Summary
Nancy Ging asked some wonderfully impertinent questions about the legality of the Lummi Island Ferry rate increase in light of a number of glaring procedural errors to which she bore witness as the Council passed the rate increase.
In the post I presented the argument that characterizing procedural errors as illegal acts misses the point.
My argument is that most procedural errors don't render the action taken legally null and void.
But some procedural errors have the effect of rendering an action taken a legal nullity. (The metaphor I used to illustrate this was an unsigned check. In the absence of the signature, the check is a legally null document.)
[If you want to read the original post in its entirety here's the link.]
This is all well and good, but the entire article has the effect of someone asking me what time it is and then I go into a long explanation of how to build a watch. No solution to the original problem.
So, whether or not you agree with my assessment of what the precise nature of a procedural error might be, I'm sure that there is general consensus among the readership that procedural errors are undesirable and that there must be some way to address the issue.
Well, there is. But there are obstacles to be overcome.
The Chair can start enforcing the rules properly.
This is the most obvious, simplest, and most effective of the remedies to procedural errors.
It also happens to be in Mr. Crawford's job description as the Chair of the Council.
He is the Chair of the Board of Directors of a municipal corporation with an annual operational budget of over $175 million, that employs over 800 people. It is his job to insure that the meetings of that Board of Directors are handled properly.
The likelihood of this remedy being employed while Mr. Crawford is serving as the Chair is remote. The obstacles to this remedy are as follows:
#1) Mr. Crawford has to know what the rules are first.
He doesn't.
Watching Mr. Crawford try to move a motion through Council Chambers is very much like watching Peter Sellers walk through a Pink Panther movie. Except it isn't funny.
If Mr. Crawford doesn't know how the rules of the County Council work after serving on the Council for ten years, don't hold your breath waiting for him to acquire any curiosity about how they work now.
#2) Mr. Crawford would have to admit that the rules weren't being enforced properly.
He can't.
Admitting to error just doesn't seem to fall within Mr. Crawford's skill set.
It's a management technique that can be coped with in the private sector, but presents a significant problem when it is employed by elected officials in general, and presiding officers in specific.
#3) Mr. Crawford would have to care enough about doing things properly to make the extra effort necessary to actually do things properly.
He doesn't.
He just doesn't.
Half-assed is as half-assed does.
Maybe Mr. Crawford will have an epiphany and get religion about enforcing the rules of the Council as the Chair. Don't bet on it.
Four other members of Council can insist that the Chair enforce the rules properly.
This is a remedy that is a bit complicated, less than obvious, and undeniably awkward. Nonetheless, it is effective enough to address the issue of chronic procedural errors immediately.
The final authority over what is proper procedure is not the Chair, it is the Council itself.
The likelihood of this remedy being employed by any iteration of County Council is unlikely, however it is not as much of a long shot as Mr. Crawford doing his job as Chair properly. The obstacles to this remedy are as follows:
1) The Council has to know what it is they can do.
They don't. And four of them have to be well-versed enough in parli-pro to take the steps necessary.
2) The Council has to be willing to take the necessary steps.
This is the most difficult obstacle to overcome, and this fact must not be lost on those who want to see this solution implemented.
Knowing what to do is the easy part, the willingness to go through with doing it is the trick. This will involve calling into question Mr. Crawford's judgment as Chair during an open public meeting. In front of everyone and their uncle. This will also involve not deferring decision making to persons in whom no decision making authority has been granted, such as the attorney who advises the Council as well as the Council's Parliamentarian. The Council defers every question of procedure to these sources, neither of whom was elected to anything and neither of whom has a vote on the Council. This habit of deferring these decisions has the obvious appeal of allowing the Council to employ some good old fashioned meat-and-potatoes CYA. However, at the end of the day it is the Council that is vested with the authority to decide how the rules shall be enforced, and that authority can't be delegated to any attorney or any parliamentarian.
There are no other immediate remedies available to solve this problem. The Council has everything it needs to enforce its own rules, except a clue as to how to perform the task and the resolve to carry the task out to the bitter end. There is no where for the Council to pass the buck. Like Frodo in Lord of the Rings, this task has been appointed to them, and if they can't do it... no one else can.
The method by which four determined Council members may turn this around is by way of a Point of Order and, very likely, a motion of Appeal.
A thumbnail sketch of how this could play out looks like this...
- A Council Member makes a Point of Order and describes the breach of order.
- The Chair makes a ruling on that point of order.
- If the chair rules that the Point is "well taken" then the Chair takes steps to correct the breach of order.
- If the chair rules that the Point is "not well taken", then the Chair is effectively declaring that there is no breach of order.
- And, in that event, the member who made the Point of Order immediately moves to Appeal the ruling of the Chair.
- If a majority of the Council Members decides that the Chair ruled incorrectly, then the ruling of the Chair is reversed. Otherwise, the ruling of the Chair stands.
And that would resolve the matter one way or the other, even if Mr. Crawford wishes it were otherwise.
And just so the readers get the fullness of my drift, the Council has the authority to do this at the next council meeting. It is provided for in their own Parliamentary Authority. The law, as it exists now, allows for this procedure.
Looking at these actions as I have presented them may cause a reader to mistake them for a simple matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention just how awkward, uncomfortable, and politically challenging such a maneuver would prove to be.
Beyond what I've already mentioned, there is the fact that whether or not such an effort succeeded there would be public accusations of "playing politics" leveled at whatever members of Council even attempted to stage such an entirely appropriate and reasonable exercise of their inherent power to insist that their own rules be properly enforced when conducting the people's business.
The elected officials on the Council have demonstrated some remarkably thin skin for folks who sought political office of their own free will and with the full knowledge that they would be performing their job in a fishbowl.
Whichever Members of Council were to attempt such an effort would make some very public enemies, and very likely make at least one enemy on the Council itself. The fallout for a Point of Order that didn't prevail would pale in comparison to one that succeeded. It is easier to forgive someone for being wrong than it is to forgive someone for being right.
If a Member of Council were to receive overwhelming support from the electorate for taking such unpleasant action, that would likely serve to motivate the members to carry out a "bloodless non-coup" to overthrow the tyranny of procedural carelessness.
The electorate will have to apply pressure to the Council to get this ball rolling.
The Council will have to see that they will be supported if they start enforcing their own rules, and that they will not be supported if they don't. Regardless of political loyalties. Regardless of other admirable qualities that the Council Members might possess.
If all Council Members have to adhere to the Council's own rules, this gives no advantage to any political party or any political agenda. A flat playing field favors everyone.
Well... almost everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment