Parliamentary Inquiry: Questioning The Four Vote Standard

Warning: Do not attempt to enter into a debate about parliamentary procedure without thoroughly reading the Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. Particularly if you are debating this with an attorney. Do not merely rely on the text of this document.

Parliamentary procedure that can only be explained properly by a trained attorney may not be proper parliamentary procedure.

“A parliamentary authority should be so clear and simple that anyone can understand it.” (Page 6 of Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition)

Take for instance the vexing matter of the four-votes-no-matter-what standard as presented by County legal staff.

“There must be four votes regardless of the number present to allow an action to succeed.” (Randall Watts, in his e-mail written December 21, 2009)

Mr. Watts refers to Section 2.22 of the County Charter as the authority for this requirement. It states:

“Council action shall require at least a majority of the entire Council, except where two-thirds vote is required, in which case two-thirds of the entire Council shall be necessary.”

The “at least a majority of the entire Council” is four votes, since there are a total of seven seats on the Council. This is fine when there are actually seven persons on the council. It makes sense even if you didn’t go to law school.

When there is a vacancy on the Council, problems arise.

What I don’t understand about the four-vote standard, as applied to filling a county vacancy, is that it requires a two-thirds majority vote without any clear language spelling out that requirement.

It doesn’t matter how many vacancies the Council has, the Council has to achieve at least a two-thirds majority to fill a vacancy.

One vacancy
Six members need four votes to act... at least two-thirds majority

Two vacancies
Five members need four votes to act... at least two-thirds majority

Three vacancies
Four members need four votes to act... at least... unanimous consent?!?

No matter now you look at it, when there are vacancies, the rigid application of the four-vote standard requires at least a two-thirds majority. While the three vacancy scenario is an extreme example, it illustrates the arbitrary nature of the four-votes standard. And it is worth noting that none of the language referred to by anyone on the matter of council vacancies mentions a two-thirds majority requirement. Perhaps that is because that was never intended to be a requirement.

I don’t understand how this four vote standard is appropriate under any of the vacancy scenarios. And the more artful the legal argument that must be used to make this look like a proper application of parliamentary procedure, then the less that procedure meets the standard that it be understandable by everyone.

I don’t understand how Section 2.22 of the Charter is the appropriate section to apply to a council when there is a different section in the charter just for vacancies.

Section 4.50 Vacancies.
.... Until a successor has been elected and certified, a majority of the Council shall fill the vacancy by appointment. All persons appointed to fill vacancies shall meet the qualifications of Section 4.20.

This section holds the Council to a very different standard than that established in Section 2.22.

A majority of the Council.

No mention of “at least” or “entire” or anything else.

Both section 4.50 and WCC 2.02.030 seem to conform to what is known as an ‘unqualified’ majority vote in Sturgis.

Pursuant to Sturgis, an ‘unqualified’ majority vote is a majority of the legal votes cast. (page 134, Fourth Edition)

The Sturgis definition of an unqualified majority allows for the Council to make itself whole again without making the chore any more difficult than it already is. The Council doesn’t ever have to achieve super-majorities or unanimous consent, even in theory. It also prevents a situation where a single member could deadlock the entire council by using his or her absolute right to chose not to vote (abstention).

The standard for a majority in Section 4.50 looks like it only comes into play when there is a vacancy.

In fact, if it doesn’t come into play when there is a vacancy, when else would it come into play?

The use of the word ‘entire’ in Section 2.22 of the Charter may be subtle and easy to miss, but it is based on the reasonable assumption that the normal and desirable and natural state of a County Council is that of a County Council without vacancies.

I discovered, without any help from any attorney, that the word ‘entire’ has a specific legal meaning:

Entire: that which is whole.

I don't understand how the County Council can meet a legal definition of ‘entire’ if it isn't whole.

It sounds to me like an 'entire' Council has to have no vacancies.

It is difficult to read WCC 2.02.030 or Section 4.50 of the Charter and conclude that the intent was to give the Council 30 days to fill a vacancy and then set them up to fail by setting parliamentary standards that cause a deadlock to be the most likely outcome.

My non-lawyerly understanding is as follows:

The County Charter, pursuant to Section 4.50, allows the Council to fill a council vacancy with a majority of legal votes cast.

In regards to December 8, 2009, this would have been satisfied by four votes, but also would have allowed for valid majorities with three votes. For example, a majority could have been achieved by a three vote majority if Ward Nelson had abstained from the roll call vote.

I believe my explanation of parliamentary procedure concerning filling a council vacancy is more easy to understand by the average citizen and the members of council than Mr Watts’ explanation. I also believe my explanation is easier to use, and actually improves the chances for the Council successfully fill a vacancy in 30 days. It is pursuant to the County Charter. And at the risk of laboring the point, my explanation doesn’t required legal training to understand it.

Mr Watts' explanation requires references that bounce around between the County Charter to the WCC and impose a level of complexity that is unnecessary, and sets a standard that is arbitrary and actually was proved on December 8, 2009, to inhibit the Council’s ability to make itself whole again. It appears to ignore relevant sections of the Charter. And of course, it requires a lawyer to explain why it works.

Mr Watts’ analysis suggests that the County attorneys don’t realize that parliamentary procedure is supposed to be easy to understand.

Should County legal staff be rendering parliamentary procedure into a form that is difficult for non-lawyers to understand?

Should they be using their status as legal experts to undermine a council member’s (or other citizen’s) confidence in their ability to use and comprehend parliamentary procedure?

I can find no evidence that a deliberative body needs an attorney’s permission to employ parliamentary procedure.

I can find no evidence that a deliberative body that employs parliamentary procedure is required to defer to legal counsel on proper use of parliamentary procedure.

What would be the legal risk to the Council if they trust their own judgement strictly on the procedural matter of filling a vacancy and disregard Mr Watts’ judgement?

The procedures that trained legal professionals employ are used in a very specific and rarified environment. In a court room, it is reasonable to expect that you need formal legal training to make proper use of procedure.

Parliamentary procedure, on the other hand, is what the rest of us use.

Parliamentary procedure is intended and designed to be used by people who have no legal training whatsoever. You don’t need a license to practice parliamentary procedure. And you don’t need a law degree to understand it and use it appropriately.

Parliamentary procedure is intended and designed to be used by school boards, non-profit organizations, neighborhood associations, bridge clubs, high school student body governments, PTAs. And almost all of them manage without a trained attorney on hand to explain how complicated and arbitrary it is supposed to be.

Holding a County Council to a standard of ‘entirety’ at a time when it is not legally ‘entire’ works against the ability of the Council to make itself whole again. And I don’t understand how that is a proper application of parliamentary procedure.

Then again, I’m not an attorney.

In fact, the only people who seem to be able to properly explain the four-vote-standard as applied to council vacancies are attorneys.

If you need an attorney to understand a parliamentary procedure...

And if parliamentary procedure is supposed be understandable by everyone...

then it begs the question, Is it really parliamentary procedure anymore?

After reading Sturgis and comparing it to Mr Watts’ letter, I am not inclined to defer to the wisdom of any attorney on parliamentary matters. Parliamentary expertise is within the grasp of any citizen who wishes to attain it. And parliamentary experts without law degrees can be the equal of any attorney on the subject.

Comments?

Disclaimer: Before you take on a trained attorney on any matter of parliamentary procedure, make sure that you have thoroughly read Sturgis first. Do not rely on the text of this document alone.