Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bend HREC debates Robert’s Rules and public‑meeting limits, agrees to explore alternatives
Summary
Commissioners discussed whether Robert’s Rules of Order limits inclusivity and whether alternative facilitation models could improve participation. City attorney advised the commission it may adopt alternative procedures but must follow state public‑meeting rules for formal votes.
Commissioners at the City of Bend Human Rights and Equity Commission spent a large portion of their May 28 meeting debating whether Robert’s Rules of Order impede inclusive participation and whether to pursue alternative meeting formats.
Commissioner Linda Heamer read a prepared statement arguing that strict application of Robert’s Rules can privilege people familiar with parliamentary procedure and can deter participation. “The rules represent a stale and stiff artifact that emphasizes process and procedure over inclusivity and equity,” Heamer said while reading a letter proposing alternatives such as open space, appreciative inquiry, or consensus methods.
City Attorney Ian Lighthizer told commissioners they are free not to use Robert’s Rules. “It is totally within your power not to use Robert’s Rules of Order,” Lighthizer said, while also reminding the commission that state public‑meetings law requires that formal decisions by a governing body be taken by a public vote with individual votes recorded. He distinguished internal facilitation choices from the statutory transparency obligations tied to official actions: “How you get there… I think is more or less up to you,” he said, “but the vote has to be public, and the individual votes recorded for the minutes.”
Several commissioners said they found the dais setting and a formal motions/seconds structure intimidating, particularly for new or community members. Commissioners suggested alternating regular meetings with working sessions, improving onboarding, sharing materials earlier, and using subcommittees to do deep work outside formal meetings so that the full commission can focus on deliberation and recommendation.
Equity Inclusion Director Andres Portela and staff described logistical constraints around subcommittees and public-notice requirements. Lighthizer explained the difference under state law between subcommittees that “gather information” (which are not subject to public‑meeting rules) and subcommittees that make a recommendation to the parent body (which are subject to public‑meeting requirements). Several commissioners asked staff to propose a subcommittee or small working group to draft an alternative facilitation model and a short operational blurb to guide external appearances by commissioners.
No formal rule change was adopted on May 28. The commission agreed by general consent to explore alternatives, to solicit staff input on feasibility and administrative burden, and to return with proposals and suggested language for council and public notice where needed.
