On Saturday the Vanguard covered an item that was submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and Councilmember Stephen Souza that attempted to add language to the council rules in part to amplify on existing rules in order to avoid a repeat of what happened in January that drew regional attention to the Davis City Council, but also in part to add language that could be used to sanction a member of the Davis City Council.
The Vanguard supports efforts to run meeting more effectively that would enable the council to avoid some of the problems that not only occurred on the night in question, but helped to precipitate an escalation of hostilities. However, ultimately the language in the sanction provision goes too far and would like actually incite what it hopes to avoid.
First for item 8:
“While the Council is in session, the members must preserve order and decorum. A member shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or peace of the Council nor disturb any member while speaking. A member shall not refuse to obey the orders of the Council, or the presiding officer.”
Second for item 9:
“Members of the Council desiring to speak must first be recognized by the presiding officer and shall confine questions or comments to the matter under debate, avoiding personal attacks and indecorous language. A member, once recognized by the presiding officer, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call a member to order. If a member, while speaking, is called to order, that member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if in order, the member shall be permitted to proceed.”
We also believe that there should be a provision in there that directs Councilmembers to direct their remarks to the Mayor except under direction questions for staff. Comments not directed to the Mayor would be ruled out of order. That could potentially help to avoid bickering between members on the council.
We particularly agree with the language in item 9 that suggests that “a member, once recognized by the presiding officer, shall not be interrupted when speaking,” part of the problem that we have seen is that a member may start speaking and then get interrupted. This not only slows down that member and harms their train of thought prolonging the endeavor, but it creates a good percentage of the turmoil.
However, language meant to sanction clearly goes to far. There are charges that this could lead to a tyranny of the council majority and be used to stifle dissent. While I do not believe that is the intent here, it does create that possibility down the line.
It is not clear that two of these provisions really add anything to what the council can already do. The liaison and committee assignments are basically allotted at the will of the council majority. We have already seen an instance where the council has voted to remove a liaison.
Moreover, there already exists the possibility of a public censure. Both of these provision are already in the powers that the council have and those remedies are already available.
Removal from council chambers by the Chief of Police or another police officer brings the entire experience into a different light. Now you are talking about using police powers to enforce council rules. That would not be a wise move, it certainly is something that could be done without a provision.
Finally, the rules propose: “criminal and/or civil law remedies related to treatment of staff, the public and/or other members of the Council.”
This seems to go well across the line. There has been talk that city staff could file for criminal or civil charges based on what occurs at a meeting, that seems problematic at best.
The idea of bringing police into council disputes crosses a line. If criminal activity occurs, that remedy is there, but what we have seen to date on the dais does not come close to such a breech. It would establish a dangerous precedent.
The most effective means by which to deal with these problems are frankly what the council has already done. When things get too heated, call a recess. If they continue, call another recess. At some point, you can either table the item creating the problem or adjourn the meeting.
There is a danger when a political dispute threatens to become a procedural dispute, when rules are enforced with 3-2 votes, it politicizes them and does create the impression that the council majority is attempting to stifle dissent. That accusation is not being made here, but we acknowledge the potential exists.
It needs to be pointed out that the item itself is likely to produce the kind of animosity and fighting that the council and everyone in the community wishes to avoid. Right now, council members have generally pulled back, I think everyone involved recognizes that things went too far at the end of January, and to re-open this wound would be a huge mistake.
Time
Moreover, we have on the agenda tonight far too many items. I went through and broke it down, and if every item is heard, I estimate that the last item would not be heard until around 1 am, and that assumes that no items take unusually long, an assumption that is often faulty.
There is no reason to jam so many items onto the agenda. There was no meeting last week for example. Agenda management is critical to establishing reasonable time limits. There should be no more than one time consuming item on the agenda in one week. Under unusual circumstances perhaps two.
And yet this week’s agenda has between 3 and 5 lengthy items. They are looking at at least one hour of discussion on the joint discussion of community farms, the Housing Element item could take up to another hour, Willowbank could take two hours (and last time it took three), the water presentation could take at least an hour, the water rate hike from 30 to 60 minutes, and then you are looking at this item taking another 30 to 60 minutes likely at 1 am.
Meanwhile you have the neighbors for Willowbank asking for more time. It seems in the interest of time, that item would be best postponed.
Good time and agenda planning could preclude the establishment of unreasonable time limits.
