It turned out to be just the continuance of an issue that seemed mostly settled last December 20.
The current Rules of Procedure for Council, Commission and Committee meetings in our city was approved by this very Council last December 20.
After all the issues surrounding what happened in the last two weeks, only one portion of the 'new' Rules of Procedure was voted on a passed, albeit, by a split vote.
SECTION 5, ORDER AND PREPARATION OF THE AGENDA was discussed and a motion passed by a 3-2 vote to implement only that new set of wording for how city council agendas are set.
Mayor Misetich made the motion, seconded by Councilman Knight, to allow this portion of the new set or rules to go into force while postponing any decisions on the remainder of the Rules of Procedure until the second regular city council meeting this coming May.
Councilwoman Brooks offered the third vote to approve the motion while Councilman Duhovic and Mayor Pro Tem Campbell offered the two 'No' votes.
Before all the discussions about the new report began there was a written apology verbally stated by our city's City Manager dealing with what is now claimed to be a premature release of something like a 'working document' and not any type of "Draft Proposal" report, by the Sub-committee charged with helping to create the new Rules of Procedure and Protocol/Code of Conduct/whatever you wish to call it
Mayor Misetich also offered some apologies as to how the recent dust up in our city happened and Councilwoman Brooks also offered he type of explanation about how and why the document dated "March 14" got into the hands of the public.
In Ms. Brooks' comments, she used the words "Code of Conduct" numerous times as well as "Values-Based Ethics Policy" as if those sets of words are still in the 'new' Draft Protocol. She even went back to how things were created in other cities and she seemed to not quite get that "Code of Conduct" appears in ZERO places in the March 16, 2012 report.
Councilwoman Brooks may continue to think she may be able to bring those words and their meanings according to her back at some future date, possibly along with the 'pledge' offered in the March 14 document.
As I wrote in a previous post, the newer wording of the proposed Protocol for Council and Commission and Committee members doesn't bother me all that much and in talking with many who also spoke at last night's meeting, they are pleased that the March 14 "DRAFT" Code of Conduct" was claimed to not really be a "DRAFT" and that it is long gone.
I use the word, "DRAFT" because even though our City Manager and others claim that the March 14 document made public, actually contains the word "DRAFT" on an angle on the pages of the March 14, Rules of Procedure, which included Section 13 CODE OF CONDUCT.
I can post a photo of the page, if folks wish to claim 'we' didn't see the word "DRAFT" on that particular document.
As for the discussion between the members on the council on Mayor Misetich's motion, I found it interesting and I am pleased members spoke their minds about it, somewhat.
Councilman Duhovic voiced concerns with the wording and 'wordsmith' needs of Section five, which again, deals with how City Council agendas will be created.
I thought all the verbalized comments by members helped me understand better, the Section as well as former Mayor Ken Dyda's explanation of how agendas were created when he was the Mayor of our city.
What I didn't hear however, was how agendas were created during the term of the only other former Mayor who spoke at the meeting. Perhaps the way those agendas were created didn't fit into the form she was supporting in the new Section 5, but I think it would have been good for us to know how city council agendas were created during her time as Mayor and that may have helped the overall discussion move along, better.
In the end, it appears that everything can be changed, yet again. The Rules of Procedure approved less than five months ago by this council will take another two months before they MAY be changed, yet again.
Of course, there could be a vote that simply states that the 'wheel' recreated on December 20, 2011 does not need to be reinvented or even polished all that much, by close to the beginning of June.
After all, isn't there supposed to be a time when our council deals with items higher on their own list of priorities than trying to reinvent the wheel?
No comments:
Post a Comment