My Comments Comparing The Two Documents

This post was written as I read through the old DRAFT documents and the new DRAFT document that was published for public consumption AFTER 5 PM on Friday, March 16, 2012.

Get some long hand lines, good climbing shoes, great head lanterns and strong gloves because there has been some real caving done between the two DRAFTS.

First, the NEW DRAFT suggests that The Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, advise the City Manager on the creation of the C.C. agenda, I don't see the language in the particular similar section of the two DRAFTS that state that the City Manager, by herself or himself, creates the C.C.'s agenda.

This is a big change from the March 14 DRAFT. It acknowledges that our elected representatives and not just a city employee have greater impact into the creation of the agenda they all use, instead of having the employee with so much authority and control.

There is new language in the NEW DRAFT that suggests another way for C.C. members to bring a new agenda item into focus via "Forthcoming Agenda Items", but the language seems vague to me in how or who gets to decide whether an item ultimately makes it onto an agenda.

Stay tuned below. I do need to give some kudos to those who helped create a new way for C.C. members to have their issues placed on the agenda.

In the first part of "The Rules of Order" the NEW DRAFT changes from using "Robert's Rules of Order" to "Roesenberg's Rules of Order"

**NOTE (I do admit that I am familiar with "Robert's Rules of Order and I am not familiar with or know much about "Rosenberg's Rules of Order".)

"Rosenberg's Rules of Order" is included within the documents of the NEW DRAFT.

The Government Code that requires the 72-hour rule is Section 54954.2 of the California Government Code and not necessarily in The Brown Act. I was in error about that.

The NEW Section 3.10 states that if three members of the council attend a Civic Event where city business might or will be discussed, the City Manager must be notified and the event will be noticed in accordance with provisions of the Brown Act.

**NOTE* Thanks for this addition, it provides more openness and it also may mean that the public MUST be included in whatever the 'civic event' is, so there can be no 'closed door' civic events if three or more members of the council attend.

Get your spelunking gear on for Section 5, "Order and Preparation of Agenda" because this is where a big cave occurred between the two DRAFTS.

Council members may offer agenda items to be placed on the "Future Agenda Items" part of the regular agenda. After conferring with the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, if they or the City Manager refuse to place the item on the agenda, the C.C. member wishing to have their issues made into an agenda item, a vote will be taken during the "Future Agenda Item" portion of the meeting and if the majority of the members agree to have the item placed on a future agenda, it will be.

I think a great number of 'little birdies' screamed to high heaven about the older DRAFT'S 'options' about having just the City Manager create the agenda without direct input by C.C. members or having to deal with the four options suggested in the old DRAFT.

"Future Agenda Items" becomes the newest part of the C.C.'s agenda, just after 'Regular Business' and just before 'Oral Reports'.

Section 5.2 is changed between the two DRAFTS. The NEW DRAFT allows for the next C.C. agenda to come out on Thursday by 5:30 P.M. instead of Wednesday by 5:00 P.M. I have no idea how the individual members feel about having one less day and one fewer half-hour to digest the next agenda.

Section 8.3, subsection 3, The NEW DRAFT added that speakers may not designate their time before the C.C. to others, "absent approval by the Mayor".

**NOTE* This means PERHAPS that if multiple individuals with to provide their time to someone AND the Mayor or meeting leader is not fond of what the speakers wish to talk about, the officer can simply deny the action.

THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between the current and NEW DRAFT RULES are, deals with Council members' ability to create agenda items. In the current rules, there is no language at all about whether or how a C.C. member can have his or her item added to the C.C.'s agenda.

I do give credit to the Sub-committee members and the City Manager and her staff for thinking about this and making the MUST changes between the old DRAFT and the NEW DRAFT. I feel it is important to include language as to how individual members of the C.C. can have their issues added or not added to their own group's agenda.

Sadly though, after you read both the current Rules of Procedure and the NEW DRAFT document, you may find, as I do that, apart from the one big change I mentioned, the NEW Draft is much ado about nothing new.

