Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 02/06/1992 Kent, Washington February 6, 1992 Special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 6: 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Assistant City Administrator Hansen and Finance Director McCarthy. Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Human Resources Director Olson, Information Services Director Spang and Parks Director Wilson were not in attendance. Approximately 25 people were at the meeting. Mayor Kelleher explained that the purpose of the meeting is to consider potential action the City might take related to the RUGG lawsuit. Orr noted that she will not be taking part in this matter and excused herself from the room. Houser stated that she felt it was important to go over this issue based on information she received after the Council meeting of February 4 . She MOVED to authorize the City Attorney to enter into an agreement to settle the RUGG vs. City of Kent lawsuit, pursuant to the terms of the settlement proposal presented during the February 4th Council meeting. Woods seconded. Upon White ' s question, the Mayor noted that Reed' s Parliamentary Rules state that in normal circumstances a motion to reconsider must be made on the day in which the action sought to be revised was had. He ruled that a motion to reconsider is not necessary, but added that his ruling can be appealed. He also asked that the possibility of using a book of rules other than Reed' s be considered in the future. White pointed out that in addition to Reed' s, the Council has adopted rules and suggested considering them and then making a motion to set aside the Council rules. Lubovich noted that the resolution adopting the Council proce- dures, including Reed's Parliamentary Rules, allows the Council to suspend any particular rule by a majority vote. He suggested a motion suspending the rule that a motion for reconsideration be made the same day. JOHNSON MOVED to suspend the rules. Upon a question from the Mayor, White indicated that he would object to suspending the rules. Kelleher then maintained his ruling that Houser' s motion is in order. Johnson restated his motion to suspend the rule which requests reconsideration only on the day that a motion is made, for the purpose of discussing a motion to offer a settlement on the RUGG lawsuit. The Mayor accepted that motion, and Mann seconded it. The Mayor clarified for White that Houser' s motion and the motion to suspend the rule are both on the floor. Johnson clarified that under Reed' s Rules of Order a motion to suspend the rules is good only for one motion, and that to bring back another motion 1 February 6, 1992 at a future date, you would have to suspend the rules again. White voiced concern regarding interpretation of Reed' s Rules of Order, and stated that the rules should be the same for everyone on every subject. The Mayor explained that he is charged with interpreting the rules and that White could move to appeal his ruling. The motion on whether to suspend the rules then carried with Bennett and White opposed. Houser restated her original motion. Lubovich reiterated that the City will contribute $5, 000 toward the settlement, WCIA will contribute $35, 000 and the City will take a neutral position on any appeals on the matter. White pointed out that the notice of this meeting did not reach him in the required 24-hour time period, but that he came to the meeting in the spirit of cooperation with the Council, and that he would not belabor the points he made at the previous Council meeting. Bennett stated that he was uncomfortable with the motion at the last meeting. He noted that although he has worked closely with Administration, he had no knowledge of this issue except 'what he read in the paper. Lubovich explained that the matter was in preliminary negotiations the night before the Coun- cil meeting, but that he was not hopeful for a settlement. He said he had no indication of potential settlement until the afternoon of the meeting, at which time he notified Councilmem- bers, as he saw them, that he may request an executive session, explaining that the trial was Monday and that he was obligated to present any proposed settlement to Council for approval. He noted that the agreement was presented to him at 5 : 00 p.m. , that he requested the executive session at 7 : 00 when the Council meeting began, and that he explained the proposal during the pub- lic session. He explained that the next regular Council meeting would have been past the trial date and the chances of obtaining a continuance were slim. Bennett said that since he did not have the proper information when this came up during the executive session, he considered abstaining but felt that would not be doing his duty. He added that he hopes this will not happen again, and that he had been cooperative and wants to work as a team. Houser' s motion then carried with Houser, Johnson, Mann and Woods in favor, and Bennett and White opposed. Bill Doolittle stated that he was aware of this meeting because of an article in the newspaper, and that he had not seen a notice in the lobby or the legal notices. He asked about notification requirements and pointed out that White has stated that he did not have 24 hours notification of the meeting. Lubovich explained that RCW 42 . 30 . 080 requires that each Councilmember receive written notice 2 February 6, 1992 at least 24 hours before the meeting and that the press receive the same notice. He noted that although White received his notice 50 minutes after the limit, he agreed to attend the meeting and unless he objects, that is considered a waiver of the notice as authorized under the same provision. Doolittle stated that he does not understand how the City can get away with a $40, 000 settlement to cover $90, 000 in bills supposedly incurred by the group, and that he feels this was a simple error that snowballed. Steve Dowell said that there is a precedent for following the rules because two months ago he made a motion to reconsider and the Chair ruled that it was out of order because it was not made on the same day as the motion. He said he hopes that Council will be consistent in the future. Mann asked the City Attorney to prepare a memo for Councilmembers regarding the issue and informing them of how to act differently in the future, since he cannot understand how the Council erred. Lubovich agreed to do so. Johnson suggested a legal briefing in the near future on the Open Meetings Act and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Lubovich informed them that there is present- ly before the State Legislature a proposal which would change the Open Public Meetings Act rules substantially, and suggested waiting to see what happens with that. White said he is concern- ed that that may not pass, but that he would like to work with the Legal Department and adopt some rules and look into the possibility of taping executive sessions if the City continues to have them. He noted that he is very concerned about having exec- utive sessions, and that if they had been recorded in the past, these results may have been different. The meeting then adjourned at 6: 25 p.m. i Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 3