Month: August 2007

Too much drama

Written by Randy Corman 0 Comments

“I’ve been waiting for Clay Bennett to flip us all off and tell us to go jump in the lake,” Prentice said.

My thoughts… “Really Senator? Is this what we should expect from Clay Bennett?”

I do not share Senator Margarita Prentice’s view that it is reasonable, even figuratively, for Clay Bennett to flip off the State of Washington. Okay… so the House and Senate would not put a hurried and incomplete Sonics arena proposal ahead of schools, mental health, justice, and other state priorities in the last legislative session…does that make it acceptable or effective to flip them off?

I know arenas are really cool, and it would have been great for Renton to get an influx of three-hundred million dollars of state money pumped into our community. But even so, Renton citizens are simply not the sore-losers that Senator Prentice’s language suggests.

Instead of flipping off the state legislature, it would be more appropriate for Clay Bennett, if he is serious about a new Seattle-area Sonics arena, to hold meetings with key members of the House and Senate to see what these elected officials would need in a revised proposal. He could also make good use of the months prior to the next legilative session communicating with other cities and potential private-sector sponsors. It’s not like the team is getting evicted or anything…they have several years left on their Key Arena lease. Clay Bennett could even patch things up with the city of Seattle if he put his mind to it. The Sonics and Storm fans, who have supported basketball for decades, deserve a good faith effort in this department…not more school-yard talk.

If Margarita Prentice is right, and Clay Bennett now refuses to initiate productive diologue with Washington’s elected officials, then I will positively conclude that it was never Mr. Bennett’s intention to keep the team in the region; and it would follow that Renton was snookered out of the tens of thousands of dollars we spent evaluating the areana proposal.

I’m proud of the fact that Renton has a desirable piece of property, large enough for an NBA arena and convention center, with the proper zoning in place. This says a lot about our city’s opportunity. But we don’t have tens of millions of public dollars to help pay for a regional sports facility, nor can we afford to start alienating the state house and senate with talk about extended middle fingers.

Here is an excerpt from today’s Seattle Time Story:

The state Legislature rejected Bennett’s proposal for a $500 million Renton arena this spring.

State Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, a vocal supporter of that effort, said lawmakers treated team owners “shabbily” by refusing to seriously consider the Renton plan. Some lawmakers also have criticized McClendon and another Sonics partner, Tom Ward, for making large contributions to an anti-gay-marriage group.

Prentice said she doesn’t blame McClendon for his latest comments.

“I’ve been waiting for Clay Bennett to flip us all off and tell us to go jump in the lake,” Prentice said.

And you can read the complete story here

Seattle PI: Sonics owners were never planning on keeping the team in this region

Written by Randy Corman 0 Comments

While I am sorry to see our region lose the Sonics, it was obvious from the logic, statements, and body language that the team’s new owners were posturing to move the Sonics to Oklahoma all along. Very few of us were unable to figure this out.

At least the owners are finally coming clean with this information.

The only thing that could keep the Sonics in Seattle now is a new local owner. I think this is very unlikely, but not out of the question with all the wealth in our area.

It’s too bad we spent so much tax money in Renton in a doomed quest to keep them here. Several of us would have slowed down the spending a bit if we could have.

For the history of the Renton debate, see my other blogs on this topic by clicking on my “Sonics” tag below.

And click here for today’s story in the Seattle PI.

Mayor had been told the rules about calling for the question…

Written by Randy Corman 0 Comments

Monday was not the first time that the mayor wrongly shut down a council discussion, over my protests, when a single councilmember “called for the question”. The last time this happened, I knew she was mistaken and I said that on the record; but I did not stand up until the attorney opened the rulebook the way I did on Monday night.

However, the public record shows that an astute and articulate Renton citizen clearly warned the mayor in writing that she violated Roberts Rules of Order the previous time she did this. I don’t know why she thought she could get away with it again.

 

From: Brett Kappenman [mailto:bkappenman@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:22 PM
To: mayor@rentonwa.gov
Cc: tbriere@rentonwa.gov
Subject: Call the Question

Kathy:

I wanted to point out that the proper parliamentary procedure may not have been followed at Monday night’s Council meeting. I’m specifically referring to the “Call the Question” motion made by Terri. Calling for the question is usually in the form of a motion and requires a second in almost all circumstances. If the City of Renton’s parliamentary procedure does not require a second and therefore does not require a super-majority I would like to see a copy of the official rules for conducting meetings as they deviate from my understanding of what standard Robert’s Rules requires.

If memory serves me correctly Terri did ask to be recognized, but you believed that a second was not required. While I understand why you may have felt she was correct (due to what I’ve outlined below), I would like some clarity on this issue.

Sincerely,
Brett Kappenman

(206) 612-5600

———————–

Here is the official take on the subject from the Robert’s Rules web site:

http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html

(Emphasis added below)

Question 11:
Must debate on a motion stop immediately as soon as any member calls the question?

