Three simple meeting rules for fair and democratic Arlington Heights' Board decisions

Letter to Village President Hayes after Board-of-Trustees meeting on 2/1/2021:

Dear Village President Hayes,

Re:    Driven Car Wash 2100 S. Arlington Heights Rd./Sign Variation DC#20-049, (New Business item A.)

Date: Arlington Heights' Village Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting on Monday, February 1, 2021

Please consider the following parliamentary procedure rules as they pertain to the above captioned meeting and is directed to in the Arlington Heights' Municipal Code (AHMC) and Robert's Rules of Order (RONR). As we have discussed, following these simple meeting rules will ensure a fair and democratic (small d) decision process, that includes all of the BOT voting members. (1), (2), (3), (4).

1) The Main Motion belongs to the assembly, not the motion-maker. (5), (6)

Once a main motion has been moved, seconded, and the presiding officer promptly calls for debate that motion is now formally on the floor and belongs exclusively to the assembly, not the motion-maker, seconder, or anyone else. A main motion that belongs to the assembly must be managed by the assembly and disposed of through proper procedure such as voting on the motion itself or by voting on an amendment to that motion.

Allowing the motion-maker to approve of any changes to the main motion excludes the other Board members' vote on those changes. Putting the motion-maker in charge of the main motion always begs the questions: What if he or she does not agree to change the main motion? How is it democratically feasible for the main motion to be managed by one board member over the votes of the entire assembly?

Allowing the main motion to belong to its motion-maker is the single most re-occurring meeting procedure infraction at the Village Board and at Commission meetings. This also occurred at the BOT meeting on 2/1, above.

2) Moving to amend the main motion is the only proper way to change the main motion  (7), (8), (9).

Once a motion is on the floor the only way to change it, that will include all voting members, is through the amending process. A trustee moves to amend the main motion and it is seconded. Discussion is now on the proposed amendment to the main motion. If the amendment passes, the main motion is considered as amended. If the amendment fails, then the original main motion is considered by the BOT.

An amendment to the main motion was on the floor at the meeting on Monday. However, that amendment was never allowed to be voted on by the BOT. Instead, the motion-maker was allowed to change the main motion, (which was different than what was in the amendment), and without the vote of the entire board. 

3) A voting member is out-of-order to interrupt and request a meeting procedural change  (10), (11)

A voting member is not allowed to interrupt and request an out-of-order procedural change. In this case on Monday, the request was to discontinue the amendment already in process and instead to ask the motion-maker for any changes. This request should have been quickly denied, but instead it was allowed and the amendment on the floor was never voted upon.

Finally, by following these simple parliamentary rules above would go a long way to advancing democracy at all Village meetings. Also, please consider providing a parliamentary procedure training program for all Village presiding officers and all voting members. This would ensure that fair and democratic (small d) decisions are consistently being made throughout all Village meetings. Trustees and Commissioners that utilize all available parliamentary tools are better equipped to more fairly represent Arlington Heights' residents. (Please see trailing Addendum)

Please accept my comments as constructive and in an attempt to assist you, to the best of my ability, with every effort to be accurate in reference and interpretation.  Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to your comments.

Thank you in advance.

Member National Association of Parliamentarians 

Marjan Suburban Parliamentary Unit

                                                                                                   Addendum:

                                                                     Recommended Reading and Seminars:

• Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11^th Edition, (RONR), Copyright 2011, by: Henry M. Robert III, 669 pages, ISBN 978-0-306-82020       Amazon: $14.72

• Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised IN BRIEF, Copyright 2011, by: Henry M. Robert III, 176 pages, ISBN 978-0-306-82019-9                        Amazon: $5.09

• The National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) can offer seminars conducted by certified parliamentarians.

 

The Village should consider reimbursing all presiding officers and voting members to purchase the above books or to attend an NAP seminar on using Robert's Rules of Order.

