requires tax increase in 2014-15 1, It is anticipated that a tax increase will be needed for debt service payments in 2014 or 2015, if the debt level is in the $4.4-$4,5 million range, Long range planning indicates that the debt level should stay consistent in the $4,0-$4.2 million range for the next 2-5 years, d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. Based on the Market Value Considerations, and to keep any needed tax increase to less than 1,0%, the following proposed project revisions should be considered: 1, Move the Hillcrest Area Streetscape [$2,5 million] and Hillcrest Area Roadway Improvement [$2.0 million] projects to the deferred category to ' reduce future debt levels and to await redevelopment efforts in the area, 2, Delay the Second Phase of the Police Department Expansion [$3,38 million] to :2017 or beyond, This allows Phase One [$4,0 million] to occur in 2013 as proposed and address the highest priority space needs and allows relocation and re-allocation of current spaces at City Hall and Public Works to be used prior to building expansion, 3, Delay the refurbishment of the Gladstone Fire Station [$1.0 million] to the deferred project list will be recommended under Public Safety Fund, 2. Capital Improvement Projects Fund a, Annual Projections = $180,000 per year for 2013 - 2017 b, What does this investment provide? i. Fire Training Facility I Marshlands Proposal 1, This project was added to the City project list as part of State Bonding being provided in the July 2011 Bonding Plan. It had been put on hold with the note that the project would be re-instated upon state bonding being received, Project financing includes: a, State Grant: $3,000,000 b, Ramsey County Grant: $ 450,000 c, Capital Improvement Fund: $ 250,000 d, Environmental Utility Fund: $ 250,000 [for Marshlands] ii. Public Works Building Carpet Replacement 1. This project proposes to replace the carpet in the Public Works building in 2016 at a cost of $61 ,000, iii. Upgrades to Community Park Fields and Park Equipment 1. This project proposes to replace and upgrade equipment within our parks as well as upgrade park fields in various locations and areas at $100,000 per year. c, Financial issues with this plan? i. Increase of $35,000 annually will be needed from tax increase, d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. Based on the need to reduce the need for tax increases: 1, Move the replacement of the carpet at Public Works Building into the expenses for the City Hall / Police Department Expansion project and thus this expense is eliminated from the plan, 2013 - 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE FIVE 3. Fire Truck Replacement Fund a. Annual projections = $50,000 per year b. What does this investment provide? i. Replacement of Fire Truck in 2014 c. Financial issues with this plan? i. No impact on taxes. d. Staff Recommended Revisions: i. No revisions, 4. Public Safety Facilities Fund a. Annual projections = $200,000 per year b. What does this investment provide? ii. Rehabilitation of Fire Station #7 and #2 1, As part of Chief Lukin's proposal for the fire department, he identified needs for improvements at the three main fire stations, The new Fire Station at 3M is proposed to be paid through a tax increment agreement with 3M that will not cost levy funds, The improvement at Station #7 will cost $2,5 million and will be paid from a sale of property [$2,5 million], The third project will be rehabilitation at the Gladstone Station [$1,0 million], which will require a new levy of funds, c, Financial issues with this plan? i. A reduction in this fund's annual need for levy was planned to offset the debt service increase for the Police Department expansion, This current plan requires maintaining the annual levy, d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. Delay the Gladstone Station Improvements to post 2017, Staff has identified a funding approach for two of the three stations, but this third project will need to be delayed to post 2017, An alternative would be to raise the levy an additional 1 % above the recommended levy to generate an estimated $175,000 per year for this need, 5, Redevelopment Fund a, Annual projections = $40,000 per year b, What does this investment provide? i. Housing Replacement Program 1. The City previously provided an allocation to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the purchase and upgrade of property, That was discontinued in 2005 for budget reasons, This proposal is to reinstate funding for an every other year expenditure of $100,000, c. Financial Issues with this plan? i. New expenditure requires a levy increase. d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. Find expenses within current budget to fund this program without a tax increase, This program should be a priority, 2013 - 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE SIX 6. Maplewood Area EDA Fund a, Annual projections = $89,270 per year b, What does this investment provide? i. Commercial Property Redevelopment Program 1. The City established the Economic Development Authority and the Business and Economic Development Commission in 2010 but did not dedicate funding for property loans or improvements, This plan would establish a levy of 0.5% of the levy toward this 'purpose, c, Financial issues with this plan? i. This new program requires a tax increase, d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. No revisions recommended, as dedicated funding source for these purposes are necessary to move this program forward, 7. Ambulance Fund a, Annual projections = $$350,000 per year. b, What does this