Is Commissioner's 'Call the Question' Out of Order?

What began as a commission discussion meant to clarify legal language in a city contract, ended with one city leader uttering an oft-used phrase that squashed all hope for dialogue May 2.

Vice Mayor Julie Ward Bujalski sought clarity in the parameters of the city's proposed 10-year agreement with Sail Honeymoon concessionaire Glen Steinke, questioning language that promised a five-year renewal option in 2023 because it goes against Dunedin's purchasing policy.

She said she brought it up to avoid the possibility of confusion in the future.

Steinke's license agreements with the city have a contentious and confusing history.

City Attorney Tom Trask weighed in, explaining that renewing with Steinke in 10 years was the city's option, not the concessionaire's, and to assuage Bujalski's concerns, Mayor Dave Eggers asked Steinke to explain his interpretation of the renewal language for public record.

"I’m clear on the point that it’s a 10-year contract with an option, or opportunity, to negotiate with city commission of that time of 2023 for an additional five years," Steinke said. "Obviously if they don’t agree then we’re back to an RFP (request for proposal). I’m not asking for a guarantee beyond 10 years, but the opportunity to avoid what we’ve been through in the last three years in another 10 years."

Steinke was walking away from the podium to sit in his chair at City Hall when Eggers asked the commission, "Did anyone else have any questions for Glen while he was up here?"

That's when Commissioner Julie Scales, who supported changes to the city's purchasing policy that would benefit Sail Honeymoon in January, threw out an oft-used phrase in parliamentary procedure to silence discussion.

"I'd like to call the question," she said, hearkening to a long-established, uniform set of procedures for public meetings called Robert's Rules of Order.

That's when the confusion really began.

Robert's Rules of Order explains that when a member invokes the "call the question," the person is wanting to move forward on the vote instead of continuing the debate. The "call the question" must be seconded and also receive a majority support before the vote can take place. 

The Official Robert's Rules of Order website further explains:

It is a fairly common misconception that, after debate has continued for some time, if any member shouts out “Question!” or “I call the question!” debate must immediately cease and the chair must put the pending question to a vote. This is simply not the case. Any member who wishes to force an end to debate must first obtain the floor by being duly recognized to speak by the chair, and must then move the Previous Question. Such a motion must be seconded, and then adopted by a two-thirds vote, or by unanimous consent. It is not in order to interrupt a speaker with cries of “Question” or “Call the Question,” and even if no one is speaking, it is still necessary to seek recognition. [RONR (11th ed.), p. 202; see also pp. 35-37 of RONRIB.]

The following is the conversation immediately following Scales's question.  

"Yeah, OK. Any other questions for staff? Or, Glen, did you have any other comments?" Eggers said.

"Excuse me, what’s the rule on call to question," Scales said to Trask.

"Once the question is called, Mayor, we need to take the vote," he said.

"I wasn’t going anywhere with it, except making a closing comment to Glen," Eggers said to Scales.

"Well we can do that later," she replied.

"I tell you what, ," Eggers said. "I‘m not going anywhere with that. That was it. All right, lets move on, we have a motion by Commissioner Bujalski. Vice Mayor, did you have any other —"

"I can’t comment because the question has been called," Bujalski said.

Eggers interjected, "Well, no —"

"No, the question has been called, which means it has to go to a vote," Bujalski said, raising her voice again.

"But it hasn’t been seconded, OK?" Eggers said. 

"It was seconded by Commission Scales, which means we have to go to a vote because the question was called," Bujalski said, then sought clarification from the city attorney. "Am I correct, Tom?"

"Yes," Trask said.

"So there’s no comment by —," the mayor was interrupted. 

"Nope, we are not allowed to have comments when the question is called," Bujalski said at the same time Trask began to speak.

"When the question is called in Robert's Rules of Procedure, you need to have that motion," he said.

"So the maker of the motion was Commissioner Scales and the sec —" Eggers was interrupted again.

"No the maker of the motion was me," Bujalski interjected.

"You made the motion to approve it (the Sail Honeymoon agreement), you didn’t make the motion to 'call the question'," Eggers said.

"No," Bujalski replied.

"That doesn’t require it," Scales added.

The mayor sought guidance from Trask.

"So you don’t need a second on the calling of the question?"

"No sir," Trask said. 

The mayor turned to Scales.

"So you’re really gonna shut your five commissioners down from closing comments?"

Scales paused.

"Is that what you’re saying?" Eggers pressed.

Scales leaned into the microphone.

"I’ll repeat," she said. "I’m calling the question."

"OK," Eggers said. "All in favor say 'aye'."

The motion for Steinke's long-awaited, 10-year license agreement passed unanimously with no further discussion.

He walked out of City Hall and exhaled a sigh of relief.

Sign up for the free Dunedin Patch email newsletter to stay connected to your community.

Previous Coverage:

• City Leaders Consider 10 Years for Sail Honeymoon
• Sail Honeymoon Agreement Result of 2010 Misunderstanding
• Are Dunedin Officials Playing Favorites with Sail Honeymoon?