PB: March 4 Council Meeting Quick Bites
by SDM
Robert’s Rules of Order Controversy
During last night’s dysfunctional meeting, Village Attorney Eve Boutsis claimed that Councilman Fiore improperly voted against his own motion. Because of this parliamentary ruling, the site plan vote that had lost, was reconsidered and eventually passed.
SDM, as our readers know, is something of a skeptic so we investigated Robert’s Rules and found the following reference related to voting on one’s own motion: “The maker of a motion, though he can vote against it, cannot speak against his own motion.” (Article VII, Section 42, Debate.)
5:00 PM Update: SDM confirmed a couple things since posting this information earlier today. First, Village Attorney did in fact mistakenly opine that Robert’s Rules of Order prohibits a member from voting against his or her own motion. Second, Robert’s Rules does in fact permit the maker of a motion to vote against his or her motion. Third, based on SDM’s reading of the village council’s procedures ordinance together with Robert’s Rules, the vote cannot be reconsidered at the next council meeting. Fourth, in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, somebody’s got some splainin’ to do.
SDM Wonders: If the village attorney – in her role as parliamentarian – gives a legally binding opinion on the rules that turns out to be wrong, what is the remedy?
SDM Says: Perhaps Palmetto Bay operates under a different version of Robert’s Rules than the one SDM Googled. If so, the village attorney should cite the authority upon which she relied or repair the damage done.
Dysfunction on Display
One of SDM’s regular readers likes to post every few months the following: “Fiore for Mayor!” Well, after last night’s display, SDM cannot see how Mr. Fiore could stand for the post. He is just not coherent enough to lead this village.
Specifically, Fiore offered an amendment to the Palmetto Bay parks master plan amendment to the effect that the skate park should be retained in the plan and that the proposed soccer fields should be moved to Coral Reef Park. The problem was that the Coral Reef plan had already been decided in a previous vote.
When he was advised of the conundrum, Fiore appeared truly flummoxed and lost. SDM watched this event live and couldn’t help but squirm watching the meltdown.
Generally, SDM likes the way Fiore votes and the way that he stands up against Mayor Shelley’s perpetual nonsense. But last night, Fiore proved he can’t play ball at even Palmetto Bay’s single A level.
Learning Curve Continues
Vice Mayor John Dubois is bold, but not prepared and perhaps he learned last night that he must be both to succeed.
SDM believes it was during the Palmetto Bay Park item that Dubois’s had his moment of incomprehensibility. He attempted to amend the motion to state (SDM is paraphrasing from memory here) that whatever the council was permitting the village to do at the park, village private schools and churches are allowed to do the same.
SDM understands the sentiment, but the format was completely wrong. The council was adopting a site plan and a zoning change for each of these specific properties. Attaching the private schools and churches provision did nothing substantively or legally, as village staff advised.
Councilwoman Lindsay kindly explained the Vice Mayor’s error (she deserves kudos for doing so because her frustration with the inanity of the moment was shared by SDM), but Mr. Dubois just kept on keeping on.
Running a local government serious business and demands the kind of preparation one would make to run one’s business or do one’s day job. Mr. Dubois and Mr. Fiore clearly had not prepared themselves for the meeting and came off looking ridiculous. It’s not enough to vote right, gentlemen.
SDM Says: How very, very disappointing.
Comical Council
SDM’s general observation of last night’s meeting is that the council is tying itself up in knots over minutiae. Prior councils have created a Rubik’s Cube process for managing areas where the public gathers and our elected officials can’t seem to work their way through the thicket they created.
Perhaps this council needs time to gel into a working body, but boy is it tough to watch them stumble through meetings leaderless.
SDM was reminded on the nineteenth century German statesman Otto Von Bismarck who is credited with first observing that “laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”
SDM Says: No matter how painful it is to watch, we must supervise the ingredients stuffed into the casings of our laws so that the resulting sausages do not make us sick.
Someone really needs to read Robert’s Rules of Order. Councilman Fiore can vote against the masterplan, even if hemoved it forward.
