11/16/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,,~ Council Minutes of 11/16/1999 Mr. Miller made a motion, per Rules of Council #63 and Robert's Rules of Order, to refer Ordinances 99-151 and 99-152 to the Recreation Committee for consideration as the ordinances impact recreation services. There are issues still unanswered including, but not limited to, a review of similar recent contracts that neighboring communities have entered into with Coke and/or Pepsi. Perhaps this review by Recreation Committee will help get these issues moving along. Mr. O'Grady called for a point of order stating he was under the impression that during caucus it had been discussed that the Director of Law would be present for a read on the proposal by Mr. Miller. Because the Law Director was not in attendance, he felt Council should be very cautious when establishing new precedents on Council. Without the presence of the Law Director, he would move that the motion be tabled to a future date. He is uncomfortable moving forward in this way without a read from the Law Director. President Saringer noted that there already was a motion on the floor. Mr. O'Grady said that a point of order takes precedence. President Saringer asked Mrs. Kasler if she had a comment, and Mrs. Kasler responded that she wished to second Mr. Miller's motion. Mr. Gareau said he was not aware under Robert's Rules whether a point of order and a motion to table take precedence over a motion to commit. It is his understanding that it would be superior to those other motions. Mr. O'Grady said the Rules of Council address the issue of precedence of motion by stating that no motion shall be entertained once a motion has been placed before Council with exception of a specific group, and in that group is to lay on the table. (Rule #33 D) In addition to the point of order that the Law Director is not here is his motion to lay on the table the motion by Councilman Miller. He believes that would take precedence. Mr. Gareau said he did not think it was appropriate to lay a motion on the table and proceed in that fashion. He cannot recall a situation where a motion was overridden by a motion. Mr. O'Grady said that was exactly his point. He can never recall an incident where someone has chosen to go in and take two ordinances that have been reviewed by committee, take them out of that committee after being recommended for approval and put them in another committee. He does not believe Council should be moving forward until a ruling can be made by the Law Director. President Saringer said that, if it means the defeat of the ordinances, she would rather see them go back to Recreation Committee to be discussed so that everyone's questions are fully answered. She is concerned they will not pass, and that is why she would like them to go back to committee. Mrs. Kasler noted there was a motion on the floor by Mr. Miller and seconded by her. Mr. O'Grady said there was a point of order. Mrs. Kasler called for the vote. Mrs. Saringer asked that the roll be called on the motion to place the ordinances into the Recreation Committee. Roll call: Miller, yes; Kasler, yes; Gareau, yes; Limpert, no; McKay, commented that this (the ordinances) is a competitive bid between Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola. It is not something that was proposed by one person. The difference is $100,000. This is not the first contract we have entered into for 10 years; for example, the cable contract is for 15 years. He asked the Mayor how long the contract would be open for acceptance. Mayor Musial replied that there really is no time limit on the contract in terms of being accepted. We have negotiated in good faith. We have looked at the Pepsi Cola contract and it is about a hundred thousand dollars Less than the Coke contract. He believes that the negotiations has been done, it has been brought to the attention of Council, and feels at this point in time that Council should react upon it up or down. President Saringer said that a vote can be explained, but there shouldn't be 15 ,_. y~ ~.,x .. ,,