July 2, 2024 - RTC 24-628 — Governance and Ethics Committee, October 4, 2024

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-628 Agenda Date: 7/2/2024

REPORT TO GOVERNANCE AND ETHICS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT
Review Meeting Management Protocol Options and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order and Provide Direction to Staff
(DEFERRED FROM JUNE 3, 2024)

BACKGROUND
The City Council has been using, informally, meeting management procedures set during its 2021 Priority Setting Session. During the March 13, 2023 Governance and Ethics Committee meeting, the Committee approved, as part of the workplan, to bring forth the meeting management protocols for review and discussion.

At the December 4, 2023 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting, the Committee reviewed existing meeting management procedures used in practice. (Attachment 1) The Committee discussed factors such as time limits for the City Council to speak on an item and an additional secondary round of questions for the City Council, following the initial questions answered. During this discussion, the City’s practice of using Robert’s Rules of Order (Attachment 2) for parliamentary procedures was discussed. Because Robert’s Rules can be overly formalistic and complex, it was suggested that Rosenberg’s Rules of Order might be more useful as they are similar to Robert’s Rules, but less complex and more oriented towards smaller legislative bodies, like City Councils and Committees. The Committee did not take any actions during the discussion and requested additional information about Rosenberg’s Rules of Order (Attachment 3) to further analyze the options.

At the June 3, 2024 Governance and Ethics Committee meeting, during the agenda item for “Referral to Discuss Possible Revisions to the Placement of Public Presentations on the City Council Meeting agenda”, the Committee discussed options and referred the item to be a part of the Meeting Management Protocols discussion.

This item was on the agenda for the June 3, 2024 Governance and Ethics Committee meeting. The Committee was unable to complete the agenda due to timing and deferred the item for future discussion.

DISCUSSION
At this Special Governance and Ethics Committee meeting, staff will present options for consideration with the use of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. The Governance and Ethics Committee may consider options to continue Robert’s Rules of Order or discuss options for Rosenberg’s Rules of Order for meeting management procedures for public meetings.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/27/2024Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-628 Agenda Date: 7/2/2024
Rosenberg’s Rules of Order is a simplified set of parliamentary rules used in several cities throughout California, including the cities of Belmont, Cupertino, Fremont, Los Altos, San Mateo, Santa Rosa.

Many institutions have adopted Rosenberg’s Rules in lieu of Robert’s Rules because they have found them practical, logical, simple, easy to learn and user-friendly while retaining the basic tenets of order.

The application of Rosenberg’s Rules will provide a clear and concise parliamentarian process for the members of the body to operate under that can result in the holding of more efficient meetings.

Similar to Robert’s Rules, and consistent with the City’s Charter, Rosenberg’s maintains the concept of the Mayor/Chair as presiding officer having primary responsibility for managing the meeting in accordance with applicable rules. If a question arises, the Mayor/Chair, or a member of the legislative body can request clarification of the rules from the City Attorney. Through a process of appeal on points of order, a majority of the body reserves the right to overrule the Mayor/Chair.

As shown below, Table 1 illustrates some actions for Rosenberg’s Rules of Order and how to state the action. The table includes a list of motions and points which are listed in established order of precedence. When any one of them is pending, you may not introduce another that is listed below, but you may introduce another that is listed above it.

Table 1 - Rosenberg’s Motions and Points of Order in Established Order of Precedence Action State Interrupt
Speaker
Second
Needed
Debatable Amendable Vote
Needed
Adjourn “I move that we
adjourn”
No Yes No No Majority
Recess “I move that we recess
until…”
No Yes No Yes Majority
Complain about
noise, unable to
hear speaker,
uncomfortable
surroundings, etc.
“Point of Privilege” Yes No No No Chair
Decides
Suspend further
consideration or
defer discussion
to future date.
“I move that we table
it”
No Yes No No Majority
End Debate “I move the previous
question” or “Call the
question”
No Yes No No 2/3
A motion to limit
debate could
include a time
limit.
“I move we limit debate
on this agenda item to
15 minutes.”
No Yes No No 2/3
Postpone
consideration of
“I move we postpone
this matter until…”
No Yes Yes Yes Majority
Introduce a basic
motion
“I move that we….” No Yes Yes Yes Majority
City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/27/2024Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-628 Agenda Date: 7/2/2024
Amend a motion “I move that this
motion be amended
by…” (You can also
ask for a friendly
amendment, which is
less formal; if mover
and second concur, no
vote needed)
No Yes Yes Yes Majority
Refer to a
Committee/Staff
“I move that the
question be referred to
staff for more study”
No Yes Yes Yes Majority
As shown below in Table 2, the motions, points and proposals listed below have no established order of preference; any of these items may be introduced at any time except when meeting is considering one of the top three matters listed from Table 1 (Motion to Adjourn, Recess or Point of Privilege).

Table 2 - Rosenberg’s Motions, Points and Proposals at Any Time Action State Interrupt
Speaker
Second
Needed
Debatable Amendable Vote
Needed
Object to
procedure or
personal affront
“Point of Order” Yes No No No Chair
decides
Request
information
“Point of Information” Yes No No No None
Object to
considering some
undiplomatic or
improper matter
“I object to
consideration of this
question” (This is
generally used for
matter not on agenda)
Yes No No No 2/3
Reconsider
something
already disposed
of
“I move we now (or
later) reconsider our
action relative
to…” (Only a member
of the prevailing side
can make a motion to
reconsider)
Yes Yes Only if
original
motion
No Majority
Appeal / Vote on
Ruling by the
Chair
“I appeal the Chair’s
decision”
Yes Yes Yes No Majority
Staff will present any material differences between Robert’s Rules and Rosenberg’s in its presentation on this item. Existing “local” rules for procedures that the City has adopted will also be presented.

Council Policy on Meeting Management Protocols
In addition to considering converting from Robert’s Rules of Order to Rosenberg’s, consistent with past City Council direction, staff also supports consideration of formalizing additional meeting management protocols into a formal Council Policy and Procedure. At the December meeting, the City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/27/2024Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-628 Agenda Date: 7/2/2024
Committee considered revising the current meeting procedure in a variety of ways. Below are some areas for possible further consideration by the Committee. Some of these rules are consistent with current Council practices but have not been formalized.

1. Establishing Time Limits and/or Limits on the Number of Times each Councilmember speaks on Items: This could help focus remarks and ensure all have an equal opportunity to speak.
 On the other hand, specific time limits and/or limits on the number of times a member is allowed to speak may negatively impact Council deliberations and information/idea sharing on important policy matters. Continuing to rely on the powers of the meeting’s Chair to guide the City Council’s discussions in a timely manner is an effective strategy that is used in many (if not all) jurisdictions.

2. Consent for Extended Comments: Councilmembers seeking to make extended comments may request consent from the Chair or the Council to allow extended speaking time. This can be utilized if the City Council elects to set time limits as a matter of general policy (as outlined in Option 1) or if the Chair/Board adopts a limit to discussion/questions on a particular agendized item.

3. Add a Provision for Discussions Prior to the Making of a Motion: Council could consider the formal addition of a Council “discussions” step prior to the making of a motion. This is generally consistent with existing practices and can, particularly for more significant matters, facilitate the making of constructive motions that take into account the collective thoughts of the Council. As per standards, the Presiding Officer would manage this process with all Councilmembers given an opportunity to speak. Note
: A related provision could also be
considered to formalize the “best practice” that no motion would be made until after public input was received.

4. Addressing the Chair: Councilmembers should address comments to the Chair (as the Presiding Officer), not directly to other members to assist with maintaining order and civility.

5. Minimize Repeating Points: Councilmembers should avoid extended restatements of points already made by others to keep discussions efficient. The Chair will preside over these matters and may minimize repeated remarks.

6. Respectful Language: Maintain a professional and respectful tone during discussions and avoid personal attacks or disrespectful language based on the City Code of Ethics and Values Behavioral Standards for Councilmembers (Attachment 4).

7. Focus on Agenda Items: Comments should relate directly to the agenda items being discussed and off-topic discussions may be redirected by the Chair.

8. No Interruptions: Allow each member to speak without interruption.

9. Enforcement: As the Chair of the meeting, the Presiding Officer may raise points of order to address violations of meeting rules, with a right for an appeal from the majority of the Council.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/27/2024Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
24-628 Agenda Date: 7/2/2024
Questions regarding applicable rules or questions of interpretation may be presented to the City Attorney for input or advice.

The Governance and Ethics Committee shall discuss and make any recommendations to City Staff on a potential new Council Policy and Procedure for meeting management protocols that will be brought back to the Committee for review and approval before bringing forth to the full City Council for its consideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City other than staff time.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Governance and Ethics Committee agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Provide Direction on a Council Policy for Meeting Management Protocols Recommendations by the Governance and Ethics Committee and Forward for Consideration and Approval by the City Council Reviewed by: Elizabeth Klotz, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney’s Office Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager and Glen Googins, City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS

1. RTC 23-1264

2. Robert’s Rules of Order Cheat Sheet

3. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order

4. City Code of Ethics and Values Behavioral Standards for Councilmembers City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/27/2024Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™

REPORT TO GOVERNANCE AND ETHICS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT
..Title
Review Meeting Management Procedures

..Report

BACKGROUND
At the August 17, 2021 mid-year check-in on City Council Priorities session, the City Council developed procedures for meeting management. The session facilitator introduced a segment on meeting management procedures and norms, including a review of Robert’s Rules of Order. The Council determined that it was in the best interest of the City to promote Council meeting efficiency by adopting a set of meeting procedures governing the process by which Council would conduct its discussion of agenda items.