Check out the Robert’s Rules forums:
Query:
I attended a commissioner’s reorganizational meeting in my local community. One commissioner made a motion. The motion, after some time, was reluctantly seconded. The commissioner seconding the motion then voted “No” on the motion during the roll call. Is this behavior allowable? I searched Robert’s Rule Online and did not find a reference that fit the scenario. Are there other generally accepted rules that may apply?
Best Answer – Chosen by Voters
James — There is a question very similar to yours on the Official Robert’s Rules of Order [Newly Revised] website (forum) — the link is below. There may be other questions there as well.
The answer to your question is “yes” — one can vote “No” on a motion one made or seconded. Just a few, of many, different scenarios for this:
1. I may make a motion, and after it has been seconded (by someone else), there (usually) is discussion. During that discussion another person may say something that informs me that my motion isn’t (quite simply) a “good idea”.
So when it comes time to vote, I would vote no.
2. In order for a motion to be discussed (under Robert’s Rules of Order), the motion needs a “second”. In order to allow discussion to proceed, I would/could second the motion.
I may be in favor of the motion, neutral on the motion, or opposed to the motion at the time I made the “second”. My vote on the motion, therefore, could be “in favor” (yes), “opposed” (no), or I could abstain.
Again, suppose I was in favor of the motion when I seconded it… during the discussion, I may learn new information, and decide the motion is not a “good idea” … and I would vote “no”.
3. There is a process under Robert’s Rules of Order known as “Reconsideration” that is used is some legislative bodies. That is where a vote that has previously been made can be “reconsidered” — essentially it is voted on again as if the first vote “never took place”.
While there are specific procedural steps that must be taken in order for Reconsideration to even *begin* — one of them is that the person making the motion for Reconsideration must have voted on the prevailing side of the original vote.
Said differently, if I want to move Reconsideration of something that was previously voted, I must have voted with the “winning side”. (If the “losing” side could do this, nothing would *ever* be over
The way that this plays out with regard to your question is: I may have made (or seconded) a motion “to do X”. During the ensuing discussion, I realize that the motion is likely to be defeated … BUT, I want to “be sure” I have an opportunity to have this motion reconsidered if I get new information or data.
In order to that, I have to vote “no” (assuming my guess is right that the motion is defeated) — so that I will be “in order” to bring a “Motion to Reconsider”. Even though I am still “in favor” of the motion I made, if I vote “yes” to my own motion, and the motion is defeated, my vote is NOT on the “winning side” … so I would intentionally vote “no” to my own motion (that I am in favor of).
There are numerous other examples that could be given … some of them involving nothing more than parliamentary maneuvering
Two things: 1) Someone needs to tell Tim that Eve was wrong so that it can be brought up at the next meeting and a proper vote can be taken and 2) the village attorney should be fired…..I seem to recall an effort to do so but somehow, that effort got de-railed.
[SDM Note: While SDM's agrees with the sentiment of your recommendation, consider the following Roberts Rules provisions that would prevent #1:
[Reconsideration] can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day. [and] No question can be twice reconsidered unless it was materially amended after its first reconsideration. (Art. VI, Sec. 36.)
With regard to #2, SDM would like to hear from the village attorney. It is possible that the version of the Rules cited here is not the version that governs Palmetto Bay. SDM is prepared to change our opinion if Ms. Boutsis can show us we’re wrong.]
Interesting how the precedent for voting changes in this Village will someone please look into the past namely Palmer and Thalatta where the current Mayor voted against her own motion
Thought I’d share the wise words of David Singer:
It’s a good thing that Easter is right around the corner because Mayor Shelly Stanczyk, Councilman Tim Schaffer and Councilwoman Joan Lindsey are doing an excellent job hiding those Easter eggs. Back to this later.
Monday night’s Council meeting, from its start at 7pm to its conclusion at 12:15am, should be considered the Mayor Shelly Stanczyk show. If you’re buying crap she was selling, I have some land in the Everglades at a special price for only you. I’ve never seen anyone avoid and disseminate as much misinformation as the Mayor did last night. From her agenda of converting the much loved Palmetto Bay Skate Park into soccer fields to her success in perverting the NPO ordinance, that she and Councilwoman Joan Lindsey fought so hard to pass in November of 2012, so that it doesn’t apply to the Village Parks but only the Schools and Churches that she so inexplicably despises.
