|
FEATURE
<br />
<br />The Commission Will Come to Order:
<br />
<br /> ':{'~.$;'part of my work, I often
<br /> observe planning commission
<br /> meetings. I appreciate the consci-
<br /> entious efforts of members to examine com-
<br /> plex aspects of specific issues under the
<br /> principles of the comprehensive plan,
<br /> adopted public policy, and development
<br /> regulation. This is a difficult enough task in
<br /> itself: yet, under our system of government
<br /> these processes of deliberation and decision
<br /> must comply with estal~lished procedures.
<br /> To structure their efforts, many plan-
<br /> ning commissions have adopted, and come
<br /> to rely upon, Robert's Rules of Order. in one
<br /> or another edition· I doubt, however, that
<br /> many commissions have either a clear
<br /> understanding of parliamentary procedure
<br /> or the ability to effectively apply Robert's
<br /> Rules.
<br /> In this short article, I want to summa-
<br /> rize the essential features of parliamentary
<br /> procedure, and review some of the prob-
<br /> lems planning boards face in using Robert's
<br /> Rules. The "Model Outline of Motions for
<br /> Planning Commissions," which follows this
<br /> article, seeks to adapt Robert's Rules to better
<br /> meet the particular needs of today~ plan-
<br /> ning and zoning boards. The Model Out-
<br /> line of Motions represents a simpler and, I
<br /> hope. more understandable set of proce-
<br /> dural rules to guide a planning or zoning
<br /> board's deliberative processes -- and. of
<br /> equal importance, promote public under-
<br /> standing of commission deliberations.
<br />
<br /> 1. Win' I--I~v~ RULES
<br /> OF PROCEDURE?
<br /> I am aware that many planning com-
<br />mJ.ssioners will read this discussion and the
<br />Outline with little enthnsiasm, if not with
<br />real dread. Permit me to argue three reasons
<br />for understanding and applying parliamen-
<br />mD' procedures. First, failure to adopt and
<br />follow formal, fair, and coherent procedures
<br />erodes public confidence in planning.
<br />Where planning is an optional power of
<br />local government, such an erosion of cornS-
<br />· denee could endanger phnnmg altogether.
<br />
<br /> COMMENTARY ON ADAPTING
<br /> THE RULES OF
<br />PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
<br />FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONS,
<br />ZONING BOARDS (ST BOARDS
<br />OF ADJUSTMENT
<br />
<br />by David J. Allot
<br />
<br />Even where planning is a mandated power
<br />of local government, public participation
<br />could be reduced to a paralyzing conflict
<br />over proper procedure. Second, failure to
<br />consistently apply procedures could result
<br />in a deprivation of individual rights and
<br />damage to individual interests. Third and
<br />finally, failure to consistently apply proce-
<br />dures would invite litigation against the
<br />local unit of government.
<br />
<br /> These considerations do reflect certain
<br />basic pnnciples of self-government. First, as
<br />Henry Roberts notes is "the right of the
<br />deliberate majority to decide" m which is
<br />immediately coupled to the second, the
<br />right of the minority to secure "considered
<br />judgment after a full and fair 'working
<br />through' of the issues involved." (Robert's
<br />Rules [1915] 1971). Moreover, such proce-
<br />dures assure that all members of the body
<br />are treated equally, and that all are free to
<br />participate fully in the discussion.
<br />
<br />common law concepts of reasonableness,
<br />non-arbitrariness, and non-capriciousness.
<br />Perhaps, the best-advice-on-the-balance-
<br />between discipline and reasonableness
<br />comes from Henry Robert Nmself:
<br /> Know about parliamentary law, but do,..
<br /> not try to show off your knowledge. Never be
<br /> technical, or more strict than is absolutely
<br /> necessary for the good of t~ meeting. Use
<br /> your judgment; the as.Kmbly may be of such a
<br /> nature through its ignorance of parliamen.
<br /> tar), usages and peage, fi~ disposition, that a
<br /> strict enforcement of rules, instead of assist-
<br /> ing. would greatly hinder business; but in
<br /> la~ge assemblies, where there/s much work to
<br /> be done. and especially where there is liability
<br /> to trouble, the only safe course is to require a
<br /> strict observance to the rules.
<br /> Robert's Rules (1915 ecfition)
<br />2. PROnLE~S Wrm Roster's Rtr~_s
<br /> 'The. prededing quotation, ,while con~:
<br />mining valuable advice, also reflects the ,first
<br />of three weaknesses within Robert's Rules.
<br />The text, now more than a century-old, is
<br />not written in a manner coherent to speak-
<br />ers accustomed to the contemporary use of
<br />the English language. The complexity of the
<br />language undermines the ability to under-
<br />stand and apply the procedure. More seri-
<br />ously, misunderstandings of the language of
<br />parliamentary procedure aggravate suspi-
<br />cion of deception or manipulation within
<br />debate. Again, dual raqui .rements must be
<br />addressed: parliamentan/procedure must
<br />be comprehensible as contemporary lan-
<br />guage but be sufficiendy disciplined to ful-
<br />fill the requirements of
<br /> The second weakne~ is la~aly histori-
<br />cal. In the early years of. its ~depandence,
<br />the United States of ~,me~ca felt a strong
<br />need to give discipline' ~-the processes of
<br />self-government. Thom~'jeffamon~ Mom-
<br />al of Pari~t,,ry ~ O801) sought to
<br />
<br />Parliamentary procedure seeks to pm- guide the conduct of~'national con~.
<br />vide [or.both efficient and effective deci- Both Luther S. CU-~..'lO(Manual o.~.,...~. ,i~
<br />sion-making and both open and full debate mental_, PracUce._(~a_n. d I-I¢~i~,~.
<br />o.f t~, es. T~.ey are closely allied to constitu- Roberts Rules of.O~'_"~i~'~6)
<br />uonat requu'ements of due rocess and to
<br />
<br /> - ' · ........ ~-:-- ' v" '~.~" '
<br />SI O N ER.S ,J~O'U:R.N.A L :/.'N~U:M:BE~"~'~.i':,' ~~~,
<br />
<br />
<br />
|