Rule change turf war – supervisors scuffle over timing of rule changes

A clear and present minority – Tom Sayre, right, and Archie Fox lost a series 3-2 votes on motions regarding when a vote on public concerns speaker rules would occur. Photos/Roger Bianchini

A distinct divide on the Warren County Board of Supervisors appeared Tuesday morning in a series of motions made regarding changes proposed to meeting rules regarding public comments on non-agenda items.

Following Happy Creek Supervisor Tony Carter’s initial motion to approve Option A of two alternatives presented to the board at the February 5 meeting, Vice-Chairman Tom Sayre issued a series of three counter motions. All of Sayre’s motions were defeated by 3-2 votes with only Fork District Supervisor Archie Fox siding with the vice chairman on each vote.

Carter’s original motion mirroring most suggestions he made following a January 22 public hearing on incorporating recent meeting rule changes into county codes was then approved by the same 3-2 margin.

The board divide centered on approval of meeting rule changes regarding public comment on non-agenda topics proposed by Carter following an overwhelming January 22 public showing of opposition to previously-approved rule changes being adopted into county codes. Of particular public concern was a limit on the number of times a citizen may address any given topic to the board within a 12-month time frame. That limit was three times.

The three-times in 12 months limit (apparently approved then forgotten in 2017), five minutes per speaker (a 2-minute increase) with a 20-minute limit on total non-agenda public comment time (a 5-minute increase) had been approved into meeting rules January 8 by a unanimous vote. The January 22 public hearing was for a vote to incorporate those changes into county codes for consistency.

Carter’s proposed Option A meeting rule change of February 5 did not include the 12-month speaking restriction. But as he proposed on January 22, while increasing the public comment time allotted to non-agenda topics from the previously-approved 20 minutes to an hour, it also moved that comment period to the end of board meetings. That change appears designed to get scheduled meeting business in prior to potentially lengthy comment periods on matters of general concern not slated for board action or discussion on a meeting agenda.

Option A also proposed keeping a 20-minute public comment period early in meetings following adoption of the agenda for items “on the agenda not the subject of a public hearing.” Speaking times would be “divided equally among the number of speakers who have signed up”
Option A stated.

Another change for the 60-minute, end-of-meeting comment period on non-agenda items was removal of a specified time limit on individual speakers. Carter’s Option A proposal simply stated that the 60 minutes allotted to non-agenda items at meetings’ end “shall be divided equally among the number of speakers who have signed up.”

It is an interesting choice of wording that appears to create the potential for a lone speaker to wax poetic on a chosen topic for 60 minutes if so desired.

However the potential of a meeting being extended an hour by one riled-up and verbose citizen at meeting’s end did not appear to be the driving force of Sayre and Fox’s opposition to Carter’s Option A response to what he heard from the public on January 22.

Sayre’s first two counter motions were to table; then postpone a vote on new rules to the February 19 meeting. That meeting was to include a work session discussion and potential additional public input on the rules and code change discussion. Sayre’s third motion was to strike a sentence on the “three times within 12 months” restriction, though Carter’s motion on the table had no such sentence.

“In Option A it is struck out,” Board Chairman Dan Murray pointed out.

“So the motion is to strike something that’s not there,” South River Supervisor Linda Glavis asked.

County Attorney Dan Whitten observed that while not in the motion on the table, the sentence was in the existing rules and could be the intended target of Sayre’s motion. Wherever the targeted sentence was located, the vice chairman’s third counter motion failed by the same 3-2 margin his attempts to delay a rules change vote had.

The 3-member ‘let’s get on with it’ majority, Murray-Glavis-Carter, cast a wary eye in anticipation of another counter motion from Board Vice-Chair Sayre.

“This is not brain science or rocket surgery,” Carter quipped following the third consecutive defeat of Sayre counter motions. “This gives them everything they want,” Carter added of his perception that his offered Option A was a direct response to the public hearing comments of January 22.

Despite the fact the January 8 rule change vote was a unanimous one Sayre responded dismissively, accusing Carter of “fighting me and Archie every step of the way” on the rule changes.

Carter countered that he was just responding to the public input, which particularly sought elimination of the three times within 12 months and 20-minute per meeting conditions.

“I’m agreeing – and now you are disagreeing with me,” Carter said with some exasperation.

That exchange led to a vote on Carter’s original motion to install Option A as the new board rule on public comments time. It passed by the same 3-2 margin, Sayre and Fox dissenting.

Round 2

If that wasn’t enough entertainment for one evening, a related agenda item followed. That item was a reconsideration of the January 22 motion to postpone the discussion that had essentially just occurred regarding meeting rules, as well as the vote on code changes regarding meeting rules to February 19. Carter’s motion, seconded by Glavis, was to reconsider the motion delaying further discussion and a code vote to February 19.

Sayre asked if he could amend the motion to simply leave the code regarding meeting rules as it currently is. County Attorney Whitten replied that was not an acceptable amendment to the motion on the table.

Alert the media – Carter’s original motion to reconsider then passed unanimously!!!

Sayre then made a motion to amend the January 22 motion to delay discussion and a vote on the 5 minutes per speakerl/20 minutes total/3 times in 12 months code changes to a motion to not approve those code changes.

Alert the media again – Carter then seconded Sayre’s motion, which then passed unanimously!!!

Noting like a little unity to end a meeting on.

The end result as best we can ascertain with Board Clerk Emily Mounce’s help, is that what we affectionately termed the “Mark Egger Rules” (5 minutes each/20 minutes total/3 times a year) are now dead as both meeting rules and proposed county code changes.

Board Chair Dan Murray, left, may be wondering if it would be any easier if Bianchini occupied the vice mayor’s chair.