At this session, the City Attorney’s Office was to return to Council with a resolution on the meeting management procedure. The City Council also agreed to use this process for a period of approximately six months, and to revisit the topic at the 2022 Council Priority Setting session. Due to staff departures and transitions, the draft resolution (Attachment 1) did not return to a Council meeting and the item was not heard at the 2022 Council Priority Setting session held on February 8, 2022.

As a result, the City Council has been using these procedures in practice since the 2021 Priority Setting Session. During the March 13, 2023 Governance and Ethics Committee meeting, the Committee approved, as part of the workplan, to bring forth the current meeting management protocols for review and discussion.

At this December 4, 2023 meeting, the Governance and Ethics Committee shall review and discuss the current meeting management procedures, subject to any further amendments it may agree to, and recommend to the full Council for consideration and approval of a resolution formalizing the procedure.

DISCUSSION
As noted above, since the establishment of the meeting management procedures, the City has continued to use the established procedures as set forth below when discussing agenda items. At the August 17, 2021, City Council Priority Session check-in session, a motion was passed by the City Council to utilize the following procedure for a period of approximately six months, which has extended to the present day.

Current Procedure

Each item on a Council and/or Authorities agenda shall be heard and discussed in accordance with the following procedure:

1. City staff provides a report on the item, if warranted;

2. Each Councilmember shall have the opportunity to ask their questions;

3. City staff shall, to the extent possible, provide a response to all Councilmember questions;

4. The public shall have the opportunity to provide public comment on the item;

5. At the Mayor’s request, City staff shall, to the extent possible, provide responses to the comments or questions from the public;

6. A Councilmember shall then make a motion and the motion should be seconded by another Councilmember;

7. Each Councilmember who wishes to speak to the motion (during the deliberation portion of the meeting) shall then have the opportunity to make statements regarding the motion; and

8. A vote shall then be taken.

Options to Consider

Option 1:

The Committee may consider continuing the use of the current procedure in place and direct staff to formalize the procedures with a formal Resolution for Meeting Management and bring forth to the City Council for approval.

Option 2:

The Committee may consider revising the current procedure in one or more ways.

Below are some areas for possible further consideration by the Committee. Some of these rules are consistent with current Council practices, but have not been formalized.

1. Establishing Time Limits and/or Limits on the Number of Times each Councilmember speaks on Items: This could help focus remarks and ensure all have an equal opportunity to speak.
• On the other hand, specific time limits and/or limits on the number of times a member is allowed to speak may negatively impact Council deliberations and information/idea sharing on important policy matters. Continuing to rely on the powers of the meeting’s Chair to guide the City Council’s discussions in a timely manner is an effective strategy that is used in many (if not most) jurisdictions.

2. Consent for Extended Comments: Councilmembers seeking to make extended comments may request consent from the Chair or the Council to allow extended speaking time. This can be utilized if the City Council elects to set time limits (as outlined in Option 1) or without time limits and requested if the Chair seeks to limit discussion/questions.

4. Addressing the Chair: Councilmembers should address comments to the Chair (as the Presiding Officer), not directly to other members to assist with maintaining order and civility.

7. Focus on Agenda Items: Comments should relate directly to the agenda items being discussed and off-topic discussions may be redirected by the Chair.

8. No Interruptions: Allow each member to speak without interruption.

9. Enforcement: As the Chair of the meeting, the Presiding Officer may raise points of order to address violations of meeting rules, with a right for an appeal from the majority of the Council. Questions regarding applicable rules or questions of interpretation may be presented to the City Attorney for advice.

Option 3:

In addition, the Committee may consider directing staff to consider the options to replace the current Robert’s Rules of Order with Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order is a simplified set of parliamentary rules used in several cities throughout California. Many institutions have adopted Rosenberg’s Rules in lieu of Robert’s Rules, by finding them practical, logical, simple, easy to learn and user- friendly, while retaining the basic tenets of order.

If the Committee is interested in this option, the staff will prepare to present a comparison of Robert’s Rules of Order vs. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order at a future Governance and Ethics Committee meeting.

Benchmarking:

As background, below are excerpts from procedures being utilized by neighboring cities in relation to meeting management.

City Procedure
Cupertino City Council meetings are governed by Rosenberg’ s Rules of Order.

Council Questions and Deliberations: Councilmembers may obtain the floor by seeking recognition from the Mayor. Following presentations on an agenda item, Councilmembers are given five minutes to ask questions of any presenter. The Mayor may allow additional time for questions where appropriate. Following public comment, the Mayor may request that a motion be made and seconded. After the motion has been stated to the Council and seconded, any member of the Council has a right to discuss the motion after obtaining the floor. A member who has been recognized shall limit their time to five minutes. The Mayor may allow additional time for deliberations where appropriate. This rule shall displace any conflicting rule in the City’ s adopted rules of procedure.

Opportunity for Equal Participation: The policy encourages the full, fair participation of all members of the Council in discussions and deliberations. The Mayor may impose reasonable limits on the time any Councilmember is permitted to speak to advance this policy. In addition, all Councilmembers wishing to be recognized should be given an opportunity to speak before any member is allowed to speak a second time.

Milpitas City Council meetings are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order. The presiding officer conducts the meetings of the City Council to:
…
d. In presiding over matters where the public has provided testimony and/or raised questions, the presiding officer should:
(i) Restate every question coming before the Council.
(ii) Direct questions or comments requiring a response to staff for a response.
(iii) Ensure that staff and members and the public direct their comments to the presiding officer.
(iv) If necessary, help keep Councilmember questions relevant to the matter being considered by the Council.
(v) If necessary, consider calling for a brief recess if orderly conduct of the meeting is being disrupted.
(vi) Announce the decision of the Council on all subjects.

Ensure that each member of the Council is provided an opportunity to completely express their views on items of business, the Mayor should:

See that Councilmembers ask to be recognized by the Mayor before speaking and ensure that each Councilmember is given the opportunity to fully express their views
Palo Alto City Council meetings are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order.

Council Member Speaking Time Limits: The presiding officer shall give each Councilmember up to five (5) minutes to speak in each round of discussion during discussions on Council items where discussion takes place. The Council shal l be guided by the speaking times set by the presiding officer and shall conclude comments at the direction of the presiding officer. The presiding officer shall endeavor to treat all members equitably. Discussion on motions: The maker shall be the first Councilmember recognized to speak on the motion if it receives a second. The seconder shall be the second Councilmember to speak on the motion. Generally, Councilmembers will speak only once with respect to a motion. If the presiding officer or Council perm its any
Councilmember to speak more than once on a motion, all
Councilmembers shall receive the same privilege.

San Bruno City Council meetings are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order. To encourage full participation of all members of the Council, no member or members shall be permitted to monopolize the discussion of the question or agenda item. If a councilmember has already spoken and other members wish to speak, the latter members should be recognized in preference to the member who has already spoken.

However, if no other members seek recognition, the Mayor may recognize the member who has already spoken or make a motion on the item. The Mayor has the responsibility of controlling and expediting any debate or item. It is the duty of the Mayor to keep the subject clearly before the members, to rule out irrelevant discussion, and to restate the question whenever necessary.

San Jose City Council meetings are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order.

Members of the Council who wish to ask questions of the speakers or of each other, or who wish to discuss the agenda item during the course of the discussion on the agenda item, may do so, but only after being recognized by the Chair. The Chair may set time limits as he/she finds reasonable under the circumstances.

When a motion is made and
seconded, it may be debated by the Council. Members of the Council may speak in debate of a motion only when addressing the Chair and being recognized by the Chair. Whenever the subject of the motion has been discussed and considered, no further discussion or debate may take place except that members of the Council may explain their vote or propose supplemental motions.

Santa Rosa City Council meetings are governed by Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.

Councilmembers wishing to speak during Council meetings shall raise their hand and gain recognition by the Presiding Officer.

