Move of Dumfries police finally cleared
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Aileen Streng
Published: July 23, 2008
Despite an effort on the part of some Dumfries Town Council members to stop it, the Dumfries Police Department will be moving out of the town hall basement and into leased space down the road.
The lengthy discussion of an already approved lease agreement for the police department was marred by raised voices, frustration, flippant comments and even the threat of legal action during the council's Tuesday night meeting.
"We could get a writ of mandamus if we had to but I would prefer we did it the nice way," said council member Dorothea Barr. "I would hate to do this with legal action against my own town but if that is what has to be done, it has to be done."
A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling a public official or public body, for example, to do or not do something.
"It would be kind of silly to end up in the news about this," she said.
"We don't need bad publicity over something as simple as wanting to discuss the lease agreement," said Mayor Fred Yohey.
"This is like a train going down the track with seven engineers and nobody will slam on the breaks," Yohey said.
Eventually, it was Robert's Rules of Order that rendered the matter moot, preventing or making it difficult for it to be reconsidered or rescinded.
On July 1, the council—with new members Barr, Nancy West and Willie Toney—decided with a 6-1 vote to reconsider leasing space for the police department, a decision already approved by the council on June 24.
The subject of the lease was raised at the July 1 meeting by Yohey, who has been against the move, characterizing it as an unnecessary expense. Yohey also had presented the new council with a memo entitled "Failure to Follow Prescribed Town Procedures for Execution of Police Department Lease Agreement."
Yohey said he felt town ordinances and procedures about entering into contracts were not followed. Dumfries Town Manager Dave Whitlow disagrees.
West made the motion to reconsider the lease agreement.
During the council's meeting earlier this week, Yohey said he had recently learned from Town Attorney Kristi Caturano that according to Robert's Rules of Order, West should not have made the motion.
Only one of the members who had voted in favor of the lease would be permitted to bring up the matter for reconsideration, according to the rules.
When the lease was voted on at the June 24 meeting, it passed on a 4-3 vote.
The council members who had voted in favor of the lease agreement were Cliff Brewer, Clyde Washington, Sue Cornell and Brenda Via. Via is no longer on the council.
Yohey, Stephanie Bradley and Rafael Lopez dissented. Bradley and Lopez are no longer on the council.
The motion would have had to be made by one of the people who approved the lease agreement—Brewer, Washington or Cornell. And, according to Robert's Rules, the motion would have had to be made at the same meeting that the vote was taken.
"The only type of motion that can be made now is to rescind and that type of motion can be made by any council member," Caturano said.
However, she also pointed out that under some circumstances such as if it concerns a contract and the terms of that contract had been relayed to the other party involved, the motion could not be rescinded.
"So technically we cannot make a motion to reconsider or rescind at this point," Caturano said.
"I don't think we have to since the motion was taken incorrectly in the first place and violated town ordinances," Barr said.
"There was nothing illegal about it," Brewer said.
After Barr and West continued to raise concerns expressed by Yohey in his memo, Yohey said he no longer wanted to debate the issue.
"Whatever happened, happened. What I want to do now is examine the lease agreement again," Yohey said.
Caturano told the council that it could make a motion to suspend the rules but in order for that to happen, the motion would need to pass with a two-thirds majority vote. In the case of the Dumfries Town Council, that would require five of the seven members voting in favor.
The motion was made but it failed on a 4-3 vote. Yohey, Barr, West and Toney voted in favor. Washington, Cornell and Brewer voted against it.
After the vote was taken, Yohey said he had compiled further data concerning the necessity—or lack there of—of moving the police department and wanted to share the information with the council.
"It shows clearly that the amount of money that it would take to go into this lease agreement is too much and it's too much space," Yohey said.
Currently, the 14 police officers and two administrative staffers work in about 1,000-square feet of space in the basement of Dumfries Town Hall.
The plan is to move the department into 3,000-square-feet of leased space in the Triangle Shopping Plaza for three years until an alternative location is found or built for the police officers.
The town council has agreed to spend $57,000 for the lease and $20,000 to remodel the space so it would conform to the needs of the police department.
"Is there anyway I can discuss [my data]?" Yohey said.
Tonie told the mayor it was time to move on.
"This issue has passed. Sometimes you lose. It's best to step to the side and choose your battles," Toney said. "Let's move forward instead of being bogged down on a matter that is moot."
The council moved on to other agenda items.
Staff writer Aileen Streng can be reached at 703-878-8010.
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( justmebobby ) on July 28, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I cant talk like them .But i make my point on another story.they all should be fired and town charter destroyed bye bye town od DUMB-FRIES
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( caj_prp ) on July 24, 2008 at 2:45 am
PS - Once upon a time, Robert’s Rules disallowed rescinding an adopted motion to enter into a contract. That rule has been “rescinded.“ RONR now speaks to procedure, not wisdom or consequences of the decision:
RONR (10th ed) p. xxi (changes in the 10th edition): * References to federal, state, and local laws are restricted, wherever appropriate, to procedural rules prescribed by such laws, in recognition of the fact that rules of parliamentary procedure are concerned with the process by which a deliberative assembly arrives at a decision, and not with the wisdom, or even legality, of the decision itself. ===For similar reasons, the rule prohibiting rescission of a motion which is in the nature of a contract has been eliminated.===
—
Alan Jennings
www.alanjennings.com/rrfd
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( caj_prp ) on July 24, 2008 at 2:37 am
The motion to reconsider is not in order except at the meeting in which the motion to be reconsidered was made (or the next day if the session is more than one day).
In this situation, the only meeting at which the motion to reconsider is in order at all would have been the June 24th meeting.
What _would have been_ in order on July 1? A motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted. Such a motion can be adopted by (1) a majority vote with notice, (2) a two-thirds vote without notice, or (3) a majority of the entire membership.
The council and its attorney shouldn’t feel alone in this common misunderstanding. It is one of the most common errors I read about in articles covering city and town council meetings. (Try a daily google alert for “Robert’s Rules” and you’ll see what I mean!)
It is obvious from the many such stories I read that the misunderstanding derives from failing to note the time limit on the Motion to Reconsider. It is then compounded by confusing the motion with with the verb “to reconsider.“
Of course, you do “reconsider” something when you bring it again before the council; but the motion that accomplishes revisiting the question at a later meeting is the “Motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.“
See Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) 10th ed. Sec. 35 (p.293)
—
Alan Jennings
www.alanjennings.com/rrfd
PS: Consider hiring a professional parliamentarian for your meetings. You can save yourself a lot of time and angst (and avoid embarrassing press) by having some behind the scenes help understanding your rules of order.
Report Inappropriate Comment