investment provide? i. Rehabilitation of Ambulance Fleet and to Offset deficit in Operations c, Financial issues with this plan? i. None; City increased the levy in 2012 to move this fund to sustainable levels. d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. None 8, Maplewood Community Center Fund a,. Annual projections = $460,000 per year b, What does this projection provide? i. Capital Investment to keep MCC Upgraded 1. The five-year MCC Sustainability Plan proposed by staff and reviewed with the Council in 2011 is implemented with this plan, An allocation of $150,000 was provided in 2011 and an additional $100,000 will be allocated in 2012 - 2017 to meet the requested $250,000 annual needs, c, Financial issues with this plan? i. The original proposal for the MCC sustain ability was that the allocation of levy money would be reduced moving forward over the next 3-5 years, Given the scope of improvements and lack of revenue enhancements, that plan looks more like a 7 -10 year plan, d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. None 9, Recreation Program Fund a, Annual Projections = $175,000 per year b, What does this projection provide? i. No capital projects, This allocation provides support for recreational activities through Maplewood. c, Financial issues with this plan? i. This program is currently operating at a deficit and will need reductions and cuts in expenditures in 2013 to be sustainable. d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. None 2013 - 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE SEVEN 10. Park Development Fund a, Annual Projections = $0 per year b, What does this projection provide? i. No capital projects are funded with tax levy dollars. The Parks Improvement Program is totally funded by contributions from new development through Park Availability Charges, Due to the shortage of development funds, park projects proposed have been delayed or revised as follows: 1, Deer Control and Campus Programs will need to be funded from the existing operating budget. 2, Reduced the Emerald Ash Borer program from $25,000 per year for five years to $25,000 in 20.14 and 2015, 3, Reduced the expenditure in Joy Parks from $225K to $175K. 4, Assumed a level of $200,000 per year in PAC based on new development and new fees, 5, Delayed the improvements in Goodrich Park by one year. 6, Expected levy dollars to Parks in 2013: a, Community Center - $460,000 b, Recreation Fund - $175,000 c, Trail Rehab - $ 80,000 [within Pub Wks Budget] d. Fields and Equip - $100,000 e. Nature Center - $ 53,000 for building in 2014 c, Financial issues with this plan? i. As PAC funds continue to decline, there is no dedicated source of funds for Park development moving forward, d, Staff Recommended Revisions: i. While this is a definite need, until funding for the Recreation Fund and the MCC are resolved, no new tax levy should be dedicated to Park Development. Budgetary Consideration As noted within the CIP Document and this memorandum, the draft CIP approach will require a 3 % projected levy increase. The final amount will depend upon the level of reductions that the Council wishes to remove from the program, If staff recommendations are accepted, the levy increase will be less than 1,0% based on this plan. Other expenses will impact the 2013 levy and will be reviewed with the Couricil on February 27'h, Those items will be reviewed along with the impacts of cuts within the various departments and programs during the budget meetings in July 2012 as the Council moves forward with budget determinations and directions, As noted, these are the assumptions that the CIP was based upon for presentation to the Commissions and City Council. The assumptions will be reviewed in detail as the budget process proceeds over the next months. Recommended Action The Commission should review the proposed projects within the 2013 - 2017 Capital Improvement Plan, Consideration of the recommendation for reductions by staff should be considered, A recommendation of approval; approval with revisions or conditions; or denial should be made prior to the March 6th Public Hearing at the Planning Commission, Said recommendation from the Commission will be presented to the Council on March 12th, Attachments: 1, Draft 2013 - 2017 Capital Improvement Plan MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Rosenberg's Rules and Robert's Rules of Order March 1, 2012 INTRODUCTION On January 17, 2012, the planning commission asked staff to provide a comparison of Robert's Rules of Order and our more recently adopted rules for parliamentary procedure, Rosenberg's Rules of Order. Staff searched the internet for such a comparison and found "simplified" versions of each, but no side-by-side comparisons, which would have been ideal. As the members are aware, the city is no longer using Robert's Rules of Order as the parliamentary procedure for commission and council meetings, The data I have attached hopefully will answer any questions the planning commission has concerning the particulars between Robert's and Rosenberg's Rules of Order. I have included the following for the planning commission's review: 1, Rosenberg's Rules of Order, Revised 2, Rosenberg's Rules of Order at a Glance 3, Simplified Robert's Rules of Order The planning commission already has the complete Rosenberg's Rules of Order so I did not reprint that for the members, In summary, I quote Mr. Rosenberg from the Introduction in the attached paper titled "Rosenberg's Rules of Order, Revised," as he states: "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 clubs, associations, boards, councils and bodies follow a set of rules-"Robert's Rules of Order''-which are embodied in a small, but camp/ex, book. Virtually no one / 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 5-member body with a few members of the public in attendance, a simplified version of the rules of parliamentary procedure is in order. " p:\ planning commission\Rosenberg's Rules vs, Robert's Rules of Order 3 12 te Attachment: 1, Rosenberg's Rules of Order, Revised 2, Rosenberg's Rules of Order at a Glance 3, Simplified Robert's Rules of Order Dave Rosenberg !i!un!l Bloaraohv News Resume Rosenbera's 12 Easv SteDs You Can TakeTo Reduce Global Warmlno Rosenbera's Rules of Order Rosenbera's Rules , for Life and Health Yolo Suoerior Court Home Paae Arch ived Suoervisor Site H istorica I Paae I Cou ntv SUDervisor Articles Page 1 of8 ATTACHMENT 1 ..