White Plains CitizeNetReporter - Hockley Violates Roberts Rules of Order, Reader Concludes

WPCNR MR. & MRS. & MS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. July 26, 2006: A reader follows up on the Glen Hockley verbal tongue lashing of Councilperson Rita Malmud at the July Council meeting:

To whom it may concern:

Back on July 11th, I wrote that in my opinion Mr. Hockley took a cheap
shot at Ms. Malmud and that he could have been more dignified with his
opinion on the then proposed zoning change regarding the Ritz Carlton
rooftop restaurant. (1)

Ms. Malmud took the mayor to task stating that Mr. Hockley had violated
the rules of decorum. Mayor Delfino in my opinion was dismissive of Ms.
Malmud's request.

(More)

I decided to do a little research on the matter myself, because I had
hunch that Ms. Malmud was in the right and Mr. Hockley's comments were
indefensible. Also worthy of reminder, I agree with Mr. Hockley and the
council's majority opinion for the zoning change and disagree with
Ms.Malmud and Mr. Roach, the two dissenters. This writing is a matter of
principle and is in defense of civility and order with our White Plains
Common Council.

There are two documents everyone needs to become familiar with. One is
only easily available at our public library; the other is also available
there, but can also be found at any book seller.

First, the more "exclusive" piece of reading material. It is our city
municipal code available in the "White Plains Reference" section (as
opposed to the "regular" reference section) of the White Plains Public
Library. Dewey Decimal R352W.

Tip: The reference customer service desk is the first thing you see when
entering the library, just ask for the book. The staff will be happy to
assist you.

On page 399 is section 2-3-27. It simply says (paraphrasing) that the
Common Council will refer to Roberts's Rules of Order Revised for all
matters regarding deliberative assemblies. Translated into English this
means that the Common Council outsourced the rules of debate and did not
create all of them from scratch. This is a very common practice with
most forms of government; and there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
Robert's Rules of Order is the de facto standard.

Now to get a bit technical, the City Code probably needs to be updated
with the insertion of one word, and that world is "newly." This is
because the latest edition of the rules are published as, "Robert's
Rules of Order Newly Revised." This began publication in 1970, which was
then the seventh edition. It has been modestly revised a few times since
then and is now in its tenth edition. This is what you will find in our
local Barnes & Noble store in their reference section, which is near the
children's section.

For a brief history on Robert's Rules, please visit their official
website. (2)

Lastly, before we get to the actual heart of the matter, please keep in
mind that Robert's Rules has been published since February 1876. That
means that the title and its earlier texts are no longer protected by
U.S. copyright law and people can (and have) made other editions of
Roberts Rules. Accept no substitute, use only the official version. (3)

Now a few sitings from "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition:"

In section 43 (starting on page 379) are the rules covering "Decorum in
Debate."

REFRAINING FROM ATTACKING A MEMBER'S MOTIVES
When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely
consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid
personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the
motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject
of the debate.

ADDRESSING ALL REMARKS THROUGH THE CHAIR
Members of an assembly cannot address one another directly, but must
address all remarks through the chair. If, while a member is speaking in
debate, another member wishes to address a question to him--which the
person speaking can permit or not as he chooses, but which is taken out
of his time if he does--the member desiring to ask the question should
rise and address the chair, proceeding as explained under Point of
Information.

Now, let's line up these two rules with Mr. Hockley's statement:
“Our President, with all due respect, I have to say ‘there you go
again.’ You know, it’s…we have had almost every major issue that comes
in front of us an element of obstructionism, negativism, it’s
undeniable. There are…one has to, as the President, I believe, be more
progressive and get a consensus from the rest of the Council.” (4)

I think it is quite clear that Mr. Hockley violated both of these basic
rules of decorum. He addressed Ms. Malmud directly and did indeed attack
her motives. And again, even if there were no such rules; one would hope
for a more dignified debate from our elected officials.

Ms. Malmud called him on these violations at the appropriate time,
immediately upon the conclusion of Mr. Hockley's comments. Meaning she
did not even interrupt his speech. She took the high road. Sadly, our
mayor did not act to condemn Mr. Hockley's comments. Why? Only he can
answer that question. One would sincerely hope that it was a lapse in
memory of the aforementioned rules of decorum.

I think it is within reason to say that not one, but two apologies are
in order for the next meeting of the White Plains Common Council.

Henry Ferlauto

References:
(1) White Plains CitizeNetReporter Editorial on July 11, 2006:
http://www.whiteplainscnr.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4788
(2) Robert's Rules official website and its history:
http://www.robertsrules.com and http://www.robertsrules.com/history.html
(3) Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised; ISBN: 0-7382-0307-6 (List
price: US$18.00)
(4) As cited by Peter Katz for the White Plains CitizeNetReporter on
July 6, 2006 - http://www.whiteplainscnr.com/article4773.html
{End}


Create an account		The White Plains Daily Internet Newspaper...Founded 2000 A.D....


			Designed and hosted by WestchesterInternet.com