CRC Meeting Feb 1st

I had some spare time having to put my car in the shop so I went and watched the last meeting. Is Stan Pfenning being treated like the redheaded step child or what? While I do agree that to a degree it seemed like he went on and on and on and on but if you could get to the nexus of what he was trying to say I agree with him. What is the point of having minutes to the meetings if they're not accurate and have errors in them. Isn't voting on whether or not to accept them as they stand the point where you correct the errors?

I also think it's important to publish notices with some consistency.

Does one member of the Commission have the right to ask another to resign?

Does there not have to be some sort of order, rules with which to follow in order to get something done when you have that many people?

Will this CRC manage to get anything done at this rate? Does anything need to be done? This is why I wrote them suggesting the CRC does not need to convene every four years. How much does a CRC cost the taxpayer?

I think I am going to go buy Ann Wiggins a gavel, or maybe I'll just walk up the street and suggest she grab her hammer for the next meeting. The whole thing was frustrating to watch and I'm sure equally as frustrating for all involved.

That was a little hard to watch. Some of them seem to have some contempt for one another.

During the conversation in the CRC Comments portion, the School Board and the Constitutional officers were brought up. The Consitutional Officers are currently the Sheriff, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Supervisor of Elections. They are the elected Constitutional officers. The CRC members were discussing their issue list. The School Board doesn't have anything to do with the Charter, does it? If not, the suggestion of that particular "issue" must have been made during Public Comment.

Robert's Rules can be difficult. Perhaps the CRC could have attended a seminar on the subject before they met for the first time. Perhaps the County Commissioners could use it as well. At this point, I guess they are doing as well as any average citizen could do and they will improve with time.

Rober's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the vehicle by which all Deliberative Assemblies must adopt in order to conduct its business in an organized manner. 

Understanding it make take some practice, however a qualified parliamentrian present at your meeting will guide you through the process.   A written Professional Opinion by a Register Professional Parliamentarian has the same standing as an attorney general opinion for parlimentary law.  

Website for Robert's Rules is www.robertsrules.com.   I do have a simplified version which I can post on another website.   It is about 10 pages  and give you a very quick understand of what you can and cannot do.   It might be printable so each member could have their own copy.

Is this what you are talking about?

http://www.robertsrules.org/

read44, no the website is shown correctly.   It's the official Roberts Rules of Order website - www.robertsrules.com.

No, I meant is this the simplified or short cut version you mentioned?

My simplified version was prepared by a parliamenty organization as a teaching  guide.    It goes into more details necessary for teaching students wishing to learn parliamentary law.

The title is "Parliamentary Law A Guide to Effective Meetings".    I obtained it when I took their course in another area several years ago.   It really is a great teaching tool contained in 11 pages total.

The website you mention is good.  

Personally I don't care if it's Robert's Rules, Wiggins' Rules or Pfenning's Rules - I look forward to seeing some substantial discussion at the next meeting. The whole CRC process - a seemingly simple concept - seems lost in the weeds. Review the Charter, discuss ideas for improvements (if any are warranted), and send the ideas to the electorate for consideration. No doubt meeting minutes are important and should be correct, but attempting perfection in recording the minutes should not derail the whole process. A typo or misspelling does not invalidate the minutes. Correct the minor mistakes and move on.

This is further evidence that the CRC should not be seated every 4 years - that is too often. Jacksonville is in their CRC process (once per decade), and seem to be discussing very substantial issues without all of the distractions. Allowing more time between Charter Reviews lets bigger issues percolate to the surface, and hopefully enhances the importance of a periodic Review of the County's "Constitution".

Some members of the current CRC want to have operational guidelines established for future CRC's. A good idea, but someone within the Administration can handle that - the CRC needs to get busy Reviewing the Charter and quit wasting time picking nits. It's a 15 person team. To use a sports cliche', there is no 'I' in team. I've always heard in situations like this, you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. I recommend everyone work to be part of the solution.

