Is there some good reason that you continue to disregard parliamentary procedures and Robert’s Rules of Order?
At the November 16th board meeting Trustee Agostini “moved” to add a Human Resources Update to the draft agenda for the December 14th meeting.
The only words that Teresa should have spoken were, “Is there a second?” The only words!
Instead, she tossed out an alternative and then batted the ball to the superintendent, who launched into unnecessary remarks.
Will someone please explain to Teresa that “I move…” is synonymous with “I make a motion…”? There should have been NO discussion (none by her and none by the superintendent or anyone else) until there was a second. Had there been a second, only then would discussion commence. At the end of the discussion, Mrs. Agostini’s Secondary Motion should have been voted on. After that, the main motion to approve the draft agenda (as amended, if appropriate) would have been voted on.
Mr. Manning knows that. He has explained secondary motions on previous occasions. The superintendent has explained secondary motions to Teresa on previous occasions. But both remained silent Tuesday night.
Further, when Trustee Scott departed at about 7:00PM, the chair should have informed other board members and the public that a trustee, who had been attending telephonically, had left the meeting and that a quorum continued to be present.
I urge the board to hire Attorney McFadden to return for additional Robert’s Rules of Order training and to hire an independent parliamentarian until you can conduct meetings in accordance with good parliamentary procedures.
Gus Philpott
Columbia