- :................''''.......'.',......' , ....1....'. "Rosenberg's Rules of Order, Revised" (Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century) By Judge Dave Rosenberg (First Revision dated July 2011) 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 clubs, 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 5- member body with 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 pariiamentary procedure, based on my 20 years 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, simpie, 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 first 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 rjlust 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 wlli 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, and fully participate 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 body who must be present at a meeting for business to be legally transacted, The default rule is that a quorum is one more than haif the body, So, for exampie, in a five-member body a quorum is three, mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\Rosenberg pdf.mht 3/1/2012 Dave Rosenberg Page 2 of8 When the body has three members present, it can legaily transact business, If the body ,has less than a quorum of members present, it cannot legaily 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), and 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 which establishes a quorum, So, 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 foilow the rules it has estabilshed 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 ail members of the body should know and understand the rules of parliamentary procedure, it is the Chair of the body who is charged with applying the rules in the conduct of the meeting, The Chair should be weil versed in those rules. The Chair, for all intents and purposes, makes the final ruling on the rules every time the Chair states an action, In fact, ail 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 playa 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, the Chair as a member of the body has the fuil 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, and the Chair shouid not make or second a motion unless the Chair is convinced that no other member of the body wiil do so at that point in time. The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion Formal meetings normaily 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 body's agreed-upon road map for the meeting, And 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 foilowed In considering the agenda item, Second, foilowing 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, shouid open the pubilc 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 ofthe body who makes the motion, Sixth, the Chair should determined 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 nor.maily good practice for a motion to require a second before proceeding with it, 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 ChaiL) 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 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\Rosenberg pdf.mht 3/1/2012 Dave Rosenberg Page 3 of8 maker of the motion to repeat it. (2) The Chair can repeat the motion, (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, Ifthere 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, Simpiy 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 ruies) determines whether the motion passes or Is defeated, Tenth, the Chair should announce the result of the vote and should announce 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 10 days 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, , , , " So, a typical motion might be: "I move that we give 10-day's notice in the future for all our meetings," The Chair usually initiates the motion by either (1) Inviting the members of the body to make a motion, "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 10-day's 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 as-member committee to plan and put on our annual fund raiser." 