Commentary

City Hall Rulings
by Helen D. Gunderson, Gazette editor

September 29, 2004

Council Hearing on Proposed Change in the Zoning Code
The council held a hearing at its meeting on September 20 to hear public input on the proposed change in the city code that would be the first step in opening the doors for Dr. Tammy Kersting, the local veterinarian, to build a new clinic in a residential zone in the northeast part of Gilbert.

The council is required to hold two more hearings. It has scheduled the second hearing for 6:30 pm on Thursday, September 30, and the third one to be held at a regular council meeting at 7:00 pm on Monday, October 4. Although the city is supposed to hold three public hearings on changes in the code, the council could waive the third hearing. So it is important for concerned citizens to show up and speak out at the September 30 meeting.

Also, after each hearing, the council is required to hold a vote on the proposed change to the code. If a majority of the council says "no" during any one of the votes, the proposal is dead in the water. Iowa Code regarding hearings

Robert Rules
We did not attend the September 20 meeting. However, we have been told that the council unanimously voted "yes" for the proposed change. It was interesting, though, that councilmember Teri Gallahan originally abstained from voting. We believe she did so, wanting more time to weigh the complex issues and to hear what else would be said at future hearings. However, we have also been told that councilmember Bob Jaquis told Teri in an intimidating way that she could not abstain. No one (neither the mayor, other council members, nor clerk) confirmed Bob's dictate nor challenged it. His remark could be considered an act of harassing a public official and interfering with her duty to vote her conscience. This is not the first time that Bob has dictated that a council member could not abstain and that the council member, being caught off guard, then voted with the majority.

We have done some research of the Iowa code, the Gilbert city code, and Robert's Rules of Order and find nothing that would substantiate Bob's dictate. We have also talked with experts in municipal law. We understand that a council member MUST abstain when he or she has a conflict of interest in the matter under discussion. We also understand that it is not wise for council members to get in the habit of abstaining and that a city can adopt special rules to prevent abuses that could stem from a pattern of abstentions. However, in our quick perusal of the law, we found nothing that prevents a council member from abstaining.

Robert's Rules of Order say, "While it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on the question to express it by his vote, yet he cannot be compelled to do so. He may prefer to abstain from voting, though he knows the effect is the same as if he voted on the prevailing side."

A person would assume that the City of Gilbert would abide by Robert's Rules; however, in a quick perusal of the town code, we found nothing that designated Robert's Rules as the operating guidelines for the council.

Generally speaking, Bob's dictate reflects some of the control issues that we have written about in the past and, in particular, with how the council is dealing with the proposed site for the new veterinary clinic. It is unfortunate that none of the other elected officials nor the clerk challenged Bob and asked him to verify the authenticity of what he said. index of Gazette commentary

It would be a positive step for Bob to apologize to the mayor, the rest of the council, and the community during a city council meeting. A second positive step would be for the other parties at the council table to acknowledge that they acquiesced to his edict without challenging it or supporting Teri. A third positive step would be for the council to discuss how it will deal with similar situations in the future, the appropriate way to raise points of order, and to proper way to process such points of order.

To Find Out More about the Meeting
We admit, however, that his dictate is only one small part of what transpired at the September 20 meeting in regard to the proposed site. Persons who are interested in knowing more could contact the mayor, council members, clerk, or visitors who were at the meeting. Interested persons can also go to city hall and ask to listen to the audio cassette recording of the meeting to hear the content and nuances of the discussion.

Skirting the Core Issue
One of our big concerns is that we have heard of no conversation by the council about the core issue regarding the proposed site for the new clinic. That issue has to do with the wisdom (or lack thereof) of putting a commercial enterprise next to currently existing residences and smack dab in the middle of an area that the comprehensive plan designates to be residential. Instead, the main consideration by the council has been, "How can we help Tammy." And that has been followed by a focus on getting the rules changed so she can build in the residential area rather than starting at the ground level and discussing the core issue.