Here’s The Scoop…6/9/09 LBTS Commission Meeting …#2…Decorum…Decorum!….
June 10, 2009 by Barbara
DECORUM…DECORUM…Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man!
[VICE MAYOR]
DECORUM,DECORUM,DECORUM!
DECORUM,DECORUM,DECORUM!
[VICE MAYOR]
WHO, DAY AND NIGHT, MUST SCRAMBLE FOR AN INTERRUPTION,
FEED INTO HIS SELF AGGRANDIZING AND, CALL IT A LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION?
AND WHO THINKS HE HAS THE RIGHT, AS MASTER OF US ALL,
TO HAVE THE FINAL WORD IN THE HALL?
THE VICE MAYOR,THE VICE MAYOR! DECORUM.
THE VICE MAYOR,THE VICE MAYOR! DECORUM.
[MAYOR ]
WHO MUST KNOW THE WAY TO MAKE A PROPER MOTION,
TO STOP ALL THE SELF PROMOTION,
ENSURE A QUIET HALL, A RESPECTFUL HALL?
WHO MUST WATCH OVER THE TOWN’S GOVERNING BODY AND RUN THE HALL,
SO THE VICE MAYOR STOPS RUINING IT ALL?
THE MAYOR,THE MAYOR! DECORUM.
THE MAYOR,THE MAYOR! DECORUM.
[VOTERS]
IN 2006, WE VOTED IN THE BROOM BOYS. A CHANGE, WE WANTED A CHANGE
WE HEARD THEY WERE FOR THE LITTLE GUY. IT WAS ALL THE RAGE!
THE VOTERS,THE VOTERS! DECORUM.
THE VOTERS,THE VOTERS! DECORUM.
[THE GANG OF THREE]
AND WHO DID THE VICE MAYOR TEACH TO BEND AND DEFEND AND FOLLOW,
PREPARING THEM TO REPEAT WHATEVER THEY’RE “DIRECTED”, NO MATTER IF IT RINGS HOLLOW?
THE GANG OF THREE, THE GANG OF THREE ! DECORUM.
THE GANG OF THREE, THE GANG OF THREE ! DECORUM.
BC-Although we had a special meeting on decorum courtesy of Comm. Clottey call for it….(1/26/09)…http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/spc-meetings-09.htm …the Vice Mayor thought it was necessary to bring it up again to suit his “needs”…after he was provided with part of the Roberts Rules of Order that would allow him to continue to interrupt the Mayor on the dais because it would be “privileged” and “legitimate'” …The info surely was supplied by either his spouse or his friend “Peanuts”…..
Presentation 4A…Town Attorney to read the Town Charter on Decorum (Vice Mayor McIntee)…
The Town Atty read Ordinance 2-23..(link below)….Comm. Dodd asked for a motion to make sure the Commission understood the Ordinance after he clarified that it was not in the Charter…Seeing no second and seeing stone cold silence on the dais..he added “if you don’t understand them [the sections of the Ord.] there’s no point of us operating under them.”…Comm. Silverstone as is his habit of late was snide in his response to Comm. Dodd saying it was not a “proper” motion…garbled something afterward and laughed…Dodd answered “OK”…
VM McIntee -” Town Attorney there has been some questions in the past about interrupting the Chair. Under what situation may a sitting dais member Commissioner interrupt the Chair?
Town Atty.- Under the rules that govern the meeting ,ah, that we’ve spoken previously about. A motion to indefinitely does take precedence. Also taking precedence is a motion to request information, or point of information. Other interruption types of motions include comments on the rules of conduct or if there’s a desire to vote on a ruling by the Chair of the meeting or when I say regarding rules that would also cover if something’s properly being handled.”
VM- “My question to the Town Attorney is a rise to a question , a privilege a legitimate interruption of the Chair?
TA- “A question of privilege?”
VM- ” I rise to a question of privilege is the proper terminology.”
TA- ” I’m not aware of that terminology.”
VM- ” Well I provided you with a Roberts Rules of Order that clearly states it.”…
BC- It was not included in the backup…Were the Commissioners in receipt of what the VM gave to the TA?
TA- ” Oh I see, ok, yes it appears to be so.”
BC- The TA seems uncertain in her response…
VM- ” And I rise to a point of order , is that not a legitimate interruption of the Chair? I appeal the Chair’s decision , is that not a reasonable interruption? ( TA- “yes”)…I object to a consideration of this motion. (TA-“yes”)….I call for a division , I’m not quite sure what that means quite frankly.”…
TA- ” I believe that’s how the voting procedure occurs, appears that is an interruptible “…
VM- ” And point of information? (TA-yes”)…and in conclusion I move to reconsider the vote.”…
TA- ” Yes, reconsideration is a proper interruption.”…
VM- ” And all the ah, motions just mentioned , they are proper forum, and the Chair is obligated to recognize, hear the make a decision on them. Is that correct?”..
TA- ” It appears under STRICT Roberts Rules that would be the case, yes.”…
VM- ” That’s all”…
BC- That’s not really “all” for the VM and his new way of silencing the hall…he later said clapping from the audience would be next for his “STRICT” adherence to “STRICT” Roberts Rules”…MITTENS ANYONE?…
Mayor Minnet- “As far as the words of the decorum that you read, it does say any person. Does that also mean that the Chair, if they’re members of the dais, do get out of hand or I do not want to recognize as Chair of that, does this , would these rules of decorum, do pertain to members of the commission as well as residents in the audience?”…
TA- ” Yes, I believe that they apply. What I just read would apply to both.”
Comm. Dodd- ” So, I just want clarification that you are confirming that f a member of the dais willfully interrupts the Mayor then that constitutes an infringement of section B?”…
VM- INTERRUPTING…” Not according”…
TA- ” Subject to what we just discussed, which is that the orders of Roberts Rules of Order specifically contemplates certain kinds of interruptions.”…
VM- NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR, INTERRUPTING……” Let me clarify that if any of these motions are made by a sitting dais member the Mayor is obligated to respond to them if they’re put in that context. To just interrupt the Mayor is wrong (he just did) but, to say I have a point of order or a point of privilege, she’s obligated to stop and then respond to MY point of privilege. Is that fair?”…
TA- ” Yes, that is what we said.”
VM- “OK”…
Public Comments followed and this writer was first up with the following questions on decorum…
BC- ” I do have a few questions about decorum. When somebody is taken out for a meeting, if we are faced with more two day meetings, does that mean that person will not be allowed back into the same meeting even though it is a different day?”…No response was offered this evening…
” Also, under the decorum, under Roberts Rules, I’m wondering if there is a limit to how many times a dais member can use that list that you talked about before becoming itself a problem of decorum?”…No response was forthcoming this evening…
Stay tuned…the Mc-rise and fall of “privilege” in Jarvis Hall…it will be deafening…
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=14431&sid=9