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 which 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 that 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, Multiple Motions Before the Body mhtm1:file://C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\Rosenberg pdf.mht 3/1/2012 Dave Rosenberg Page 4 of 8 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. As a practical matter, more than three motions on the floor at one time tends to be too confusing and unwieldy for most everyone - so keep the maximum at three at three for the sake of clarity. When there are two or three motions on the floor (after motions and seconds) at the same time, the vote should proceed first on the last motion that is made, 50, for example, assume the first motion is a basic "motion to have a S-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 10- member committee, not a 5-member committee to plan and put on our annual fund raiser," 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, a vote would be taken first on the third motion. If the substitute motion oassed, 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 now 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 by 5 members or 10 members), If the motion to amend oassed the Chair would now move to consider the main motion (the first motion) as amended, If the motion to amend failed the Chair wouid now 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 (5-member committee), or, if amended, would be in its amended format (10-member committee), And the question on the floor for discussion and decision would be whether a committee should plan and put on the annuai fund raiser, 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 body wish 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 all 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): A motion to adiourn, This motion, If passed, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting, It requires a simple majority vote, A motion to recess. This motion, if passed I requires the body to immediately take a recess, Normally, the Chair determines the length of the recess which may be a few minutes or an hour. It requires a simple majority vote. A motion to fix the time to adiourn. This motion I 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, A 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. mhtm1:file://C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\Rosenberg pdf.mht 3/1/2012 Dave Rosenberg Page 5 of8 A motion to limit debate, The most common form of this motion is to say: "I move the previous question" or "1 move the question". or "I call the question" or simply "question." (As a practical matter, when a member calls for the "question" the chair can expedite things by simply asking the body if anyone wishes to continue discussing the underlying matter. If no one wishes to discuss it further, the chair can proceed to a vote on the underlying matter - without having to vote on the "question", On the other hand, if even one member of the body wishes further discussion and debate on the underlying matter, then the chair has to treat the call for the "question" as a motion and proceed accordingly,) When a member of the body makes such a motion for the "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 2/3 vote of the body, Note: that 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 2/3 vote ofthe 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 2/3 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 7-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 and item, These extraordinary motions require a 2/3 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 2/3 vote to pass, Motion to close nominations, When choosing officers of the body (like 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 offthe right of the minority to . nominate officers, and it requires a 2/3 vote to pass, Motion to obiect to the consideration of a auestion. 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 2/3 vote to pass, Motion to susDend the ruies, This motion is debatable, but requires a 2/3 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 exa mple, the body (a private club) 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 counting 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% of the body is required, So, for example, in a five-member body, if the vote is 3 In favor and 2 opposed, the motion passes. If it is 2 in favor and 3 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. So, for example, in a seven-member body, if 2 members vote "no" then the "yes" vote of at least 4 members is required to achieve a two-thirds majority vote to pass the motion, mhtm1:file://C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\Rosenberg pdf.mht 3/1/2012 Dave Rosenberg Page 6 of8 What about tie votes? In the event of a tie vote, the motion always falls since an affirmative vote Is required to pass any motion. So, for example, in a five member body, if the vote 2 in favor and 2 opposed, with 1 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 3 of the 5 members of the board must vote affirmatively In favor of the action, A vote of 2 to 1 would not be sufficient. A vote of 3 to 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 abstain 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 abstain 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? Let's look at a few examples, Let's assume that we have a five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a simple majority vote to pass, and let's 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 1 abstention, the motion falls, Let's assume we have a five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and let's further assume that the body has no specific rule on counting votes, Again, the default rule apples, 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 3 "yes", 1 "no" and 1 "abstain" also results In passage ofthe 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 majority vote, Now, let's change the scenario slightly, Let's assume the same five-members city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, but let's 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 vote were 3 "yes", 1 "no" and 1 "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. And, how, exactly, 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 neither "yes" nor "no" on the pending motion may