Councilmembers shall confine himself/herself to the question under debate. Every Councilmember desiring to question the City staff shall, after recognition by the Presiding Officer, address his/her questions to the presenter of an agenda item, the City Manager or to the City Attorney. The City Manager or City Attorney shall be entitled either to answer the inquiry himself/herself, or to designate a member of his/her staff for that purpose.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City other than staff time.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Committee agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected]
or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
..Recommendation
Review Meeting Management Procedures and Information Provided in Report and Provide Feedback for any further Amendments

..Staff
Reviewed by: Maria Le, Assistant to City Manager
Approved by: Glen Googins, City Attorney and Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Proposed Resolution from August 17, 2021 Priority Setting Check-in Session

2. City Code of Ethics and Values Behavioral Standards for Councilmembers

Robert’s Rules Cheat Sheet

To: Say: Interrupt Speaker Second Needed Debatable Amendable Decided by:

Adjourn “I move to adjourn.” No Yes No No Majority vote Recess “I move to recess for/until...” No Yes No Yes Majority vote Complain about hearing, comfort,
etc.
“Point of privilege...” Yes No No No Chair
End debate and vote on question “I move the previous question.” No Yes No No Majority vote Suspend further consideration of
something
“I move to table this matter.” No Yes No No 2/3 vote
Postpone deciding the question “I move to postpone this matter until...

No Yes Yes Yes Majority vote
Amend a motion “I move to amend this motion
by...”
No Yes Yes Yes Majority vote
Introduce business (a main
motion)
“I move that...” No Yes Yes Yes Majority vote
The motions and points listed above are in order of preference. When a motion or point of inquiry is pending, only those listed above the pending point may be raised.

To: Say: Interrupt Speaker Second Needed Debatable Amendable Decided by:

Redress any violation of the
body’s Rules
“Point of order...” Yes No No No Chair
Request information “Point of inquiry...” Yes No No No N/A Verify a recent voice vote by
actual count (before next motion
only)
“I call for division.” Yes No No No Majority vote
Prevent body from considering a
matter
“I object to considering this
question.”
Yes No No No 2/3
Consider a suspended matter “I move to take from the table...” Yes Yes No No Majority Reconsider a previous motion “I move to reconsider...” Yes Yes No No 2/3 Consider something out of
schedule
“I move to suspend the rules to
consider...”
No Yes No No 2/3
Vote on the Chair’s decision “I appeal the Chair’s decision.” Yes Yes Yes No Majority The motions and points above have no precedence. Any of them may be raised in response to any motion or question, with the exception of the three items in gray (motion to adjourn, motion to recess, and point of privilege
1 Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
REVISED 2011
Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century By Judge Dave Rosenberg

ii
MISSION and CORE BELIEFS
T o expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

VISION
T o be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California’s cities.

About the League of California Cities
Established in 1898, the League of California Cities is a member organization that represents California’s incorporated cities.

The League strives to protect the local authority and automony of city government and help California’s cities effectively serve their residents. In addition to advocating on cities’ behalf at the state capitol, the League provides its members with professional development programs and information resources, conducts education conferences and research, and publishes Western City magazine.
© 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.

About the Author
Dave Rosenberg is a Superior Court Judge in Y olo County. He has served as presiding judge of his court, and as presiding judge of the Superior Court Appellate Division. He also has served as chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee (the committee composed of all 58 California presiding judges) and as an advisory member of the California Judicial Council. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Rosenberg was member of the Y olo County Board of Supervisors, where he served two terms as chair. Rosenberg also served on the Davis City Council, including two terms as mayor. He has served on the senior staff of two governors, and worked for 19 years in private law practice. Rosenberg has served as a member and chair of numerous state, regional and local boards. Rosenberg chaired the California State Lottery Commission, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, the Y olo-Solano Air Quality Management District, the Y olo County Economic Development Commission, and the Y olo County Criminal Justice Cabinet. For many years, he has taught classes on parliamentary procedure and has served as parliamentarian for large and small bodies.
1 Table of Contents
About the Author ............................................................................................................ii Introduction ....................................................................................................................2 Establishing a Quorum ...................................................................................................2 The Role of the Chair ......................................................................................................2 The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion ........................................................2 Motions in General .........................................................................................................3 The Three Basic Motions ................................................................................................3 Multiple Motions Before the Body .................................................................................4 T o Debate or Not to Debate ............................................................................................4 Majority and Super-Majority Votes ...............................................................................5 Counting Votes ................................................................................................................5 The Motion to Reconsider ..............................................................................................6 Courtesy and Decorum ..................................................................................................7 Special Notes About Public Input ..................................................................................7 2 Establishing a Quorum
The starting point for a meeting is the establishment of a quorum.

A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the body who must be present at a meeting for business to be legally transacted. The default rule is that a quorum is one more than half the body. For example, in a five-member body a quorum is three.

When the body has three members present, it can legally transact business. If the body has less than a quorum of members present, it cannot legally transact business. And even if the body has a quorum to begin the meeting, the body can lose the quorum during the meeting when a member departs (or even when a member leaves the dais). When that occurs the body loses its ability to transact business until and unless a quorum is reestablished.

The default rule, identified above, however, gives way to a specific rule of the body that establishes a quorum. For example, the rules of a particular five-member body may indicate that a quorum is four members for that particular body. The body must follow the rules it has established for its quorum. In the absence of such a specific rule, the quorum is one more than half the members of the body.

The Role of the Chair
While all members of the body should know and understand the rules of parliamentary procedure, it is the chair of the body who is charged with applying the rules of conduct of the meeting. The chair should be well versed in those rules. For all intents and purposes, the chair makes the final ruling on the rules every time the chair states an action. In fact, all decisions by the chair are final unless overruled by the body itself.

Since the chair runs the conduct of the meeting, it is usual courtesy for the chair to play a less active role in the debate and discussion than other members of the body. This does not mean that the chair should not participate in the debate or discussion. T o the contrary, as a member of the body, the chair has the full right to participate in the debate, discussion and decision-making of the body. What the chair should do, however, is strive to be the last to speak at the discussion and debate stage. The chair should not make or second a motion unless the chair is convinced that no other member of the body will do so at that point in time.

The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion
Formal meetings normally have a written, often published agenda.

Informal meetings may have only an oral or understood agenda. In either case, the meeting is governed by the agenda and the agenda constitutes the body’s agreed-upon roadmap for the meeting. Each agenda item can be handled by the chair in the following basic format:

Introduction
The rules of procedure at meetings should be simple enough for most people to understand. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Virtually all clubs, associations, boards, councils and bodies follow a set of rules — Robert’s Rules of Order — which are embodied in a small, but complex, book. Virtually no one I know has actually read this book cover to cover. Worse yet, the book was written for another time and for another purpose. If one is chairing or running a parliament, then Robert’s Rules of Order is a dandy and quite useful handbook for procedure in that complex setting. On the other hand, if one is running a meeting of say, a five-member body with a few members of the public in attendance, a simplified version of the rules of parliamentary procedure is in order.

Hence, the birth of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.

What follows is my version of the rules of parliamentary procedure, based on my decades of experience chairing meetings in state and local government. These rules have been simplified for the smaller bodies we chair or in which we participate, slimmed down for the 21st Century, yet retaining the basic tenets of order to which we have grown accustomed. Interestingly enough, Rosenberg’s Rules has found a welcoming audience. Hundreds of cities, counties, special districts, committees, boards, commissions, neighborhood associations and private corporations and companies have adopted Rosenberg’s Rules in lieu of Robert’s Rules because they have found them practical, logical, simple, easy to learn and user friendly.

This treatise on modern parliamentary procedure is built on a foundation supported by the following four pillars:

1. Rules should establish order. The first purpose of rules of parliamentary procedure is to establish a framework for the orderly conduct of meetings.

2. Rules should be clear. Simple rules lead to wider understanding and participation. Complex rules create two classes: those who understand and participate; and those who do not fully understand and do not fully participate.

3. Rules should be user friendly. That is, the rules must be simple enough that the public is invited into the body and feels that it has participated in the process.

4. Rules should enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. The ultimate purpose of rules of procedure is to encourage discussion and to facilitate decision making by the body. In a democracy, majority rules. The rules must enable the majority to express itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to also express itself, but not dominate, while fully participating in the process.
3 Ninth, the chair takes a vote. Simply asking for the “ayes” and then asking for the “nays” normally does this. If members of the body do not vote, then they “abstain. ” Unless the rules of the body provide otherwise (or unless a super majority is required as delineated later in these rules), then a simple majority (as defined in law or the rules of the body as delineated later in these rules) determines whether the motion passes or is defeated.

T enth, the chair should announce the result of the vote and what action (if any) the body has taken. In announcing the result, the chair should indicate the names of the members of the body, if any, who voted in the minority on the motion. This announcement might take the following form: “The motion passes by a vote of 3-2, with Smith and Jones dissenting. We have passed the motion requiring a 10-day notice for all future meetings of this body. ”
Motions in General
Motions are the vehicles for decision making by a body. It is usually best to have a motion before the body prior to commencing discussion of an agenda item. This helps the body focus.

Motions are made in a simple two-step process. First, the chair should recognize the member of the body. Second, the member of the body makes a motion by preceding the member’s desired approach with the words “I move … ”
A typical motion might be: “I move that we give a 10-day notice in the future for all our meetings. ”
The chair usually initiates the motion in one of three ways:

1. Inviting the members of the body to make a motion, for example, “A motion at this time would be in order. ”

2. Suggesting a motion to the members of the body, “A motion would be in order that we give a 10-day notice in the future for all our meetings. ”

3. Making the motion. As noted, the chair has every right as a member of the body to make a motion, but should normally do so only if the chair wishes to make a motion on an item but is convinced that no other member of the body is willing to step forward to do so at a particular time.

