The Monroe City Council needs a parliamentarian or an attorney that knows the rules of parliamentary procedure.
Last week the public received another lesson on how major decisions can hinge on breaches of parliamentary procedure that will have lasting effects.
During last week’s council deliberations about whether to give the mayor a $40,000 raise, the council received two parliamentary rulings from its attorney that were precedent-setting.
Council member Doug Harvey moved the adoption of an ordinance granting the raise for the position of mayor to take effect in July of 2024.
Councilwoman Gretchen Ezernak thought the raise amount was too large and attempted to amend Harvey’s motion with a lower amount.
However, before she could make her amendment, city attorney Angie Sturdivant told the council that Ezernak could not move to amend Harvey’s motion. She advised the council that Harvey would have to withdraw his motion altogether, and Ezernak could then make the motion she desired.
The council was frozen like a deer stymied by headlights on a dark road for a second.
Sturdivant, who plans to run for a vacant judgeship on the Monroe City Court, made a serious error.
The rules of order allow any council member to amend a motion if it is properly seconded. Of course, the council would need to approve the amendment by voting on it before deciding on the original motion.
Then Sturdivant told the council that the action had to be voted on and could not be tabled or passed over until the next meeting. That, too, was an error because the council can refuse to act on any item on the agenda.
Sturdivant was part of the mayor’s inner circle that City CEO Jimmy Bryant said made the raise recommendation. The effect of the faulty guidance she gave the council pushed through a raise for her boss and prevented a council member from introducing an amendment.
Sturdivant took over the duties of the council chairwoman Kema D. Robinson, who was responsible for ruling on Ezernak’s motion attempt. Sturdivant was self-serving and erroneous.
A similar parliamentary error happened in 2018. Monroe Mayor Jamie Mayo tried to push through an ordinance to automatically raise water and sewer rates yearly without a council vote. It was highly controversial. Ezernak, who was chairperson at the time, made the motion to pass the ordinance, but no one seconded the motion. After a long wait, the motion died for the lack of a second.
An angry Mayo gave all of the council members a tongue-lashing. Ezernak tried to call for the vote again in the same meeting but was told it was dead.
Ezernak called for a recess while she and the city attorney checked the rules of order. Ezernak pulled out a copy of “Robert Rules of Order for Dummies,” and she and the city attorney put their heads together, and Ezernak announced that Robert’s allows a motion to “renew.” There is no such thing as a motion to “renew.” A motion to “reconsider” can be made at the next meeting by someone on the prevailing side, but it is against the rules of order to vote on a failed matter a second time in the same meeting.
With Mayo staring down the council, Ezernak made the motion again; this time, it was seconded by Juanita Woods. The result of that action is that the public’s cost of water now increases every May automatically without a council vote.
The council chairperson decides parliamentary rulings, not the city attorney. The council has the right to overrule the chairperson’s decision. The city’s attorney may know the law and the civil code of procedures for the courts, but she obviously doesn’t know Robert’s Rules of order.
Attorneys don’t have every law or rule memorized. It would be a good idea in the future that council members should require their attorney to “read” the rules from the “real” rule book instead of giving their opinions which are heavily biased toward the administration.
Very few attorneys spend time learning Roberts Rules of Order. However, since the legality of resolution and ordinances depend on their adoption using proper procedure, the council should trust but verify any parliamentary ruling they get from a city attorney whose paycheck is signed by the mayor, not the council.
When the council gets uninformed or biased advice on the law or rules of procedure, it can make costly mistakes that the public will feel for years. If the council has trouble finding a parliamentarian in the future, they can get better advice if members speak into their cell phones and ask Siri or Alexa: “Can a motion be amended if properly seconded?”
The answer from your phone is: “Once a Main Motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, it can be amended during the discussion.”
What’s amazing is that your phone didn’t go to law school!
