Jerry and Adrian discuss voting at large
Councilors Fail to Listen to Citizens
Once again, John Abrams and Linda Holle FAIL the people of Edgewood. In a Special Meeting on July 29, 2021, both Abrams and Holle voted against a resolution that would clarify At-large voting for the upcoming November 2, 2021 town commission election. Councilors Sherry Abraham and Audrey Jaramillo voted in favor of the resolution, but it died for lack of majority.
Abrams’ Bad Behavior
This video talks about the At-Large issue and makes note of Abrams’ continuing bad behavior toward citizens of Edgewood. Following a failed vote on the Consent Agenda, Abrams yells at the audience, exploding, “This is OUR meeting!” (motioning to the council). His frustration with failed passage could be minimized if he were to use the Consent Agenda properly and not include items that are dissented. WATCH: Jerry and Adrian discuss voting at-large
Misuse of Consent Agenda
Clearly, town hall has a lack of understanding as to what a “Consent Agenda” is and how it is used. By definition, it is used for routine and non-controversial items that the council can approve in a single motion, rather then numerous motions (one for each). Example: monthly report from a department, undisputed minutes of meeting, etc. Any item in the consent agenda may be pulled and placed for discussion instead, and the balance of the Consent agenda can be voted on as a whole. A consent agenda is used to speed up the process of approving routine items that are not in question.
However, it is Abrams’ insistence to misuse the consent agenda that causes the problems that he then tries to pin on other council members. If proper procedure were followed in council meetings, any councilor would be able to request an item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. However, under Abrams’, he insists on a vote to remove an item (a violation of Robert’s Rules) and that vote typically results in a 2-2 tie leaving the controversial item on the consent agenda. By refusing to remove the controversial item from the consent agenda for discussion, it becomes impossible for the consent agenda to pass. That has resulted in many items that could be passed, instead being held hostage to improper procedure and Abrams’ ego.
In a pro-active effort to clear up the consent agenda problem, Councilor Sherry Abraham made a motion to table indefinitely the Minutes of November 2, 2020, which had become a repeated stumbling block . Abraham’s motion was seconded by Jaramillo, and Linda Holle joined them to vote in favor of tabling the November 2, 2020 Minutes indefinitely.
Yet, in a clear disregard for his colleagues’ council vote and proper procedure, John Abrams unilaterally (without any vote of the council) and inappropriately (violation of Robert’s Rule of Order) returned the November 2, 2020 Minutes to the consent agenda without authority. That maneuver has exacerbated any chance of passing a consent agenda unless specific items are again removed which he, in violation of Robert’s Rules, insists requires a majority vote of council (not likely with Abrams and Holle typically roadblocking constructive efforts on the consent agenda to try to force approval).
READ: Civic Plus – How to Use a Consent Agenda , Excerpt:
-
- If it is determined that an item on the consent agenda requires discussion, it is removed from the consent portion and addressed individually. For future meetings in which there is no question or concern over the item, it may be placed back into the agenda’s consent portion.
- An item from the consent agenda must be moved at the request of any team member if the individual wants to vote against the specific item—as the item no longer has the team’s consolidated approval. Consent agendas may not be used to force the approval of items through a process that eliminates their review.