The Mayor would like you to believe that the Palmetto Bay Skate Park, which is now closed due to Village mismanagement, is a blight on the Village. According to her, juvenile delinquents, hooligans, criminals who don’t actually reside in the Village hang out there causing damage to the surrounding business, are an insurance risk and, horror of horrors, lean again the fence that separates the skate park from the roadway. Funny thing is that no one, not even the Village Park Manager, had any information to support her position. If it was really a litigation nightmare don’t you think she would have referenced a lawsuit in her 15 minute soliloquy? The parks been open since 2006 and not one lawsuit being filed against the Village was mentioned.
As far as the NPO is concerned, the former Council, spearheaded by Councilwomen Joan Lindsey and supported by Mayor Shelly Stanczyk, passed a restriction on the height of light poles in the Village. This restriction relates to single family homes, Churches and Schools, but apparently not Coral Reef Park. I agree the tennis lighting at the park is in need of repair or replacement, but at a cost of 250,000 dollars? What’s even more absurd is, as was mentioned last night, that no one from the Village (and we have a lot of Park Staff on the payroll) has even attempted to change any light bulbs. This reminds me of when I was a kid and my friend’s mom called the TV repair man just to find out the television wasn’t plugged in. The fact is that if two new tennis courts were built at both Coral Reef Park and at a School or Church in Palmetto Bay, the park would be able to have taller light poles. I would assume by the actions of the Council that what is good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander. Or can we just say that the Churches and Schools got “goosed.”
In regards to my opening comment regarding Easter eggs, even though there continues to be no legal reason to keep the Shade Session of concluded litigation private per the Village Attorney (stated numerous times at the Council meeting,) Mayor Stanczyk, Councilman Schaffer and Councilwoman Lindsey voted to hide them from their constituents. I’ll give Councilman Schaffer a pass for voting against an open and honest government since I’ve come to the conclusion he still doesn’t get it. In fact, I’m starting to believe he doesn’t get much of what’s going on while he’s on the dais. He’s an honest soul, but he’s apparently lost.
As far as Mayor Stanczyk and Councilwoman Lindsey are concerned, they are simply covering their behinds. They have said repeatedly that they will attempt to hide these matters for as long as possible. Rumor has it that they didn’t even listen to their own outside attorney’s advice in ending the litigation against Palmer Trinity’s zoning approval. It is said that the former Council were told they had a 20% chance of winning but still voted to continue with costly appeals. And who was the attorney that advised them of this? Raoul Cantero, a former Supreme Court Justice who now works for the distinguished firm of White and Case who billed the Village over $650.00 an hour for his informed expert opinion. I love it when Politicians gamble with my hard earn tax dollars – it sure gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling – especially when someone with the experience of a pit boss advises them that the house odds are so stacked against them and that they can’t win unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat. If you were Mayor Stanczyk or Councilwoman Lindsey who ignored that advice, would you want that ugly little Easter egg found? Probably not. So the shade sessions will probably remain in the dark until somebody besides John Dubois and Patrick Fiore get some backbone.
I walked away from the meeting last night very tired and with a major headache wondering why can’t these people just stop all the madness and concentrate on things that municipalities are supposed to do – simple stuff – like fixing potholes. We did not incorporate to get into litigation with friendly private Village institutions and then have our anti-transparency Council hide all the facts when it turns out to be a major screw up. Maybe this Easter we can wish for something new, maybe a basket full of coherence, sensibility and good governance. Or next election maybe some good eggs.
It’s a good thing that Easter is right around the corner because Mayor Shelly Stanczyk, Councilman Tim Schaffer and Councilwoman Joan Lindsey are doing an excellent job hiding those Easter eggs. Back to this later.
