Orchid Pork follow up E-Mail
Sent today to Mayor Feichthaler, Council members Boyd,Day,Jeffers and Rosado who voted to approve Orchid Blvd. curbing.
Mayor and Council members addressed;
This email is specifically addressed to those who voted for curbing all Orchid Blvd. medians.
In previous e-mails to you on 9-26-5 the comparison of Orchid "neighborhood association street" as it relates to other similar neighborhood association streets was provided. That comparison pointed out that only the first median off Del Prado Blvd. is curbed, with the exception of Beach Parkway that connects to Jaycee Park. That comparison also pointed out that by comparison traffic on Orchid is practically non existent. As a reminder those neighborhood association streets included; Savona, Palaco Grande, Cornwallis, Everest, Four Mile Cove and Balado.
You should also note that off of Everest there is another neighborhood association street SE 23rd Ave. marking the entrance to the "Gold Coast Estates" with median improvements that were done by the local neighborhood association residents and has no curbing.
Our questions are:
Is it still your intent to go forward to curb all medians on Orchid? Would you now reconsider curbing just the first median off DelPrado based on the information that has been provided?
If the intent is go forward to curb all Orchid Blvd. medians please explain why you would do this for a street that has so little traffic as compared to the other streets mentioned? Why would you do this on Orchid Blvd. when there are major 4 lane arterial roads throughout the city without median curbing?
Thank you for your indulgence, we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Ralph LePera, President
Cape Coral Civic Association
Note: See city response in comments.
posted by Civic at 9/30/2005 01:21:00 PM
3 Comments:
e-mail sent 10/5/05
Mayor and Council;
In reviewing the budget hearings of Sept. 9 and Sept. 21 it is clear that a motion to reallocate funding, basically dividing $475K Supplemental Item 32 for SE 24 Avenue and providing no more than $225K of those funds for curbing for Orchid Blvd. was made by Council member Boyd and seconded by Council member Day. The motion failed on a 4-4 vote. Those having voted NO are considered to have been on the prevailing side.
After the vote a break was called and upon reconvening a motion was made to “reconsider the previous vote.” The motion was made by Boyd and seconded by Jeffers. Neither of whom was on the prevailing side of the vote now being brought for reconsideration.
Prior to the vote to reconsider, the Mayor asked the city attorney if a motion to reconsider was in order at this time. The city attorney responded in the affirmative, basically stating that if a motion to reconsider was being asked now would be the time to do so. She is right about the appropriate time.
The only problem is the city attorney did not address who would be allowed to make the motion for reconsideration. Since Mr. Boyd was not on the prevailing side of the vote that failed he should have been precluded from making the motion to reconsider. In a motion to reconsider only those on the prevailing side, ONLY those voting no to the previous vote, would have been allowed to move for reconsideration. Mr. Boyd’s motion to reconsider was not in order. In any even that motion also failed on a 4-4 vote.
At this point Supplemental Item 32 remained whole and a subsequent vote to remove, by the Mayor, all funding also failed (2-6) at the same meeting. Isn’t it interesting, how Boyd originally started out to remove and then compromised to divide Item 32, then voted against the Mayor’s motion to remove the $475K provided in Supplemental Item 32. Had this motion passed, Item 32 would have been eliminated leaving no place to take from Peter and give to Paul, but there would have been almost a half million dollars saved.
On Sept. 21, final budget hearing, Council member Boyd again made the same motion, seconded by Day, to allocate up to $225K from Supplemental Item 32. In fact, the motion was restated by the Mayor prior to the vote. There was nothing different in this motion or the motion maker than that motion which previously failed. Bringing back the same motion that previously failed, and without an affirmative vote for reconsideration indicates a lack of leadership and knowledge in proper procedure. Having the motion brought back by the original motion maker shows an interest in a personal agenda only as opposed to respecting the previous vote of council on this very same issue.
This was the wrong thing to do.
