001Now we're going back to the open session. It is 6:16 a.m. to resume regular business. I'm going to reopen the comments period. John Paulir can move up to the podium . Happy New Year again. President Garza inspired me. You asked a question about how we can view the schools. And I'm making the schools I donated to tonight donate to one of my former schools, and I'm challenging all alumni to donate to the BST Foundation directly to their former schools. I feel that would be appropriate. I appreciate these changes and updates to the bylaws. When I was on the board of trustees at the foundation, we received independent audits of the foundation's accounting every year, and I am pleased to see those reports and to improve them. Also, if possible, please publish when the meetings will
002be . I publish it very well. When are the meetings going to be? I'm from the school board, but from the committee, the foundation, so that more people in the public can attend and understand how to get involved, since we 're having difficulty getting people to attend the foundation, I think we need to do more outreach. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dreer. Uh, we have here the scribe who will carry out the update on the topics that were addressed in the closed session. The topics mentioned in the closed session were labor negotiations, disciplines, uh, whether he is going to be fired, uh, no action was taken in the closed session. Thank you. Write to Sintron. Tonight I will take the oath to the flag. Uh, please stand up and put your right hand over your
003heart. Let's begin. We have two main issues. Tonight we're going to start with 6.1, which is to approve the amendment to the School District Education Foundation's bylaws . Do the board members have any questions or comments ? I have a motion to approve this item. The motion is made, it is second. We took attendance. Miss Arman, yes. Cintrón, yes. Cratchfield, yes. Garza, yes. Uh, the last major item is 6.2, the resolution to amend the schedules of regular board meetings . Questions or comments. I do have them, I just want them to see the minutes. I understand why we probably need to change it to 5 pm, but honestly, I'm thinking about our parents and our staff. I know it's only 30 minutes, but if we could still get what we need to do done quickly,
004because they don't get extra compensation for staying late to these meetings, so I don't know. I understand, but as a board member, I also want our staff to be taken into account when we do have these meetings. And to be honest, and it's true, we've only had these meetings at 4:30, for how long? than a year or two. So we used to have them at 5, right? So, I don't know, I just want you to know that yes, sometimes it's hard to get here at 4:30, but at the same time, I also feel for the staff because they work hard and it might lengthen their workday on these nights, but it's the point we're at . That's all I wanted to say. Thank you, member Armstrong. Anyone else? Since I hear nothing more, do I
005have the motion to approve this matter? Yes. Motion seconded. We're taking attendance, Miss Anson. Yes. Sintron. Yes. Cratchfield, yes, Garza, yes. Thank you all. Now let's move on to the next thing. I'm going to pass it on to Dr. Simon so he can present the next matter. Thank you, President Garza, as we are going to begin this new chapter of leadership under your presidency, and each one after this we will begin with the Roberts Rules and the reform of your commitment to clarity and justice, purpose of liberation, everything you do. I'm going to pass it here to the general counsel, Miss Arga, to carry out the presentation. Thank you, superintendent. Hey, Simon. Tonight we're going to look at some of the rules under Roberts' Rules of Parliamentary Procedure. It's going to be a mix of
006some aspects of the Brown Act, as well as a look at parliamentary rules and procedures and why they might need to be adopted here at the board going forward. With that said, let's begin, I think, shall we ? Normally when I give this workshop to refresh this it's two hours, but it will be more condensed because the information won't be as deep due to the fact that this is already at a higher, more general level and going into the foundation of this. With this, we will indeed begin with Robert's rules of order . And how did it all begin? So, a long time ago , there was an agent in the United States Armed Forces . Uh, it was a church matter. If many of the stories begin, he asked her to preside over a
007meeting in a church. This meeting turned into complete chaos. Then he made a promise that he would find a way to maintain order in these meetings and provided guidelines so that individuals could act, speak, present their point, and maintain order. So therefore Robert's rules of order emerged in 1876 and seeing this, those rules were developed about 150 years ago. During this period of time things have been modified, they have changed, but overall they have remained the same. That said, this gives us an idea of the structure of not only Robert's rules, but also how the boards have to behave. And apart from this, it has the California Constitution and state laws. That has to do with public meetings and elected officials. Uh, we also have the local charter and ordinances in the municipalities, but the
008schools or districts. We see the board's policies . Below this are the council and board policies. They are more internal, more, for example, the manuals of the council or the board. And then below we have Robert's rules, which are the parliamentary procedures. So, in theory, this is the one with the least authority of the four, but it is the most important with respect to how the meetings are actually conducted. So, let's begin here with the role of the president. Here this would be in the cities, it would be the mayor on the boards of directors, it would be the chairwoman of the board under Roberts' rules. Well, more than anything he's a facilitator, he makes sure the meeting runs smoothly. They are also responsible for compliance and maintaining decorum, which is very important under Brown's
009law, because, as we will discuss later, failure to comply could lead to quite serious consequences. And one of the rules mentioned, well done, protects the rights of minorities within this body so that they can have a hearing and can have a productive dialogue. So, here we move on to the basic foundation of how emotion works, how motions or themes are presented, and what the video cycle is . Currently, when an issue arises, it is presented by the president of the board, a motion is made, it is seconded, and hopefully it will be carried out. Once this is done, the president must reiterate what the motion was. From there, a dialogue and some debate can be opened up , since this is done, the president asks that the motion be formalized , basically it is the
010vote, and from there he announces what the result of this vote is. This again is the structure, there is a format, but each agency adopts variations of these rules and makes it work best for them, but this in general is the outline of the life cycle of an emotion and how it should work. Now, there are four categories of emotions under Roberts' rules. As you can see, there are main, subsidiary, priority and unforeseen motions. The main one, in fact, is the least important. Well, not the least important, but it is addressed last. Any subsidiary motion is made before the main motion, and the priority motion before both. Unforeseen events must be decided immediately to give you an example of what would be subsidiary, a motion, that motion to amend, to send it to the committee,
011all those have to be voted on before the main motion is voted on . So, someone wants a motion to approve some matter and someone makes an amended motion to approve it, but excludes a portion of it. This amended motion must be voted on before the main motion is voted on . Those that are priorities have more to do with, for example, cutting a session short, taking a break, things that need to be addressed immediately. So even if they are in the midst of some emotion or a modified emotion, and if someone asks for a recess, if the president acknowledges it, that has to be dealt with first, and then when they return from the recess they can continue with the business. And then the unforeseen events are the highest priority, basically it's motions that
012have to be answered immediately for the sake of order in order to resolve whatever the issue is. For example, there is a lot of noise and someone cannot hear, so it is requested that the order be followed to address the noise in the room and therefore a motion is currently taken. So in fact there are others that fall within these categories. But since we're going to delve deeper into this, the rules of Roberts and parliamentary law are very complex areas, and there are also many little things to consider. So in general they will help to carry out the meeting in a more timely manner. That's basically a review sheet for Rober's rules, and I also provided some additional ones to provide some different motions and things that can be done. Robert's rules are basically the
013manual for how a meeting is conducted, what a member of this body can or cannot do, and the order of things and how they should be done. So if you see, for example, the previous motion, it is also known as formalizing the motion. This is a subsidiary that is taken before the vote. The main motion is not a debatable issue. So, since someone is asking for the motion to be formalized, a vote has to be taken and it requires a two- thirds majority to carry out the vote and suspend. Other amendments or motions, pardon. For example, refer it to the committee. Any category that falls into can be debated and discussed, and only requires a majority vote to pass. There are many games, for example, that take place, for example, in the state legislature of
014Congress and they have, for example, full-time parliamentarians who are there because things get very complicated, but there are ways to end motions without taking a vote, such as adjourning, postponing, indefinitely, or referring it to committee. Yes, there are many games on larger bodies and that's why they have a certified parlor to ensure that the rules follow the rules according to the Roberts rules. We're going to discuss a little bit about how Brown's Law covers Roberts' Law. Sometimes the two are not consistent . That's what makes Robert's laws a little old-fashioned and difficult. And the reason why I recommend that the district look at the alternative, which is Rosenberger, and I'm going to explain my own reasoning, is that the main thing about Brown's law is that the people of the state do not give their
015sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people insist on staying informed so they can maintain control over the instruments they have created. What Brown's law is basically saying is that the people, the common people, are against it; the people decide, and any bodies they create and the representatives they elect should be held accountable. This is the difference between Robert's rules and certain rules that Brown's law implements under Robert's rules. The assembly is supreme, the body is supreme under the Brown Act, the public, the people are in control, business and the public. You can add items to the agenda by two-thirds, but you cannot do so under the minutes law exceptions. And I'll give you more examples later. Under the rules, the public speaks when the president decides; the president is given much more authority
016under Robert's rules, but under Brown's law, the public speaks before the meeting. That is done through public comment. At the table, according to Robert's rules, they can meet privately, take a report, have a meeting, and then return and take the votes. In an educational board setting , the council cannot take a recess, meet with the majority, and return to vote. The rules under Robert's rules generally do not apply to certain aspects of local governance because the body is only five or seven members, and if you look at the state legislature, I think the assembly is 80, the Senate is 40, and the House is 435. Larger governing bodies have different rules, and this was created for larger governing bodies . It also has the 72- hour rule. That means he cannot take action on a
