Special Town Meeting in Vermont

[Billy D]

Our town's Selectboard in Vermont has recently amended it's ATV Ordinance. The state allows for a "permissive referendum" which allows 5% of registered voters to call for a Special Meeting to disallow the adopted Ordinance to take affect, leaving the original Ordinance in place. Our Town and State uses Robert's Rules.

A couple of questions:

*** During debate, are members of the assembly allowed to make use of an outline or notes to guide them through their allotted time to speak?

***Is informational material allowed in the hall (copies if the Ordinance and amendments) other than what the Town must display by law?

*** Are people allowed to wear political stickers, pins, badges on their clothes?

*** If there are questions of legality of certain amendments that would challenge the legal validity of the amended Ordinance, are those issues brought to the member's attention during regular debate, or can that be handled under a Point of Order/Information? Can a motion be made to address that legal issue negating a time-factor that limits speech, for the explanation to comfortably occur?

*** We are told that no one can be within 10 feet of the ballot counters, which disallows members oversight of the counting. Is that permissible?

** We are told that non-residents and non-voters will be allowed in the room. Is that permissible?

[J. J.]

Most of your questions deal with Vermont law, not RONR.  Under RONR, there are no rules covering most of these.

Debate can get into the legality of a motion, however, a point of order could only be raised it the motion were to violate a procedural rule of law (23:6 c). 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Billy D said:

Our town's Selectboard in Vermont has recently amended it's ATV Ordinance. The state allows for a "permissive referendum" which allows 5% of registered voters to call for a Special Meeting to disallow the adopted Ordinance to take affect, leaving the original Ordinance in place. Our Town and State uses Robert's Rules.

I will answer your questions with respect to Robert's Rules of Order, however, I would note that your town's rules and applicable law will take precedence over RONR.

On 4/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Billy D said:

During debate, are members of the assembly allowed to make use of an outline or notes to guide them through their allotted time to speak?

To the extent a member simply uses the outline or notes as a guide, no rule in RONR prohibits this. If the member is reading excerpts from the papers, this technically requires the assembly's permission, but typically such permission is granted as a matter of courtesy as long as members don't get carried away with it.

"If any member objects, a member has no right to read from—or to have the secretary read from—any paper or book as a part of his speech without permission of the assembly. This rule is a protection against the use of reading as a means of prolonging debate and delaying business. It is customary, however, to permit members to read short, pertinent, printed extracts in debate so long as they do not abuse the privilege. If a member wishes to do so, he can, while speaking in debate, say, “If there is no objection, I would like to read… [indicating the nature and length of the paper].” The member can then begin to read unless another member objects. In such a case, at any time until the speaker has finished reading, another member can interrupt him by an objection, which must be addressed to the chair. Or, if the speaker desiring to read prefers, he can formally request permission: “Mr. President, I ask permission to read a statement… [briefly describing it, as above]”; and the chair then asks if there is objection. In either case, if there is an objection, the chair can, of his own accord, put the question on granting permission, or any member can move “that permission to read a paper in debate be granted.” This motion requires no second unless moved by the member who made the request. Action of the assembly granting a request to read a paper can be reconsidered at any time until the reading has been concluded." RONR (12th ed.) 33:20

On 4/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Billy D said:

Is informational material allowed in the hall (copies if the Ordinance and amendments) other than what the Town must display by law?

RONR has no rule on this subject. This will be subject to the town's rules and applicable law, or in the absence of such rules, at the discretion of the assembly.

On 4/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Billy D said:

Are people allowed to wear political stickers, pins, badges on their clothes?

RONR has no rule on this subject. This will be subject to the town's rules and applicable law, or in the absence of such rules, at the discretion of the assembly.

On 4/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Billy D said:

If there are questions of legality of certain amendments that would challenge the legal validity of the amended Ordinance, are those issues brought to the member's attention during regular debate, or can that be handled under a Point of Order/Information?