The Three Basic Motions
There are three motions that are the most common and recur often at meetings:

The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision for the body’s consideration. A basic motion might be: “I move that we create a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser. ”
First, the chair should clearly announce the agenda item number and should clearly state what the agenda item subject is. The chair should then announce the format (which follows) that will be followed in considering the agenda item.

Second, following that agenda format, the chair should invite the appropriate person or persons to report on the item, including any recommendation that they might have. The appropriate person or persons may be the chair, a member of the body, a staff person, or a committee chair charged with providing input on the agenda item.

Third, the chair should ask members of the body if they have any technical questions of clarification. At this point, members of the body may ask clarifying questions to the person or persons who reported on the item, and that person or persons should be given time to respond.

Fourth, the chair should invite public comments, or if appropriate at a formal meeting, should open the public meeting for public input.

If numerous members of the public indicate a desire to speak to the subject, the chair may limit the time of public speakers. At the conclusion of the public comments, the chair should announce that public input has concluded (or the public hearing, as the case may be, is closed).

Fifth, the chair should invite a motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who makes the motion.

Sixth, the chair should determine if any member of the body wishes to second the motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who seconds the motion. It is normally good practice for a motion to require a second before proceeding to ensure that it is not just one member of the body who is interested in a particular approach. However, a second is not an absolute requirement, and the chair can proceed with consideration and vote on a motion even when there is no second. This is a matter left to the discretion of the chair.

Seventh, if the motion is made and seconded, the chair should make sure everyone understands the motion.

This is done in one of three ways:

1. The chair can ask the maker of the motion to repeat it;

2. The chair can repeat the motion; or

3. The chair can ask the secretary or the clerk of the body to repeat the motion.

Eighth, the chair should now invite discussion of the motion by the body. If there is no desired discussion, or after the discussion has ended, the chair should announce that the body will vote on the motion. If there has been no discussion or very brief discussion, then the vote on the motion should proceed immediately and there is no need to repeat the motion. If there has been substantial discussion, then it is normally best to make sure everyone understands the motion by repeating it.
4 First, the chair would deal with the third (the last) motion on the floor, the substitute motion. After discussion and debate, a vote would be taken first on the third motion. If the substitute motion passed, it would be a substitute for the basic motion and would eliminate it. The first motion would be moot, as would the second motion (which sought to amend the first motion), and the action on the agenda item would be completed on the passage by the body of the third motion (the substitute motion). No vote would be taken on the first or second motions.

Second, if the substitute motion failed, the chair would then deal with the second (now the last) motion on the floor, the motion to amend. The discussion and debate would focus strictly on the amendment (should the committee be five or 10 members). If the motion to amend passed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (the first motion) as amended. If the motion to amend failed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (the first motion) in its original format, not amended.

Third, the chair would now deal with the first motion that was placed on the floor. The original motion would either be in its original format (five-member committee), or if amended, would be in its amended format (10-member committee). The question on the floor for discussion and decision would be whether a committee should plan and put on the annual fundraiser.

T o Debate or Not to Debate
The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate. Accordingly, basic motions, motions to amend, and substitute motions are all eligible, each in their turn, for full discussion before and by the body. The debate can continue as long as members of the body wish to discuss an item, subject to the decision of the chair that it is time to move on and take action.

There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate on motions. The exceptions all apply when there is a desire of the body to move on. The following motions are not debatable (that is, when the following motions are made and seconded, the chair must immediately call for a vote of the body without debate on the motion):

Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It requires a simple majority vote.

Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately take a recess. Normally, the chair determines the length of the recess which may be a few minutes or an hour. It requires a simple majority vote.

Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. For example, the motion might be: “I move we adjourn this meeting at midnight. ” It requires a simple majority vote.

The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is before the body, they would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be: “I move that we amend the motion to have a 10-member committee. ” A motion to amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in some way.

The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do away with the basic motion that is before the body, and put a new motion before the body, they would move a substitute motion. A substitute motion might be: “I move a substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year. ”
“Motions to amend” and “substitute motions” are often confused, but they are quite different, and their effect (if passed) is quite different.

A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on the floor, but modify it in some way. A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor, and substitute a new and different motion for it. The decision as to whether a motion is really a “motion to amend” or a “substitute motion” is left to the chair. So if a member makes what that member calls a “motion to amend, ” but the chair determines that it is really a “substitute motion, ” then the chair’s designation governs.

A “friendly amendment” is a practical parliamentary tool that is simple, informal, saves time and avoids bogging a meeting down with numerous formal motions. It works in the following way: In the discussion on a pending motion, it may appear that a change to the motion is desirable or may win support for the motion from some members. When that happens, a member who has the floor may simply say, “I want to suggest a friendly amendment to the motion. ” The member suggests the friendly amendment, and if the maker and the person who seconded the motion pending on the floor accepts the friendly amendment, that now becomes the pending motion on the floor. If either the maker or the person who seconded rejects the proposed friendly amendment, then the proposer can formally move to amend.

Multiple Motions Before the Body
There can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time.

The chair can reject a fourth motion until the chair has dealt with the three that are on the floor and has resolved them. This rule has practical value. More than three motions on the floor at any given time is confusing and unwieldy for almost everyone, including the chair.

When there are two or three motions on the floor (after motions and seconds) at the same time, the vote should proceed first on the last motion that is made. For example, assume the first motion is a basic “motion to have a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser. ” During the discussion of this motion, a member might make a second motion to “amend the main motion to have a 10-member committee, not a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser. ” And perhaps, during that discussion, a member makes yet a third motion as a “substitute motion that we not have an annual fundraiser this year. ” The proper procedure would be as follows:
5 Motion to close nominations. When choosing officers of the body (such as the chair), nominations are in order either from a nominating committee or from the floor of the body. A motion to close nominations effectively cuts off the right of the minority to nominate officers and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.

Motion to object to the consideration of a question. Normally, such a motion is unnecessary since the objectionable item can be tabled or defeated straight up. However, when members of a body do not even want an item on the agenda to be considered, then such a motion is in order. It is not debatable, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.

Motion to suspend the rules. This motion is debatable, but requires a two-thirds vote to pass. If the body has its own rules of order, conduct or procedure, this motion allows the body to suspend the rules for a particular purpose. For example, the body (a private club) might have a rule prohibiting the attendance at meetings by non-club members. A motion to suspend the rules would be in order to allow a non-club member to attend a meeting of the club on a particular date or on a particular agenda item.

Counting Votes
The matter of counting votes starts simple, but can become complicated.

Usually, it’s pretty easy to determine whether a particular motion passed or whether it was defeated. If a simple majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then one vote more than 50 percent of the body is required. For example, in a five-member body, if the vote is three in favor and two opposed, the motion passes. If it is two in favor and three opposed, the motion is defeated.

If a two-thirds majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then how many affirmative votes are required? The simple rule of thumb is to count the “no” votes and double that count to determine how many “yes” votes are needed to pass a particular motion. For example, in a seven-member body, if two members vote “no” then the “yes” vote of at least four members is required to achieve a two-thirds majority vote to pass the motion.

What about tie votes? In the event of a tie, the motion always fails since an affirmative vote is required to pass any motion. For example, in a five-member body, if the vote is two in favor and two opposed, with one member absent, the motion is defeated.

Vote counting starts to become complicated when members vote “abstain” or in the case of a written ballot, cast a blank (or unreadable) ballot. Do these votes count, and if so, how does one count them? The starting point is always to check the statutes.

In California, for example, for an action of a board of supervisors to be valid and binding, the action must be approved by a majority of the board. (California Government Code Section 25005.) Typically, this means three of the five members of the board must vote affirmatively in favor of the action. A vote of 2-1 would not be sufficient. A vote of 3-0 with two abstentions would be sufficient. In general law cities in Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires discussion of the agenda item to be halted and the agenda item to be placed on “hold. ” The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to the body. “I move we table this item until our regular meeting in October. ” Or the motion can contain no specific time for the return of the item, in which case a motion to take the item off the table and bring it back to the body will have to be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item (or to bring it back to the body) requires a simple majority vote.

Motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion is to say, “I move the previous question” or “I move the question” or “I call the question” or sometimes someone simply shouts out “question. ” As a practical matter, when a member calls out one of these phrases, the chair can expedite matters by treating it as a “request” rather than as a formal motion. The chair can simply inquire of the body, “any further discussion?” If no one wishes to have further discussion, then the chair can go right to the pending motion that is on the floor.

However, if even one person wishes to discuss the pending motion further, then at that point, the chair should treat the call for the “question” as a formal motion, and proceed to it.

When a member of the body makes such a motion (“I move the previous question”), the member is really saying: “I’ve had enough debate. Let’s get on with the vote. ” When such a motion is made, the chair should ask for a second, stop debate, and vote on the motion to limit debate. The motion to limit debate requires a two-thirds vote of the body.