be treated by the chair as an abstention, And if written ballots are cast, a blank or unreadable ballot Is counted as an abstention as well. mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\Rosenberg pdf.mht 3/1/2012 Dave Rosenberg Page 7 of 8 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 itseif; 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 50, 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 speclai 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 be certain members ofthe 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 finailty, 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 personai, is too loud, or Is too crude, Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open, In the Interest 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: Privileqe, 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 exampie, 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. AODea!. 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 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\Rosenberg pdfmht 3/1/2012 Dave Rosenberg Page 8 of8 debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the Chair is deemed reversed. Cali for orders of the dav, This is simply another way of saying, "Let's return to the agenda." If a member believes that the body has drifted from the agreed-upon agenda, such a cali may be 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 may be 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, About the Author Dave Rosenberg is a Superior Court Judge He has served as Presiding Judge of his Superior Court for two terms, as weli as Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Appellate Division, He has also served as Chairman of the Triai Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee (composed of all 58 California Superior Court Presiding Judges) and as an advisory member of the California Judicial Council. Judge Rosenberg was first appointed to the bench by the Governor of California In 2003, and has been subsequently elected to office, Prior to his appointment to the Bench, Rosenberg served as an elected County Supervisor representing the 4th district In Yolo County, and also served as Director of Community and Intergovernmental Relations, Director of Operations, and Senior Advisor to the Governor of California, He has served as a member and chair of numerous state, regional, and local boards, both appointed and elected, He has served as a member of the Davis City Council member for 12 years, inciuding two terms as Mayor of Davis, He served two terms as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, He also chaired the California State Lottery Commission, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, the Yolo County Economic Development Commission, and the Yolo County Criminal Justice Cabinet. He has served as Chairman of the California Law Revision Commission and as Chairman of the District Securities Advisory Commission, the Yolo-Solano Air Quaiity Management District, and as a member of the California Council on Criminal Justice Planning and the California Commission on State Mandates, For many years, he has taught ciasses on parliamentary procedure and has served as parliamentarian for large and small bodies. ##### The Judge Dave Rosenberg Committee' ID Number 1259379 , Vlc Bucher, CPA, Treasurer mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\Rosenberg pdfmht 3/1/2012 e south robertson neighborhoods council City of Los Angeles Cerlilled NeighbOrhood Council Rosenberg's Rules of Order at a Glance The Three Basic Motions Simple majority to pass / open to debate Basic Motion: "I move that we"," Motion to Amend: suggests changes to the basic motion, Motion to Substitute: replaces the basic motion entirely, Special Motions Simple majority to pass / no debate, goes directly to vote Motion to Adjourn: ends the meeting, Motion to Fix a Time to Adjourn: ends the meeting at a set time. Motion to Recess: break in the meeting. Chair sets length of the break. Motion to Table: defers the motion under discussion to a future date, Motions that Permanently Close Discussion 2/3 majority to pass / no debate, goes directly to vote Motion to Limit Debate: stops debate, "I move the question." Motion to Close Nominations: stops new nominations for a position, Motion to Object to the Consideration of a Question: rare, stronger form of tabling, Used before debate has begun, Motion to Suspend the Rules: temporarily changes meeting rules, Cannot be used to suspend non-parliamentary bylaws, Can be debated, Meeting Interruptions May be used at any time. Chair responds by asking you to state your point. Point of Privilege: points out uncomfortable surroundings, like a cold room or being unable to hear a speaker. Point of Order: points out failure to follow correct meeting procedures, Call for Orders of the Day: points out that the discussion has strayed from the agenda, Appeal: reverses a Chair's ruling when passed by simple majority, Requires a second and can be debated, Withdraw a Motion: used by the person making the motion, Others may immediately reintroduce the motion if they wish, Motion to Reconsider Simple majority to pass / open to debate May only be made by a member who previously voted in the majority for the item. Must be made during the same meeting (or at the very next meeting, assuming it's been added to the agenda). Attachment 2 Life of a Motion 1, Chair announces item subject and number 2, Sponsor introduces item 3, Board asks technical questions for clarification purposes 4, Public comment on the item 5, Chair asks for motion 6, Chair asks for second 7, Board debates motion 8, Board votes 9. Chair announces result Notes: . All motions require a second before they can be voted upon, You must be recognized by the Chair before speaking. . Chair may set limits on debate time or number of speakers, . Abstentions don't count in vote tally, A tie vote fails to pass, To recuse, publicly state reason for recusal and leave room during debate and vote, ATTACHMENT 3 Simplified Roberts Rules of Order . 