Guest AntiqueSteve Posted February 2, 2013 at 03:15 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 03:15 PM If someone that is conducting a meeting, such as a mayor of a town, and he/she wishes to make comments on an item; if they pass the gavel so they can speak, what is the proceedure for it being given back to them after they have finshed speaking to this one item? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted February 2, 2013 at 03:20 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 03:20 PM Normally, if the chair relinquishes his position in order to speak to a pending item, then once that item is disposed of, the chair will retake the position. Once he has stated an opinion on a matter, he has expressed a preference for one side over the other and so will have difficulty maintaining the appearance of impartially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 2, 2013 at 03:22 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 03:22 PM The mayor (or whomever) does NOT return to his/her presiding duties until the item of business is disposed of. p. 394-5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 2, 2013 at 03:24 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 03:24 PM Note that if the assembly (a town council?) is "small" (no more than about a dozen members), the presiding officer is free to participate fully without relinquishing the chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 2, 2013 at 04:06 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 04:06 PM Note that if the assembly (a town council?) is "small" (no more than about a dozen members), the presiding officer is free to participate fully without relinquishing the chair.Small assemblies may adopt a rule to follow some or all of the small board rules if they wish, but in the absence of such a rule they follow the same rules as large assemblies. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16, lines 12-16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AntiqueSteve Posted February 2, 2013 at 04:28 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 04:28 PM Ok... here was the problem. The Mayor wished to speak (small town, 6 council members) and the council said he had to give up the gavel in order to speak to this one item or just in general. This council always is giving the mayor a hard time about his speaking as the chair of the meeting. There is a place on the agenda for him, the town manager, council to speak but its after all the business has been conducted. At the past meeting, he was required to give up the gavel to speak about an issue that was coming up and he passed it to the vice mayor. When his comments were finished the vice mayor "refused" to give it back and conducted the rest of the meeting. This made the paper etc..... My question on this one issue is like above.. did he have to give it up in the firist place and if he did should he have gotten control of the gavel and meeting back? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 2, 2013 at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 04:41 PM Small assemblies may adopt a rule to follow some or all of the small board rules if they wish, but in the absence of such a rule they follow the same rules as large assemblies. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16, lines 12-16.But on p.487 we read that the rules governing meeting of small boards are (not may be) different which suggests to me that, when it comes to boards (as opposed to other small assemblies), the relaxed rules are the default. So the question in this instance is whether this town council is, in effect, a board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 2, 2013 at 04:53 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 04:53 PM Ok... here was the problem. The Mayor wished to speak (small town, 6 council members) and the council said he had to give up the gavel in order to speak to this one item or just in general. This council always is giving the mayor a hard time about his speaking as the chair of the meeting. There is a place on the agenda for him, the town manager, council to speak but its after all the business has been conducted. At the past meeting, he was required to give up the gavel to speak about an issue that was coming up and he passed it to the vice mayor. When his comments were finished the vice mayor "refused" to give it back and conducted the rest of the meeting. This made the paper etc..... My question on this one issue is like above.. did he have to give it up in the firist place and if he did should he have gotten control of the gavel and meeting back? Thanks!The mayor should relinquish the chair if he wishes to speak in debate, unless your rules or applicable law provide otherwise. The vice mayor would then proceed to chair the meeting until the main pending question is disposed of, since the mayor has shown himself not to be impartial on that issue. After that question is disposed of, the vice mayor would relinquish the chair back to the mayor.The council may wish to keep in mind that the rules requiring the chair to be impartial while presiding apply to whoever is in the chair. If this is made clear, members may be more willing to give the chair back so they can participate in debate. I would also advise double-checking the council's rules and applicable law, as I suspect they may have something to say on this subject. If there is no current rule which permits the chair to speak in debate, the council is free to adopt one.Incidentally, this happened to me once when I was chair of a committee, but it was clearly done in jest, so there was no drama or media coverage involved. But on p.487 we read that the rules governing meeting of small boards are (not may be) different which suggests to me that, when it comes to boards (as opposed to other small assemblies), the relaxed rules are the default. So the question in this instance is whether this town council is, in effect, a board.Based on the facts presented, it seems likely that the town council is a legislative body, not a board. It seems to fit the description of "smaller public bodies" found in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 8, lines 18-25. And in that case, it says such an assembly may resemble a board.It's also a bit of an oversimplification to say that relaxed rules are the "default" for boards. I admit I'm still not entirely clear on this topic myself, but my understanding is that small boards do not really have a "default," and are free to choose whether to use the small board rules or the more formal rules normally reserved for larger assemblies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 2, 2013 at 05:11 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 05:11 PM It's also a bit of an oversimplification to say that relaxed rules are the "default" for boards. I admit I'm still not entirely clear on this topic myself, but my understanding is that small boards do not really have a "default," and are free to choose whether to use the small board rules or the more formal rules normally reserved for larger assemblies.I agree that it's not clear whether this town council constitutes a board but it does seem clear that (1) by referring to the relaxed rules as "small board rules", (2) by distinguishing between "small assemblies" and "small boards", and (3) by its use of the word "are" (not "may"), RONR has established a default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest xGHzG Posted February 2, 2013 at 05:36 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 05:36 PM Thank you for your comments on this. It really helped! I will pass them along. If you wish to send me anything by email, please send it to antiquesteve@msn.com and use Passing the Gavel as the subject. Thank you again!