Sarasota city commissioners propose changes to how they conduct hearings, with city auditor and clerk planning to seek votes on specific ideas later this year

Biggest modification related to limiting initial questions for applicants and staff

The city commissioners participate in the Jan. 14 workshop, with consultant Martin Hurwitz facing the table and City Auditor and Clerk Shayla Griggs, interim City Manager Doug Jeffcoat and City Attorney Robert Fournier also present. News Leader image

Close to the end of nearly 90 minutes of a Jan. 14 workshop discussion about potential changes to the City of Sarasota’s Rules of Procedure for City Commission meetings, City Auditor and Clerk Shayla Griggs summed up what she called “one of the biggest takeaways” from the comments: The rules should limit each commissioner to a number of questions during the first round of discussion about a topic; then, follow-up questions can be posed during a second round.

Griggs said she would compile all of the suggestions offered that day and include them as backup material for a future agenda item, when the board members could vote on them.

The topics that morning ranged from a call for Griggs, as the commission’s parliamentarian, to be allowed to perform that role more readily — including interrupting speakers who roam off topic when answering  commission questions — to ensuring a more orderly procedure for items to be placed on agendas, to how best to deal with personal attacks on board members.

Griggs herself asked for the workshop discussion, she pointed out, telling the commissioners she wanted to have “clear defined roles, especially for me,” so the meetings would run “in an efficient, smooth manner.”

She opened the discussion by asking what the board members wanted.

“Obviously, according to Robert’s Rules of Order,” Mayor Liz Alpert responded immediately, referring to how the meetings should be conducted. Yet, Alpert added, “I don’t really have a lot of complaints about how they’re going.”

“But I do think there’s a lot of room for improvement,” Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch said. Nonetheless, she agreed with Alpert’s comment about following Robert’s Rules of Order.

Commissioner Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, who was elected to the District 3 seat in November 2024, noted that she had three pages of suggestions linked to specific articles in Robert’s Rules of Order. Nonetheless, she laughingly said she would not make her colleagues listen to all of them that day.

Ahearn-Koch was the first to propose a limit on questions in the first round of addressing an application or other issue before the board.

Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch. File image

When she served on the city Planning Board prior to her election in 2017 as a city commissioner, she said, each of the Planning Board members generally would ask up to four questions apiece before stopping for one of their colleagues to pose questions.

“I would be very happy to limit my questions to three-ish in the first round,” Ahearn-Koch added. “That [restriction], I think, would allow much more involvement and conversation and flowing of ideas.”

Mayor Alpert pointed out that she has asked her colleagues on a number of occasions to try to get as many of their questions answered before the meetings begin, so as to limit time spent on gathering information during the discussions.

Ohlrich replied that she does try to do that.

Further, Ahearn-Koch stressed that the question-and-answer period should not include statements of opinion; those should be allowed only after a motion has been made.

However, Vice Mayor Debbie Trice told her colleagues, “I have, on occasion, made statements rather than ask questions during the question period.” When she has done so, she added, she was trying to help with the formulation of a motion. “I would like to continue to have the opportunity during questioning, just to influence what the eventual motion is going to be,” Trice said.

“A statement is different than a sermon and a soliloquy,” Ohlrich responded, agreeing with Trice’s request.

Trice did express support for the suggestion about limiting the number of initial questions.

Moreover, Ahearn-Koch was the board member on Jan. 14 who broached the issue of letting Griggs handle her designated role as parliamentarian. Griggs, Ahearn-Koch added, “is perfectly capable” of doing that, Ahearn-Koch said. “Then that takes the responsibility off the mayor.”

Ohlrich also pointed out that the board members do not stop asking questions when — as she put it — “lights [start] flashing and beepers [begin] beeping” to indicate that a commissioner’s time limit for questions is up. “And nobody pays any attention to [those signals],” Ohlrich stressed. “So it might be a better idea to turn all those bells and whistles off and limit each commissioner to three questions at a time …”

This is the cover of the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order. Image from the Rules’ website

Ahearn-Koch also noted the fact that Robert’s Rules of Order allows each commissioner to speak twice to a motion that has been made.