Monday night’s Council meeting, from its start at 7pm to its conclusion at 12:15am, should be considered the Mayor Shelly Stanczyk show. If you’re buying crap she was selling, I have some land in the Everglades at a special price for only you. I’ve never seen anyone avoid and disseminate as much misinformation as the Mayor did last night. From her agenda of converting the much loved Palmetto Bay Skate Park into soccer fields to her success in perverting the NPO ordinance, that she and Councilwoman Joan Lindsey fought so hard to pass in November of 2012, so that it doesn’t apply to the Village Parks but only the Schools and Churches that she so inexplicably despises.
The Mayor would like you to believe that the Palmetto Bay Skate Park, which is now closed due to Village mismanagement, is a blight on the Village. According to her, juvenile delinquents, hooligans, criminals who don’t actually reside in the Village hang out there causing damage to the surrounding business, are an insurance risk and, horror of horrors, lean again the fence that separates the skate park from the roadway. Funny thing is that no one, not even the Village Park Manager, had any information to support her position. If it was really a litigation nightmare don’t you think she would have referenced a lawsuit in her 15 minute soliloquy? The parks been open since 2006 and not one lawsuit being filed against the Village was mentioned.
As far as the NPO is concerned, the former Council, spearheaded by Councilwomen Joan Lindsey and supported by Mayor Shelly Stanczyk, passed a restriction on the height of light poles in the Village. This restriction relates to single family homes, Churches and Schools, but apparently not Coral Reef Park. I agree the tennis lighting at the park is in need of repair or replacement, but at a cost of 250,000 dollars? What’s even more absurd is, as was mentioned last night, that no one from the Village (and we have a lot of Park Staff on the payroll) has even attempted to change any light bulbs. This reminds me of when I was a kid and my friend’s mom called the TV repair man just to find out the television wasn’t plugged in. The fact is that if two new tennis courts were built at both Coral Reef Park and at a School or Church in Palmetto Bay, the park would be able to have taller light poles. I would assume by the actions of the Council that what is good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander. Or can we just say that the Churches and Schools got “goosed.”
In regards to my opening comment regarding Easter eggs, even though there continues to be no legal reason to keep the Shade Session of concluded litigation private per the Village Attorney (stated numerous times at the Council meeting,) Mayor Stanczyk, Councilman Schaffer and Councilwoman Lindsey voted to hide them from their constituents. I’ll give Councilman Schaffer a pass for voting against an open and honest government since I’ve come to the conclusion he still doesn’t get it. In fact, I’m starting to believe he doesn’t get much of what’s going on while he’s on the dais. He’s an honest soul, but he’s apparently lost.
As far as Mayor Stanczyk and Councilwoman Lindsey are concerned, they are simply covering their behinds. They have said repeatedly that they will attempt to hide these matters for as long as possible. Rumor has it that they didn’t even listen to their own outside attorney’s advice in ending the litigation against Palmer Trinity’s zoning approval. It is said that the former Council were told they had a 20% chance of winning but still voted to continue with costly appeals. And who was the attorney that advised them of this? Raoul Cantero, a former Supreme Court Justice who now works for the distinguished firm of White and Case who billed the Village over $650.00 an hour for his informed expert opinion. I love it when Politian’s gamble with my hard earn tax dollars – it sure gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling – especially when someone with the experience of a pit boss advises them that the house odds are so stacked against them and that they can’t win unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat. If you were Mayor Stanczyk or Councilwoman Lindsey who ignored that advice, would you want that ugly little Easter egg found? Probably not. So the shade sessions will probably remain in the dark until somebody besides John Dubois and Patrick Fiore get some backbone.
I walked away from the meeting last night very tired and with a major headache wondering why can’t these people just stop all the madness and concentrate on things that municipalities are supposed to do – simple stuff – like fixing potholes. We did not incorporate to get into litigation with friendly private Village institutions and then have our anti-transparency Council hide all the facts when it turns out to be a major screw up. Maybe this Easter we can wish for something new, maybe a basket full of coherence, sensibility and good governance. Or next election maybe some good eggs.
If that is true, then I want a “do over” on the incorporation vote! What is status of the recall campaign? Is that going anywhere? Nothing but radio silence on that as far as I can tell.
