2007-09-21 TIBBETSON - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

KRUEGER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I’m not quite certain what Mr. Matsukawa means by this body being in continuous session. I don’t know if he’s implying by that that there is one single meeting throughout the year that’s continued from date to date to date, because in my way of reading the Robert’s Rules of Order, that would be the only way in which a motion which was made at one meeting and not passed would not be able to be raised at a subsequent meeting. I’m not sure if it would even apply under those circumstances, but Robert’s Rules of Order is clear that the only time that you can’t bring up the same motion again is at the same session. In other words, if you have a motion which does not st pass, at the last meeting on August 31, somebody who was not in the – I wouldn’t say the majority – but in the prevailing party which, I think Mr. Matsukawa is correct, would be Commissioner Iwashita or Commissioner Alameda, unless one of those two raised the issue and asked for it to be reconsidered at the last meeting, absent a couple of other exceptions, you wouldn’t be able to readdress that matter at that meeting. But Robert’s Rules of Order is very clear that at a subsequent meeting you can bring up that same motion, identical motion, again and it can be considered again. And I quoted from another source called Webster’s New World Robert’s Rules of Order, but the official Robert’s Rules of Order also says the same thing. At Page 329, actually Page 329 of Robert’s Rules of Order says, referring to the second general principle stated on Page 326, “A main motion that was introduced but not adopted during one session can, except as noted in this paragraph, be renewed at any later session, unless it has become absurd. Such exceptions occur only through one of the four processes by which from one session to another a main motion can remain within the control of the assembly that is temporarily but not finally disposed of;” so that the same motion can be considered at the later session. Then they have three procedural reasons why that can’t be, and they are not really applicable to this: if the motion was laid on the table, if the motion was voted to be reconsidered, and then it came up at a subsequent meeting because it wasn’t taken care of at the original meeting. They are not really applicable. But I think that Robert’s Rules of Order is very clear that the same motion can be raised at a subsequent meeting such as this, and I don’t think there is any doubt about that. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Krueger. I think going forward I probably will go to the Commissioners for any input and also come to Mr. Torigoe, but before that I’d like to ask Mr. Yuen if he has anything to add. YUEN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just really briefly. As on all procedural matters, we recommend that you finally take the advice of your Corporation Counsel, your legal counsel, who is appointed to advise you on these things. But to state the Department’s position on this, we disagree with Mr. Matsukawa. Robert’s Rules of Order simply don’t apply to a decision by the Commission to approve or deny an application. Robert’s Rules of Order are based on a principle that a decision is made by a majority of a quorum – if you go back to the very beginning of Robert’s Rules of Order – that is a majority of the people who were there at the meeting. So you don’t have this issue that we encounter all the time in the Planning Commission of not having a majority of the full membership; you’ll always have a majority of the quorum. If you have a tie, in Robert’s that’s when the Chair rules. Now going -, so, and a reason, the majority of the full membership comes from the Charter. For that reason, a failure to, on a Special Permit, a failure to obtain a majority of the full membership is neither an approval nor a denial. Under Mr. Matsukawa’s argument, it would be a denial unless there was a successful motion to reconsider that decision. There is a slightly different rule in the Planning Commission’s Rules on how we handle SMA Permits; that rule calls for one revote. There’s no EXHIBIT A 5