Griggs confirmed that, adding that each board member is supposed to have a maximum of 10 minutes for those comments, for a total of 20 minutes.

Ohlrich suggested another practice that the Planning Board observed when she was a member of that body: rotating who goes first in asking questions. Commissioners laughed about the fact that Ahearn-Koch routinely is the fastest to push a button to let the mayor know that she wishes to speak. At one point, Griggs laughingly called Ahearn-Koch “Quick Draw McGraw,” referencing a cartoon character.

Because the Planning Board members never knew who the chair would call upon first for questions, Ohlrich pointed out, she felt those board members were better prepared for the meetings.

“It’s really kind of up to the chair, the mayor … how she wants to call [the order of the commissioners for questions],” Griggs said.

Improving the handling of agenda items

On yet another point, Ohlrich noted that the Rules of Procedure call for the agenda for the next City Commission meeting to be released 17 days ahead of the date of that meeting. She added that anyone — a commissioner or someone else — who wishes to make a presentation to the board should by “bound by the 17-day rule to get a summary of their presentation and backup materials” to city staff for inclusion in the agenda packet.

“I shouldn’t be allowed, just because I’m a commissioner,” she said, “to circumvent the 17-day rule.”

She also pointed out that Robert’s Rules of Order calls for a vote on changes on the agenda — including the addition of presentation materials — after a meeting has begun, with two-thirds of the commissioners having to vote to agree to the change.

“Do we vote?” Ohlrich asked.

City Auditor and Clerk Shayla Griggs reads an item to the board on Nov. 18, 2019. File image

Griggs told her that the practice has been for the commissioners to reach a consensus on how to handle such changes, after she reads any that have been proposed for a particular session.

“Why make it an issue?” Alpert asked, referring to a vote.

“It’s overkill,” Commissioner Kyle Battie added.

Griggs proposed that, after changes sought have been read, the mayor could ask, “Do we have a consensus to move forward …?” Griggs added, “I would say keep it simple.”

“I think it would be better to keep the vote in [the Rules of Procedure] and not really need it very often,” Ohlrich added. It would be available if an issue arose, she noted. “If it’s a big issue, somebody could ask for a vote …”

“OK,” Alpert replied.

How to handle personal attacks

Ahearn-Koch also raised the issue of personal attacks. With election season over for two years, she pointed out, “I would like more clarity on what is a personal attack.”

“You all definitely need to be on the same page with this one, too,” Griggs recommended. “That has gone awry.” It is inappropriate, she continued, for the commissioners to “pick and choose” who they will allow to make certain types of remarks, “because we hear about it.”

City Attorney Robert Fournier told the commissioners, “There’s not a whole lot of case law that really discusses that subject.”
To be considered a personal attack, he continued, the comments must not be focused on a position a board member has taken on an issue. He added, “I’ll try to look into it.”

However, Fournier said, “I do think, at the same time, you don’t want to prevent someone from speaking and be too thin-skinned about it,” as people have a right to make remarks to the commission.

Alpert pointed out that the commission’s Code of Conduct says “you can discuss an issue without naming names.”

“People need to be reminded of that,” Fournier told her. She concurred.

Robert’s Rules of Order allow a board member to say, “Point of Order,” Ohlrich pointed out, when a violation of the Code of Conduct occurs.

“Try to admonish the speaker first,” Fournier responded. If the person continues, he added, “Then silence them at that point.”

Alpert suggested that if a member of the board feels a speaker’s comments are problematic, that commissioner can say, “Point of Order,” and then ask for a determination from Griggs or Fournier about whether the remarks are a violation of the Code of Conduct.

“I do think anybody should be able to call it out,” Fournier said, “if they have a concern.”

Mayor Liz Alpert. File image

Nonetheless, Alpert replied, the city attorney probably should make the determination about a violation. “The bigger issue,” she added, “is determining what is a personal attack and what is not.”

