Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits on procedural appeal over mayorannouncements and chairconduct
Summary
Multiple appeals and votes over whether Mayor Doug Dennycould make announcements from the chair without explicit agenda detail or vacating the chair prompted procedural debate and an appeal that ultimately limited voluntary commentary.
A procedural dispute over mayoral announcements and the correct use of the chair consumed more than an hour of the Wausau Common Councilmeeting on June 10.
Alder Lukens raised a point of order early in the meeting, saying the mayor's announcements were not properly included in the posted agenda and might run afoul of Wisconsin's open meetings law. Mayor Doug Denny overruled the point of order; Lukens appealed the chair's ruling and asked the full council to vote.
The council took several votes and procedural motions. An early appeal on whether the mayor's announcements were properly agendized produced confusion and conflicting counts; the body ultimately determined that the challenge had failed to obtain a majority of all members present and that the announcements would not be disallowed on that basis. Later in the meeting, a separate appeal focused on whether the mayor had improperly offered voluntary commentary from the chair without temporarily vacating the chair. That appeal (to sustain the point of order that the chair should vacate the chair before voluntary commentary) passed by a recorded result of 6-3 with two abstentions, effectively requiring adherence to the procedural guidance that the chair should yield the chair and speak from the podium when offering commentary.
Council members repeatedly asked parliamentary clarifications during the debate. The parliamentarian cited Robert's Rules and noted that an appeal of the chair is debatable, not amendable, and requires a majority vote. Several alderpersons urged better adherence to procedural rules going forward and recommended formal training.
The procedural discussion interrupted several agenda items and led the council to attempt — then fail — a motion to table the appeal until members could review the meeting minutes. The failed tabling motion received a 3-8 vote.
Council members also traded differing accounts about whether CIVMIC (the city's insurer) had terminated payment for outside counsel in the separate ethics matter; the city attorney later clarified that CIVMIC had authorized fee payments to certain limits but had not declared ongoing counsel unnecessary.
After the votes, the council proceeded with its agenda. Several alderpersons said the dispute highlighted the need for clearer written procedure and possible Robert's Rules refreshers for council members.