Certainly such issues may be brought to the attention of the members during regular debate and/or through the use of a Request for Information. (The phrase "Point of Information" is no longer the preferred term for this motion. "Request for Information" is intended to make more clear that the purpose of this motion is to ask for information.)

A Point of Order is likely not the appropriate tool. A conflict with nonprocedural rules in applicable law is a legal problem, not a parliamentary problem.

On 4/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Billy D said:

Can a motion be made to address that legal issue negating a time-factor that limits speech, for the explanation to comfortably occur?

I understand you to be asking whether a motion may be made providing, for example, "To permit [so and so] to give an explanation of legal issues pertaining to the ordinance, and for the debate timer to be paused during that explanation."

Such a motion is in order. A motion which limits or extends limits of debate requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

On 4/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Billy D said:

We are told that no one can be within 10 feet of the ballot counters, which disallows members oversight of the counting. Is that permissible?

RONR itself does not contain limitations on members' proximity to the ballot counters, but an assembly is free to adopt its own rules on that subject if desired. It may well also be that the rule in question is within applicable law.

Assuming the rule is not found in applicable law, the assembly might want to work out a compromise on this issue, permitting a few observers supporting each side of the issue to observe the counting. It may not be feasible to permit everyone to observe the count who wishes to do so.

On 4/19/2024 at 10:23 AM, Billy D said:

We are told that non-residents and non-voters will be allowed in the room. Is that permissible?

So far as RONR is concerned, this is at the assembly's discretion. Under RONR, only members of the assembly have a right to be in the room, but others may be permitted to attend if desired.

Since this is a public body, however, it seems highly likely there are rules on this subject in applicable law, and such rules will take precedence.

[Billy D]

Thank you J.J. and Josh Martin. Your expertise is so appreciated.

I have just returned from our voter event, and I have one last question, which may meet the same fate as others in this posting - "RONR  has no rule on this subject. This will be subject to the town's rules and applicable law, or in the absence of such rules, at the discretion of the assembly."

In our meeting today, when the floor was open for debate, a town official stood to read a letter into the debate which was being presented from one of the Select Board members who was out of town on vacation. The absent Board member in her letter stated that she was addressing the assembly as a resident and not as a town official. The moderator allowed the letter to be read into the debate, the contents of which were both self justifying for her actions on this issue, and also dredged in victimhood and self pity for the sufferings of her personal sacrifices. She indeed was speaking as a town official despite her opening remarks proclaiming otherwise. Some of her ire was directed at me in a veiled manner; the most vocal opponent of her project. 

This scenario did not seem right to me and so I stood and raised a "Point of Order", questioning why if everyone else could attend personally,  was it fair for her to "attend" as an apparition, where there is no accountability for her comments. If I were to stand and deliver statements like the ones that she was delivering, there  would be many people returning comments of their own into the mix. In this case she was able to deliver the blows and escape any accountability or return replies. It did not seem fair.

The moderator immediately denied an intervention to the "Point of Order" and allowed the Board member's letter to be read. After 20 seconds, the Moderator intervened and stopped the reading, and corrected himself to allow me to speak my objection, which was then denied and the reading continued.

What do you think? Is that allowable? The content of her remarks is not really the question here, it is the allowance to read the letter into the debate.

As a secondary aspect to that, her remarks come as part of a town-wide smear campaign and scapegoating, with both acts and threats of violence directed at me, and she was allowed to contribute to that without an opportunity to respond.

In fairness, our Moderator is new to this, but sharp and dedicated.

Edited April 21, 2024 at 02:03 PM by Billy D

[Atul Kapur]

 

 

On 4/20/2024 at 10:12 PM, Billy D said:

The Board member in her letter stated that she was addressing the assembly as a resident and not as a town official. .... She indeed was speaking as a town official despite her opening remarks proclaiming otherwise.

Under RONR, at a membership meeting, all members (other than than the chair) participate as members. Officers have no more rights than other members at a membership meeting, but they don't have any fewer rights, either.

