Excellent read! It's truly disheartening to witness the decline of common sense in our society, where critical thinking seems to have taken a backseat to tribalism and groupthink. The way people anchor their entire belief systems on selectively chosen information, dismissing anything that challenges their views, is deeply troubling. It’s as if many have traded rational discourse for echo chambers, where confirmation bias reigns supreme.
Your complaint about having to "endure one of Rip Holmes’ videos about the impending nuclear holocaust" highlights a major issue with current Commission meetings which you are ignoring because (perhaps) it might not be consistent with your political goals. The person chairing the Commission meeting is responsible to "preserve decorum and order", "expedite business" and "remain objective" - Sections 2-78(a)(4), (6) and (7) of the City Code. Section 2-78(a) repeats the second paragraph of Rule 58 of Robert's Rules of Order as to the responsibilities of the Chairman.
As to your concern about a discussion of a nuclear holocaust, Section 2-79(e)(1) of the City Code allows individuals during open public comment to make comments within 3 minutes limited to items on the agenda or a matter not on the agenda BUT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CITY COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. The person chairing the Commission needs only to remind the individual of this rule and terminate the comment if the rule continues to be violated.
If followed, the City Code and Robert's Rules of Order fix your issues as to Commission meetings. City Code Section 2-77(a)(1) requires that the conduct of business of the Commission shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. Rule 58 of Robert's Rules of Order provides additional rules as to the chair of the Commission meeting including:
The chairman sometimes calls a member to the chair and takes part in the debate. This should rarely be done, and nothing can justify it in a case where much feeling is shown and there is a liability to difficulty in preserving order. If the chairman has even the appearance of being a partisan, he loses much of his ability to control those who are on the opposite side of the question. THERE IS NOTHNG TO JUSTIFY THE UNFORTUNATE HABIT SOME CHAIRMEN HAVE OF CONSTANTLY SPEAKING ON QUESTIONS BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY, EVEN INTERRRUPTING THE MEMBER WHO HAS THE FLOOR. ONE WHO EXPECTS TO TAKE AN ACTIVE PART IN DEBATE SHOULD NEVER ACCEPT THE CHAIR, or at least should not resume the chair, after having made his speech, until after the pending question is disposed of. . . He should set an example of courtesy, and should never forget that to control others it is necessary to control one's self.
Rule 43 of Robert's Rules of Order provides that "in debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities . . . It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member . . . It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate."
If the current Commission chair continues to actively participate in discussions or make or allow personal attacks (either during the Commission meetings or in political emails), he should choose another Commissioner to chair the Commission meetings who has read, understands and applies the City Code and Robert's Rules of Order (and limits his or her discussion). The City Attorney is the Parliamentarian who "shall refer to Robert's Rules of Order" per Section 2-80 of the City Code - she can help with this process to make Commission meetings more similar to meetings under other chairs. If we want to return to the days of prior Commission meetings, our elected officials need to understand and apply the laws and rules that we currently have.
Excellent read! It's truly disheartening to witness the decline of common sense in our society, where critical thinking seems to have taken a backseat to tribalism and groupthink. The way people anchor their entire belief systems on selectively chosen information, dismissing anything that challenges their views, is deeply troubling. It’s as if many have traded rational discourse for echo chambers, where confirmation bias reigns supreme.
Thanks for the clarity, kid!
Your complaint about having to "endure one of Rip Holmes’ videos about the impending nuclear holocaust" highlights a major issue with current Commission meetings which you are ignoring because (perhaps) it might not be consistent with your political goals. The person chairing the Commission meeting is responsible to "preserve decorum and order", "expedite business" and "remain objective" - Sections 2-78(a)(4), (6) and (7) of the City Code. Section 2-78(a) repeats the second paragraph of Rule 58 of Robert's Rules of Order as to the responsibilities of the Chairman.
As to your concern about a discussion of a nuclear holocaust, Section 2-79(e)(1) of the City Code allows individuals during open public comment to make comments within 3 minutes limited to items on the agenda or a matter not on the agenda BUT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CITY COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. The person chairing the Commission needs only to remind the individual of this rule and terminate the comment if the rule continues to be violated.
If followed, the City Code and Robert's Rules of Order fix your issues as to Commission meetings. City Code Section 2-77(a)(1) requires that the conduct of business of the Commission shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. Rule 58 of Robert's Rules of Order provides additional rules as to the chair of the Commission meeting including:
The chairman sometimes calls a member to the chair and takes part in the debate. This should rarely be done, and nothing can justify it in a case where much feeling is shown and there is a liability to difficulty in preserving order. If the chairman has even the appearance of being a partisan, he loses much of his ability to control those who are on the opposite side of the question. THERE IS NOTHNG TO JUSTIFY THE UNFORTUNATE HABIT SOME CHAIRMEN HAVE OF CONSTANTLY SPEAKING ON QUESTIONS BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY, EVEN INTERRRUPTING THE MEMBER WHO HAS THE FLOOR. ONE WHO EXPECTS TO TAKE AN ACTIVE PART IN DEBATE SHOULD NEVER ACCEPT THE CHAIR, or at least should not resume the chair, after having made his speech, until after the pending question is disposed of. . . He should set an example of courtesy, and should never forget that to control others it is necessary to control one's self.
Rule 43 of Robert's Rules of Order provides that "in debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities . . . It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member . . . It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate."
If the current Commission chair continues to actively participate in discussions or make or allow personal attacks (either during the Commission meetings or in political emails), he should choose another Commissioner to chair the Commission meetings who has read, understands and applies the City Code and Robert's Rules of Order (and limits his or her discussion). The City Attorney is the Parliamentarian who "shall refer to Robert's Rules of Order" per Section 2-80 of the City Code - she can help with this process to make Commission meetings more similar to meetings under other chairs. If we want to return to the days of prior Commission meetings, our elected officials need to understand and apply the laws and rules that we currently have.