017matter that was not published on an agenda 72 hours before the meeting. Robert's rules have a section for business, new matters that I don't know if you remember that we did incorporate into the agenda at this board meeting, but it was in a different way. New business was a way for board members to propose business that could be addressed at the next meeting, but under Robert's rules, those issues could be addressed at that same meeting. That conflicts with Brown's law and is not applicable. One of the other things that Brown's law allows is public commentary. The right of the public to contribute to the issues has been modified, and there have been some changes to this rule as well, such as SPI 1100 in 2022. This allows the chair of the session to expel people
018who are interrupting or disrupting. There is a legal argument on that issue, but in general, if they are disrupting the board's ability to conduct the public meeting, they can request that they be removed from the meeting, they can stop until they remove the individual, and then they can continue after that is completed . But again, public comment is a right under Brown's law . That includes criticism and also some pretty vulgar comments. I think many of you have seen public agencies that have been subject to that. There have been tasteless things that have been said or actions taken, but they do have the right of the First Amendment and they have the right to do that with good reason. It is not a right without limits. The other problem that arises with Brown's law ,
019which does not exist under Robert's law, is the idea of a cereal board. There are two main ways. This is called the Daisy chain, which is basically a five-member body. One member sends an email to another, and that member who receives the email passes it on to another member. Now you have three individuals who have discussed agency business outside of an open meeting. That is a violation of Brown's law. The other one is what they call Hen spoke. A member is like a connector between the two. Information is shared and passed outside of a public hearing and is basically a violation of Brown's law. One recommendation is always that if there is an email address that is given to all members of the board of directors, never ever reply with " reply to everyone," always
020reply with " the superintendent" or "me" or "the individual." This allows for separate conversations, ensuring that no member knows what another member is thinking or can influence other members outside of an open meeting. There are two ways, but now with social media, the recommendations are not to comment on posts made by members of the same board. That can create problems, and yes, it can be a little difficult, but those are the two main ones: being aware. Brown's law also allows closed sessions, which in a way would be like a cake, but would be very, very limited. There are only certain areas that an elected body can go to in session, but once they are in closed session they have to make the report afterwards. If they do not take action, as they did today, they
021simply report that they took no action, and if they did take action, it is reported in the closed session as a resolution agreement and approved by the board. Yes, they have to report the terms of that agreement at the public meeting once they reconvene the session. Yes, it creates a skill for the meeting to go in closed session, but ultimately it is reported. These are certain consequences of violating Brown's Law. Basically, as I said before, anyone can sue for any reason. If they do sue you for violating Brown's law, the action taken can be nullified. You have to take that matter up again and do it the right way. Other civil remedies can sue for attorney's fees if the correction is legitimate, and the most severe consequence is criminal penalties; yes, they can charge you
022with a misdemeanor if you knowingly violate Brown's law and do so in a way that reaches the level of being a misdemeanor. Generally, the prosecution is in charge of bringing these charges, and it's a decision they have to make with their office. It is very rare for someone to be prosecuted for violating Brown's law , but it has happened. Yes. That's a reminder that these rules aren't just there for the sake of it; they can be enforced and they need to be taken seriously. Speak up before discussing an alternative to Robert's rules . This is one of the differences between the two. Robert's rules are like 7 16 pages. Most of my law books were between 250 and 400 pages. Yes, I had some that were like 1000 pages, but we're not going to mention
023them. However, there is a lot of information in 700 pages . That demonstrates the scope of rubber rules and how detailed they are. I can tell you that there is no local agency, or one that I have seen, that strictly follows Robert's rules, and because of Brown's law, Robert's rules cannot be implemented as written. Rosenberg's rules were written by a California judge for the purpose of helping local agencies pass their boards efficiently, like Robert's rules, but they were made more for modern times. It's 10 pages long, covers the basics, and makes it much easier to navigate them together without having to tackle many of the difficult things in the Roberts rules. The difference between the two is that in Roberts' rules, the chairperson is more of a neutral party, not very involved in the debates,
024as they are mainly there to address and preside over the board. But in Rosenberg's rules, they are active participants, as they should be, because it's a body of five, and the chairperson is also a member who participates in that body. They take a more active role, can debate, and offer their opinion if it better reflects the reality of what a school board or city council would do. Minor amendments are not allowed under Roberts' rules; if it's an amended motion, it has to be voted on. However, under Rosenberg's rules, people can propose minor amendments, and the motion can be accepted, and then they have to vote on that amended motion without voting on the previous amendment. Yes, it allows for more flexibility and debate. If something arises during the debate that changes the opinion of the
025person who originally requested the motion, they may amend the motion and may take a direct vote on the motion without having to go through that entire process. Also, when we look at the different categories of emotions under Robert's rules, they are all in order of precedence . Under Rosenberg's rules, he can have three motions at once. If it allows for more flexibility, one doesn't have to tackle that entire process. You can propose different ideas, choose one and pursue it. Yes, it provides more flexibility and, to be completely frank, efficiency as well. This is yet another difference because Roberts' rules don't work in local government. It is intended for parliamentary bodies with larger members. I love that they don't trust each other. They need strict rules to prevent chaos. If he pees on any body like
026Congress or the state legislature, or any other body of that nature. Yes, there is a lack of trust, there are many games, a lot of strategy, the budgets are much bigger and they have to depend on more people to participate in those games. The city council and the boards of directors have about five or seven individuals. They generally know each other because they are from the same community, they generally have the same circles of influence, and sometimes the rules prevent Roberts from being able to work together. Some of the benefits of Rosenberg and why it works better. with local agencies such as a school district or city council. My recommendation is always efficiency, that the board work more cooperatively and collaboratively, and that the business of the public in the community and the students move
027forward in an efficient manner. Those are a few things regarding conflicts of interest and a reminder for the board. Abstentions work in one of two ways. Obviously, you can abstain from voting. At what point is he not voting affirmative, but is present for quorum? But there is also the concept of recusing oneself from a vote. For example, if you have a financial interest in a matter before the board, and you have a conflict of interest in voting, you would have to recuse yourself from voting. What does that mean? It does not mean that he can take a management vote. You have to leave the room before the matter is debated during the vote and can only return afterwards. They are not allowing anyone to participate in any way in making the decision on that matter
028or to try to influence any member of the board on that matter that is being discussed. And SB 1439, which was put into effect a few years ago, lowered the limit or created a limit if you receive 250 from a party involved in any type of business before the board or council, you are disqualified from that vote, you have to recuse yourself from the vote. And in fact, that timeline works not only with respect to the year before, but also after the vote. So there are both periods of time. So, some problems have arisen, if not legal challenges, legal recusals that are currently taking place in the courts, but for now the safest thing would be, my recommendation would be if someone gives you any campaign, anything, a donation to the campaign of $250 or
029more and it's within a year, before or after, just recuse yourself so that things are healthier and safer and you don't have to worry about any issue or problem that arises later. We're going to go through some hypothetical situations here so you can get an idea of how things would be in reality. For example, the first situation is that a member of the public starts to hurl insults at the municipal manager and refuses to stop when his 3 minutes are up. What does the president do? In this case, I'm going to tell you that because of proposed law 1100, a warning must be given first before anyone is removed from the room. They have to be given a warning, and if they refuse to stop behaving like that, then they can be removed. But in
030this situation it clearly indicates that when the 3 minutes are up, so if they are doing it within the 3 minutes, it is basically very difficult for them at that time, but since the 3 minutes are up they can definitely take action. Ask questions now or later, whenever you want. It's an open forum. So, in this particular one you said we'd wait 3 minutes, but after that it's per meeting. They don't have to wait 3 minutes. This is speaking specifically. If they're there in public comments, if they're within their 3 minutes, then they can, but if their 3 minutes are up and they keep talking and don't stop, then you can give them a warning and if they don't stop, then you can remove them from the meeting. unless they have a restraining order against
031this individual, which is very difficult. Uh, they can come back meeting after meeting after meeting and basically keep doing it until a judge again wants to keep them away from these public meetings. So if you give them a warning and they simply stop, then you allow them to stay. If they behave, they have to behave. If they give them a warning and stop then , but then continue. After they were notified, they can be removed from there. Even if they remain part of the audience, they have to be on the podium. Even though they are part of the audience. So the mere fact that you 're not on the podium doesn't give them the right to shout. or interrupt the meeting in any way. Again, it has to be the interrupting behavioral term. If there