On 4/20/2024 at 10:12 PM, Billy D said:

the question here, it is the allowance to read the letter into the debate.

Your point of order should have been to object to the fact that the member was reading from a paper. Once you objected to the individual reading the letter from the official, then the Moderator should have followed RONR (12th ed.) 33:20 ("Request to read papers") and asked the assembly to decide if the member could read the letter. Since the Moderator did not, you could have raised an Appeal from the ruling of the chair. See §24.

On 4/20/2024 at 10:12 PM, Billy D said:

If I were to stand and deliver statements like the ones that she was delivering, there  would be many people returning comments of their own into the mix.

That should not happen and, if it does, should be stopped. If your remarks did not meet the rules of decorum, the he should call you to order. While you have the floor, others should be listening to you, not "returning comments of their own."

 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/20/2024 at 9:12 PM, Billy D said:

In our meeting today, when the floor was open for debate, a town official stood to read a letter into the debate which was being presented from one of the Select Board members who was out of town on vacation. The Board member in her letter stated that she was addressing the assembly as a resident and not as a town official. The moderator allowed the letter to be read into the debate, the contents of which were both self justifying for her actions on this issue, and also dredged in victimhood and self pity for the sufferings of her personal sacrifices. She indeed was speaking as a town official despite her opening remarks proclaiming otherwise. Some of her ire was directed at me in a veiled manner; the most vocal opponent of her project. 

I think there are, in fact, some rules in RONR which are applicable to this matter - however, there may well be rules on this subject in applicable law or the town's rules which would take precedence.

First, as noted previously, members do not have a right to read printed materials unless permission is granted by the assembly. As I noted, "If the member is reading excerpts from the papers, this technically requires the assembly's permission, but typically such permission is granted as a matter of courtesy as long as members don't get carried away with it."

Reading a letter from an absent member in its entirety, however, I think is certainly a case where the assembly should be asked whether to grant permission to read the letter. In any event, any member is free to object, which places the question in the hands of the assembly.

"If any member objects, a member has no right to read from—or to have the secretary read from—any paper or book as a part of his speech without permission of the assembly. This rule is a protection against the use of reading as a means of prolonging debate and delaying business. It is customary, however, to permit members to read short, pertinent, printed extracts in debate so long as they do not abuse the privilege. If a member wishes to do so, he can, while speaking in debate, say, “If there is no objection, I would like to read… [indicating the nature and length of the paper].” The member can then begin to read unless another member objects. In such a case, at any time until the speaker has finished reading, another member can interrupt him by an objection, which must be addressed to the chair. Or, if the speaker desiring to read prefers, he can formally request permission: “Mr. President, I ask permission to read a statement… [briefly describing it, as above]”; and the chair then asks if there is objection. In either case, if there is an objection, the chair can, of his own accord, put the question on granting permission, or any member can move “that permission to read a paper in debate be granted.” This motion requires no second unless moved by the member who made the request. Action of the assembly granting a request to read a paper can be reconsidered at any time until the reading has been concluded." RONR (12th ed.) 33:20

As to the contents of the letter, while I am generally inclined to think that words which are "self justifying for her actions on this issue, and also dredged in victimhood and self pity for the sufferings of her personal sacrifices" are perhaps not the wisest course for persuasion, I do not believe they believe any parliamentary rule.

However, words which relate to "ire... directed at [a member] in a veiled manner; the most vocal opponent of her project" are a violation of the rules of decorum. The topic before the assembly is the merits of the proposal itself, not the personal qualities of its supporters or opponents.

"When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate. If a member disagrees with a statement by another in regard to an event that both witnessed, he cannot state in debate that the other's statement “is false.” But he might say, “I believe there is strong evidence that the member is mistaken.” The moment the chair hears such words as “fraud,” “liar,” or “lie” used about a member in debate, he must act immediately and decisively to correct the matter and prevent its repetition (see 61)." RONR (12th ed.) 43:21

Finally, we are also informed that the letter was read by a "town official," and it is not clear whether the town official was a member of the assembly that was meeting. Even to the extent that non-members are permitted to attend, they do not have the right to speak in debate (even if what they are saying is on behalf of an absent member), unless permission to do so is granted by the assembly.

