Guest Opinion by Luke Sommer of Hayden, Idaho
One of Merriam-Webster online dictionary definitions for the word renegade is “an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior.” This term appears to fit the behavior of Hayden’s mayor and council. In office for almost a year, the mayor and two council members seem to be unaware of the laws limiting their powers and duties.
To give one example, in the upcoming city council meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, there will be an effort to repeal Ordinance 214. This ordinance addresses the Order of Procedure in council meetings and appears to have been lost, hidden, or ignored by the mayor, council, and staff.
Though supposedly discovered in June of this year, Mayor Alan Davis and council members Ed DePriest and Matt Roetter continue to reject adherence to the code. They have formed a majority to act contrary to the existing ordinance. Why is it so objectionable to follow the standing ordinance? Why don’t they simply abide by it until a lawful change occurs? What does their renegade behavior reveal about them and their ability to competently govern the citizens of Hayden? Will they follow Ordinance 214 at Tuesday’s meeting? What if a single member requests items be removed from the Consent Calendar? What if more than one asks?
On the other hand, the procedures found in Ordinance 214 have been upheld and advocated for by council members Sandy White and Tom Shafer from the beginning of the Davis administration. Their efforts on behalf of the rule of law have been opposed by Davis, Roetter, and DePriest. Staff and legal counsel have been of little help and have more often than not sided with the renegades. I, myself, wrote to the previous mayor and council in January 2023 about this very matter.
The real target of their rejection is Section 4 of this 1993 ordinance which deals with the use of the Consent Calendar. What is a Consent Calendar? It is a commonly used method to expedite business by grouping routine and noncontroversial items into a single motion to be unanimously approved by the body to save valuable time. In parliamentary law, it would be best described as a Unanimous Consent (or General Consent) motion. In plain English, that means no one objects to the inclusion of any item, and thus all items can be approved at one time.
Ordinance 214, Section 4(C) states:
“On objection by any member of the council to inclusion of any item on the Consent Calendar, that item shall be removed.”
Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (MMLP) is the parliamentary authority for the legislature of the state of Idaho and over three quarters of all the states. Mason’s states:
A single objection defeats a request for unanimous consent.
Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, p. 386, S. 537(4)
Ominously enough, it also states:
“When these statutes contain mandatory provisions they must be complied with to give validity to the actions of the bodies. These statutes define jurisdiction and may prescribe rules governing meetings, notices, readings of ordinances, quorum and votes required for certain actions and other similar matters.” [MMLP p. 36, S. 10(2)]
When a city council or other local legislative body violates or disregards its charter or a law regulating its procedure the courts will declare its enactments void.
Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, p. 36, S. 10(4)
Council members Roetter, White, and Shafer have each attempted to remove individual items from the Consent Calendar. Instead of removing the item at the request of one member, as is required under Ordinance 214, Davis, Roetter, and DePriest have insisted on debating whether an item should be removed at the request of a single member. The renegades have required a majority vote to remove an item from the Consent Calendar, which has included the mayor voting. However, debate is forbidden under 214:
There shall be no debate or discussion by any member of the council regarding any item on the Consent Calendar, beyond asking questions for simple clarification.
Ordinance 214, Section 4(B)
Why? Because debate defeats the purpose of a Consent Calendar and wastes valuable time better spent on other matters.
A second example of how the renegades seem to be operating outside the law relates to the adoption of ordinances, otherwise known as city laws, and resolutions to enter into contracts. A majority of council members are required to pass both. In Hayden, this means three out of the four council members must approve any ordinance or resolution. The mayor is the operational head of city government; therefore, the mayor’s office carries out the majority will of the council. Idaho law does not provide the mayor a vote on the adoption of any ordinance or any resolution to enter into a contract.
The passage or adoption of every ordinance, and every resolution or order to enter a contract shall be by roll call of the council with the yea or nay of each being recorded, and to pass or adopt any ordinance or any such resolution or order, a majority of the council shall be required (emphasis mine).
Idaho Code 50-902
I will be watching Tuesday’s meeting carefully to see whether the renegade behavior continues, and I suggest fellow Hayden residents who believe in the rule of law pay attention to how the mayor and council handles governing our city.
Luke Sommer is an American citizen and resident of Hayden. He is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians.