My experience is that much of the time wastage occurs in arguments over procedure and because members are interrupted, cutting those down will save time and setting reasonable agendas will prevent time from becoming an issue.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“An issue has also been raised about time. I am a believer that the public process to be done correctly can be time consuming. That is not to suggest that reasonable limits should not be placed on time, but there was an item of some import when the Mayor had limited time to the point that one council member was forced to read his questions very rapidly. Moreover, we have on the agenda tonight far too many items.”
A five minute time limit could be placed on each Councilmember to ask questions and get his/her thoughts out. If one round is not sufficient, then go to a second round, and a third if necessary. The practice of time limits forces each Councilmember to come prepared, cuts down on politicing from the dais, and stops the practice of a Councilmember being interrupted. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person, sometimes limited to two minutes. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I agree that the agendas on some nights are far too ambitious – but is it happenstance or the hope that items will be rushed through to cut down on public participation? The public has to wonder…
[quote]in order to avoid a repeat of what happened in January that drew regional attention to the Davis City Council,[/quote]Ruth and I both regret that things got too testy, but, in my humble opinion, you, David Greenwald and your associates, were primarily responsible for the “regional attention” aspect.
Reporters who called me asked me why it was such a big deal, and saying they had seen much worse in other meetings that they had covered, and one reporter even volunteered that he had seen far worse on an elected board he sat one.
I hope you don’t censor this, because it is a valid part of the discussion.
[quote]What is good for the goose is good for the gander. [/quote]Elaine, you might want to rethink this. Facts and analyses are often presented to the public in a way that predetermines outcomes favorable to the council majority view. However, the outcomes desired by the council member majority are frequently not the outcomes desired by the majority of the public.
It is to your advantage to assure that large and controversial items be fully aired. Given that we are dealing with elaborate constructs created by staff, this can, occasionally be difficult to do in five minute increments.
The reason we have representative government with five elected officials is because there is not enough time to allow 65,000 to fully air their views. But with five elected representatives, it is more likely that one of them can fully air views that are important to you.
Personally, I like to keep council meetings shorter. When meetings have been timed over long periods, it has been shown that I don’t talk as much as some council members. Ironically, council members Saylor and Souza have talked the most, although Souza has shortened his comments over the last year.
That said, there are some very important and controversial issues that cannot be adequately discussed in five minute intervals, and historically, it is these issues that have been subject to the strictest time regulation, which tilts the outcome in the majority majority council direction.
I would suggest that instead of instituting time limits, which is contrary to the long Davis history of open council discussion, that the mayor ask councilmembers to keep comments very short when it comes to uncontroversial items that we all agree on.
This alone would shorten the meetings by hours.
“Members of the Council desiring to speak must first be recognized by the presiding officer and shall confine questions or comments to the matter under debate, avoiding personal attacks and indecorous language. A member, once recognized by the presiding officer, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call a member to order. If a member, while speaking, is called to order, that member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if in order, the member shall be permitted to proceed.”
This is very important. It should be understood, but it is not. The mayor does not have the right to continually interrupt a council member who has the floor. If the councilmember is called to order, the council member has the right to appeal. This means that the mayor would have to justify that the call to order is due to a true violation of the rules, and not merely because the mayor doesn’t like what the council member is saying. Such a process would decrease the number of arbitrary interruptions of a councilmember by the mayor.
These comments are not directed solely at the current mayor. They are directer to the future mayors as well.
I would like to point out that Santa Monica, which, like Davis, has a strong history of participatory democracy, does not include rules specifically detailing threatening council majority sanctions of council minorities (you can guarantee that these “sanctions” would never be applied to a member of a majority political faction).
However, Santa Monica has a section which I think Davis should also include which reads as follows:
[quote]Santa Monica: These rules shall be interpreted liberally in order to provide for the optimum in the free exchange of information and public debate….) [/quote]
I agree with the Vanguard about so many of these suggested revisions go WAY too far. This is just a way to shut down minority opinion. It is hard to believe that these suggestions were made. It is an insult to our sensibilities of having a “democratic” city government. The Council needs to drop this “side-show” and get back to work.
Actually Sue, regarding the January issue (which apparently both you AND Ruth now regret you want all to know), it seems much more likely that YOUR initial reaction was a political misstep, despite your continued attempt to place blame for the unwanted attention at the feed of the Vanguard.
Perhaps the other reporters were baiting you when they asked “why is it a big deal?”, i.e. to assess the level of your regret, which, even upon reflection now, seems far from unconditional.
7 comments. Sue has 4 of them………in a row. Seems this might be a touchy subject. Kinda like David making her look bad in the Firefighter mailer.