There has been many discussions about who should be running the council meetings. Should it be the council chair? The mayor?
Not sure of the city ordinance or Roberts Rules on the issue, but logically the council chair should be running all council related meetings, and if the council chair cannot, the co-chair should be. For some reason, after Munson took office the mayor started running the gig. It only makes sense for the legislative body to run their own meetings. The President doesn’t preside over the Senate and the Governor doesn’t preside over the legislature.
The mayor presents an agenda to the council, and they vote on it. Obviously the mayor should be present for the meetings in case of a tie vote he has to break or if he would like to comment on his agenda, but he should not be seated with the council, and he should certainly not be running the meeting.
Of course, this would force the mayor to have to sit with the rest of us poor schlumps and city directors without the protection of the terrier dog fence, but if he feels his safety is compromised, they can always give him a chair in the corner directly behind the city clerk.
Hopefully the new council will consider removing the mayor from running the meetings, I would suggest it to be their first action at their first meeting.
From the city charter:
Section 2.03 Mayor.
The mayor shall serve as a member of the city council. In the absence of the mayor for purposes of city council meetings, the city council shall designate one (1) of its members as acting mayor, with the duties but not the powers of that office.
Section 3.03 Mayor’s duties and responsibility.
The mayor shall, at the beginning of each calendar year, and may at other times give the council information as to the affairs of the city and recommend measures considered necessary and desirable.
Breaking this part out so you can READ it.
The mayor shall preside at meetings of the council,
Comment “preside” means to “run the meeting”.
represent the city in intergovernmental relationships, appoint with the advice and consent of the council the members of the citizen advisory boards and commissions, present an annual state of the city message, and perform other duties specified by the council and by article III. The mayor shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes and by the governor for purposes of military law.
Took me 5 minutes to find this.
Following your suggestion will require revising/amending the city charter.
I already knew about the above language. No where in the above section does it say he has to run the meetings.
‘The mayor ‘SHALL’ preside at the meetings of the council.
First off ‘Shall’ means an ‘intention’ to run the meeting, doesn’t mean he has to.
And if you want to follow the ordinance above, why doesn’t the mayor run the committee meetings and the informational, and the working session? If the mayor should ‘preside’ over the meetings of the council, why does he pick and choose what those meetings are? Shouldn’t he being ‘presiding’ over all the meetings?
The fact is, the council can ask the mayor to not run the city council meetings, and if he refuses, he will look pretty arrogant.
Believe it or not Ruf, I have done plenty of research on Roberts Rules, and I have determined that it is a pretty slack document that can be easily manipulated by any municipality.
You need to ask an attorney to straighten you out on what “shall” means in the legal sense – it means MUST, as opposed to “may” (choose to or not to) which s what you are suggesting it means.
The charter isn’t Robert’s rules – it’s the law.
As to the non-regular meetings, in the informational and working meetings or committee meetings are there sufficient members present to constitute a quorum – and do they vote on official actions – or is that reserved for regular meetings? Are those extra meetings required to publish agenda 24 hours in advance? Let’s see what you “know”.
Interesting in your response to me you say you already know all about this – and “know” your suggestion is possible, while in the OP you said;
“…..Not sure of the city ordinance or Roberts Rules on the issue…..”
One of your statements here is a lie. Which one is it?
Shall=Must=Mandatory.
City Ordinances:
Section 2.02: There shall be a city council composed of the mayor and eight members.
Section 2.03: The mayor shall serve as a member of the city council.
Section 30.08 The presiding officer of the city council meetings shall be the mayor….
My point is that the ordinance is fluid and can be changed. One of the reasons I bring it up is because as I mention in the post, many councilors have discussed changing it, privately, as I said in my final paragraph,
“Hopefully the new council will consider removing the mayor from running the meetings, I would suggest it to be their first action at their first meeting.”
Doesn’t matter about legaleze in the charter. They ignore it. If it’s an issue, they renumber codes and add lengthy more confusing text. It’s a crossword puzzle where down is across answers.