Ralph LePera,
CC Civic Association
CITY RESPONSE
From: Dolores Menendez
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:45 PM
To: Eric Feichthaler
Cc: Terrance Stewart; Alan Boyd; Dolores Bertolini; Timothy Day; Jim Jeffers; Alex LePera; Mickey Rosado; Richard Stevens
Subject: RE: Supplemental budget item 32
Eric,
In response to your email, please be advised that it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the vote taken at the September 21, 2005 hearing on the adoption of the final budget by ordinance was appropriate. Although Councilmember Boyd's motion at the September 21, 2005 Council meeting may have been substantially similar or even virtually identical to the motion that he made at the September 7th hearing, the two motions would not have involved a "reconsideration" because the 9/7 motion would have concerned the City's tentative budget and the 9/21 motion would have concerned the City's final budget. Although there is no case law on this issue, the Florida Statutes provide that, during the hearing on the final budget, the "governing body of the taxing authority shall amend the adopted tentative budget as it sees fit" and adopt a final budget. Within certain boundaries as identified by statute, the Florida law dealing with local government's budgets appears to try to allow local governments a certain degree of flexibility in determining their budgets so long as due process rights are protected. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that, at the final budget hearing, the Council is not constrained by actions (such as those at issue here) that may have been directed toward the tentative budget.
As a point of further information, while this office recognizes the role of Robert's Rules of Order in the arena of parliamentary procedure, please be advised that Robert's Rules of Order truly can be no more than a guideline to a body such as a City Council. There are going to be times when the issues and procedures to be effectuated under statutory and other law will not dovetail with the technicalities of Robert's Rules. This is why some city councils and other similar bodies have elected not to use Robert's Rules but instead to adopt other rules more directed toward small groups. For example, in regard to your question about when a motion to reconsider a motion previously made at the 9/7 hearing would have been in order, motions concerning the budget ordinances should only be made at the hearings scheduled for dealing with the tentative and final budgets -- not at any intervening Council meetings. Similarly, while you preside at Council meetings, you are not a presiding officer elected by the body, but rather the Mayor fulfilling his duties under the City Charter.
As an aside, from my review of the 9/ 7 Council meeting, it does appear that a motion to reconsider a previous motion on this particular budget item was made by a member who had not been on the prevailing side, but that motion failed and thus was of no effect. Please be advised, however, that though much has been made of motions being "null and void" if "improper" under
Robert's Rules, it appears that such "improper motions" are those that would violate charters, constitutions, federal, state, or local laws, etc. The more common remedy to a procedural error under Robert's Rules is the request by a councilmember of a "point of order" at the time the irregularity occurs. If such "point of order" is not asserted in a timely manner, the opportunity is lost because such issues are supposed to be brought forth while correction could be made in a timely manner, not after the fact to question the proceedings that have since closed. This is in accord with the principle stated in Robert's Rules (#23) that "[i]n ordinary meetings it is undesirable to raise points of order on minor irregularities of a purely technical character, if it is clear that no one's rights are being infringed upon and no real harm is being done to the proper transaction of business."
I trust that the foregoing answers your questions. If it does not or if you need other information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Dolores
Ref: Orchid Blvd. Response to Boyd's comments in the paper.
When Council member Boyd pushed for $ 225,000 for median curbing on Orchid Blvd., Civic sent e-mails to the Mayor and Council expressing concern of how Orchid Blvd. relates to other similar neighborhood association streets off Del Prado Blvd. Civic pointed out that only the first median is curbed on those streets such including; Savona, Palaco Grande, Cornwallis, Everest, Four Mile Cove and Balado. Off Everest, there is another neighbor street, SE 23rd Ave. marking the entrance to "Gold Coast Estates" with median improvements and no curbing.
In comparison to the others, traffic on Orchid is practically non existent; there is no traffic light at Orchid and DelPrado. If the intent is to curb all six Orchid medians explain why for a street with so little traffic as compared to other streets mentioned? Also, why Orchid, when major 4 lane arterial city roads are without median curbing?
Contrary to Council member Boyd’s assertion; “This is strictly personal… the critics are a small group from the Cape Coral Civic Association…” First, Civic is not a small group we have over 250 members. Second, there is nothing personal in Civic questioning and seeking justification when city money is being spent without having previous planning or discussion. The $1,000,000 Boyd mentioned for Sun Splash slide is but another example of how he prioritizes and the spending tax dollars at the last minute.
If Boyd perceives Civic concerns as being personal, it’s his doing. Civics e-mails contained no mention of his parent’s residence. However for him to imply their residence is somehow disconnected from the issue, being a “half-mile from Orchid” is totally misleading since it is the only street providing access to their home. Council member Boyd needs to respond to issues instead of falsely accusing Civic of being personal. When there is no proper justification some people respond with absurdity.
Ralph LePera, President CCCA
Post a Comment
<< Home