Parliamentary procedure (or the lack thereof)
After last week’s censure, I spent a lot of time reflecting on the proceedings during that meeting.
The public knows from previous statements I have made, as well as from the appeal of the original 2022 censure I filed in the Summit County Court of Appeals, that I patently deny the allegations set forth by Council President Foster in the first censure nearly two years ago.
So, rather than debate the merits of the censure(s) on a factual basis, the intent of this blog is to evaluate the proceedings Mayor Anzevino facilitated at the 10/15/2024 meeting where the newest censure took place.
In the days following the censure at the 10/15/2024 meeting, there was a lot of discussion focused on parliamentary procedure.
Chapter 220.03 RULES, section (f) of the Hudson, OH codified ordinances states, “The procedures and deliberations of Council, except as otherwise provided by the Charter or an ordinance of Council, shall be governed and controlled by the provisions of the most current revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order.”
Because our Charter and Codified Ordinances do not outline a procedure for disciplinary action aside from removal, I turned to my copy of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 12th Edition to fill in gaps and answer the many questions I had coming out of the meeting.
In the instance disciplinary action needs to be taken by a body who adheres to Robert’s Rules of Order, the text defines two types of offenses: offenses occurring in a meeting; and offenses by members outside a meeting.
The text states that offenses that occur in a meeting should be addressed immediately at the time the infraction occurs, and is one of the few instances in which a body might adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures.
But because the allegations Mr. Foster has made each time he has made motions to censure me did not take place during a meeting, it falls under section 61:22 (can be found on page 613 of Robert’s Rules of Order) titled “Offenses Elsewhere Than in a Meeting; Trials” which describes that “charges must be preferred and a formal trial held.” This section also clearly dictates a need for charges to be preferred and a formal trial held even in the instance improper conduct occurs in a meeting and is not addressed by the body immediately, but is instead addressed at a later date.
Subsequent sections of the text further define the steps a body is required to take for “Investigation and Trial.” Importantly, the text states that a trial must always be held in executive session, as must the introduction and consideration of all resolutions leading up to a trial.
Robert’s Rules of Order clearly lays out the correct process for disciplinary action, citing the following reason: “A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process–that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to prepare and defend himself, and to be fairly treated.” (Chapter 20, Section 63:5, page 620)
“For the protection of both of the society and of its members and officers, however, the basic steps which, in any organization, make up the elements of fair disciplinary procedures should be understood.”
(Chapter 20, Section 63:7, page 621)
In all three instances when Council President Foster made motions to censure me, no charges were preferred and no formal trial was held before the public or a special committee before action was taken. Additionally, because no notice was given, I was not prepared with a defense or materials to support my defense, which should have been afforded to me as the accused.
Without following the procedures clearly outlined, censures and other disciplinary action taken without due process should not be permitted by way of virtue if we are dutifully adhering to Chapter 220.03 of our town’s Codified Ordinances.
As such, based on Section 39:5 of Robert’s Rules of Order titled “Improper Motions,” all three motions to censure and the way our Mayor conducted the proceedings are considered improper motions.
During Council comments at the workshop on 10/22/2024, I read some of these excerpts aloud into the record. I encouraged the Chair of our meetings, who is the Mayor, to conduct future disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the parliamentary procedures set forth in this text.
You can watch this section of the meeting by clicking HERE.
He replied to my comments saying that executive sessions had, in fact, taken place in regard to the censure. However, he neglected to inform the public that those executive sessions were held AFTER the initial censure took place in 2022, not before in an effort to ensure due process to the accused. Additionally, if you review the minutes of the meetings in which motions were made to enter into executive session related to this topic, the topic cited for the executive sessions was “disputes involving the City that are the subject of pending and imminent court action.” Not disciplinary actions or procedures.
Mayor Anzevino went on to admit he had read the sections related to providing the accused due process during disciplinary procedures that I outlined above and read into the record at the meeting for his and the Council’s benefit. He cited the following excerpt of Section 61:22, which reads, “If improper conduct by a member of a society occurs elsewhere than at a meeting, the members generally have no first-hand knowledge of the case.” He continued to say that because the full Council knew of the alleged improper conduct, he did not feel it was necessary to follow the steps outlined in Robert’s Rules of Order which ensure a fair process for discipline of a member.
If this is the case, why were supporting documents supplied to the full Council at the onset of Mr. Foster’s censure proceedings? Why was the Council afforded a recess to examine the documents? This would indicate that the full Council did not have the first-hand knowledge necessary to proceed with disciplinary action.
Yet, as is outlined in other sections of the text, even infractions that occur in a meeting (which would indicate first-hand knowedge of the case) are required to prefer charges and hold a formal trial if it is not addressed by the body immediately, but is instead addressed at a later date. This indicates a conflict with the Mayor’s interpretation.
Mayor Anzevino further stated that he had conferred with legal council about whether or not City Council should have followed these procedures in past censure proceedings or should follow them in future ones. This indicates an understanding and awareness of these sections of Robert’s Rules of Order. The Mayor stated that they had concluded that it was not necessary to follow these procedures to ensure due process for the accused.
This is the first admission that I was knowingly and intentionally denied the due process I deserved.
This also indicates that the censure proceedings that took place on 10/15/2024 were flawed, and in my view, intentionally conducted in a way to prevent me from being able to defend allegations against my good name.
Recently, the Mayor posted to social media a summary of all of the infractions of parliamentary procedure he believes Dr. Goetz and myself committed during the 10/15/2024 censure proceedings. However, he neglected to list every infraction of parliamentary procedures made by the other members of Council, primarily focusing on the two dissenting voices, one of whom was also the accused.
Additionally, willfully choosing not to follow Robert’s Rules of Order to ensure a member of City Council receives the due process the text indicates is necessary for a fair and impartial disciplinary hearing/action is in itself an egregious violation of parliamentary procedure.
This leads me to pose some important questions:
Why did the Mayor and the Council not afford me the opportunity to prepare and give a defense?
Why are they avoiding the transparency following Robert’s Rules of Order ensures in a process like this?
Why spend two years fighting in the Court to keep the documents cited as evidence of wrongdoing from the public’s eye?
Could the answers to these questions possibly be that my name would be cleared?
I guess we will never know.
I encourage Council and Mayor Anzevino to consider the precedent they are setting. Someday when the Council majority inevitably flips, do you want to have set a precedent where censures or other disciplinary proceedings are conducted without due process?
Follow my Facebook for frequent updates!
Have questions? Want to share your thoughts with me on this issue or a different one? As always, I would love to have a conversation! Email me directly at nkowalski@hudson.oh.us.