Answer:
It is a fairly common misconception that, after debate has continued for some time, if any member shouts out “Question!” or “I call the question!”, debate must immediately cease and the chair must put the pending question to a vote. This is simply not the case. Any member who wishes to force an end to debate must first obtain the floor by being duly recognized to speak by the chair, and must then move the Previous Question. Such a motion must be seconded, and then adopted by a two-thirds vote, or by unanimous consent. It is not in order to interrupt a speaker with cries of “Question” or “Call the Question,” and even if no one is speaking, it is still necessary to seek recognition. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 193-94; see also p 35-37 of RONR In Brief.]

And further references on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert’s_Rules_of_Order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_the_question

Previous question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Call the question)

Jump to: navigation, search

In parliamentary procedure, previous question, calling for the question, calling the question, putting the question is a motion to end debate and bring the main motion to a vote. It is usually invoked by a member saying, “I call [for] the question.” Under many rules of order, when a call for the question is made, a two-thirds supermajority is required to end debate.

In legislative bodies, this concept is frequently referred to as cloture.

I might also add that in instances when a specific question regarding parliamentary procedure is asked, the city attorney should be able to answer those questions as I believe he is the acting parliamentarian.
Attached Message
From: “Brett Kappenman” <bkappenman@hotmail.com> [ Save Address ]
To: <mayor@rentonwa.gov>
Cc: <tbriere@rentonwa.gov>
Subject: RE: Call the Question
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:55:50 +0000

Kathy or Terri:

I still would like an answer to my question.

Brett

From: Brett Kappenman [mailto:bkappenman@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:22 PM
To: mayor@rentonwa.gov
Cc: tbriere@rentonwa.gov
Subject: Call the Question

Kathy:

I wanted to point out that the proper parliamentary procedure may not have been followed at Monday night’s Council meeting. I’m specifically referring to the “Call the Question” motion made by Terri. Calling for the question is usually in the form of a motion and requires a second in almost all circumstances. If the City of Renton’s parliamentary procedure does not require a second and therefore does not require a super-majority I would like to see a copy of the official rules for conducting meetings as they deviate from my understanding of what standard Robert’s Rules requires.

If memory serves me correctly Terri did ask to be recognized, but you believed that a second was not required. While I understand why you may have felt she was correct (due to what I’ve outlined below), I would like some clarity on this issue.

Sincerely,
Brett Kappenman

(206) 612-5600

———————–

Here is the official take on the subject from the Robert’s Rules web site:

http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html

(Emphasis added below)

Question 11:
Must debate on a motion stop immediately as soon as any member calls the question?

Answer:
It is a fairly common misconception that, after debate has continued for some time, if any member shouts out “Question!” or “I call the question!”, debate must immediately cease and the chair must put the pending question to a vote. This is simply not the case. Any member who wishes to force an end to debate must first obtain the floor by being duly recognized to speak by the chair, and must then move the Previous Question. Such a motion must be seconded, and then adopted by a two-thirds vote, or by unanimous consent. It is not in order to interrupt a speaker with cries of “Question” or “Call the Question,” and even if no one is speaking, it is still necessary to seek recognition. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 193-94; see also p 35-37 of RONR In Brief.]

And further references on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert’s_Rules_of_Order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_the_question

Previous question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Call the question)

Jump to: navigation, search

In parliamentary procedure, previous question, calling for the question, calling the question, putting the question is a motion to end debate and bring the main motion to a vote. It is usually invoked by a member saying, “I call [for] the question.” Under many rules of order, when a call for the question is made, a two-thirds supermajority is required to end debate.

In legislative bodies, this concept is frequently referred to as cloture.

I might also add that in instances when a specific question regarding parliamentary procedure is asked, the city attorney should be able to answer those questions as I believe he is the acting parliamentarian.

City hall inbox: kind feedback from a resident…

Written by Randy Corman 1 Comment

Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:11 AM
To: DLaw@ci.renton.wa.us; dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us; rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us; MPalmer@ci.renton.wa.us
Subject: Long night last night…

Dear Denis, Don, Marcie & Randy –

That was a long one last night (I watched on TV from home after Committee of the Whole upstairs).

I’ve attended many various city and county council meetings over my 30 year career. I really appreciated that you took the time, and took the heat, while trying to do the right thing for the Renton community on the issues you faced last night. You are first class.

I’m proud to live in Renton and have you as my representatives.

Thanks a lot, and hang in there!

Mark Hancock

Okay…so here is a little more about Monday’s council meeting

Written by Randy Corman 2 Comments

When we were having the debate about whether the council should review city contracts between 20K and 50K (see my previous posting below), we were covering a lot of ground in our debate. Don Persson explained it was our duty to make sure we knew in advance where money was being committed; I agreed and pointed out we could easily and swiftly approve contracts as consent agenda items if they were provided to us in advance of our weekly council meeting. But Dan and Terry kept insisting that for the fifty annual contracts between $20,000 and $50,000, the council should not see them, and that Don and Denis and Marcie and I must simply be untrusting. I went on to point out that often the issue is priorities more than trust, e.g. when we spend money for new economic development studies it should be for areas of interest to the council….the mayor and staff may not know what we want. The debate went back to Terri, Don, Dan, and Denis a few times, and then I began asking for the floor again but not getting recognized. Then the mayor recognized Toni, who said that our finance director does a good job keeping receipts (which is true, but a bit beside the point), but then she closed by saying something unfortunate along the lines that we must just all be idiots, and she “called for the question.”