032is a threshold, then if someone is being interrupted, I always advise them to just let me know and I can always provide cover, so basically whatever decision they make. I want to be very specific. interruptions. Hey, a ringing phone isn't considered an interruption plus a call back. It's not like a rigid limit. Basically, they take it based on the facts presented. If they are doing it on purpose to disrupt the meeting, then yes, we can remove them, but if it is accidental and happens two or three times, then stop. So, obviously, it wasn't intentional. Much of this has to do with what the intention behind it is. Are they trying to disrupt the meeting, or is it something more accidental or incidental? If you are asking based on a situation because it was intentional. If
033it's intentional, yes. Now, situation number two has to do with the Brown Act issues. They receive an email from a neighbor who is talking about the potholes. In this case, they're going to pass it on to the councilor, and then when they respond, they'll reply to everyone, and basically they're agreeing to repair the potholes. And then the second councillor says, "No, we're not going to fund it." Um, I think everyone knows that would be a breach of the Brown Act, because they've now given an opinion on a matter outside of public meetings. Not only those councilors have seen it, but the entire council has seen it because they responded to everyone. Now the same situation, the first councilor responds, but only the first councilor and the second councilor. This is also considered a violation of
034the Brown Act, isn't it? Because there are only two of them, there is no majority there. But one problem is that they are basically now listing their vote before the vote is even taken. They would never want to tell someone they are going to vote one way or another before the vote is taken. An example of that could be like a warning as to why it wouldn't be intentional. So thank you. So, again, it all comes down to the little details, right? It has to be based on the facts, something that could possibly be a breach, a violation, maybe it's not considered as such, or something that isn't considered as such, in fact, is . So, most of the law is left to interpretation, and the words and how the statute, the law, is made,
035really does make a difference in how it is enacted. The third situation again, the councilors and school boards all fall under Brown's law . We have three council members going to a retirement party for the fire chief and they 're talking and joking about the new budget proposal. It is a violation of Brown's law. In general it wouldn't be because three of you can meet in a social setting, but as soon as you start talking about municipal or business matters, then it is a breach. That's the problem with Brown's law; it does n't really provide exceptions. I mean, it provides some exceptions, but there are also exceptions to the exceptions. So, because municipal business is being discussed outside of a public meeting, even if they are joking, it could also influence the vote of the
036other members. So, because of that, it is generally prohibited. And I see here that they are thinking. Some people may be thinking about something, but it's one of those things where the truth is that it happens much more than people think. It's a very common thing, but again, Brown's Law is very straightforward on these kinds of issues, so always be aware of it. I think that's the important thing about reviewing some of these situations to refresh our memory. It's just that many times when we're in our day-to- day lives, people tend to forget. So, having a constant reminder is a good thing; it 's not because they're trying to grab them, but it's a good practice in general. I have many comments on this particular situation. Yes, I was thinking about this situation, and it
037caught my attention because the school board members weren't talking about the budget, but the people around them were . I don't know if it's a complicated area because we didn't have an opinion, we just smiled and moved on. But you're saying it's still a breach, are n't you? Because in this situation it is the members of the council who are talking about the budget. If other people around are talking about it again, it's not a problem because in that situation you are not the one giving the opinion and you cannot control the actions of others, only your own. Therefore, the three council members should not be discussing the budget because, again, they are prohibited from doing so due to the Brown Act. If other people are around and complaining, you are an elected official, so
038you do have to listen to your constituents. The things they say are fine, but he can't respond in the same way as public comments and other things; he simply can't provide support or try to persuade his colleagues to do anything. In the previous situation, he said with the email where they responded to everyone and gave his point of view on a specific matter. How are social media platforms in the public sphere? I feel a certain way about this issue, and I don't mean, I'm not liking a comment or anything, because just like with email, they're only seeing this stance, how this is seen on social media, and they're still seeing the same information again. He still has the right, uh, of the First Amendment, uh, of the Constitution. But at this time, if you, as
039a council member or board member, speak about a matter you are very passionate about and publish that information, you are allowed to do so. Again, I would always give them a warning that it's not the best thing to do, it's not the best thing they can do, but they are allowed to do it. What they can't do is have another board member respond to, comment on, or like this post. That's where he could run into trouble. So, if there is no intervention from any other colleague, regardless of whether the matter is before the board around this time period, you can still publish whatever you want. It simply wouldn't be good practice to do so. It would not be good practice to voice your opinion before the meeting, because there is currently litigation in this area.
040It can be seen that he is trying to influence his colleagues, especially if they are friends or have access to his social networks. It could be seen as if he is speaking out of court about some matter and trying to influence his colleagues outside of the meeting. And this would be mostly before, uh, before the matter is decided, but afterwards it would be a little different. Yes, this has to do with the 72- hour rule, which states that there is a storm that causes a tree to fall 24 hours before the meeting. It is not on the agenda, but the city manager wants to vote to have them removed from the tree. Can we vote on the agenda? You can add it to your agenda. Yes, it is possible. If there are matters or issues
041that arise after the agenda was published and it is either an emergency or the council was not aware of them beforehand . With a two-thirds vote, items can be added to the agenda, but very few and very specific exceptions to certain topics cannot be made widely. And the last one has to do with SB 1439. A developer applies for a zoning change and donates $0 to the councilman's campaign last year, and Councilman SM says he can be impartial. Uh, that vote would be disqualified. Yes, if you received it within the last 12 months, that may be the case. But again, this has already been presented to the court before, but there is a current case, but it has nothing to do with being impartial or not. Uh, the Senate law states that when they receive
042money they cannot be impartial. So it's not that an argument about whether it can or can't has more to do with the timeline. If it was 12 months and one day, it was 11 months and 11 days, that has to do with the timeline. Right now I want to see if anyone has a question. This was a high-level outline of the rules component. Robert, I gave everyone the Brown Act with the help sheets, the voting limits, the categorization of those motions, but from now on I am presenting to the board a recommendation that we consider a matter at a future meeting to perhaps change from Robert's rules to the Rosenberg rules. and to allow more flexibility and ease in addressing matters that come before the board. And right now we have the most complex rules,
043Robert, that was designed for a larger body and not for local governments. Thank you. Any questions? That sounds good to me, within the rules. Rosenberg doesn't take a second for an emotion. No, it still needs a second. I just investigated it with GPT chat and it says it's optional. I understand that it is more flexible. I can see that it's a point in its favor, but it does seem that we need to know if the board would go in that direction. I know it's simpler, but there are things we 're perhaps used to that aren't valid under that system. Something like calling the motion is not called the issue under that, I know there are certain things in the Roberts rules that might help. I know it depends on the dynamics of the board and
044how things ideally go. Rosenberg is that everyone should be trained on how to use it, because I can see a moment when we are using both at least until we are fully trained and make the transition. I can give you an example: in the city of Anahim, they have their own choir rules for meetings. It's a different city, ah, different. They make their own rules. Any advice they look at, how they operate, they generally take bits and pieces and take what works for them. The goal here is to have an efficient meeting. That is done according to the law, Brown's law. the California Constitution and but not to complicate things so much that the public business is not carried out because everyone is limited by procedural problems. It is true that Rosenberg does have benefits,
045it also has limitations, but the board can always formulate its own systems on how it uses it and allow for an efficient board to be held in our board bylaws. He names the Robert Rules as our chosen governance. I think so , because in general it has to indicate what system of rules they are going to use in their hierarchy, like the state procedures, the statutes, but not using any system that is agreed upon by the board is against the statutes. Yes, that's why if they decide to switch to Rosenberg, they would have to amend the board's bylaws. Thank you. Anyone else? Armstrong Member. I participate in two bodies that use the rules. of rubber orders and we have the food parasite there, but I just realized and was assuming because we will suspend the
046rules to adopt some of Rosenberg's. In fact, instead of adopting Rosenberg's rules alone, we can always vote to suspend certain rules and add any rules we want, to be frank. One difficulty with that is that they would go through 700 pages of rules that they want to suspend while they are being presented, while they arise, because that's what we do. This is Rosenberg. This is Rosenberg. I'm thinking about it, and the problem with Robert's rules is that MP there to tell them if that rule can be suspended, what the processes are to do it, and right now I'm reviewing my certification to become a MP. Yes, it's a complex thing, it's almost like taking a law exam. It surprises me that many boards take actions and make decisions and there is no one there to