You are right, the CRC does need to get on with its business.  However it is absolutely essential to adopt RROONR and a policy for conducting its meetings.   Otherwise, its going to be more of the same.   So, still no answer to my question.   Has this been done?  If so, where can citizens obtain a copy? 

When a member has placed an item on the agenda, that member is entiled to be heard without interruptions.   Member does need to make a motion first, obtain a second before discussion can begin within the speakers alloted time established by policy.   Show each other some common courtesy and second the motion.  If you do not agree, you show that when you vote.

CRC members must address the chair, be recognized in order to speak.    Chair must rule any member out of order who does not, tries to change subject matter, criticize or belittle a member.  

If you listened to what the speaker was saying, it sounded like he had some valid points.  

C'mon, it's not the lack of Roberts Rules that has caused the Charter Review Commission to accomplish virtually nothing during its first full meetings and first hour of the fifth. Even if run with precise adherence to Roberts, the CRC hadn't even begun to do its job. Ann Wiggins could have had a rulebook in one hand and gavel in the other, but all the CRC members did was endlessly discuss issues that had nothing to do with Charter Review.

Instead of asking the county's Constitutional Officers pointed questions about the Charter, the CRC listened to campaign speeches. Instead of questioning the County Manager about Charter structure and effectiveness, the CRC asked him to trim the hedges. Instead of a Power Point presentation about the pros and cons of a potential Charter Amendment, the CRC got a Power Point presentation on a potential (and ultimately discarded) press release. A parliamentarian enforcing Roberts Rules of Order wouldn't make that kind of meeting productive.

If it took an embarrassing internal squabble to get the CRC to stop wasting time, then that can be measured as the first real progress this Charter Review Commission has made.

At its Feb. 18 meeting, the CRC will discuss Charter Amendment proposals recommended by Supervisor of Elections Chris Chambless. It should also receive an opinion from County Attorney Mark Scruby as to whether or not the Charter has the power to establish term limits on members of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools. What it won't discuss at the next meeting, or any future meeting, is the idea of abolishing the elected Constitutional Offices. The Commission chose to eliminate it as a topic of discussion.

Eventually, it should get around to the possibility of expanding the time between Charter Review Commissions. Every four years is too often and unnecessary. How unnecessary? Would anyone argue that this particular CRC is necessary?

Whatever issues this Charter Review Commission chooses to examine, it should begin each discussion by recalling the opinion of County Manager Fritz Behring: The Charter's just fine, if everyone will follow it.  Remember that, and don't break anything!

It does not take a rule book for chair to remember what has already been stated.    A parliamentarian sitting on her left would advise chair when in doubt.

Several citizens mentioned this has occurred at prior meetings.   That's why I decided to watch.   It is embarrassing.    What impression are we leaving on unknown number of viewers who also watch?

Facts are facts.   From what I hear, the county manager is very capable and efficient.   Counsel and guidance from him before deciding to make any changes should be the norm.  

I agree that reviewing the Charter every four years is too often.

I watched the Feb. 1 meeting online and found the comment about the agenda interesting.  Mr. Pfenning said that there was nothing else on the agenda to discuss except what he put on there and they didn't seem to like those suggestions or his presentation.  Should they be  waiting to discuss everything in the CRC Comments portion of the meeting?  Shouldn't they put their discussion topics into New and Old Business and discuss and make decisions there?

http://www.claycountygov.com/BCC/CRC/Agendas/2010/02-01-10A.pdf

The quality of a meeting and the poductivity of the group is greatly effected by common sense, a cooman goal and good leadership. the need for rules is there but should ultimately be a minor thing.  Sadly good leadership is becoming a rare commodity today. Sounds to me like they are just going through the motions as usual to make us stupid citizens feel all warm and fuzzy about our good government.

  THE MORE QUESTIONS WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE BETTER. How many will there be you think?  I am for a New charter to be voted on in 2 years and this one sunset at that time. Course if this type of group writes a new one we will be back to square one