Note: A motion to limit debate could include a time limit. For example: “I move we limit debate on this agenda item to 15 minutes. ” Even in this format, the motion to limit debate requires a two- thirds vote of the body. A similar motion is a motion to object to consideration of an item. This motion is not debatable, and if passed, precludes the body from even considering an item on the agenda. It also requires a two-thirds vote.

Majority and Super Majority Votes
In a democracy, a simple majority vote determines a question. A tie vote means the motion fails. So in a seven-member body, a vote of 4-3 passes the motion. A vote of 3-3 with one abstention means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is 3-3, the motion still fails.

All motions require a simple majority, but there are a few exceptions.

The exceptions come up when the body is taking an action which effectively cuts off the ability of a minority of the body to take an action or discuss an item. These extraordinary motions require a two-thirds majority (a super majority) to pass:

Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says, “I move the previous question, ” or “I move the question, ” or “I call the question, ” or “I move to limit debate, ” it all amounts to an attempt to cut off the ability of the minority to discuss an item, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
6 Now, exactly how does a member cast an “abstention” vote? Any time a member votes “abstain” or says, “I abstain, ” that is an abstention. However, if a member votes “present” that is also treated as an abstention (the member is essentially saying, “Count me for purposes of a quorum, but my vote on the issue is abstain. ”) In fact, any manifestation of intention not to vote either “yes” or “no” on the pending motion may be treated by the chair as an abstention. If written ballots are cast, a blank or unreadable ballot is counted as an abstention as well.

Can a member vote “absent” or “count me as absent?” Interesting question. The ruling on this is up to the chair. The better approach is for the chair to count this as if the member had left his/her chair and is actually “absent. ” That, of course, affects the quorum. However, the chair may also treat this as a vote to abstain, particularly if the person does not actually leave the dais.

The Motion to Reconsider
There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of explanation all by itself; the motion to reconsider. A tenet of parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subject only to reopening if a proper motion to consider is made and passed.

A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass like other garden-variety motions, but there are two special rules that apply only to the motion to reconsider.

First, is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider must be made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon. A motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The body, however, can always vote to suspend the rules and, by a two-thirds majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at another time.)
Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only by certain members of the body. Accordingly, a motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the original motion. If such a member has a change of heart, he or she may make the motion to reconsider (any other member of the body — including a member who voted in the minority on the original motion — may second the motion). If a member who voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it must be ruled out of order. The purpose of this rule is finality. If a member of minority could make a motion to reconsider, then the item could be brought back to the body again and again, which would defeat the purpose of finality.

If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is back before the body, and a new original motion is in order. The matter may be discussed and debated as if it were on the floor for the first time.

California, as another example, resolutions or orders for the payment of money and all ordinances require a recorded vote of the total members of the city council. (California Government Code Section 36936.) Cities with charters may prescribe their own vote requirements. Local elected officials are always well-advised to consult with their local agency counsel on how state law may affect the vote count.

After consulting state statutes, step number two is to check the rules of the body. If the rules of the body say that you count votes of “those present” then you treat abstentions one way. However, if the rules of the body say that you count the votes of those “present and voting, ” then you treat abstentions a different way. And if the rules of the body are silent on the subject, then the general rule of thumb (and default rule) is that you count all votes that are “present and voting. ” Accordingly, under the “present and voting” system, you would NOT count abstention votes on the motion. Members who abstain are counted for purposes of determining quorum (they are “present”), but you treat the abstention votes on the motion as if they did not exist (they are not “voting”). On the other hand, if the rules of the body specifically say that you count votes of those “present” then you DO count abstention votes both in establishing the quorum and on the motion. In this event, the abstention votes act just like “no” votes.

How does this work in practice?
Here are a few examples.

Assume that a five-member city council is voting on a motion that requires a simple majority vote to pass, and assume further that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Accordingly, the default rule kicks in and we count all votes of members that are “present and voting. ” If the vote on the motion is 3-2, the motion passes. If the motion is 2-2 with one abstention, the motion fails.

Assume a five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and further assume that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Again, the default rule applies.

If the vote is 3-2, the motion fails for lack of a two-thirds majority. If the vote is 4-1, the motion passes with a clear two-thirds majority. A vote of three “yes, ” one “no” and one “abstain” also results in passage of the motion. Once again, the abstention is counted only for the purpose of determining quorum, but on the actual vote on the motion, it is as if the abstention vote never existed — so an effective 3-1 vote is clearly a two-thirds majority vote.

Now, change the scenario slightly. Assume the same five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, but now assume that the body DOES have a specific rule requiring a two-thirds vote of members “present. ” Under this specific rule, we must count the members present not only for quorum but also for the motion. In this scenario, any abstention has the same force and effect as if it were a “no” vote. Accordingly, if the votes were three “yes, ” one “no” and one “abstain, ” then the motion fails. The abstention in this case is treated like a “no” vote and effective vote of 3-2 is not enough to pass two-thirds majority muster.
7 Appeal. If the chair makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded, and after debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the chair is deemed reversed.

Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of saying, “return to the agenda. ” If a member believes that the body has drifted from the agreed-upon agenda, such a call may be made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers that the agenda has not been followed, the chair simply reminds the body to return to the agenda item properly before them. If the chair fails to do so, the chair’s determination may be appealed.

Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a motion, the maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn, although the chair may ask the person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion, and any other member may make the motion if properly recognized.

Special Notes About Public Input
The rules outlined above will help make meetings very public- friendly. But in addition, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special rules that apply to each agenda item:

Rule One: T ell the public what the body will be doing.

Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is doing it.

Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the public what the body did.

Courtesy and Decorum
The rules of order are meant to create an atmosphere where the members of the body and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. At the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to maintain common courtesy and decorum. Unless the setting is very informal, it is always best for only one person at a time to have the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to be first recognized by the chair before proceeding to speak.

The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude.

Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open. In the interest of time, the chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body.

Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? The general rule is “no. ” There are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be interrupted for the following reasons:

Privilege. The proper interruption would be, “point of privilege. ” The chair would then ask the interrupter to “state your point. ” Appropriate points of privilege relate to anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person’s ability to hear.

Order. The proper interruption would be, “point of order. ” Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to “state your point. ” Appropriate points of order relate to anything that would not be considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For example, if the chair moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate without allowing that discussion or debate.
1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 658-8200 | Fax (916) 658-8240
www.cacities.org
T o order additional copies of this publication, call (916) 658-8200. $10
© 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.

Printed on recycled paper.
1 City of Santa Clara
PROGRAM IN ETHICS & VALUES

BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 1

INTRODUCTION

Ten years ago, the City of Santa Clara began its ethics and values program to foster public trust by promoting and maintaining the highest standards of personal and professional conduct. Since the adoption of the Code of Ethics & Values in 2000, the City Council has promised the people of Santa Clara that Council Members, all elected and appointed officials, candidates for public office, and City Staff will meet the most demanding ethical standards and demonstrate the highest levels of achievement in practicing eight core values identified in the Code.

Those values, which are fundamental to public trust, were adopted to guide the decisions and actions of individual Council Members and the Council as a whole.

City Council and City Staff have worked hard to integrate these values into the everyday operating culture of City Hall. The City has conducted extensive outreach to residents encouraging them to hold public officials accountable at the ballot box for being credible role models for these values, in word and in deed, in public or in private.

To help the Council make these values real in their regular work with the City, the Code describes for each value a basic set of character traits and actions residents can expect to see Council Members meet and exceed.

This document translates these traits and actions into concrete behavioral standards for the City Council. These standards describe what impeccable leadership ethics looks like in the everyday work of the Council. They reflect commonly accepted “best practices,” rather than specific issues or problems the Council has faced. The list seeks to include enough positive behaviors to practice (and negative behaviors to avoid) that a reasonable person can assess how credible he or she is as a role model and ethical leader.

This information is presented in four columns. Columns 1 and 2 reproduce the approved Code of Ethics. Columns 3 and 4 list the behavioral standards.

1 This document is based on the Behavioral Standards for Commissioners, Boards, and Other Appointed Officials, developed during 2000-2002, and approved by the City Council in February 2003. A representative committee of Board Members and Commissioners, working with the City’s initial Ethics Ordinance Committee, drafted that document. It was then revised based on extensive feedback from all Board Members, Commissioners, and Staff Liaisons. In a working session in April, 2008, the Council used that docume t to develop the fi rst draft of its own standards. The City’s Ethics Consultant, Dr. Tom Shanks, and City Staff drafted the final version for City Council review on May 6. 2008. n
Approved by City Council on May 20, 2008.