                                                                     Cited References

1. AHMC  Section 6-112, Proceedings, Rule (a).
   
2. AHMC, Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure and Rule #1. 
   
3. RONR  11^th Edition, The Handling of a Motion, p.32 to p 42.
   
4. Village of Arlington Heights' website: vah.com BOT meeting 'VIDEO' New Business item A. 2/1/21
5. RONR   11th Edition, The Handling of a Motion, p. 32 through p.33 'How a Motion is Brought Before the Assembly'.
6. RONR: 11^th Edition, The Making of a Motion, p. 34, line 32 through 3
7. AHMC  Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #6.
   
8. AHMC, Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #6-6, 'To Amend'.
   
9. RONR  11^th Edition, Section 6, Subsidiary Motions, Chapter 12, Amend, p.130 to p.133.
   
10. RONR 11th Edition, Rules Governing the Assignment of the Floor, p.376-385
11. RONR 11th Edition, Incidental Motions, Point of Order, p.70.

How to get around local elections

On December 17, 2018 Arlington Heights Village Trustee Glasgow resigned from the village board as of January 1, leaving a vacancy on the board just prior to the municipal election of April 2, 2019. Five candidates have filed valid petitions with the Village Clerk for the four open trustee seats this election. 

 

This is an opportunity to allow voters to fill that vacant seat as well with the candidate who receives the lowest popular vote in the upcoming election. As any other replacement appointed by the President is certainly less democratic than allowing voters to decide all of the members on their village board.

According to the Arlington Heights Municipal Code (AHMC), Chapter 2 Elected Officers, Article II The Board of Trustees, Section 2-209 and 2-210, Vacancy in the Office of Trustee, the president has 60 days to appoint a Trustee replacement. (1), (2)

According to the AHMC, Section 2-209, Vacancy in the Office of Trustee:

a.) 'If a vacancy occurs in the office of Trustee with the unexpired portion of that term to be at least 28 months and there is at least 130 days before the next scheduled general municipal election, the vacancy shall be filled for the remainder of the term at that election'.

As of January 1, Trustee Glasgow had 28 months and 10 days remaining in his term. But, there is only 92 days until the municipal election on April 2. Since both conditions are not met, the President is allowed by the AHMC to appoint a replacement per:  

b.) 'An appointment by the President must be made within 60 days after the vacancy occurs. The appointment shall be forwarded to the corporate authorities, who must act upon that appointment within 30 days'. 

If trustee Glasgow would have resigned merely 38 days earlier, the open seat would have to be filled at the municipal election on April 2.  Even now, an appointment at 60 days and then approved by the corporate authorities at 30 days is only two days prior to the April 2nd election. It seems appropriate in this case, that in order to give more voice to the electorate, is to structure the President's appointment to be filled by the April election results that could still comply with the AHMC.

Unfortunately, President Hayes unilaterally, with no forbearance to include public input, decided to appoint Mr. Greg Padovani. There was no public notice of the open trustee position or request for applications for interviews from other residents, that may be interested in the open trustee seat. It also appears, according to local newspaper articles that President Hayes’ decision was made soon after Trustee Glasgow resigned on December 17, 2018. (3), (4)

Mr. Greg Padovani is a resident of Arlington Heights, a former board member of the Arlington Heights Chamber of Commerce, Arlington Park District, and chairman of the Veterans Memorial Committee.

Also, Mr. Greg Padovani has contributed to the village presidential campaign of Citizens for Thomas W Hayes as ‘Padovani Consulting, Ltd’. on February 16, 2013. (5)

At the Arlington Heights board meeting on January 22, 2019, I addressed the board regarding the appointment of Mr. Padovani with no attempt at public input by President Hayes. My comment was just prior to the unanimous approval by the board of the trustees.

Thank you, President Hayes

I would like to pass along a comment tonight about the process of appointing trustees to vacant board seats.

My comments tonight are about the lack of formal public input into this process of appointing trustees, to fill board vacancies. So, please accept my comment tonight on the process of this appointment, not the qualifications of the candidate.

Also, I do not dispute the authority of the president to appoint a trustee replacement.  The Arlington Heights Municipal Code says that, because of when trustee Glasgow chose to resign, the president must appoint a replacement to that vacant trustee position within 60 days from January 1 or by February 28 and then the board had another 30 days to approve that appointment.

Unfortunately, it appears this decision was already made long before January 1 even. In other words, the position was essentially filled before most residents even knew there was an opening.

There was no public posting of this vacancy, no formal request for resumes of interested, qualified residents for candidate interviews. To note: there are hundreds of qualified candidates that live in Arlington Heights.

President Hayes, talking to your friends, your neighbors, and existing board members does not constitute getting public input.

In my opinion, the president should have exhibited some restraint here and for the sake of community involvement and public input, formally interview many candidates for this open trustee vacancy. The president had until February 28.

Finally, I trust your appointment tonight will be an open-minded individual with new thoughts and ideas, and I trust he will represent all residents of Arlington Heights, those that are both above and below the median income line.

 References:

1). AHMC, Chapter 2, Elected Officers, Article II, The Board of Trustees Section 2-209, Vacancy in the Office of Trustees; a and b.

2). AHMC, Chapter 2, Elected Officers, Article II, The Board of Trustees, Section 2-210, Commencement of Term of Office

3) The Chicago Tribune, The Trib Local, January 17, 2019; Longtime community volunteer to replace outgoing village trustee, p.4.

4) The Daily Herald, Section 1, Mayor chooses a new member in Arlington Heights, p.3.

5) Illinois State Board of Elections, ‘Committee Search’, Citizens for Thomas W Hayes: https://www.elections.il.gov/InfoForCommittees.aspx

 

 

More rubber stamping at Arlington Heights Board meeting

August 20, 2018, Arlington Heights village board meeting:

The following comment was to Arlington Heights village board of Trustees, regarding the 100% increase in campaign contributions to local candidates during local elections and removing the prohibition on liquor license holders to contribute to board candidates.

Background:

The Board at the Committee-of-the-Whole (COTW) on August 13, 2018 approved the increase and then recommended to the board for approval, at the August 20, 2018 regular board meeting. The board usually rubber-stamps all recommendations coming from the COTW.

Following is the text from my address to the board, just before the rubber stamp approval of the new limits and to remove the prohibition of campaign contributions from liquor license holders to local candidates. The village president is the local liquor license control officer.

Board address:

Before the board approves the 100% increase in campaign contribution limits, that was recommended by the board, at the COTW last Monday, I would like to make a brief comment:

To my understanding the issue is: do limits on local campaign contributions violate home rule or not. If they do violate home rule, then the village must revert to state limits of $5,600/individual and $11,000/organization. 

It seems the board runs a much greater risk of violating home rule, by having limits, than being challenged on limits being too low. I am not sure how just raising the limits 100% protects against challenges to home rule in this issue.

If they do not violate home rule,.... then what exactly is the reason for increasing our local limits? In my opinion, we have had no problems with the existing limits. Also, it appears that the new limits $500/individual and $1,000/organization, 100% increase, will hamper lesser financially connected candidates from competing in local elections.

Although, I do understand that since 1994, when these limits were last considered, campaign expenses have substantially increased. The reason that is given, the increase is necessary for candidates today to meet the expenses to run a competitive campaign.

I would like to add:

However, not being able to meet expenses is exactly the same reason that many residents stood in this very board-room in May of last year, asked this board for an increase in the minimum wage necessary to meet their rising expenses, this board denied that, but could have approved.

It looks as though we have a bit of an ideological contradiction here, President Hayes. It is ok to raise limits necessary to meet campaign expenses just prior to an election on April 2, 2019. But it is not ok to allow the minimum wage to increase to meet our working residents' expenses, right now. The reason for the increases in both cases is exactly the same; it is necessary to meet expenses. In my opinion, this is not an apples and oranges comparison.

I ask that the board vote against their own recommendation from the COTW and not increase limits in campaign contributions.

Minimum Wage and the Arlington Heights Chamber of Commerce

-----Original Message-----

To: Daily Herald Newspaper, fencepost
Sent: Mon, Aug 14, 2017 11:24 am

Subject: Arlington Heights Village Board should have allowed minimum wage increase and paid sick leave

Dear Fencepost Editors,

Re: Daily Herald article August 3, 2017, 'After minimum wage debate, Arlington Heights Chamber to host jobs tent at Taste'

Village board should have allowed the minimum wage increase and paid sick leave

Arlington Heights Village President Tom Hayes and Trustees Tinaglia, Rosenberg, Scaletta, and Glasgow voted to opt out of a Cook County ordinance that would have raised the minimum wage from current $8.25/ hr to $10.00/hr by July 1. The board also opted out of the ordinance mandating businesses allow up to five sick days per year. 

The Arlington Chamber of Commerce and it's subsidiary, the Village Economic Alliance Commission, argued to opt out against an overwhelming majority of supporters of the higher minimum wage at Village board meetings. 

Then, in an attempt to have it both ways, Trustee Tinaglia and the Chamber of Commerce hosted a jobs and career tent at the Taste to 'promote living wage jobs and entry level jobs available in Arlington Heights.' Of course many of these 'great opportunities', as described by Trustee Tinaglia, were for minimum wage at $8.25/hr.

It is doubtful that the Chamber of Commerce and Trustee Tinaglia are really concerned about living wage jobs or they would have supported an increase in the minimum wage in the first place. Then all entry level jobs, that were promoted at their career tent, would have started at $10.00/hr instead of $8.25/hr.

Sincerely,

Keith Moens

Robert's Rules of Order

Robert's Rules of Order

The following e-mail thread discusses the use Robert's Rules of Order while President Hayes conducts Village business. The President has acknowledged that more could be done to encourage Public participation. No Village official has substantively responded to these emails.

-----Original Message-----

To: thayes <thayes@vah.com>; cblackwood <cblackwood@vah.com>; rbaldino <rbaldino@vah.com>; tglasgow <tglasgow@vah.com>; brosenberg <brosenberg@vah.com>; jscalletta <jscalletta@vah.com>; msidor <msidor@vah.com>; jtinaglia <jtinaglia@vah.com>; rlabedz <rlabedz@vah.com>; rhume <rhume@vah.com>; tkuehne <tkuehne@vah.com>; rward <rward@vah.com>; cperkins <cperkins@vah.com>; rrecklaus <rrecklaus@vah.com>

Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 11:44 am
Subject: The St. James Parish motion and Committee of the Whole (COTW)

Dear President Hayes and Village Trustees,

At the village board meeting on Tuesday, January 16, there was a genuine feeling among the residents in attendance that the board was not prepared to vote on the motion regarding the St. James Parish amendments. Fortunately, this can be avoided at future meetings if the presiding officer would utilize a basic principle of Robert's Rule of Order (RONR).

Simply, if a voting member is not prepared to make a main motion, then that voting member should not obtain the floor to do so. It is out of order for a voting member to take nearly ten minutes to craft a motion while collaborating with non-voting staff employees and the Petitioner's architect. In this case, the resulting motion was out of order regardless if a second was forthcoming. In instances such as this, if the presiding officer does not keep current business on track, other voting members should rise to the point of order. (18)

As we have discussed, new business should begin with a main motion. This action concentrates the assembly's discussion on the exact issue at hand. Thus, an enormous amount of time can be saved during meetings as opposed to having a long discussion, followed by attempting to craft the perfect main motion. This would prevent what occurred before the vote on Tuesday. Motions should be timely and precisely moved by a voting member and then exactly repeated by the President. Also, 'So Move' is not a motion. (3)

Suggestions to improve transparency and democracy at Committee-of-the-Whole (COTW) meetings.

As we all have learned from the 2018 Budget and tax levy increase, much needs to be accomplished at the COTW to include meaningful public input and transparency. The President who occasionally asks for public comment at the COTW does not meet this end. In my opinion, the following are substantive steps that would improve transparency and democracy at the COTW:

1.) No first motions should be made at the COTW. Extended discussion on a particular topic could occur at the COTW, but only with a Pubic Comment section included on that agenda. Then, all resulting motions should be made or the resumption of a motion that was previously referred to the COTW, is discussed, and voted upon in New Business at the next regular board meeting. 

2.) A Public Comment section must be included on all COTW agendas.This would remove the arbitrary, if any, requests by the President for public input.  

3.) The public needs to be informed that they are able to participate at the COTW. Currently, very few residents are aware of this and an extensive marketing campaign should be undertaken to inform the public they are now invited for open comment at the COTW. 

4.) Following RONR principles would improve time efficiency at regular board meetings and would allow business originally scheduled at the COTW to be absorbed.(14)

In my view, it is in the self-interest of the village board and the village to encourage meaningful public input and to follow RONR as outlined below. This would give ownership and empowerment to the public on all decisions, favorable or not, made by the village board.

As always, please accept my comments as constructive, in an attempt to assist you to the best of my ability with every effort to be accurate in reference and interpretation.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this with you further. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely,

Keith Moens

-----Original Message-----

To: thayes <thayes@vah.com>; cblackwood <cblackwood@vah.com>; rbaldino <rbaldino@vah.com>; tglasgow <tglasgow@vah.com>; brosenberg <brosenberg@vah.com>; jscalletta <jscalletta@vah.com>; msidor <msidor@vah.com>; jtinaglia <jtinaglia@vah.com>; rlabedz <rlabedz@vah.com>; rhume <rhume@vah.com>; tkuehne <tkuehne@vah.com>; rward <rward@vah.com>; cperkins <cperkins@vah.com>; rrecklaus <rrecklaus@vah.com>

Sent: Sun, Nov 12, 2017 4:18 pm
Subject: RONR and Amending the Sign Code Modification

Dear President Hayes,

Finally, after 45 minutes of discussion, on Monday, November 6, Trustee A moved: 'to adopt the corridor recommendation for digital signage as presented in the verbiage indicated on the action or amendment to Chapter 30, Sign Code, to add articles V, 'Electronic Message Signs''. Trustee B hastily seconded the main motion prior to Trustee A being finished with making the motion. Trustee B was out of order to interrupt the making of a main motion.

Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) Comments: The main motion is now on the floor and belongs exclusively to the assembly. The motion maker did not need the permission of the President to make a motion since she had already obtained the floor. Following the making of the motion, the President must immediately and clearly restate the question as moved and seconded to ensure everyone understands the wording of the motion. In this case, an error was made in that the motion should have stated Chapter 30, Article VII instead of Article V.

Also, the discussion of new business should begin with a main motion. This action concentrates the assembly's discussion on the exact issue at hand. Thus, an enormous amount of time can be saved during meetings. This is opposed to a discussion for 45 minutes, followed by attempting to craft the perfect main motion for a straight up or down vote with no proper procedural amendments codified within the motion. (See Making Main Motion below).

But as can easily occur, Trustee C wished to address the notification distance of 250' in the standing main motion. Trustee C should have done so by moving to amend the main motion. All voting board members have the right under the use of RONR, as prescribed by Village code, to amend the main motion and it does not require the permission of the President. Allowing voting members to amend standing questions provides a way for the assembly to democratically change the verbiage of the main motion to reflect the will of all on the board. (4), (5).

RONR Comments: If Trustee C had moved to amend the notification distance, the President would then restate the main motion as amended and ask for a second on the amendment.  The amendment is then discussed as it is germane to the main motion and voted upon. If the amendment passes, the main motion is then discussed and voted upon as amended. Had the amending process been properly followed, it would have given an avenue for other voting members to weigh in on whether or not they wanted an extended notification distance as well. (See, Amending a Main motion below)

Summary: The RONR amendment process democratically ensures that the will of the board is codified within the language of the statement that is requiring action. The final motion passed should contain precise language that reflects the will of all board members. Rather than as what happened on Monday, when the main motion is voted upon based on some vague commitment by non-voting staff members to write a follow-up memo explaining how they measure 250'. (See, Fixing the Double Standard below)

As we have previously discussed, RONR training would correct the above parliamentary irregularities. 

Please accept my comments as constructive, in an attempt to assist you to the best of my ability with every effort to be accurate in reference and interpretation.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this further with you. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely,

Keith Moens

-----Original Message-----

To: thayes <thayes@vah.com>; cblackwood <cblackwood@vah.com>; rbaldino <rbaldino@vah.com>; tglasgow <tglasgow@vah.com>; brosenberg <brosenberg@vah.com>; jscalletta <jscalletta@vah.com>; msidor <msidor@vah.com>; jtinaglia <jtinaglia@vah.com>; rlabedz <rlabedz@vah.com>; rhume <rhume@vah.com>; tkuehne <tkuehne@vah.com>; rward <rward@vah.com>; cperkins <cperkins@vah.com>; rrecklaus <rrecklaus@vah.com>

Sent: Wed, Jun 14, 2017 10:19 am
Subject: RONR training for board and staff

Dear President Hayes,

Since we have one new board member, this is an opportunity to provide training to board and staff in the proper use of Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) as referenced in the Arlington Heights Municipal Code (AHMC). I have offered suggestions for training and cited sources in the addendum below.

As we have previously discussed, RONR training would correct the following parliamentary irregularities at village board meetings: 

Making a Main Motion  

Once a main motion has been moved and a second is not needed in a small board (1), the President must immediately state the question and call for debate (2). The motion is now on the floor and belongs to the assembly, not the motion maker or anyone else. In other words, a non-voting member, such as the village attorney or village manger, cannot craft or massage a main motion followed by a 'So Move'. 'So Move' is not a motion. A main motion must be stated in a precise and timely manner by a voting member, not a staff member (3). 

Amending a Main Motion 

There are two degrees of amendments that can be proposed to modify the wording of a main motion. A voting member must move to amend the main motion, it must be seconded, debated, and passed with a majority vote. A non-voting member is not allowed to massage the main motion with the motion maker to amend the language (4), (5). 

With all due respect, nowhere in RONR is it cited that the motion maker is allowed to amend the main motion after it is on the floor and discussion has begun. In fact, one of RONR' s main principles is to not allow the motion maker to manage the main motion. This is to ensure that all voting members have a democratic voice in amending the main motion for the final question (6). 

Laying a Motion on the Table 

At the April 17 board meeting, a trustee was out of order by moving to table agenda item 12b, Chapter 28 Text Amendments to a future date. Since there was no motion on the floor in the first place to table, tabling a motion was out of order (7),(8).  But, even if a motion was considered tabled, there was no motion to Take From the Table at the June 5 board meeting (9). The combined parliamentary action regarding the approval of Chapter 28 Text Amendments was all out of order. 

Addressing the Village President 

As we have discussed AHMC 2-206,#2 means that 'discussion of questions should be directed to the Village President' (10). It follows that if you are directing questions to the Village President, then the trustees should address that person as the Village President. This is consistent with RONR. Since there is no Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem in Arlington Heights, RONR clearly states that the presiding officer is to be addressed as President or whatever may be his or her official title, which is President or President Pro-Tem (11), 

Committee of the Whole (COTW) 

The village use of the COTW is probably the most curious RONR aberration of all. The Village Code directs when the COTW is to meet and the general subject matter, but it does not state its specific business and how it is formed (12).  Using RONR, a COTW is established by a voting member moving to Commit or Refer a pending question to a committee, seconded and approved by the majority (13). After the committee meets, it rises and reports the results back into the main meeting, at which time that committee is then dissolved. Pending questions must be moved to a COTW by a voting member of the body not by a village employee (14). 

