Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agenda And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highland Park council approves amended agenda, moves ethics-board appointments to workshop after heated debate
Summary
Council approved an amended agenda adding recurring workshops and tabling two rezoning items; a separate proposed appointment of ethics-board candidates was moved to a workshop after members and residents questioned the vetting process. A later motion to suspend rules and add the appointments failed.
The Highland Park City Council voted on Dec. 1 to approve an amended meeting agenda that added a council workshop and moved two Community Development rezoning items to a future workshop. The amendment also removed administration item 5c — a set of proposed ethics-board appointments — from tonight’s agenda and moved it to a workshop. The vote carried by a 3–2 margin.
Council President Thomas framed the decision in procedural terms and warned that repeated workshops had at times 'descended into a spectacle.' Councilman O'Shaughnessy and Councilwoman Martin voted in favor of the amended agenda; Councilwoman Manuka and Council President Thomas voted no; Council Pro Tem Robinson voted in favor, according to the deputy clerk’s roll call.
The move to workshop prompted immediate disagreement. Councilman Al Shafi asked that administration item 5c be moved so residents could ask questions of candidates; he argued that 'the public haven't had an opportunity to ask them any questions.' Others countered that the council president had incorporated the amendment into the motion on the floor. After the agenda vote, a point of order about whether each amendment should have been voted on separately was raised but the council proceeded with the agenda.
Later in the meeting a motion was made to suspend the rules and add the ethics-board appointment item back to the agenda so applicants present in the gallery could be appointed that night. The clerk called the roll on suspending the rules; the motion failed, with the required four-vote threshold not reached.
The decisions mean the four candidates named in the packet — Latanya Dorch, Candice Beans, Yvonne Morales and Robert Olive — will be considered at a later workshop. Council members said applicants would be able to speak during the citizens comment period but the council would not respond to statements from the podium at that time. One applicant, Robert Olive, was noted to be in the hospital and was not present.
The council’s handling of appointments and its repeated references to workshops as both a tool and a potential public 'spectacle' framed much of the evening’s procedural conflict. The council moved on to other agenda items after the votes; supporters of the applicants in the audience were told the appointments would be handled at a future workshop.