2 City of Santa Clara
PROGRAM IN ETHICS & VALUES

BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
As a Santa Clara representative, I will be:

Ethical I am trustworthy,
acting with the
utmost integrity
and moral courage
• Making careful decisions,
advancing the best long ‐
term interests of the
City, after considering all
available facts, City Staff
recommendations, and
public comment
• Making hasty, ill ‐
informed decisions based
on politics, bias, faulty
assumptions, prejudice,
self ‐interest, gossip, and
half ‐truths
• Voting my honest
conviction, explaining my
ethical reasoning,
respecting the minority,
and upholding the
majority as the decision
of the Council
• Promising my vote before
facts are known in order
to gain favor with a
crony, endorser, lobbyist,
or special interest
• Vigorously debating an
issue, listening carefully
to all sides, making my
best judgment call, even
if it’s not popular, and
taking responsibility for
my actions
• Saying whatever the vocal
public wants to hear,
dodging criticism of an
unpopular vote, shifting
the blame to the
majority, other members,
or City Staff
• Preparing to vote by
assessing how various
options advance or harm
the best interests of the
City as well as the City’s
Mission and Core Values,
working to minimize any
harm
• Always taking the short ‐
term view, representing
few stakeholders,
believing ethics and City
values have no bearing on
decisions
• Finding an imaginative
solution that is in the
best interests of the
City, is fair, respects
individual rights and the
Council’s duties, and
advances City values
• Saying and doing
whatever it takes, no
holds barred, to advance
one’s personal position,
power, influence or
political career

3 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Ethical
(continued)
I am truthful, do
what I say I will
do, and am
dependable
• Giving complete, factual,
unbiased information to
colleagues, public, and
the press
• Concealing, fabricating,
overstating, under ‐
stating, or denying the
truth; spinning the truth;
leaving out context
• Making promises to the
public, City Staff, and
Council members which
can be kept and do not
exceed the authority of
any individual Council
Member
• Promising more than can
be delivered, over ‐
extending oneself, or
taking sole credit for the
work of the Council and
others
I make impartial
decisions, free of
bribes, unlawful
gifts, narrow
political interests,
and financial and
other personal
interests that
impair my
independence of
judgment or action
• Seeking advice from the
City Attorney and City
Manager when
confronting a real or
potential conflict of
interest, and making a
full public disclosure
when the Council
considers the agenda
item
• Helping a friend get a
project through the
Council in return for a
donation to a campaign
fund, school or charity, or
the gift of tickets or
another perk
• Having declared a
conflict, leaving the dais
and Council Chambers,
so other Council
members are free of any
undue influence
• Talking to fellow Council
Members prior to
declaring a conflict, and
asking them to take care
of the item in a way that
advances personal
interests
I am fair,
distributing
benefits and
burdens according
to consistent and
equitable criteria
• Listening attentively to
all sides, keeping an
open mind and avoiding
even the appearance of
bias, following
precedents consistently,
treating equals equally
• Paying more attention to
friends’ and supporters’
projects
• Making “back room”
deals and decisions
• Giving preferential
treatment to special
interests, consultants,
and former Council
Members
4 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Ethical
(continued)
I extend equal
opportunities and
due process to all
parties in matters
under
consideration. If I
engage in
unilateral meetings
and discussions, I
do so without
making voting
decisions
• Being available to
anyone who wants to
discuss an issue, keeping
an open mind and not
committing to vote for or
against an item until
after hearing the full
public discussion
• Promoting the interests
of the business
community without first
considering the interests
of all stakeholders
• Giving special treatment
to the companies that pay
the most in taxes and to
my largest campaign
donors
I show respect for
persons,
confidences, and
information
designated as
“confidential”
• Referring media
questions on Closed
Session or other
confidential matters to
the City Manager’s
Office, rather than
saying “No Comment”
• Telling others about
Closed Session
proceedings, especially
when it is an important
issue and I want input on
how to decide
• Confirming a rumor,
remaining silent,
communicating non ‐
verbally, or in other ways
providing information
that is confidential or
that the Council Member
has promised not to
reveal
• Treating the public and
City Staff, at all times,
the way I treat highly
regarded colleagues in
businesses or
professions
• Acting based on
stereotypes, rumors,
“ancient history,” and
prior negative
experiences with an
individual or groups

• Bringing to the attention
of the City Manager any
concern about the
actions or work of City
Staff, or any complaint
from the public

• Criticizing or
embarrassing the City
Manager or other City
Staff in public
• Failing to publicly
recognize extraordinary
City Staff work

5 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Ethical
(continued)
• Showing courtesy and
interest in word and
action to City Staff,
public, and elected and
appointed officials
• Complimenting the work
of a single City Staff
member when a staff
team actually did the
work
• Speaking and acting out
of the belief that City
Staff and all members of
the Council are on the
same team and
committed to doing their
best to serve residents
• Engaging publicly or
privately in personal
verbal attacks against
Council colleagues or City
Staff; interrupting while
they are speaking, rolling
eyes, demeaning them, or
in other ways treating
them inappropriately
Professional I use my title(s) only
when conducting
official City
business, for
information
purposes, or as an
indication of
background and
expertise, carefully
considering whether
I am exceeding or
appearing to exceed
my authority
• Using City titles for
identification at League
meetings or when on
other official City
business, or when
seeking information
directly related to a
Council matter from
appropriate sources
• Using a City title when
making dinner
reservations or making
purchases
• Referring friends to City
businesses and suggesting
they mention the name of
a Council Member to get
the best prices
I apply my know‐
ledge and expertise
to my assigned
activities and to the
interpersonal
relationships that
are part of my job in
a consistent,
confident,
competent, and
productive manner

• Preparing by reading the
agenda packet before
meetings
• Asking the City Manager
informational questions
ahead of time to assist in
being prepared
• Arriving on ‐time to
meetings, paying
attention and listening
actively
• Rushing into meetings
late and being obvious
about opening the
agenda packet for the
first time or speed‐
reading the packet while
City Staff or the public
are presenting
information
6 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Professional
(continued)
• Asking questions that
will advance the
discussion, contribute to
decision ‐making, and
have not been covered in
the agenda packet
• Taking no notes,
remembering little, if
any, of the information
in the agenda packet,
asking to have
information repeated
constantly
• Listening attentively to
the public, City Staff,
and other Council
members who may
speak at meetings
• Making little or no eye
contact with any speaker
during the meeting
• Leaving during public
comment and returning
only after it is over
• Making comments to
someone else while the
public is speaking
I approach my job
and work ‐related
relationships with a
positive attitude
• Approaching Council
work informed of issues,
enthusiastic, energized,
interested, ready to
participate, and focused
• Approaching Council
work half ‐heartedly,
coming to meetings eager
to leave
• Short ‐circuiting a
discussion; being
perceived as rude by
other Council Members,
City Staff, or the public
• Making guests feel
welcomed at meetings
• Treating new Council
Members as colleagues,
encouraging them to
express their opinions,
and offering them
positive feedback
• Acting in a superior
manner with newly
elected Council members
• Never making time to be
responsive to residents
who want to discuss
issues
I keep professional
knowledge and
skills current and
growing
• Making it a priority to
attend League meetings,
Electric Joint Powers
Agency meetings, and
committees
• Assuming there is nothing
new to learn
• Going to League meetings
and conferences to be
seen, but never attending
any training
7 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Professional
(continued)
• Reading background
materials for general
preparation including
professional journals,
books, and articles
• Skipping meetings with
the City Manager,
assuming you know as
much, if not more, than
she does on this issue
Service ‐Oriented

I provide friendly,
receptive,
courteous service
to everyone
• Not just answering
questions, but sharing
helpful knowledge of
Council or government
functions, even if the
person asking isn’t sure
what they need to know
• Acting like it’s a bother
anytime a resident asks a
question or when they
make inquiries about
Council/government
business
• Seeking the opinions of
those who are hesitant
or unwilling to come
forward with their ideas,
but trying not to force
anyone to speak in a
public forum if they are
uncomfortable or
unprepared
• Making guests or others
feel stupid, intimidated,
dismissed, manipulated,
or demeaned by reading
the newspaper, falling
asleep, laughing at a
private joke with another
Council Member, or
repeatedly leaving the
room during discussions
I am attuned to,
and care about,
the needs and
issues of
residents, public
officials, and city
workers
• Talking with residents
and actively listening at
City gatherings to be
aware of what is going
on in this community and
other communities
• Being arrogant or
uninterested when
responding to residents
outside of City Hall about
their concerns and
debating with them to
prove them wrong or
misinformed
• Attending City events
and interacting
effectively with the
public, aware that others
expect Council Members
to be role ‐models
• Showing up late to City
events, leaving early, and
spending most of the time
talking only to one or two
friends
8 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Service ‐Oriented
(continued)
• Relaying things heard or
provided to the Council
or the City Manager or
other appropriate parties
for follow‐ up
• Withholding important
information to use it for
narrow personal purposes
at a later time
In my interactions
with constituents, I
am interested,
engaged, and
responsive
• Acting in a pleasant and
friendly manner and
encouraging people to
speak their mind;
welcoming constructive
criticism as well as
compliments
• Through word and action,
discouraging people from
proposing what they
believe are solutions or
expressing their concerns
• Focusing on the speaker
and trying to see the
world as they do in order
to understand their
needs
• While seeming to be
engaged in one
conversation, scanning
the environment for
someone more interesting
or important to speak
with; abruptly stopping
the previous conversation
to speak with the more
important person
FiscallyResponsible I make decisions
after prudent
consideration of
their financial
impact, taking into
account the long ‐
term financial
needs of the City,
especially its
financial stability
• Before deciding how to
vote, reviewing
cost/benefit analysis and
all related studies, along
with City Staff
recommendations
• Allowing other Council
members who have more
expertise in budgeting to
take the lead in budget
discussions, trusting that
they know better, and
never improving personal
expertise
• Consider the City’s short
and long term financial
condition prior to
proposing new or
expanded City projects
• Ignoring the constraints
of the City budget when
making decisions
• Citing “budget
constraints” as the reason
for not supporting a
motion, when the real
reason is how it will look
in the next election
9 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Fiscally Responsible
(continued)
I demonstrate
concern for the
proper use of City
assets (e.g.,
personnel, time,
property,
equipment, funds)
and follow
established
procedures
• Allocating resources
according to the City’s
plan and in compliance
with the law and the
City’s goals to provide
residents with a better
environment in which to
live
• Taking advantage of any
opportunity to get
something “free” from
the City
• Seeking discounts from
the City’s vendors solely
because of my position
• Using City equipment
only for Council work,
not for personal use or
for my business
• Coming to City Hall
regularly and asking City
Staff to make just a few
copies for personal use
• Respecting City Staff
time and being especially
careful to ask the City
Manager to take on
special research or other
projects only if
convinced that this work
is critical and necessary
for the Council to better
serve the needs of
residents
• Asking a lot of questions
that focus on non
substantive details, being
unable to separate what’s
important from what’s
not
• Representing the public’s
interests to the best of
my ability
• Balancing long ‐term
impacts and short ‐term
goals
• Acting as if I “own” the
City or my seat on the
Council