Sarasota consultant Martin Hurwitz — who was present for a later discussion that day — interjected at one point, “Attacking a position doesn’t require the personalization of it, so there’s no need to use a name. … If a name is put forth with [the attack], I think it tends to lend itself to being a personal attack, or the ability for it to be interpreted as a personal attack.”

He suggested that if the commissioners themselves worked to address each other by their titles, instead of informally, “That does model behavior for people who come to the table.”
“I was going to say the same thing,” Alpert responded.

How to deal with overly gregarious speakers

On yet another point, Ohlrich indicated that, at times, a member of city staff or an applicant addressing the board during a hearing “gives a sermon or a soliloquy” instead of replying with a “Yes” or “No,” which was all a commissioner was seeking as a response. “And that eats up the time … and then you end up being a little rude” in trying to get them to the point.

Should the mayor or Griggs interrupt the speaker on such occasions, Ahearn-Koch asked.

“We can kind of control that with staff more,” Griggs said. Then she asked whether the mayor or she should be the person to interrupt a speaker in situations such as Ohlrich had described.

Commissioner Battie noted that Alpert has been taking such action, but Griggs told him no one had.

“It’s not ever staff that does that,” Ahearn-Koch maintained, adding that it was difficult to have to try to stop people when they were going off topic.

Trice suggested that the mayor remind applicants about their time limit before they begin speaking.
Hurwitz, the consultant, suggested that speakers be reminded at the outset that when they go off topic, they “will be redirected to topics.” He acknowledged that it likely would take some time for people to become accustomed to that practice.

Ahearn-Koch suggested that when the mayor calls on people to make presentations, she should request that they stay on topic.

Alpert disagreed, saying she believes that the speakers should be told to return to their topic only if they digress.

Consent Agenda issues

Commissioner Kathy Kelley Ohlrich. Contributed photo

Another issue that Ohlrich raised regarded the removal of items from the two Consent Agendas of routine business matters during meetings. Rule V(C) says that commissioners should advise the City Manager’s Office of their desire to remove any items “no later than 8:30 a.m. on the day of the Commission meeting.” Ohlrich suggested that that be changed to “prior to the meeting.”

Griggs replied that she and the city manager do consider such requests prior to the start of meetings, but Ahearn-Koch pointed out that commissioners often make their requests at the dais, just before sessions get underway.

“But we’re not following our Rules of Procedure,” Griggs responded.

Still, Ahearn-Koch said she believes that if a board member wants to pull an item right before the start of meeting business, that should continue to be acceptable.

“I don’t disagree with you,” Griggs told her, but the Rules should be changed to correspond with that practice.

Interim City Manager Doug Jeffcoat said that the more advance notice that he and the staff have about a request to pull an item before a session starts, the better prepared he is to have the appropriate staff members present to answer questions.

“That’s a really good point,” Ohlrich acknowledged. Perhaps it would be better to change the rule to call for such notice a day or two before a meeting, instead of using the 8:30 timeline, she added.

“Sometimes I’m made aware of things the night before [a meeting],” Ahearn-Koch pointed out.

Her preference, Alpert said, would be to give staff sufficient time to prepare to address pulled items. “But I think it would be a disservice” not to allow the removal of items at the start of a meeting, she continued. For example, Alpert said, a commissioner may need to pull an item to cast a “No” vote because of that person’s prior vote on the issue.

Trice proposed that the language in that rule be changed to say that the board members “should” announce their intent to pull an item by close of city business on the Friday before a meeting the following Monday.

Ahearn-Koch countered that 8:30 a.m. the day of a meeting would be preferable. “We all get a lot of Sunday work done” when a meeting is set for the next day, she pointed out.

“The word ‘should’ isn’t a bad word to add to that [rule],” Griggs told the board members. “I prefer a time, though,” she added, proposing that the 8:30 a.m. deadline remain in the rule.

Leave a Comment