|
Printer Friendly
Municipal Research News - Managing Council Meeting
Managing Council Meetings
We are including in this issue of Municipal Research News a couple articles from our website,
mrsc.org, relating to the management of local government meetings. The first is written by Ann Macfarlane, Registered Parliamentarian; and the second by Steve DiJulio, Attorney at Foster Pepper, PLLC.
How Much Should a Mayor Talk at Meetings?
By Ann G. Macfarlane, Registered Parliamentarian
One of the challenges facing newly-elected mayors is knowing how much they should speak at meetings. Many mayors are hard-charging individuals accustomed to influencing the course of events and are not shy about speaking their minds. It can be a challenge to adapt to the different requirements of running council meetings.
In a democratic system, the person running the meetings of a body of peers is not the boss. She is in charge of certain aspects of the meeting, such as making sure the meeting is fair, and that everyone has an equal chance to speak. With regard to substance, though, she is the servant of the group. Her role is to help the group make up its mind - to assist the group - rather than to tell the group what to do.
Robert's Rules of Order, the standard procedural guide for most meetings in this country, recognizes the temptation that a gavel presents to the presider. (The members also may be tempted to give undue weight or influence to the presider.) Robert's specifies that ordinarily the person running the meeting does not take part in debate at all. The presider has the right to debate and vote, but refrains from exercising that right in order to remain impartial.
A city council is a little different, because of its size. In a city council, the rules for "small boards" apply. (Generally a small board includes a dozen or fewer people.) Robert's states that in a small board, the presider may participate in debate.
My experience, however, is that a mayor who is willing and able to hold back will serve her council better than one who waxes on and gives her opinion freely. It is not easy to distill the best course of action for a city council from among the many differing options, facts, and opinions that must be considered. When a mayor speaks out at length, she becomes a factor in the debate. When she refrains and earnestly, genuinely seeks to learn the opinions of others, she is more of a facilitator. Best practice says that even in smaller boards, a presider who chooses this role will help the organization more than one who sees herself as a full-contact participant.
I recommend, therefore, that mayors speak and debate last, after everyone else has had a chance. Besides making the mayor more impartial, this also allows her to sum up the debate, which can be critical in helping everyone see the big picture.
It is also essential that a city council follow the most neglected rule in all of Robert's, the rule that no one may speak twice until everyone has had a chance to speak once. This includes the honorable mayor! By giving everyone a chance in turn, all voices are heard. The extroverts and old-timers are not allowed to dominate the situation, and a better decision can be made for the good of the city.
Ann G. Macfarlane is a Registered Parliamentarian. She created Jurassic Parliament to make parliamentary procedure easy to learn and memorable. She provides training on leadership, meeting management, parliamentary procedure and organizational development across the United States.
Balancing the Council's Right to Manage Meetings with Expectations of Citizens
By Steve DiJulio, Attorney, Foster Pepper, PLLC
The tragedy at the city council meeting in Kirkwood, Missouri on February 7, 2008 is a stark reminder of the physical and personal attacks that may be encountered by elected officials. In Kirkwood, a man who had frequently disrupted previous council meetings shot and killed two council members, two police officers, and the public works director and seriously wounded the mayor and a journalist before himself being shot and killed by other police officers.
Fortunately, such instances of extreme violence are a rare occurrence in most cities and counties, and for that reason, few city councils or county councils maintain security like that found at the state legislature or the United States Congress. Nevertheless, most local councils do have an interest in assuring that meetings are conducted in an orderly way and are not disrupted by threatening, irrelevant, or overlong comment. These types of disruptions are common. And, many councils may be unsure about their ability to respond to disruptive conduct for fear of violating their citizens' First Amendment rights to free speech. A recent decision from the Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals highlights and provides guidance on these issues.
Chesterfield County, Virginia has a population of a little over 300,000. Like many communities, it maintains a planning commission to "promote orderly development" within the county. At one meeting of the Chesterfield County Planning Commission, a scheduled item was requested to be "deferred" until the next meeting. The commission chair asked for public comment only on the issue of deferral. The first two speakers addressed deferral but also briefly, but politely, addressed some substantive issues regarding the application. However, the third speaker, Steinburg, began to speak about the development proposal and not on the question of deferral. Steinburg's comments also attacked the chair of the planning commission. The chair "cut off" Steinburg and asked him to sit down. An excerpt of the dialog follows:
Chairman Litton: I am asking you just to sit down please.
Steinburg: I know you are. I understand what you're doing. And when I'm through speaking I will sit down.
Chairman Litton: No I think you're going to sit down now.
Steinburg: I'm not!
At which point the Chair called for a police officer to request that Mr. Steinburg be seated. When Steinburg refused, two officers escorted him from the podium and out of the meeting room.
Steinburg brought an action against the planning commission and its members, claiming violation of First Amendment rights to free speech. In discussing Steinburg's assertions against Chesterfield County, the court acknowledged that the planning commission meeting was a public forum. Generally, the First Amendment provides protection to and opportunity for free speech in public forums. But, a meeting of a council (or a planning commission) was not a traditional public forum such as a soapbox in a public park. Rather such meetings are "limited public forums" which may be managed by the government entity.
In the case of Chesterfield County, a policy prohibited "personal attacks" on the commissioners. Steinburg argued that such a policy violated his First Amendment rights. The court rejected that claim concluding that a "content-neutral policy against personal attacks is not . . . unconstitutional as it is adopted and employed to serve the legitimate public interest in a limited forum of decorum and order." The court emphasized that such a policy does not preclude a speaker from expressing an opinion on the subject matter before the board, council, or commission.
The court also recognized that argumentative or disruptive behavior cannot be shielded by a claim of First Amendment rights. A presiding officer must be able to control the course and decorum of a meeting.
Officials presiding over such meetings must have discretion . . . to cut off speech which they reasonably perceive to be, or imminently to threaten, a disruption of the orderly and fair progress of the discussion, whether by virtue of its irrelevance, its duration, or its very tone and manner.
See Steinburg v. Chesterfield County Planning Comm'n, ___F.3d___, 2008 WL 2211886 (4th Cir. May 29, 2008).
It is well recognized in Washington law that a council may order the removal of people who disrupt meetings. The Open Public Meetings Act specifically authorizes the clearing of a meeting room and continuation of a meeting, including reconvening without the public (even at another location), in response to such disruptive behavior that causes the ongoing meeting to be infeasible. See RCW 42.30.050. Council members may readmit an individual or individuals not responsible for the disruption. And, representatives of the news media, except those participating in a disturbance, are required to be readmitted to such meetings.
It is one of the more difficult responsibilities of a council to limit the rights of people to speak at the council's meeting. Nevertheless, when the conduct of people at meetings are disruptive to the council's action, legitimate steps may be taken to assure that the public's work is conducted by the council and not interfered with by others.
For further discussion on this issue see MRSC Inquiries on "Legislative Body" at http://mrsc.org/askmrsc/Legislative.aspx.
P. Stephen DiJulio, a partner at Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC http://www.foster.com/attOverview.aspx?AttorneyID=31, focuses on litigation involving state and local governments, and land use and environmental law. Particular experience includes representation of jurisdictions on eminent domain, utilities (water, wastewater, storm water, solid waste systems), local improvement districts, facility siting and contractor litigation.
|
