|
voluntary associations. Yet, many manuals
<br />focus upon large legislative bodies, where
<br />contending interests, perhaps politically-
<br />partisan interests, reinforce a "win-lose"
<br />rather than 'argument-fo-consensus- con-
<br />ception of decision-making. The rigidity of
<br />certain procedures impairs the collaborauve
<br />exploration of alternatives.
<br /> Two examples are important. First. par-
<br />liamentary procedure disallows discussfon
<br />of an issue in the absence ora motion: how-
<br />ever, if a motion is made. the subsequent
<br />discussion is constrained to that motion.
<br />Many deliberative bodies employ the
<br />option of 'Recessing into a Committee of
<br />the Whole" to enable broader discussion.
<br />This is impracticable on a regular basis and
<br />often confuses the public. Second. small
<br />deliberative bodies (those of three to five
<br />members) may do well to delete the
<br />requirement for a "Second" to motions. It
<br />would be unfortunate for an otherwise
<br />good motion to 'die for lack of Second." In
<br />both cases, the ultimate decision should be
<br />based upon the quality of the deliberation.
<br />not technical considerations of motion-
<br />making.
<br /> The third weakness of Robert's Rules
<br />relates to the application of parliamentary
<br />rules to the special nature of planning and
<br />zoning boards. Unlike the large, elected or
<br />self-constituting assemblies considered by
<br />Henry Robert, the work of planning is guid-
<br />ed by deliberative bodies which are small,
<br />appointed in staggered terms of office, and
<br />obligated to conform to provisions of state
<br />statute and/or municipal charter.
<br /> In general, the work of planning com-
<br />missions and zoning boards are taken to be
<br />quasi-legislative; their actions are most fre-
<br />quently recommendations to a legislative
<br />body, rather than definitive actions (except,
<br />in those states where a planning commis-
<br />sion makes final decision on plat
<br />approvals). Where a board of adjustment
<br />hears requests for variance or appeals of
<br />administrative interpretation, its actions are
<br />taken to be quasi-judicial and are final
<br />
<br />texcept as they may be appealed to the
<br />court). These peculiarities were not envi-
<br />sioned by Robert.
<br />Four other issues also merit discussion:
<br />First, planning commissions, zoning
<br />boards, and boards of adjustment often
<br />must act within fixed time frames -- for
<br />example, within thirty days to make recom-
<br />mendation or decision. As a result, motions
<br />to "Object to Consideration," "Lay on the
<br />Table." or "Postpone indefinitely' are large-
<br />ty inappropriate.
<br /> Second, and similarly, a motion to
<br />"Reconsider' is very difficult to employ
<br />',,'iflnn limited time periods, and taking into
<br />a-count notice requirements.
<br /> Third. since the votes of commission
<br />and board members should a~ways be taken
<br />by roll call, the motion for the 'Division of
<br />the Assembly" is unnecessary.
<br /> Fourth. public heanngs -- so common
<br />to the planning commission deliberative
<br />process ~ are not directly addressed in
<br />Robert's Rules. Robert~ proViSions for "Occa-
<br />sional or Mass Meetings" offer little direc-
<br />tion. For Robert, deliberative bodies did not
<br />directly hear the testimony of interested
<br />parties. While such information could be
<br />introduced through committee report, reg-
<br />ular deliberative sessions permitted only
<br />commission or board members to speak. In
<br />consequence, deliberative bodies in plan-
<br />ning need to adopt a number of procedures
<br />to facilitate the orderly participation of the
<br />public. Such motions as 'Open (or Recess
<br />into) Public Hearing", 'Accept (written
<br />materials) for the Public Record", 'Close the
<br />Public Hearing", and 'Close the Public
<br />Record" are essential features of due process
<br />for planning-related decision-making.
<br />
<br /> 3. SOME FINAL OBSERVATIONS,
<br /> I wish to conclude these comments on a
<br />very serious note. Each commission or
<br />board member is under an obligation to
<br />know the relevant statutes and codes, char-
<br />ter provisions, and by-laws. If a question of
<br />law or procedure arises, it should -- if at all
<br />
<br />.PL~A.N N I N G
<br />
<br />possible -- be referred to and answered by
<br />legal counsel and settled prior to the meet-
<br />ing. Recurrent questions to legal counsel on
<br />matters of procedure within a meeting cast
<br />doubt upon both the dedication and pre-
<br />paredness of commission or board mem-
<br />bers. Formal procedures can offer little
<br />support to proper planning unless they are
<br />clearly understood, consistently applied,
<br />and broadly-accepted as both fair and
<br />effective.
<br /> I hope you will read through the "Model
<br />Outline of Motions" set out on the following
<br />pages. It is designed to make it easier for
<br />planning and zoning boards to operate in a
<br />manner that is fair and understandable, both
<br />to the members themselves and to the public.
<br /> I WiSh to express my appreciation to the
<br />many planning commission, zoning board,
<br />and board of adjustment members with
<br />whom I have worked to clarify decision-
<br />making procedures. Many of the comments
<br />in both the above essay and the outline on
<br />the following pages have been taken from
<br />notes made at local, state or national train-
<br />ing sessions sponsored by the American
<br />Planning Association. I also wish to thank
<br />Professor Robert E. Manley, University of
<br />Cincinnati, and partner in the law firm of
<br />Manley, Burke, Fischer, Lipton and Cook,
<br />Cincinnati, Ohio, for his constructive criti-
<br />cism of the draft versions of this work
<br />
<br />David J. Allot is Professor.
<br />School of Planning, and Fel-
<br />low, Center for the Study of
<br />Dispute Resolution, Univer-
<br />sity of Cincinnati. He is the
<br />author of 'Keeping Things in
<br />Order:. Phanning Commission
<br />By-Laws,' and 'Outline of
<br />Articles of By-Laws for a
<br />Planning Commis~on,' in l.tm~ #14 of the Planning
<br />Commissioners Journal. Allot has also ~ritttm The
<br />Planning Commissioners Guide: Processes for
<br />Reasoning Together (available fwm the APA Book-
<br />s~or~), and is a member of the . _.A!rm. ir. an lnstitute of .
<br />Certified Planners and the 5oda'y of Prvfesstonals in
<br />
<br />COMMISSION. ERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 20 / FA LL,'I 9~9~-'~ ..... "'~'~.'
<br /> ..__
<br />
<br />
<br />
|