AMY STOCKLEIN
City Attorney Michael May (standing) discusses parliamentary procedure and the quandaries of ethics rules with new alders (left to right): Grant Foster, Tag Evers, Syed Abbas, and Donna Moreland.
What must a newbie alder do before taking the oath of office for Madison’s Common Council? Learn Robert’s Rules of Order from the city’s leading parliamentarian, City Attorney Michael May, of course.
“Who is this Robert guy?” May rhetorically asks Patrick Heck, Grant Foster, Tag Evers, Syed Abbas, Zachary Henak, Donna Moreland, Lindsay Lemmer and Christian Albouras — eight of the nine newly elected alders — at an April 15 tutorial, the day before they are sworn in. “Why do we have these rules?
Robert’s Rules is one of the mostly widely used parliamentary procedure guides in the world. It was first published in 1876 by Gen. Henry M. Robert. He quite literally wrote the book on the rules that govern most legislative bodies in the United States.
“[Robert] was an engineer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Among other places, he helped build the port of Marinette, Wisconsin,” says May, holding up a thick copy of Robert’s Rules. “The unabridged version is 700 pages, filled with all sorts of things including the nearly 100 different kinds of motions you can make.”
Appalled by the anarchy of meetings operating under different procedures, Robert imposed order with a universal rule book that would govern the meetings of everything from a small town library board up to the august bodies that convene in state capitols. His rules caught on. Robert’s Rules of Order is now on its 11th edition and has become a cash cow for his heirs.
“It’s now edited by his great-great-grandson, Henry M. Robert III,” May says. “The family owns the rights to it. This is a family sinecure.”
It isn’t just Robert’s Rules that new alders must follow as elected officials. At the 3-1/2-hour orientation, freshmen alders get the skinny on open meetings and records laws and the state and city ethics codes.
In general, May advises new alders to apply “the smell test.”
“If you’re about to do something, ask yourself, if this was going to be on the cover of Isthmus, would you do it?” asks May. “Don’t go close to the line. It just isn’t worth it.”
Under city ethics codes, alders “cannot accept, and no person is to offer, anything of value if it could be considered a reward or something that may influence your action,” says May.
Heck, who represents a downtown and near-east side district, asks about accepting a beer from a friend in a social situation. Is that an ethics violation?
“I would just stay away from it,” May advises. “So if someone ever accuses you, you can say, ‘No. I have a rule. I just don’t do that.’”
Evers, who represents a near-west side district, asks for clarification. “I had a situation today where a former, well-known elected official in this city … offered to buy me lunch and I said, ‘Well this is the last time you can ever do it,’” says Evers, “He said, ‘No. I don’t have any business before the city at all. I’m totally retired.’”
“You would still recommend to say, ‘I prefer not’?” asks Evers.
“It might not violate the code,” responds May. “You might be able to show there was no quid pro quo, it’s not a thing of value, blah blah blah. But why do you want to go there?”
“You just don’t want to give the appearance of something being shifty?” asks Evers.
“Nothing in our code says the appearance of a violation is a violation,” May explains. “But do you, possibly, want to go before the ethics board to defend yourself when it was just a meal?”
There are some notable exceptions. “Under all our ethics laws, campaign donations aren’t considered a thing of value,” says May, noting the irony. He also adds that “nominal” items like pens, letter openers and other trinkets are okay for alders to accept, too.
Heck feigns mild outrage. “So why isn’t my beer nominal?”
Robert’s Rules motions described by May:
Adjourn: To end the meeting. Not debatable.
Adoption: To adopt the matter before the body.
Amendment: To modify the main motion.
Point of Information: An incidental motion in which a member desires some information prior to proceeding to a vote. It does not require a second and no vote is actually taken on a point of information.
Point of Procedure: Raises a question about the procedure being followed. The ruling on the Point of Procedure is committed to the chair of the body.
Previous Question: A motion requesting that the body immediately vote on whatever matter is otherwise before it. It cuts off debate and proceeds to an immediate vote.
Reconsideration: A motion for reconsideration asks that the body reconsider something it has already acted upon. A motion to reconsider may only be made by a member who voted on the winning side of the prior question.
