Tuesday, February 07, 2006

SHHHHHH The Public Might Hear!

Our second board meeting didn’t proceed as I anticipated. A motion was made that I felt would be ill received once realized by our "stock holders" and I looked forward to discussion and debate regarding this issue. During discussion a fellow board member (not myself) was cut off and the presiding officer called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried . I left knowing proper protocol was not followed but unsure how to call attention to it without embarrassing the presiding officer in public. I chose to Email the presiding officer with my concerns regarding Roberts Rules and Sunshine Law and the boards' conduct violations. I was Emailed back this response "Should I have made a call for a motion to "move the previous question?" Probably."
Not probably. The presiding officer should have "called the question" or moved to "close debate". Either motion needs 4 out of 5 votes to work. The reason for this is it prevents the majority of denying the minority the right to speak. All viewpoints have a right to be considered by the board when making decisions that affect everyone. When I relayed this information to the presiding officer, the response was :"I made the decision to call for the vote, my decision."
So can someone please explain to me when we should debate the issues brought before us? By law we cannot meet as a group to discuss board business outside of a meeting. I have been informed by several persons that the board meeting is no place for debate. Yet we vote on debatable motions. In fact there is a motion to close debate, a motion to extend debate, and a motion to limit debate, besides the fact that every motion carries the question "is it debatable?" Sounds like somebody doesn’t want you to understand what’s going on.
I picked this for my topic because I want voters to understand how a public board is supposed to work versus how the CFCSD board has typically worked. The public has little knowledge of what we should expect from our elected officials and even less knowledge of their right to know.

No comments: