Last night the Urbana City Council was very interesting.
The council was voting on a motion to designate 508 W Elm as "historic" against the will of the property owner. Since the owner objected to the motion, 5 votes are required for this motion to pass.
At the last meeting 3 weeks ago, Dennis Roberts recused himself because of a conflict of interest. It is assumed he is somehow affiliated with the Urbana Development Corporation who became interested in the house once they learned a developer wanted it.
During the vote Dennis Roberts did NOT recuse himself and voted "present". According to city code when you vote present because of a conflict of interest, the vote counts for the side of the minority. The city attorney was asking the mayor not to rule and she did so anyway, ruling the present vote was not a result of a conflict of interest.
This is just another example where rules, plans, guidelines, etc. don't mean anything in Urbana and the council will make up the rules as they go along....or simply ignore them for convenience.
It is one thing to discourage investors from entering the community when they can't rely on guidelines and laws. It is another thing to ingore the direction of the city attorney so blatently and expose the citizens to liablity. I bring this up because there was a closed-door meeting to discuss pending litigation just before they took up old business.
It is one thing to disagree on an issue. It is another thing to ingore the law.
I'm wondering if Dennis Roberts was acting as an agent for the Urbana Development Corp or the City of Urbana when he voted "present". This could be a big deal. I hear he looked very uncomfortable during the vote...
Unfortunately you've got a serious factual error. If you watched the meeting as it was broadcast, you saw that the city attorney did NOT ask the mayor not to rule. There was some confusion about whether a 'present' vote counted or didn't count with the majority under what circumstances, and the city attorney suggested that the mayor not rule until they'd had a few minutes to look it up in Roberts Rules of Order, and they could go onto the next agenda item in the meantime. The mayor instead decided to wait the few minutes until they had found it and settled the question, and then she ruled according to that. Confusing, maybe. Making up rules on the spot, definitely not. Watch it and you'll see both the city attorney and the city clerk went straight to Roberts Rules of Order the moment the question came up, and things ground to a halt for a few minutes until it was settled -- exactly so that they WOULDN'T be making up rules on the spot but going with established parliamentary procedure.
B, why are you insinuating something sinister in Roberts' present vote when he was upfront about why he voted present. He said, according to the News Gazette article at http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/10/07/urbana_council_votes_to_declare_house_a_historic_landmark that he has worked with Ilona Matkovszki who asked for the historic designation on a calendar and other issues. That is not remotely a legal conflict of interest. There is no indication he has anything to do with the Urbana Development Corp. I don't know who is right and who is wrong about giving the historic designation to this particular house, I can see the arguments on both sides, but I think it is wrong to ascribe sinister motives to someone without any basis for doing so.
Either way I thought it was interesting that the preservationists ARE apparently at least willing to buy the house now if JSM backs out. I don't know details, but thought it did sound better than a "well, we don't want you to sell to them but no suggestions about what else you can do" scenario. Maybe they will buy and restore the place.
I think it's practicle to think that if one recuses himself because of ...
how did he say it.....
"CONFLICT OF INTEREST"
...then you have to take him at his word.
"That is not remotely a legal conflict of interest."
I don't know what the legal definition of the term is and can't speak to that. I have to assume that when he recused himself because of a conflict of interest, he had a legitimate reason. I'm sure there's some guidelines for what constitutes conflict of interest.
I'm going to assume that he DID have a conflict of interest, but because he did explicitly state that is the reason for his present vote, they will try and make that argument stick.
"Either way I thought it was interesting that the preservationists ARE apparently at least willing to buy the house now if JSM backs out. I don't know details, but thought it did sound better than a "well, we don't want you to sell to them but no suggestions about what else you can do" scenario. Maybe they will buy and restore the place."
This is definately a good thing. They do intend to restore the place. Their group fundmentally works to restore houses to single family.
"Watch it and you'll see both the city attorney and the city clerk went straight to Roberts Rules of Order the moment the question came up, and things ground to a halt for a few minutes until it was settled -- exactly so that they WOULDN'T be making up rules on the spot but going with established parliamentary procedure."
I could have sworn the city attorney was reading from the CITY CODE that states a present vote when there is a conflict of interest counts on the side of the minority. I believe he quoted, "(1) Abstentions, if stated by the alderperson to be for reason of conflict of interest, shall not be counted as either an "aye" or "nay" vote and members abstaining shall not be counted in determining the total to which the percentage of votes required is applied in determining number of votes for passage, any statute, ordinance or rule of parliamentary procedure to the contrary notwithstanding;"
Since Roberts did not specifically state that he had a conflict of interest, we can argue technically that he did not "state" it. : )
Heather Stevenson raised her hand and pointed out the situation. This is obviously shady to the point where the owner of the property stated (from the news gazette)....
After the meeting, Gorski said he thinks the city is daring him to sue.
"I hate to do this," he said. "This is not me. This is not who I am."
You've gotta love Urbana. It has become entertaining to watch council meetings at the very least.
Either way I thought it was interesting that the preservationists ARE apparently at least willing to buy the house now if JSM backs out.
It's putting their money where their mouth is.
It seems to me that if you point out that you have a conflict, and that you don't vote aye or nay, then you shouldn't vote at all, including present. It doesn't seem to be appropriate to do indirectly what you cannot do directly.
"It's putting their money where their mouth is."
Absolutely....and this is much better than just bluntly screwing the property owner. At the same, the value of the property has come down to the point where they can now afford it. It looks like threating investors with the "hassles that await" pays dividends.
(1) Abstentions, if stated by the alderperson to be for reason of conflict of interest, shall not be counted as either an "aye" or "nay" vote and members abstaining shall not be counted in determining the total to which the percentage of votes required is applied in determining number of votes for passage, any statute, ordinance or rule of parliamentary procedure to the contrary notwithstanding;
Unwrap that sentence and you'll see that Roberts' abstention for stated conflict of interest -- if you presume that's what he did, although he didn't -- means that the council effectively has six members not seven (that is, six is "the total to which the percentage of votes required is applied in determining number of votes for passage"), and the two-thirds supermajority necessary becomes two thirds of six = four votes, not five.
In other words, either way you consider the question, the supermajority was achieved and the house was designated a historical landmark.
This is not accurate. 5 votes were needed either way.
I'll take your word that he did not have a conflict of interest even though he recused himself three weeks ago because he had a "conflict of interest", at least according to him.
This is not accurate. 5 votes were needed either way.
Can you show where it gives a hard, fast number like this? It's all in the wording. If it is a percentage (two-thirds)of the council, then you are the one who is not accurate, because an abstention is not a vote either for or against in this case. If it is a set, specific, written down number (like 5) and an individual not voting would prevent the passage of a measure, then and only then does an abstention "count" as a vote against (in as much that by not voting, they prevented the vote total from reaching 5).
I suspect it says that a two-thirds majority is needed, and the abstentions clause as you've quoted says "members abstaining shall not be counted in determining the total to which the percentage of votes required is applied in determining number of votes for passage, any statute, ordinance or rule of parliamentary procedure to the contrary notwithstanding". This clearly states, to me anyway, that any abstention in a percentage-needed vote does not impact the outcome.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
The ordinance specifies that two thirds of all the council persons -- not all the voting council persons, but all the seated council persons -- is needed to designate a landmark against the owner's wishes. Two thirds of seven is 4 2/3, so five votes are needed. If the ordinance only said "a two-thirds vote," then four votes would have been sufficient by standard parliamentary rules, but that's not what it says in this case.
I just finally read the News-Gazette article, and now I'm really confused. Dennis voted 'present,' which is (according to Roberts Rules) equivalent to an abstention. An abstention (again, according to Roberts Rules) is the absence of a vote, and unless otherwise decreed by the organization's by-laws, ordinances, or other ruling guidelines, is never counted as either a yea or nay.
In actual practice, in any vote which requires a positive affirmation, an abstention actually benefits the nay-sayers. What Urbana rule causes abstentions to count as 'yes' votes? It's not Roberts Rules.
What Urbana rule causes abstentions to count as 'yes' votes? It's not Roberts Rules.
Urbana City Code, Section 2-30 (c)(2):
"If an abstention or 'pass' vote is not based upon an asserted conflict of interest, then such vote shall be recorded by the city clerk as "abstained" but the mayor shall rule that such vote "goes with the majority" of those votes actually cast as an "aye" or "nay" vote."
"Urbana City Code, Section 2-30 (c)(2):
"If an abstention or 'pass' vote is not based upon an asserted conflict of interest, then such vote shall be recorded by the city clerk as "abstained" but the mayor shall rule that such vote "goes with the majority" of those votes actually cast as an "aye" or "nay" vote."
That is one f***ed up rule. I would advise repealing it asap.
Ilona Matkovszki is Dennis Roberts' girlfriend. Dennis lives at 507 W Green, across the street from the house in question. I do not know if they live together, suspect they do. A search of http://msn.whitepages.com does not indicate any Matkovski in Urbana. Ilona has been involved in local history for some time, and has previously petitioned to preserve other houses in Urbana
"exactly so that they WOULDN'T be making up rules on the spot but going with established parliamentary procedure."
The attorney explained it clearly from the city code, Mayor Prussing chose to ingore it.
What happens when a city breaks their own rules to appease a group of political activists?
Would a group of unbiased citizens agree that even though Dennis Roberts recused himself for having a conflict of interest in the last meeting, he somehow did not have one at the time of the vote?
This was extremely bold and extremely risky, exposing urbana to significant liability. The argument that Dennis Roberts did not have a conflict of interest because he did not state it is a very loose argument.
How many people are reading the paper tonight saying to themselves, "Are you kidding me?". They were saying that before it became a total circus. : )
"That is one f***ed up rule."
Urbana is one f***ed up town.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/10/07/urbana_council_votes_to_declare_house_a_historic_landmark
On Monday, Roberts said he has worked closely with Ilona Matkovszki on a 175th anniversary calendar for the city of Urbana and on other historic-preservation issues. She filed the historic-landmark application for 508 W. Elm St.
"That doesn't constitute some kind of gigantic conflict," he said.
So it's not a gigantic conflict. I wonder what he thought substaniated a conflict of interest only three weeks earlier?
The attorney explained it clearly from the city code, Mayor Prussing chose to ignore it.
You know, I watched that meeting, and the bit you're hinging your argument on just isn't right. The mayor didn't disregard the city attorney's guidance about what constitutes passage or failure of the motion. The mayor simply declined to take the city attorney's advice on whether or not they should bring the council meeting to a halt while he looked up the relevant part of the Code, or should move on to another item and then return to the landmark item once he'd looked up what he needed. The city attorney suggested moving on. The mayor decided instead to settle the matter before moving on. That's the whole disagreement.
Trying to spin that as the mayor arbitrarily waving away legal guidance about what constitutes passage or failure of a motion just because she was being imperial -- well, that's just pure nonsense.
This stuff is all a matter of public record. Watch the repeat of the council meeting on UPTV Sunday to see it play out.
Urbana is one f***ed up town.
Thanks for getting your fundamental anti-Urbana bias out in the open -- not that anybody had any doubt about it.
Excuse me? Roberts lives at 507 E Green, nowhere near the house in question, as anyone with a phonebook can verify.
I doubt that voting present under those circumstances is a conflict of interest. Present is clearly an abstention and he was quite open in why he abstained. Speaking of conflicts of interest, there was a well known open meetings case (similar constitutional issues)- the Urbana 9. Who is the only living alderperson excluded from that meeting?
Yes, Dennis Robert is listed as living on 507 E. Green, according to the City of Urbana website. Some 2007 Urbana City Council minutes list Ilona Matkovszki's address as 412 W. Elm.
"I doubt that voting present under those circumstances is a conflict of interest. Present is clearly an abstention and he was quite open in why he abstained."
Based on the quick quote from the N-G? The attorney read the city code and Heather Stevenson pointed out that he had recused himself from the discussion last meeting because of a "conflict of interest".
City Attorney reads, (1) Abstentions, if stated by the alderperson to be for reason of conflict of interest, shall not be counted as either an "aye" or "nay" vote and members abstaining shall not be counted in determining the total to which the percentage of votes required is applied in determining number of votes for passage, any statute, ordinance or rule of parliamentary procedure to the contrary notwithstanding;"
Definately worth watching because it is clear they wanted to avoid the issue of conflict of interest. What did Dennis Roberts have to say when asked the reasoning for his present vote? What happened after Heather Stevenson brought up the OBVIOUS that Dennis Roberts recused himself for a conflict of interest in the last meeting?
It's one thing to be savvy. It's another thing to act like a weasel.
"The mayor didn't disregard the city attorney's guidance about what constitutes passage or failure of the motion."
The mayor chose to ingore the conflict of interest.
To AnonymousMe--dangerous rumors can get started by your declarative statement that Ilona is Dennis' girl friend. Pattsi Petrie
I'd like to see a historic preservation program that encourages people to take care of older homes instead of waiting until the owner wants to demolish it after years of "deferred maintenance." The house at 508 W. Elm looks pretty rough, and there are already some ugly apartment buildings nearby. What there was a property tax exemption worth a certain amount of money each year to offset the cost of maintenance for historic properties?
"Thanks for getting your fundamental anti-Urbana bias out in the open -- not that anybody had any doubt about it."
It would be better if Urbana didn't make it so easy. I wish Urbana didn't make it so easy.
People need to watch last night's meeting before they consider investing or building in Urbana. You can only hear so many insults towards the city before you start to believe them. Watch the meeting and decide for yourself. Pay special attention to what the rightful owner the property had to say.
To the future investors of Urbana, those of the past send greetings and encourage you to look up the term nonconforming use.
"I'd like to see a historic preservation program that encourages people to take care of older homes instead of waiting until the owner wants to demolish it after years of "deferred maintenance.""
Which properties are historic and how do you determine if they are historic other than a postmaster living there (obvious)?
Which properties are historic and how do you determine if they are historic other than a postmaster living there (obvious)?
I think wayward's talking about establishing a preservation program that encourages maintenance of older (75+ years or so) homes. You know, provide some sort of discount/support/encouragement/activism/resources to keep old neighborhoods looking nice. It'd (hopefully) prevent the need to demolish an eyesore.
"I think wayward's talking about establishing a preservation program that encourages maintenance of older (75+ years or so) homes. You know, provide some sort of discount/support/encouragement/activism/resources to keep old neighborhoods looking nice. It'd (hopefully) prevent the need to demolish an eyesore."
This a dangerous idea. I suspect it could ultimately lead the formation of a committee that would tell you that you need to replace your roof or siding. The historical preservation commission, for example, has NO STANDARDS that it follows. They get to make it up as they go along. So I'd like to ask what "looking nice" mean? Dangerous....
Nothing wrong with wanting people to keep their properties attractive, but if you buy a house (75+ years or so under your suggestion), you better be friends with the people who get to decide things.
I think wayward's talking about establishing a preservation program that encourages maintenance of older (75+ years or so) homes. You know, provide some sort of discount/support/encouragement/activism/resources to keep old neighborhoods looking nice. It'd (hopefully) prevent the need to demolish an eyesore.
Yes. I'm not sure how feasible it'd be, but I'd hoped that could make getting your property listed on a historic register a voluntary thing. The idea would be that if you're getting tax breaks for maintaining property, you need to actually be doing it. The 508 W Elm property is pretty bad - I saw what appeared to be inoperable vehicles, an attic window with no covering, and overgrown vegetation in the back yard. I was thinking more about enforcing existing city code than arguing about aesthetics.
This a dangerous idea.
No it's not - read what you quoted again. I'm not saying the upkeep should be mandated, just encouraged.
I think any "historical preservation" program should have little-to-no power, but should instead be a central resource with experts/experience/ideas to help preserve history if/when owners seek it out. This means they don't just put up plaques or prevent owners from doing what they want with their own property.
"I'm not saying the upkeep should be mandated, just encouraged." And I'm saying it's dangerous because it
couldwill lead to mandated upkeep. I think Urbana is headed in that direction anyway. I do understand that the suggestion has rational intentions. I have been watching Urbana meetings for about a year now and I smile when I hear "just encouraged" when referencing Urbana."I think any "historical preservation" program should have little-to-no power, but should instead be a central resource with experts/experience/ideas to help preserve history if/when owners seek it out. This means they don't just put up plaques or prevent owners from doing what they want with their own property." This is not reality today and will not be reality tomorrow. The current historical preservation program provides that anyone can designate a property as historic if it meets any one of three criteria with no standards attached. When the only true "expert" was hired independently during the 508 W. Elm hearing, that expert testimony was ignored because it wasn't convenient. In a fair and rational environment, this idea has merit. Now again, we just saw what happened with the historical preservation hearings with 508 W. Elm.
This is not reality today and will not be reality tomorrow. The current historical preservation program provides that anyone can designate a property as historic if it meets any one of three criteria with no standards attached.
So, what's the point of discussing any of these issues? Since nothing will change, why bother ranting about it? Why bother coming up with better ideas?
"I'm not sure how feasible it'd be, but I'd hoped that could make getting your property listed on a historic register a voluntary thing. The idea would be that if you're getting tax breaks for maintaining property, you need to actually be doing it."
The main catch with designating your house historic is that any time you want to make any major repairs or upgrades, you have to take it before the board. I would assume this scenario would not attractive to potential buyers of your home.
I would be interested to see how taxpayers feel about subsidizing home maintenence.
"So, what's the point of discussing any of these issues? Since nothing will change, why bother ranting about it? Why bother coming up with better ideas?"
Fair enough. Nothing against anyone from coming up with the next great idea for Urbana, but a "better idea" is an idea that provides a property owner clear and reliable guidelines that aren't going to change every few years with every new idea. That is my humble opinion anyway. Especially since someone typically lives or invests in a house for many years. Urbana is not stable right now, only a few years after a "comprehensive" plan. Better ideas do not open doors for poltical activists to manage someone else's property.
a "better idea" is an idea that provides a property owner clear and reliable guidelines that aren't going to change every few years with every new idea
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. The current situation is ridiculous, with "rules" simply being ad hoc pandering to certain parties. This specific situation best illustrates that the City Council is completely ignoring the intent of historic preservation and simply using it as a backdoor to stifle development.
My idea was simply a compromise between the two interests, demonstrating that it'd be possible to still encourage the preservation of historical buildings/neighborhoods without infringing on the rights of property owners. That's my ideal situation.
Oops, E Green it is. But Dennis and Ilona are boy and girlfriend--although I will offer no opinion as to whether such constitutes a confilcit of interest. There has been no report of Dennis indicating how he expected his non-vote to be counted.
"There has been no report of Dennis indicating how he expected his non-vote to be counted."
This is not relevant. The whole purpose was that so he wouldn't have to indicate why. Watch the meeting...
It's one thing to be savvy. It's another thing to act like a weasel.
In legislative gamemanship, the line between these two is very fuzzy
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
As I have said many times before, the Council meetings are like an Abbot and Costello Routine..."Who's on First"
No on takes charge.
If the Mayor did not know the rules, then table the motion and get on with the meeting. A citizen was entitled to the correct legal method concerning his property (which he paid real money for), not some "Tap Dance" (a tip of the hat to "Chicago").
Candidate for Mayor of Urbana
Rex Bradfield
I'd give Rex about 350 calabreses of hopelessness.
To anonymous,
And if it was your house and your money involved, I am sure you would immediately run to the Mayor and applaud her hasty action, maybe even contribute to her campaign with some of the money you were going to receive from the below market sale of your property.
Yep, incidentally, the owner of the property did not pay for this property in calabreses, he used something more common.
Candidate for Mayor of Urbana
Rex Bradfield