047guide them on how they can or cannot do these things, because if someone challenges them, it can be overridden. lawyer fees or millions of different things. That provision was specific to Brown's law, but even with a board, if they are violating their own rules, where is the integrity in the decisions they are making? Okay, but I've used a mix, I use both, but the organizations are indeed larger. There it is. I'm going to start studying. Yes, they can hire a full-time member of parliament, but that's not the reality for any school district. Anyone else? Any questions or comments? Can you explain the rules to me? Robert has an amendment to an emotion. It almost seems simpler to have to take that step before the excitement, in case there's a change. Can you explain how insignificant
048motions, or a more suitable way to have them, are handled? If we have three at the same time without any structure for how to address them first, everything goes back to the president. It would n't be that the president chooses which individual presented the motion, because they have the authority in that motion. And that's why they're asking for a vote. For example, someone makes a motion to approve a matter and someone offers a collaborative motion to approve the matter, but they also add that they will contribute 10% more than the original motion stated. Someone says, "Okay, someone says, I want to make a collaborative motion, I want to increase it by 20%." The person who requested the motion can decide which of the collaborative motions they are indicating to accept. And the vote will be
049based on what the person who started the motion decides or accepts. They don't have to take it on every individual modification. The person who requested the original amendment accepts one and they vote on that one. This makes it very efficient because it doesn't need all three votes. It becomes one when they can have consensus on a motion before they take a vote; it's not like a surprise vote at the end, they can debate beforehand, allowing for more consensus. I think that's Rosenberg's point; he focuses more on building consensus instead of just getting the votes in. I would like to add that the person who initiates the motion may indicate that the motion is not collaborative and cancel it. You can say no, that's not in the spirit of collaboration, because I've also had that tracked
050down . When someone is making a motion and then a motion is passed, a collaborative motion is allowed, they are allowed to have a debate while they are making the motion. And this is under Robert's rules. We can't do that. Under Robert's rules . If they make an appeal, if someone asks for an appeal at this moment, if there is a second one, let it be debated and if someone presents a modified amendment, they can no longer talk about the first motion. Now they are focused on the other motion. Now you have to go to that one because it takes precedence over the other two. Realistically, that's sometimes how the system works because they limit the procedure, because they add so many things that now they have to go back to undo what they did.
051So, in Rosenberg it 's the debate and the person who asked for the motion can choose which is the collaborative motion. Yes, it is considered collaborative, and if it is not collaborative, it can go to an amendment or an amended motion, but that only limits it to three. You can't go to the Roberts rules, which are infinite. An infinite chain of emotions limits it to three, and we, as the person who wants the debate, can mention any of those collaborative motions when they occur, and following the rules of decorum, it has to be acknowledged by the chairwoman, but you can propose them. I like it in terms of public comment, as we're doing it right now, it's more in line with Robert's rules, but I think I saw that Rosenberg's rules are before each issue.
052According to the rules, Roberts can do this before each matter. It's an option that you choose as a body. If they leave the public comment all at once at the beginning, covering any topic on the agenda or not, and the speaker is given 3 minutes, they can also limit, as mentioned before, certain topics to a totality. The district is 21 minutes away, so Rosenberg doesn't have to do it for every issue. It depends on the board how they want to proceed with that. It's from the construction of the agenda. instead of other rules like motions and other things. Any other comments or questions? I do have a question. With emergency issues, where do we draw the line? What are the requirements for considering something an emergency? In fact, there is specific legal language. I can
053send you that language after the meeting. I don't know it offhand, but it's basically limited to things that are presented to the board that have to give the staff the authority to address those issues. And those problems arise during the 72 hours before the meeting that are not on the agenda. No, it can't be something random that they asked us about for a donation and they just found out about it, it's not an issue, you can't use that rule to add it to the agenda. Thank you, please. And thank you. Do you have any other questions or comments, colleagues? I think everything is going well. Since we have this presentation, colleagues, would you like to spend some time and watch this at home, or perhaps send Andro a message or call to let him know
054how you feel about continuing, whether with Roberts, Roberts' rules, or Rosenberg's? And if you want, we can always put it as a topic for discussion on a future agenda to have an open dialogue about which system would be most beneficial for the board and the district, and there's no need to make any decision yet. Thank you very much, Mr. Sorega. We appreciate all your knowledge and guidance. We've already done everything. So, if there are no protests, then we postpone the meeting at 7:15 until the board meeting on January 21, 2016, which will be a special, unofficial meeting.