The Palmetto Bay Council should be required to post the following warning sign above the entryway to the council chambers:
“Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”
The meeting last night surely would make any reasonable person feel a part of Dante’s Divine Comedy.
Those who have a love for literature may see the connection:
“Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.”
SDM, You seem to spend a great deal of time reviewing and researching issues brought up at our council meetings and I applaud you for all the work you do. Below was my next day reaction to the RR controversy. It was not researched, rather, it was what I believed to be a common sense interpretation of the outcome of the sequence of events relating to the vote on the Coral Reef Park Master Plan. I am not an attorney, so, it may very well be incorrect but I would be interested in hearing your opinion as well as opinions from your readers that consider themselves subject matter experts.
————————————–
We need to be careful not to follow one mistake with another.
To recap last night’s sequence of events;
Roberts Rules are procedural, Council Votes are legally binding.
The vote was cast 3-2 on item 11a – the master plan mod for CR Park.
Since a super majority of 4 out of 5 were required to pass this, it failed.
Whether the council person [Fiore] who made the motion spoke against the item in violation of Robert’s rules is irrelevant.
If that did happen, the chair could have stopped it as it was procedurally incorrect, however, she did not and the vote was legally binding and the master plan approval failed.
Therefore, subsequent actions based on Councilman Fiore’s incorrectly modified Nay vote by the City Attorney are legally null and void.
I Don’t think there is anything to discuss except the staff should figure out how to notify the residents of PB that the master plan vote for CR Park failed last night.
Thank You
John DuBois
—————————————–
If you can’t rely on the Village Attorney to give proper procedural instructions during a monthly coouncil meeting who can you count on?
SouthDadeMatters.com (I love that blog) broke the story on Monday March 5th, that Village Attorney Eve Boutsis made a major mistake and incorrectly informed the council on a procedural process dictated under Roberts Rules which permitted a very unnecessary and expensive Resolution to pass when it was originally stopped dead in its tracks.
This resolution created a master plan that permits new batting cages, the replacement of tennis lights and new benched seating areas at Coral Reef Park. These are all necessary improvements but this resolution takes away the approval process of electing to spend in excess of $275,000 away from the Council and gives it to our fiscally challenged Village Manager, Ron Williams.
The Resolution needed a super majority vote of 4-1 to pass. It passed 3-2 because the Village Attorney incorrectly directed one of the commissioners, Patrick Fiore, who voted against the resolution, that he was required to vote for it under Robert’ Rules of Order since he had seconded the motion. Who could have known whether this was correct or not at the time? Eve Boutsis should have known, its her job.
I would assume anyone with a law degree should know in a Country where democracy is King you should be able to vote either for or against an item. No one on the Council questioned her analysis of Roberts Rules. Fortunately, she has since admitted her error.
As far as I know the Mayor Shelly Stanczyk would like to error to stand since it was her Resolution which passed. Not very honorable and extremely deceitful if true.
What else was disturbing was the fact that the Village Attorney stated numerous times that there is no Master Site Plan for Coral Reef Park. This is complete misinformation and inexcusable on her part. There is a standing Master Site Plan that was created by Miami-Dade County detailing six tennis courts with lighting which was recorded prior to the creation of the park in 1974. I was a small child attending Coral Reef Elementary while my parents were involved in the planning of the park.
In my humble opinion the batting cages do need to be moved, benches are necessary and the lighting requires either repair or replacement. Experts I’ve spoken with all say that all this work could be accomplished for under $100,000 not over $275,000 as planned.
All of this reminds me of the $1.1 million snack bar at Coral Reef – it was too much money, it’s in the wrong place and it’s almost impossible for a vendor to operate because of its absurd interior layout. It’s not even a snack bar – it’s an out-of-the-way useless sculpture- the council could have bought over four hundred commercial-grade hot dog stands for that price (don’t get any ideas Mr. Williams, you would only have needed two.)
It’s time for the Council and the Village Attorney to stand up, admit their mistakes and revote on the Coral Reef Master Plan with the correct information at hand. I’ll tell the Council the same thing I tell my kids – it’s imperative to do what’s right instead of what’s easy in order to be a better person, or in this case a better Council and a better Village Attorney.