The mayor smiled and tried to end the debate, but I did not intend to be denied my opportunity to speak or to let the idiot comment go unresolved. So I declared a point of order, and pointed out that “calling for the question” does not stop debate by itself…it is a motion that must pass in order to stop the debate. Dan Clawson, an attorney and council member immediately responded that I was wrong, as did our city attorney. I reached for my guide on Roberts Rules of Order, stood up to present the facts to the city attorney, who could now tell by my demeanor that she must be mistaken. The chambers quieted down as the city attorney read from her copy, while I read along silently on mine; calling for the question needed a “second,” and a two-thirds vote to pass. The attorney then declared the motion which called for the question dead for lack of a second. I then asked for the floor, but before the mayor recognized me, Terry Briere called “second”, and the mayor recognized her “second” even though the motion was already dead.

 

While I rightfully should have had the floor, I did not make a fuss because I knew the motion would not get two-thirds of the council’s approval after the majority had all just been called idiots.

So, we took a vote on the “call for the question,” which predictably received three yes votes, and four no votes…my colleagues were ready to let me finish my comments. But instead of declaring the motion dead, the mayor asked the clerk to determine whether she had the necessary two-thirds vote to end debate! I guess the math got away from her…she was not sure if 3/7 was as high as 2/3! The clerk sighed and said, no, the motion did not get two-thirds of the council’s support. At this point my patience was growing thin, and I asked for the floor one more time. The mayor, looking angrily frustrated, panned around the council seemingly looking for some way she could change the situation so that I would not be allowed to speak….I felt like if there were a fire alarm lever behind her she may have pulled it. I asked again for the floor, pointing out I had now counted four times in a row that she refused to recognize me even though the majority of council members would have liked to hear what I had to say five minutes earlier. Crestfallen, she finally recognized me “…Misssterrrr Cooorrrrman…”

I kept my comments brief, pointing out that none of the council were idiots, and that all all seven of us have made valuable contributions to contract language in the past. We can improve these contracts, and give service to the taxpayers, merely by the seven of us taking a look at them in our council packets. This was not an issue of winning or losing power so much as a way to use eight elected officials to the taxpayers full advantage. Toni Nelson then clarified that she had not meant to call us idiots, and Don’s motion to review the contracts passed 5 to 2 on a roll-call vote. Yay!

City Council has a right and a duty to review city contracts…

Written by Randy Corman 0 Comments

For those of you who watched the council meeting Monday night, where Councilman Persson asked that council begin reviewing and approving all the city contracts between $20,000 and $50,000 in value, here are the RCWs that govern. Marcie Palmer, Denis Law and I all backed Don, as Don pointed out that the mayor’s office has been approving 50 of these a year, adding up to anywhere from one million to two and a half million dollars. As chair of Finance, Don wanted direct oversight of this spending, something that councilmembers Terri Brier and Dan Clawson did not want council to have. Warning: Possibly BOR-ING to those who don’t like legalese…

Again, here are the RCWs:
Continue reading →

My wife loves animals!

Written by Randy Corman 1 Comment

My wife loves animals! She is the one who insisted we live on more than an acre in an area zoned for animals. Here is a cute picture I shot of her in 1982, at University of California Davis. She was showing the cow, Clarabelle, in a campus competition. Click to enlarge the photo to full size.



P.S. And no, we have never had a cow in Renton! A bit too smelly I’m afraid.

Followup on garbage collection pilot program….

Written by Randy Corman 1 Comment

I have been recieving more inquiries about the garbage pilot program, so I have let staff know that I wish to hear more about this at the Monday Council meeting (7:00 PM, Monday Aug 6, 7th Floor, Renton City Hall; also can be viewed via live telecast on cable channel 21 or on the internet at www.rentonwa.gov).

I have a few questions…and if I don’t think of every question, members of the public can ask questions during audience comment.

This may be a good program; I’m reserving final jusdgement until we get an airing of the concerns.

Here is an email I sent to council, staff, and a citizen named Mr. George Rock (who was one of those who wrote to council on this matter).

Randy

—–Original Message—–
From: Randy Corman
To: Daniel Clawson; George Rock
Cc: Citizens to Council; Linda Knight
Subject: RE: Renton City Collection Pilot Program # 2 #3

Council-

Actually, I do have a few questions about this pilot program that I
intend to bring up at Monday’s council meeting. Perhaps Mr. Rock could
join us, or tune in on television. I remember how much of an
improvement it was to go to every-week yard waste collection, because
prior to that residents were frequently getting confused as to the
pick-up weeks…particularly when there were holidays or snow storms. If
a resident goofs, and misses the garbage week (fails to get his/her four
cans down to the street by 6:00 AM on the every-other-week garbage date)
the result will be eight cans of garbage sitting for almost a month in
someone’s side yard. Yuck! I just want to be sure we know what we are
doing, and that people are ready for this.

Thanks,

Randy Corman