The village use of COTW should be called what it is; an even less structured board meeting. In 2016, 57% of public board meetings were conducted as a COTW. These meetings are not tape recorded, have no Citizens To Be Heard, initiates, and passes new business. The new business is then reported into Old Business of the main board meeting and then rubber stamped with yet another vote. New business covered in the COTW should be on the formal agenda as New Business of the main board meeting. 

Adjourning a Meeting

The motion to adjourn requires a second, is not debatable nor amendable and is out of order in a COTW. (15), (16), (17).  For example at the COTW of June 12, the President was out of order on two occasions regarding adjournment. First, the President called for adjournment in a COTW. Second, after the motion to adjourn was seconded, the President allowed a non-voting member to debate whether the meeting should be adjourned or not.

Fixing the Double-Standard

Your claim that strict adherence to RONR would impede 'free flow of ideas' is false. Free flow of ideas is exactly how RONR is structured along with a proven process that ensures decisions by a representative body are democratically agreed upon. As we have seen in the past, the subjective use of RONR 'as a guide' has opened the door to undemocratic approval of motions and amendments, as described above.

Finally, the village board is well recognized for strict compliance of rules to decide on many issues. Why then doesn't the board strictly comply to RONR rules to conduct meetings? This is a double-standard. Long standing practices of subjective compliance to RONR may not be the best defense to continue in such manner and as a result has lead to many bad habits.

Please accept my comments as constructive and in an attempt to assist you to the best of my ability with every effort to be accurate in reference and interpretation.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your coments.

Sincerely,

Keith Moens

Addendum:

                

Recommended Reading and Seminars:

• Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11^th Edition, (RONR), Copyright 2011, by: Henry M. Robert III, 669 pages, ISBN 978-0-306-82020           Amazon: $14.72

• Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised IN BRIEF, Copyright 2011, by: Henry M. Robert III, 176 pages, ISBN 978-0-306-82019-9                        Amazon: $5.09

• The National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) can offer seminars conducted by certified parliamentarians.

The Village should reimburse the board and staff to purchase the above books or attend an NAP seminar on using Robert's Rules of Order.

                                  Cited References

1. RONR 11^th Edition, p.487 to p.488, Procedure in Small Boards, (not more than 12 members), Rule #2, 'Motions need not be seconded'
2. RONR 11^th Edition, The Stating of the Question by the Chair, p.39: 7-11
3. RONR 11^th Edition, The Making of a Motion, p. 32 to p.35.
4. RONR 11^th Edition, Section 6, Subsidiary Motions, Chapter 12, Amend, p.130 to p.133
5. AHMC, Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #6-6
6. AHMC,  Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #1, & Section 6-112, Proceedings, Rule (a) 
7. RONR 11^th Edition, Lay on the Table, p. 209 to p.212.
8. AHMC, Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #6-2
9. RONR 11^th Edition, Taking a Question from the Table, p. 213
10. AHMC, Section 2-206, Rules of Procedure, Rule #2,
11. RONR 11^th Edition, Pattern of Formality, p.22 to p. 23.
12. AHMC, Section 2-203, Committee of the Whole, Rule (a),(b).
13. RONR 11^th Edition, Commit or Refer, p.168 to p.171.
14. RONR 11^th Edition, Committee of the Whole, p. 531 to p. 538 and p.533 footnote #1.
15. RONR 11th Edition, Committee of the Whole, p.534, rule #6.
16. RONR 11th Edition, Adjournment, p.233 to p.236.
17. AHMC Rules of Procedure, Section 2-206, Rule #6-1.
18. RONR, 11th Edition, Incidental Motions, Point Of Order, p. 70 to p.71 and p. 247 to p. 249.