COVID19, FOIA, and Voting Procedure

[laser158689]

Our state has relaxed the freedom of information requirements to allow for remote meetings.  My municipality is going to attempt to make this work for our over-sized legislature (150+).

Our Rules (bylaws) never contemplated a virtual meeting.  Things like Meeting Location and Seating obviously are inapplicable.  Others have obvious analogues in a virtual meeting or are essentially unimpacted.

One aspect that seems problematic is voting procedure.  We specify a voting method that is detailed about who handles a district's voting card (vote for public record) and that the individual records their own votes.

Can we use an alternative voting procedure?  What would we need to do to accomplish that?

It's been suggested that the voting procedure is just inapplicable and we will vote how we vote.

It's also been suggested that we need to Suspend the Rules to not use the voting procedure in the Rules (bylaws).  Possibly, we should also specify the replacement voting procedure.

RONR p263 also suggests that we cannot do either.  Thoughts?

[Joshua Katz]

26 minutes ago, laser158689 said:

Our state has relaxed the freedom of information requirements to allow for remote meetings.  My municipality is going to attempt to make this work for our over-sized legislature (150+).

 

That does not, standing alone, mean you can hold them. You'll need to interpret the statute to see if it overcomes your bylaws' silence on the matter, which, if you use RONR, implies that they are not allowed.

27 minutes ago, laser158689 said:

One aspect that seems problematic is voting procedure.  We specify a voting method that is detailed about who handles a district's voting card (vote for public record) and that the individual records their own votes.

 

Where is this specified? If it is not changing the threshold, and if you can indeed hold electronic meetings, then it seems to me this is a rule of order and may be suspended.

[Guest laser15869]

The Executive Order is pretty broad and would seem to allow an electronic meeting...

Quote

General Statutes, and any open meeting provision of any municipal charter, ordinance, or regulation that conflicts with this order, are suspended to the extent necessary to permit any public agency to meet and take such actions authorized by the law without permitting or requiring in-person, public access to such meetings, and to hold such meetings or proceedings remotely by conference call, videoconference or other technology, provided that: I) the public has the ability to view or listen to each meeting or proceeding in real time, by telephone, video, or other technology; 2) any such meeting or proceeding is recorded or transcribed, and such recording or transcript shall be posted on the agency's website within seven (7) days of the meeting or proceeding, and made available within a reasonable time in the agency's office; 3) the required notice and agenda for each meeting or proceeding is posted on the agency's website and shall include information about how the meeting will be conducted and how the public can access it; 4) any materials relevant to matters on the agenda, including but not limited to materials related to specific applications, if applicable, shall be submitted to the agency a minimum of twenty four (24) hours prior and posted to the agency's website for public inspection prior to, during, and after the meeting, and any exhibits to be submitted by members of the public shall, to the extent feasible, also be submitted to the agency a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting and posted to the agency's website for public inspection prior to, during, and after the meeting; and 5) all speakers taking part in any such meeting or proceeding shall clearly state their name and title, if applicable, before speaking on each occasion that they speak.

 

Whether or not our Rules (bylaws) fall under "regulation" is an interesting question.

Voting Procedure is in our Rules (bylaws).

Do we need to actually vote to suspend the rules, or would it naturally flow from the virtual nature of the meeting?  Would we need to specify the alternate voting procedure?  I am assuming that we would attempt to pass such a motion by unanimous consent (otherwise catch-22!)

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest laser15869 said:

Whether or not our Rules (bylaws) fall under "regulation" is an interesting question.

 

I'm hesitant to comment, but it looks to me like the purpose of this is to ensure that open-meeting laws do not impede electronic meetings. Your organization, with legal counsel, will need to determine whether it overrides your Rules.

1 hour ago, Guest laser15869 said:

Do we need to actually vote to suspend the rules, or would it naturally flow from the virtual nature of the meeting?  Would we need to specify the alternate voting procedure?  I am assuming that we would attempt to pass such a motion by unanimous consent (otherwise catch-22!)

You need to suspend the rules. When you move to suspend the rules, you do not specify the rule you are suspending, but rather what it is preventing you from doing. Perhaps "I move to suspend the rules so as to permit voting in the following manner:" But you need to think, again, with help from counsel, about how to continue to meet the requirements of any applicable open-meeting laws. That's beyond the scope of this forum, but if any are applicable to you, you should think about them.

As to how to pass it, I guess I did not consider the fact that your present rule applies to all motions, including this one. You mention unanimous consent - do your rules allow that as an exception? If not, you might want to do your best to create a virtual analog of your procedure at least for that vote. 

But stay tuned for other answers.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest laser15869 said:

The Executive Order is pretty broad and would seem to allow an electronic meeting...

Whether or not our Rules (bylaws) fall under "regulation" is an interesting question.

I think this is ultimately a legal question and I would advise the municipality consult its attorney.

To the extent that it is a parliamentary question, it seems to me that (if "regulation" does indeed apply to the organization's bylaws), the order does take precedence over the bylaws and RONR. The rule is procedural in nature (as it applies to the manner in which the organization may meet) and does not permit an organization's rules to provide otherwise (indeed, it specifically states that such rules are suspended.

It certainly seems that the intent of the order was to authorize all public bodies to  meet electronically, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary.

The answers to the remaining questions assume that the order authorizes your assembly to meet electronically.

1 hour ago, Guest laser15869 said:

Do we need to actually vote to suspend the rules, or would it naturally flow from the virtual nature of the meeting?

The former, in my opinion. I would also note that a suspension of the rules lasts only for a single meeting (at most), and since this situation may last for some time, it may be advisable to actually adopt new rules governing these procedures rather than simply suspending the rules each meeting.

1 hour ago, Guest laser15869 said:

Would we need to specify the alternate voting procedure?

I wouldn't go so far as saying you "need" to, but I think it would be highly advisable. If no other procedure is specified, the assembly would use the default voting procedures in RONR, which are not really well-suited to electronic meetings either. RONR advises that assemblies which meet electronically adopt rules to handle such matters.

1 hour ago, Guest laser15869 said:

I am assuming that we would attempt to pass such a motion by unanimous consent (otherwise catch-22!)

Yes, I suppose that would be ideal.

Edited April 6, 2020 at 03:41 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest laser158689]

Our Rules (bylaws) do provide for other voting methods for non-substantive or parliamentary questions.

[J. J.]

I cannot see how a secret ballot could be conducted by a conference call, but presumably the rule about handling voting cards could be suspended for the session. 

It might be better to look at the adjourned meeting possibility, if applicable.

[Guest laser158689]

Not a secret ballot - a recorded vote (municipality, where everything including votes will be published).  It involves a "voting card" with each member's name for that district and columns to mark "yes", 'no", or "abstain".  One voting card per recorded vote, per district.

Another Executive Order delayed budget votes until June, but given the uncertainty around the situation, we need to move forward with a way to exercise our municipal legislature's authority over the budget process.

[J. J.]

50 minutes ago, Guest laser158689 said:

Not a secret ballot - a recorded vote (municipality, where everything including votes will be published).  It involves a "voting card" with each member's name for that district and columns to mark "yes", 'no", or "abstain".  One voting card per recorded vote, per district.

Another Executive Order delayed budget votes until June, but given the uncertainty around the situation, we need to move forward with a way to exercise our municipal legislature's authority over the budget process.

You could do this as a roll call vote, where each voter would give that information, but that will take a while.