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 2, 2013 at 06:12 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 06:12 PM I agree that it's not clear whether this town council constitutes a board but it does seem clear that (1) by referring to the relaxed rules as "small board rules", (2) by distinguishing between "small assemblies" and "small boards", and (3) by its use of the word "are" (not "may"), RONR has established a default.I would refer you to this thread, particularly posts #3 and #5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 2, 2013 at 09:55 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 09:55 PM I would refer you to this thread, particularly posts #3 and #5.Threads, schmeds. I can only go by what The Right Book says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 2, 2013 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 11:17 PM Threads, schmeds. I can only go by what The Right Book says.Fair enough. What about RONR, 11th ed., pg. 9, lines 30-33? "In small boards, and in committees, most parliamentary rules apply, but certain modifications permitting greater flexibility and informality are commonly allowed." That suggests some flexibility in whether the board will follow the small board rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 2, 2013 at 11:38 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 at 11:38 PM What about RONR, 11th ed., pg. 9, lines 30-33? "In small boards, and in committees, most parliamentary rules apply, but certain modifications permitting greater flexibility and informality are commonly allowed." That suggests some flexibility in whether the board will follow the small board rules.Well, I'm not saying that a small board can't choose to operate under more formal rules so, yes, to that extent, there's some flexibility. But saying that informality is commonly allowed is not incompatible with it also being the default.I might also suggest that statements appearing in the early pages of RONR are general observations whereas the nitty gritty details are explicated in the more specific text that follows. Or, if you prefer, Principle of Interpretation #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 3, 2013 at 06:56 PM Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 at 06:56 PM At the past meeting, he was required to give up the gavel to speak about an issue that was coming up and he passed it to the vice mayor.I'll add one other wrinkle into the mix, just to cover this base. If the Mayor decides to, or is required to, relinquish the chair, if whoever takes over as chair (be it the vice mayor or another pro tem person) has already spoken on the question, this effectively disqualifes them from taking the chair as they have already "compromised" their impartiality. Also, if this person wishes to speak on the question, they should decline the assignment. (RONR 11, p. 395, ll. 4-6) Even though this section deals with a vice president taking the chair, I think it's fair to assume it applies to any person considered for taking the chair temporarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antiquesteve Posted February 6, 2013 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 at 07:05 PM Josh/others.... the Mayor brought me the pages that they are trying<-- to hang their hat on and it's under Sections 50-53.... page 111, President and Vice-President page 11 where it says about "The Chair cannot take part in debate or interrupt member who are etc..etc.... and page 114 about "if the President vacates the chair"...... I read that one as if he leaves the meeting, not if he hands over the gavel, but I would like for you guys to comment on this. Thank you all! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 6, 2013 at 07:22 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 at 07:22 PM It sounds like what the Mayor is citing is not from RONR and is some custom rule governing the Council which wanders outside of this forum's scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 6, 2013 at 09:56 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 at 09:56 PM No this is not the Mayor doing that.. this is the others that are trying to say they were correct asking him to give up the gavel then not giving it back. He feels, as I do, he didn't have to give it up in the first place since the council is only 7 people and that even if he did, after his comments it should have been returned to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM No this is not the Mayor doing that.. this is the others that are trying to say they were correct asking him to give up the gavel then not giving it back. He feels, as I do, he didn't have to give it up in the first place since the council is only 7 people and that even if he did, after his comments it should have been returned to him.The point being that these "pages" to which you refer are from some other source than RONR. Sections 50-53 correspond to pages 489-553 in RONR (11th Ed.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM Josh/others.... the Mayor brought me the pages that they are trying<-- to hang their hat on and it's under Sections 50-53.... page 111, President and Vice-President page 11 where it says about "The Chair cannot take part in debate or interrupt member who are etc..etc.... and page 114 about "if the President vacates the chair"...... I read that one as if he leaves the meeting, not if he hands over the gavel, but I would like for you guys to comment on this. Thank you all! SteveThese citations are not from RONR. The relevant information is in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 394-395, or pgs. 487-488 if the council is using the small board rules.It sounds like what the Mayor is citing is not from RONR and is some custom rule governing the Council which wanders outside of this forum's scope.Or it's a third-party guide or knockoff.No this is not the Mayor doing that.. this is the others that are trying to say they were correct asking him to give up the gavel then not giving it back. He feels, as I do, he didn't have to give it up in the first place since the council is only 7 people and that even if he did, after his comments it should have been returned to him.As I tried to explain earlier, it seems that both sides may be wrong. In a full-fledged assembly, even a small one, the more formal rules of debate apply unless the assembly has adopted a rule providing otherwise. Under these rules, the Mayor should relinquish the chair to speak in debate and the chair should not be returned to him until the main pending question has been disposed of. It is not proper to return the chair immediately after he has made his comments, since the Mayor has already shown himself to be partisan on the issue before the assembly. On the other hand, it's also not proper to keep the chair from the Mayor for the rest of the meeting.If the council is in the nature of a board, then it may choose to use the small board rules, but it is not required to do so. Even a full-fledged assembly may adopt a special rule of order that it shall operate by some or all of the rules governing small boards. Under these rules, the Mayor would indeed be free to speak in debate while presiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antiquesteve Posted February 27, 2013 at 02:36 AM Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 at 02:36 AM Ok guys..... at the Town Council meeting on Monday night, the town attorney "reversed" his decision on passing of the gavel and said he was wrong. The Mayor was "MUCH" more generous with his acceptance of this, not causing a big problem, and the meeting moved on. He even put out his hand to shake the hand of the person that wouldn't give it back, even though he was wrong...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 27, 2013 at 02:51 AM Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 at 02:51 AM He even put out his hand to shake the hand of the person that wouldn't give it back, even though he was wrong...... Oh, I suspect that all that handholding was to prevent the"person that wouldn't give it back " from snatching the gavel away again any time soon.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.