Time to take a break and refresh.

Gone, gone, gone is the proposed SECTION 13 "Code of Conduct" in the older DRAFT document.

The word 'pledge' is nowhere to be found in the NEW DRAFT.

Also the "Values-based ethics policy" wording is gone.

After the NEW DRAFT Rules of Procedure, there is the current Rules and Procedures dated December 20, 2011. It allows readers a view of that the current rules are and the NEW DRAFT rules might become.

After the current rules are documented, a NEW document, "PROPOSED COUNCIL AND COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PROTOCOL" document is included. I haven't read or do I know if there is or was any other document of this type for our C.C., Commissions and Committees, so it might be new ground for myself and others.

What I can write is that, as a former Traffic and Safety Commissioner and knowing what I know about or resident volunteers who work on our Council, Commissions and Committees, the whole thing looks unnecessary, in R.P.V.

We have a great city, with all kinds of different, but caring folks. I think that I can trust the judgement of residents who I usually disagree politically with because I know that they have our city's best interests, as they see them, in their hearts and minds.

We don't have to agree on anything or everything to understand that our city is lived in, worked in and loved by intelligent, creative, giving, and helpful citizens. I don't feel we really need the "Protocol", which is just another word to replace "Code of Conduct"

The volunteers who make up the various groups that serve all of us don't appear to have any profit motives behind their service.

If there are those, and there may be one out of several hundred who have served, who is not up to the highest standards we expect from ourselves and others, it is a pretty good bet that others in our city know what is going on and if and when 'bad' stuff occurs, I feel we can see the issues solved without having to look towards a set of protocols or codes of conduct.

HOWEVER, if the majority of the C.C. members feel the NEW DRAFT proposal for the protocol meets what they feel they would like to have on the books, I didn't find anything I would really argue with, in the document, at first reading.

I do find the first sentence or two of section 17 about not having a speaker state their volunteer status when speaking to another body in our city is a bit 'loopy'. I think we are a small enough city that most folks may just personally know the speakers who volunteer for our city when speaking in our city, to our other great volunteers.

In summary, it certainly appears that what has gone down recently, with all the phone calls, emails, confrontations, anger, questioning and everything else, after all that is done, what we find is not much new and something we may just not need.

My objection to Section 11.3, Silence when a vote is taken, has been included in other Rules of Procedure and it still on the books with the current set.

I do strongly feel that if there had not been such an uproar with the old DRAFT, a new one would not have been much different than the old one, so it means to me that our residents' voices have been heard by those who really needed to listen.

The differences between the OLD DRAFT and the NEW DRAFT does make it appear that the OLD DRAFT attempted to create fundamental changes in a way that did not increase openness, advise and consent, and more community involvement. In fact, the OLD DRAFT appeared to stifle even a portion of the First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America.

What his whole boondoggle also proves is that our residents ARE involved, DO care and ARE WILLING to do what is needed at times where the need exists.

The wheel did not need to be reinvented and our residents stated that, as a matter of fact. We just needed to put a little polish on the chrome wheel cover, which the NEW DRAFT does, I feel.

Now, if you will help me get Section 11.3 changed, I would very much appreciate that.

I feel silence when voting demonstrates a lack of courage or a willingness to stand up and by one's reasoning for how one voted.

I continue to feel that there must be only three audible responses when a vote is called. A member of the Council, Commission or Committee may respond in the affirmative, negative or they must verbal their abstention from voting on any matter.

The current and NEW DRAFT states that 'Silence is to be taken as an affirmative' to a called question or motion. I think it allows voters to not be obliged to verbalize their position and there is certainly nothing 'open' or honest about refusing to verbally acknowledge their voting position on a matter.

I don't know yet the specific language I would change, but I strongly think that silence must not be allowed on any vote, by any member, on any question or motion.

The result of any one's use of silence should indicate they should have not run or asked for the position and they should not be reelected.