I make good
financial decisions
that seek to
preserve programs
and services for City
residents
• Being fully aware of and
understanding the
approved City budget,
having solicited
explanations from the
City Manager, if
necessary
• Taking as many trips as
possible at the City’s
expense because of a
personal feeling that the
compensation is not
sufficient and some
reward for City work is
deserved
10 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Organized I act in an efficient
manner, making
decisions and
recommendations
based upon research
and facts, taking
into consideration
short and long ‐term
goals
• Being cognizant of the
importance of scarce
meeting time and
preparing accordingly,
with the result that the
Council spends time on
the important issues and
deals efficiently with
other issues
• Relying solely on prior
knowledge and spending a
great deal of the
Council’s time proving to
everyone how much I
know on all issues, large
and small
I follow through in a
responsible way,
keeping others
informed, and
responding in a
timely fashion
• Sharing my research and
experience with others
on the Council, making
worthwhile
contributions and
welcoming alternative
viewpoints
• Using hear ‐say from a
third party as the sole
basis for making a
decision
• Returning phone calls
and email promptly, if at
all possible; if unable,
letting the person know
when to expect a
response
• Failing to acknowledge
receipt of requests for
information
• Responding only to
people who can help with
personal political goals
• Eventually getting around
to sending information,
but never in a timely
manner
I am respectful of
established City
processes and
guidelines
• Participating fully in
orientation sessions and
other sessions in order
to understand how the
City’s policies and
procedures impact the
effectiveness of the
Council
• Criticizing City policies in
public without first
expressing concerns to
City Staff or gaining
knowledge necessary in
order to offer
constructive criticism
• Helping to establish
reasonable timetables
and then following them
• Being flexible in setting
meeting dates and times
• Ignoring deadlines, not
keeping people informed,
and making excuses which
damage public trust
11 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Organized
(continued)
• Being able to explain to
residents, businesses,
and visitors how the
City’s policies and
procedures are examples
of the City’s Core Values
in practice
• Being cynical about
policies and cavalier
about following
procedures because of a
failure to see how these
are related to fairness
and the common good
Communicative I convey the City’s
care for and
commitment to its
residents
• Being able to explain the
City’s goals to anyone
and describe personal
commitment to them
• Supporting superb,
affordable City services
and conveying that
commitment effectively
to residents
• Plotting and scheming to
accomplish personal
agendas
• Deciding how you will
vote and writing out
those reasons prior to any
public comment
• Becoming angry at a
resident who is critical of
the Council
I communicate in
various ways that I
am approachable,
open ‐minded and
willing to
participate in dialog
• Being available to the
public in person, at
events, and through
telephone and written
correspondence to
provide both answers to
questions and
dissemination of
important information
• Confusing residents,
spreading rumors and
gossip, or slandering
elected or appointed
officials, City Staff, or
anyone
• Interrupting someone
who has the floor
• Listening attentively,
being open to multiple
perspectives, and
allowing the possibility
of changing opinions and
points of view
• Listening solely to find
flaws, to spot differences,
and to counter arguments
• Going out of my way
during meetings to show
why I am always right and
others are not
• Making it a practice to
communicate equally
well to all stakeholders,
regardless of their
influence, power, or
campaign donations
• Dominating meetings and
asking many more
questions than time
allows, effectively
excluding the input of
others
12 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Communicative
(continued)
I engage in effective
two ‐way
communication, by
listening carefully,
asking questions,
and determining an
appropriate
response which adds
value to
conversations
• During meetings, giving
residents and others the
benefit of the doubt and
listening to identify
needs and interests
• Asking questions to
clarify, to understand,
and to augment, in order
to hear the truth as the
resident sees it
• Making the best decision
to advance the
community’s values and
goals
• Considering people on the
other side of issues as
enemies, rather than as
colleagues or fellow
residents
• Weakening public debate
by belittling or mocking
someone’s viewpoint
• Demonizing anyone who
disagrees with a personal
conviction or viewpoint
Collaborative I act in a
cooperative manner
with groups and
other individuals,
working together in
a spirit of tolerance
and understanding
• Submitting one’s best
thinking, respecting all
other participants and
inviting their thoughts in
order to develop better
solutions
• Seeing value in working
with other agencies to
develop consistent
policies, where
appropriate
• Describing people who
hold different viewpoints
as “them”
• Failing to recognize
personal biases,
prejudices, stereotypes,
and their influence on
language and attitudes
toward residents and
others
I work towards
consensus building
and gain value
from diverse
opinions
• Approaching meetings
and discussions assuming
that many people have
pieces of answers and
that cooperation will
lead to workable
solutions for the most
difficult problems
• Approaching discussions
as if there’s already a
single right answer that
needs to be defended
against opposing
viewpoints

I accomplish the
goals and
responsibilities of
my individual
position, while
respecting my role
as a member of a
team
• Understanding that what
I do speaks more loudly
than what I say
• Showing respect for
Council Members, Staff,
and residents by giving
priority to my City
commitment, doing my
homework

• Focusing first on
satisfying a personal or
hidden agenda
• Actively weakening the
team that the Council and
City Staff have devoted
efforts to build

13 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Collaborative
(continued)
• Understanding that each
Council decision either
builds public trust or
detracts from it
• Dismissing any idea
proposed by a Council
colleague who supported
someone else in the last
election
• Working hard to develop
among Council Members,
other officials, City Staff,
and the public a kindred
spirit of cooperation
when working toward
implementing City values
• Reaching conclusions
based on satisfying
personal or special
interests and refusing to
change one’s position
despite good reasons to
reconsider
• Holding grudges and
considering some people
as permanent enemies
I consider the
broader regional
and State ‐wide
implications of the
City’s decisions and
issues
• While serving on County ‐
wide committees, acting
in a professional manner
and approaching the
tasks responsibly
• Making derogatory
remarks about other
cities, feeling that Santa
Clara is superior
• Serving on County or
State‐ wide panels, freely
sharing information and
resources so everyone
may benefit from the
City’s experience
• Having tunnel vision and
ignoring anything beyond
the City, depriving the
City of the benefit of a
broader, regional
perspective
14 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Progressive

I exhibit a
proactive,
innovative approach
to setting goals and
conducting the
City’s business
• Contributing personal
experiences and
expertise to advance the
goals of the Council and
the City as a whole
• Anticipating future
problems or
opportunities, raising
the issues at the
appropriate time for City
Staff to investigate and
for Council to consider
• Being dogmatic in
approaching decision ‐
making and only doing
things the way they’ve
always been done
• Never taking a forward
looking, principled or
values ‐centered stand,
but preferring to solve
issues in an ad hoc
manner
• Focusing on the short
term, being concerned
only about meeting
minimum requirements of
law, politics, or efficiency
I display a style
that maintains
consistent
standards, but is
also sensitive to
the need for
compromise,
“thinking outside
the box,” and
improving existing
paradigms when
necessary

• Being able to explain
how a decision is
consistent with ethical
standards and the City’s
Core Values
• Committing to ongoing
improvement,
progressive government,
and moral imagination in
solving problems
• Lying about personal
mistakes and downplaying
their importance
• Manipulating discussions
and decisions to advance
personal, political
aspirations
• Speaking and listening
only to one’s friends on
the Council

