PB: Roberts Rules Guest Post by Vice Mayor John Dubois
by SDM
Below is a verbatim message posted as a comment to yesterday’s post PB: March 4 Council Meeting Quick Bites. SDM replies after Mr. Dubois’s comment.
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
SDM Reply
First, thanks for commenting Mr. Vice Mayor, especially since SDM wasn’t very nice to you in the main post.
Second, SDM is not sure exactly where the matter stands either.
Clearly, the village attorney is under a moral obligation at the very least (she may very well be under an ethical duty, too) to find a way to correct her error. If she fails to do so, can we as residents be sure the Coral Reef Park Master Plan was adopted legally and is therefore binding on the council?
And what about her other opinions? For example, SDM has not watched the meeting’s discussion on whether the village is required to release the transcripts of the shade sessions related to the Palmer litigation. However, according to the Miami Herald story on the meeting, Boutsis said “that while the appellate court has ruled on one case, the records cannot be released because they are intertwined with another Palmer Trinity case that is still open.”
SDM found a copy of the Florida Attorney General’s opinion letter to Ms. Boutsis where she asked questions related to this issue. The letter is somewhat dense, but the initial paragraphs make clear that Ms. Boutsis did not ask whether the statutory requirement of releasing transcripts at the conclusion of the litigation extended to other cases involving the same litigants.
SDM Says: Ms. Boutsis appears to be trying to break new legal ground by arguing that the village may withhold the shade session transcripts from the public because the phrase “ conclusion of the litigation” (a term that is defined in section 286.011, Florida Statutes) applies to multiple lawsuits, rather than to each lawsuit individually.
SDM Recommends In addition to asking Ms. Boutsis to explain her opinion on the Robert’s Rules of Order issue, you may want to ask her to explain in writing her statement regarding the shade session transcripts, which SDM sees as resting on a very shaky legal foundation.
SDM, Here is my response to your comments regarding being unprepared for meetings.
There are two issues here. One is the specifics of amending the motion (on the Coral Reef Park Master Plan) to grant the Churches and Private Schools the same rights granted to the City for it’s park. It was clear to me and I’m sure everyone else on the dais that Councilman Fiore’s motion and my ‘friendly amendment’ to clarify the same was an important statement of sentiment despite the fact that a lawyer or judge would find it technically ridiculous and rhetoric that has no value as a case precedent.
The second issue is being prepared. I think your characterization of my lack of preparedness was very accurate if you applied it to the prior regular council meeting in which I made my case for terminating the City Attorney’s contract and rebidding it. You were actually far too nice to me in your blog after that meeting. I was embarassed because I was unprepared and it appeared to many viewers that I was unprepared. I don’t believe that was the case last Monday.
Appearing unprepared is sometimes a byproduct of strict adhearance to the Sunshine laws. I do not, I have not, nor will I ever discuss issues coming before the Council with any other Council member directly or indirectly. I had no way of knowing that Councilman Fiore was going to modify the Coral Reef Master Plan motion to incorporate statements regarding Private Schools and Churches. It was done initially in a way that was unclear. I amended it so that the sentiment and message on record was made more clear.
Because I will always adhere to the most strict interpretation of Sunshine, these incidents (the “appearance” of being unprepared by me) may happen again. We should all be concerned when messages seem well rehearsed and well timed between council members or council members and members of the public speaking.
Until you are elected and subjected to Sunshine, it is hard to imagine going into a meeting of peers without knowing what their thoughts are on a topic or not knowing them well enought to know how they think and consequently be able to play out the game theory with all the likely outcomes.
Before I was elected I made a point of stating that the Council members should be better prepared and run a more smooth meeting by preparing with the City Manager in advance so Council members are on the same page and the meetings can be concluded in 1 hour. Howard Cohen from the Herald made a point to say the meetings are longer since the elections, not shorter. Unfortunately, he seems to be correct. Between the philosophical differences that appear to exist on the dais and the restrictions imposed by Sunshine laws, we may be in for another 3-4 months of long meetings before things work themselves back to the appearance of normal.
P.S., I like your blog because you give the most accurate account of facts and you have a better understanding of Palmetto Bay issues than other media outlets. I plan to continue to interact with your online community. And thank you for your having this blog which I consider a community service.
- John DuBois
I agree that this blog is a community service and SDM is fair and objective in his commentary. Thanks, SDM, and thanks to the Vice-Mayor for trying his utmost to be a vehicle for positive change in Palmetto Bay.