'Main ideas: o Everyone has the right to speak once if they wish, before anyone may speak a second time, o Everyone has the right to know what is going on at all times, o Only urgent matters may interrupt a speaker. o The [members] discuss only one thing at a time. . How to do things: 1. You want to bring up a new idea before the group. After recognition by the [president], present your motion, A second is required for the motion to go to the floor for debate, or consideration. . 2. You want a motion just introduced by another person to be killed. Without recognition from the [president] simply state "I object to consideration," This must be done before any debate, This motion requires no second, is not debatable and requires a 2/3 vote, 3. You want to change some of the wording in a motion under debate, After recognition by the [president], move to amend by 1. adding words, 2. striking words or 3. striking and inserting words, 4. You like the idea of a motion under debate, but you need to reword it beyond simple word changes. Move to substitute your motion for the original motion, If it is seconded, debate will continue on both motions and eventually the body will vote on which motion they prefer. 5, You want more study and/or investigation given to the idea under debate. Move to refer to a committee. Try to be specific as to the charge to the committee. 6, You want more time personally to study the proposal under debate, Move to postpone to a definite time or date. 7, You are tired of the current debate. Move to limit debate to a set period of time or to a set number of speakers, Requires a 2/3 vote. 8, You have heard enough debate. Move to close the debate. Requires a 2/3 vote, Or move to previous question, This cuts off debate and brings the assembly to a vote on the pending question only. Requires a 2/3 vote. 9. You want to postpone a motion until some later time. Move to table the motion, The motion may be taken from the table after I item of business has been conducted. If the motion is not taken from the table by the end of the next meeting, it is dead, To kill a motion at the time it is tabled requires a 2/3 vote, A majority is required to table a motion without killing it. 10. You want to take a short break. Move to recess for a set period of time. 11. You want to end the meeting. Move to adjourn. 12. You are unsure that the [president]has announced the results of a vote correctly. Without being recognized, call for a "division of the house." At this point a standing vote will be taken. )3, You are confused about a procedure being used and want clarification, Without recognition, call for "Point of Information" or "Point of Parliamentary Inquiry," The [president] will ask you to state your question and will attempt to clarify the situation. Simplified Robert's Rules of Order page 20f2 14. You have changed your mind about something that was voted on earlier in the meeting for which you were on the winning side. . Move to reconsider, If the majority agrees, the motion comes back on the floor as though the vote had not occurred. 15. You want to change an action voted on at an earlier meeting. Move to rescind. If previous written notice is given, a simple majority is required. If no notice is given, as 2/3 vote is required. . You may INTERRUPT a speaker for these reasons only: o to get information about business - point of information o to get information about rules - parliamentary inquiry o if you can't hear, safety reasons, comfort, etc. - question of privilege o if you see a breach of the rules - point of order o if you disagree with the [president]'s ruling - appeal . You may influence WHAT the [members] discuss: o if you would like to discuss something - motion o if you would like to change a motion under discussion - amend . You may influence HOW and WHEN the [members] discuss a motion: o if you want to limit debate on something - limit debate o if you want a committee to evaluate the topic and report back - commit o if you want to discuss the topic at another time - postpone or lay it on the table o if you think people are ready to vote - previous question y.-"~"~.,.,,-,,~,,",,,,.,.--,,,....,,,,...,,,;,~,,,,.,.",_..,"'''''''''''''-~''='_'-~;''''';'-'T..,__.,=>" ~".-.-~".'I,,,,"",,,,;,,,,,,'''''.,,,,,,,,,,-,~,,,,,,,;-.".,,,, .. 'Parliamentary Procedure Motions Chart A~jo_u!.~oo..o._ .........J~[JDrr0JD Recess j[1D[AJrr0JD tIa,~~~::~.: .....m "",_.... .....,-............-.. 0 "",hh"... " 00 J~DD[gJD Close Debate ]~DDfY3J[] >.~.".'<<.>'m"......_o<_,."....~ ....-.... ._~__"m lr,.iIllit.J)eba,t~.o. H....~ ....I~D~l[:213J[] 1~()~!p()Il~I() !:a,!;i!i~e... """.I ~ [i?J[AJI1\1...lliD Refer To Committee ... .."""J~[i?J[AJrM..I[] "._'._'m'_""^'n_""'.~'''~m''n..__",..""..,,. Amend Amendment ....... J~lI5JrJ[i\1][] ...._m__ ............... ~.m_... .~()stpon~IIl~~!initely ...."I~[I)J[AJrr0J[] Main Motion j~~J[AJ[1\1]~l .,,_._..~.'..~w 0 0 ..-...-...- . . S ~ Must Be Seconded D ~ Debatabte A ~ Amendable M ~ Requires A Simple Majority Vote 2/3 ~ Requires A 2/3 Vote R ~ May Be Reconsidered Or Rescinded Adapted from Case Western Reserve Graduate Student Senate; changes in [ ] http://www,cwru,edulorgs/gradsenate/rutes/handbookhtmt