• Taking responsibility for
actions, making
appropriate apologies or
restitution when a
mistake is made, and
implementing a plan to
develop practical skills
to avoid such mistakes in
the future
• Actively listening, asking
clarifying questions, and
giving careful
consideration to all
• Holding on to opinions
and viewpoints so
stubbornly that mistakes
are made, impacting
public trust
• Letting personal
limitations impede
progress or the work of
the Council
• Playing the role of
pessimist whenever a new
idea is presented, trying
to bulldoze personal ideas
15 The Code of Ethics & Values Behavioral Standards 1 City
Core Value
2 Basic Actions and
Character Traits
3 Council Members Engage
in Positive Behaviors Like

4 Council Members Avoid
Negative Behaviors Like
Progressive
(continued)
comments and
viewpoints, even if they
are expressed by people
who think differently,
have different beliefs,
and have different
groups of supporters
despite budget
limitations, prior
agreement, or consensus,
and undermining new
ideas by gossiping with
others before the idea
has a chance to be
explored

I promote
intelligent and
thoughtful
innovation in order
to forward the
City’s policy
agenda and City
services
• Encouraging talented
and diverse individuals
to become involved in
City service, as well as
recognizing and
celebrating talent and
new ideas that help the
City reach its goals,
improve City services,
and implement City Core
Values in best practice
• Pushing change in the
City without ample
thought, and causing
change only for the sake
of change, or only to
fulfill a campaign promise

Milpitas
Mountain
View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Sunnyvale ·
Chula Vista
San Bruno
Public Comment Benchmarking
Dated: 7/2/2024
Beginning of agenda, after ceremonial
items and before consent and general
business
Middle of agenda, after consent and
before general business
Beginning of agenda, after closed
session and before consent and general
business
Last item on agenda, before
adjournment
Beginning of agenda, after ceremonial
items and before general business
Middle of agenda, after consent and
before general business
Beginning of agenda, after pledge and
before ceremonial, consent and general
business
None Listed
None Listed
30 minutes and remaining comments heard at
the end of the agenda
None Listed
15 minutes (may be extended or continued by
the Mayor)
21 minutes(based on 7 speakers at 3 min. each),
with the discretion of the Mayor to extend,
remaining comments heard at the end of the
agenda
None Listed

POST MEETING MATERIALS
Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
1 Governance &
Ethics Committee
Item #3 Review Meeting
Management Protocol
Options and Rosenberg’s
Rules of Order
July 2, 2024
• August 17, 2021 – Council Priority Setting: Council
approves a
6-month pilot program for basic meeting
management protocols, to
be revisited at the 2022
Council Priority Session. 2022 Priority Sessions
never held; formal resolution prepared but never
adopted; protocols mostly followed since.
• December 4, 2023 - Governance and Ethics
Meeting: Committee provided input on the current
procedures, and considered possible modifications,
including possibility of
switching from Robert’s Rules
of Order
to Rosenberg’s; additional info requested
2 Background
1 2

POST MEETING MATERIALS
Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
2 • Present additional information on Rosenberg’s
• Receive Committee Input on Robert’s vs.

Rosenberg’s
• Present and Receive Committee input on other
Key Elements of Meeting Management Protocols
• Gather enough input for staff to develop a new
policy for meeting management protocols for
Committee consideration at your September
meeting
3 Today’s Objective
What’s Wrong with Robert’s
Rules?
• Parliamentary rules first published in 1876 by
U.S. army officer Henry Martin Robert; based
on the rules and practices of U.S. Congress
• The Rules are voluminous and complicated,
with many technical provisions not applicable
to smaller legislative bodies
• This makes them unwieldy, and sometimes
confusing, with potential “traps” for the
unwary.
4 3
4 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
3 Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
5 • Rosenberg’s Rules of Order is a simplified
set of parliamentary rules used by a
growing number of cities throughout
California.
• Generally, more aligned with Brown Act
requirements
• Retaining the basic tenets of order, but in
a more practical, user-friendly manner
Differences between Robert’s and
Rosenberg’s
• Quorum Rules: Same
• Process for Agenda Item Consideration: Rosenberg provides a good description about how agenda items should be processed for public bodies.
• Time: Under Rosenberg, the chair has more direct authority to limit time of public and member speakers, subject to overrule by majority • Actions to Approve: motion, second, vote process substantially the same
6 5
6 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
4 Differences (cont’d)
• Multiple Motions: max of 3 motions to be on the floor at the same time, while Roberts allow up to 13 .
• Substitute Motions: Under Robert’s Rules, “to substitute” is a type of amendment. There are rules governing how substitutions are handled and they are somewhat complex. Rosenberg allows members to propose a completely different motion as a “substitute motion.” Rosenberg gives the chair discretion to rule on whether a motion is a “motion to amend” or a “substitute motion.”
7 Differences (cont’d)
• Motion to Reconsider: Similar treatment. Rosenberg says that if the motion to reconsider passes, “a new original motion is in order.” This is different from Robert’s, which says that if the motion to reconsider passes, debate is resumed at the point it had reached just before the vote was taken. • Courtesy and Decorum: Similar treatment.
• Interruptions – Withdraw a Motion: Rosenberg allows a member to interrupt debate and withdraw a motion at any time. Under Robert, once a motion has been made, seconded and stated by the chair, it belongs to the body itself, not to the original maker. If a member wishes to withdraw the motion, the member asks permission of the body. Robert does not allow interruption for this purpose and does not allow a member to withdraw a motion unilaterally.
8 7
8 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
5 Current Meeting Management “Practice”

1. City staff provides a report on the item, if warranted;

2. Each Councilmember shall have the opportunity to ask their questions;

3. City staff shall, to the extent possible, provide a response to all Councilmember questions;

4. The public shall have the opportunity to provide public comment on the item;

5. At the Mayor’s request, City staff shall, to the extent possible, provide responses to the comments or questions from the public;

6. A Councilmember shall then make a motion and the motion should be seconded by another Councilmember;

7. Each Councilmember who wishes to speak to the motion (during the deliberation portion of the meeting) shall then have the opportunity to make statements regarding the motion; and;

8. A vote shall then be taken.
9 Options to Consider
10 Establish Time
Limits
Addressing
the Chair
Enforcement
Robert’s Rules
vs. Rosenberg
Rules of Order
Maintain
Behavioral
Standards for
Council
Discussion Prior
to Making a
Motion
Consent for
Extended
Comments
9 10
Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
6 Establish Time Limits
• Could help focus remarks and ensure all have an equal opportunity to speak.
• On the other hand, specific time limits and/or limits on the number of times a member is allowed to speak may negatively impact Council deliberations and information/idea sharing on important policy matters.
• Could also be challenging to track.
• Continuing to rely on the Presiding Officer to guide the City Council’s discussions in a timely manner is generally preferred and used in many (if not most) jurisdictions.
11 If time limits imposed, could add
process for extending the limits
• Councilmembers seeking to make extended comments
may request consent from the Chair or the Council to
allow extended speaking time.
• This can be utilized if the City Council elects to set time limits as a matter of general policy or if the Chair/Board adopts a limit to discussion/questions on a particular
agendized item.
12 11
12 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
7 Formal Provision for Discussions
Prior to Making a Motion
• Council could consider the formal addition of a Council “discussions” step prior to the making of a motion.
• This is generally consistent with existing practices and can, particularly for more significant matters, facilitate the making of constructive motions that take into account the collective thoughts of the Council.
• As per standards, the Presiding Officer would manage this process with all Councilmembers given an opportunity to speak.
13 Other Options to Consider
• Addressing the Chair: Councilmembers should address comments to the Chair (as the Presiding Officer), not directly to other members to assist with maintaining order and civility.
• Minimize Repeating Points: Councilmembers should avoid extended restatements of points already made by others to keep discussions efficient. The Chair will preside over these matters and may minimize repeated remarks.
• Focus on Agenda Items: Comments should relate directly to the agenda items being discussed and off-topic discussions may be redirected by the Chair.
14 13
14 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
8 • Require Respectful Language: Formalize a rule that requires member comments to respectful and policy oriented, with no personal attacks, questioning of motives, or other forms of disrespectful comments, consistent with the City of Santa Clara Code of Ethics and Values Behavioral Standards for Councilmembers.
• No Interruptions: Allow each member to speak without interruption. • Enforcement: As the Chair of the meeting, the Presiding Officer may raise points of order to address violations of meeting rules; individual members may as well, with a right to appeal determinations by the Chair to the full body. Questions regarding applicable rules or questions of interpretation may be presented to the City Attorney for advice.
15 Other Options to Consider (cont’d)
Next Steps
• Upon direction from the Committee, City staff will bring a draft policy, and any amendments to existing policies or City Code sections as may be required for the Committee’s consideration. • Staff will include a review of other Council Policies that should/could be cross referenced (e.g., 029 – Time limits for Speakers at Council; 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda Meetings; and 042 – Reconsideration of Council Action)
16 15
16 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting
July 2, 2024
Item #3
9 Governance &
Ethics Committee
Item #3 Review Meeting
Management Protocol
Options and Rosenberg’s
Rules of Order
July 2, 2024
17

Governance and Ethics CommitteeOctober 4, 2024

Governance and Ethics Committee
October 4, 2024