HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-751 (3)
CityClerk
From:Rob Qualls <robbieq@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 17, 2023 8:38 AM
To:Jones, D'Andre; Hertzberg, Holly; Jordan, Lioneld; Wiederkehr, Mike; Moore, Sarah;
Bunch, Sarah; Berna, Scott; Harvey, Sonia; Turk, Teresa; CityClerk
Subject:Re: Rules of order regarding agenda items
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Morning,
Thank you all for allowing me to address the Council last night. I do have one point of clarification regarding the
extension of the time limit. Per the Rules of Order "The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an
unsigned-up person to speak by unanimous consent or majority vote".
The procedure in the May 2nd meeting when a member of the public requested more time should have been for a
member to request unanimous consent for the speaker to get one more minute. If there was an objection, it should
have gone to a vote. Instead, an objection occurred without the member having been recognized, and one member
granted the request.
This is why I find the idea of granting additional time problematic. That procedure can take more time than it saves, and
even lead to a debate. It also can lead to a person being denied or granted extra time based on the popularity of their
viewpoint rather than being uniform. Several such requests have been denied. I'll try to keep track of that going forward.
The sign-up procedure still needs to be amended out. If anybody would like to work on a rules change resolution for
next January, I'd be more than happy to help.
Thanks,
Rob
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 9:42 AM Rob Qualls <robbieq@gmail.com> wrote:
(Clerk's office, please add this to the packet for resolution 2023-751)
Good Afternoon Council,
During the May 9 Agenda Session, Councilmember Bunch relayed an email that I had sent her after hearing a rumor
that a resolution amending the Rules of Order regarding public comment bypassed the tentative agenda. My email was
strictly on the procedural issue, and took no position on the proposed rule change.
The Current Rules of order state:
"Council Member Agenda Items. Council Members should also strive to include any agenda item a Council
Member wishes the City Council to consider within the Tentative Agenda. If that is not possible, the Council
Member should explain during the Agenda Session why the proposed agenda item should be included in the
Final Agenda rather than postponed to the next meeting. Any member of the City Council including the Mayor
can then place this item on the Final Agenda."
1
In response to my question being relayed, Councilmember Berna asked "Did they send the same email when
Councilmember Harvey Brought on a 3 Million dollar ARPA request for the arts council., or Councilmember
Moore walked on a 1.3 million dollar ARPA request?"
No, I would have had no way to know an item was being omitted from the tentative agenda until after the fact.
I only knew of this one because I heard a rumor. After reviewing those agenda meetings, I would say they
should have been added to the tentative agenda unless there was a time sensitive reason for them to jump
the line. However, ARPA grant considerations are materially different than rules of order changes. I spent
several weeks, and several ordinance review meetings with council in 2020 to revise the rules, and they are
being changed in one meeting, with no supporting data.
If Council wants to fast track a reduction in public comment period, you're free to do so. The comments about
how the public still has a week's notice, distract from the fact that the rules are not being followed.
There were concerns addressed during the meeting about wanting to shorten meetings in part so staff could
get home sooner. I agree with that. However, routinely violating your own rules to add items to an already full
agenda, while jumping in front of items they had to submit under different rules, is counter-intuitive to
concerns about staff's time. Council spent 20 minutes discussing this agenda item and my comments
(including taking a position on the resolution, debating the item, and stating how members would vote). I don't
feel like that's showing respect for the public or staff's time. There was also a comment that the public could
simply ask for more time. In the previous meeting, a council member responded, out of order, to such a
request by saying "We haven’t given anyone else extra time”, to which the Mayor had to explain that the rules
allow them to ask for more time. These out of order outbursts have become more common this year.
During discussion on the SRO Grant in the May 2nd Council Meeting 19 members of the public spoke for a
total of 45 minutes. Council (Not including the Chiefs presentation) spoke for 1 hour. On the Grant for the
Basketball court, Council spent 36 minutes debating, public comment took 5.
Please learn, and follow the Rules of order. And please familiarize yourselves with Roberts Rules of order so
you can have quicker, more efficient meetings.
I will see you all next Tuesday, in what the council has now decided would be a late running meeting, with a
discussion about public comment slated last on the agenda. The purported purpose of this item being to keep
people from having to stay late to comment. I have linked your rules for your review. RULES OF ORDER AND
PROCEDURE (fayetteville-ar.gov)
Thanks
Rob Qualls
Ward 3
501-517-7579
2