It also occurs to me that if the letter, including the personal attacks, was nonetheless read, you could have raised a Question of Personal Privilege to address that issue.

"Questions of personal privilege—which seldom arise in ordinary societies and even more rarely justify interruption of pending business—may relate, for example, to an incorrect record of a member's participation in a meeting contained in minutes approved in his absence, or to charges circulated against a member's character." RONR (12th ed.) 19:7

On 4/20/2024 at 9:12 PM, Billy D said:

This scenario did not seem right to me and so I stood and raised a "Point of Order", questioning why if everyone else could attend personally,  was it fair for her to "attend" as an apparition, where there is no accountability for her comments. If I were to stand and deliver statements like the ones that she was delivering, there  would be many people returning comments of their own into the mix. In this case she was able to deliver the blows and escape any accountability or return replies. It did not seem fair.

Well, I think you were correct to raise a Point of Order, but I don't agree on your reasoning. This isn't a trial - people do not need to be present for "accountability" or "cross-examination."

The reason why the letter violated the rules in RONR is because:

• The assembly's permission is required to read from papers.
• The contents of the letter which related to "ire... directed at [a member] in a veiled manner; the most vocal opponent of her project" were a violation of the rules of decorum, specifically 43:21.
• To the extent the town official was not a member of the assembly, the assembly's permission would be required for the official to speak in debate.

On 4/20/2024 at 9:12 PM, Billy D said:

The moderator immediately denied an intervention to the "Point of Order" and allowed the Board member's letter to be read. After 20 seconds, the Moderator intervened and stopped the reading, and corrected himself to allow me to speak my objection, which was then denied and the reading continued.

It appears the moderator at first erred by failing to address the Point of Order. The moderator subsequently addressed the Point of Order, but ruled it not well taken.

In my view, based solely upon the rules in RONR and the facts provided, if I were in the chair I would have ruled as follows:

"The member's point is well taken. While the chair disagrees with the member's reasoning, it is the case that there is no right to read from papers without the assembly's permission, if any member objects. The chair shall assume the Point of Order to be an objection. Further, the chair believes at least some aspects of the letter violate the rules of decorum. The chair shall now put the question to the assembly on whether the letter shall be read. If such permission is granted, the letter shall be read, excluding those portions which attack the motives of members of this assembly. If such permission is not granted, the letter shall not be read."

But it may well be that there is something in the town's rules or applicable law I am not aware of.

In any event, if a member disagrees with the moderator's judgment, the appropriate course of action is to promptly appeal from the decision of the chair, which places the question in the hands of the assembly. Since no such appeal was raised, the moderator's judgment stands as the judgment of the assembly.

On 4/20/2024 at 9:12 PM, Billy D said:

What do you think? Is that allowable? The content of her remarks is not really the question here, it is the allowance to read the letter into the debate.

I actually do think some of the content of her remarks is the question here, but it is also correct that the allowance to read a letter (any letter) into debate is at the assembly's discretion.

On 4/20/2024 at 9:12 PM, Billy D said:

As a secondary aspect to that, her remarks come as part of a town-wide smear campaign and scapegoating, with both acts and threats of violence directed at me, and she was allowed to contribute to that without an opportunity to respond.

To the extent such actions occur during a meeting, these are (rather severe) violations of the rules of decorum. To the extent such actions occur outside of a meeting, they are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum, and such matters should be directed to an attorney and/or law enforcement.

(RONR does also have rules pertaining to discipline and removal for misconduct, but it seems extremely unlikely those rules will be applicable here, as this situation relates to members of an elected body, and such matters are almost certainly governed by applicable law.)

Edited April 21, 2024 at 02:16 PM by Josh Martin