New rule adopted for BOCC meetings

SANDPOINT — The Bonner County commissioners voted Tuesday to adopt a new standing rule regarding how meetings will be run.

While commissioners adopted Robert’s Rules of Order in January 2023, a more recent change was made to those rules at the end of last year.

“The original 10 standing rules were adopted on Dec. 19, 2023,” Commissioner Luke Omodt said. “Recent events have led to the need for the original rules and language to be updated to conduct the business of Bonner County.”

Omodt then proposed adopting an 11th and 12th rule for the conduct of the meetings. Rule 11 states: “After a motion has been made and seconded, voting will be confined to those in favor — yeah/yes, those opposed — nay/no, or those who are neutral — abstain. The chair may direct the clerk to proceed with the vote with all motions requiring 2/3 to pass. Attempts to filibuster a vote will be ruled out of order; those who do not vote agree with the decision of the majority.”

Rule 12 says that, “All members of the public wanting to give comments in the regular business meeting must sign up prior to the meeting being called to order. Members of the public wishing to give public comment via Zoom must submit a completed form prior to the call to order.”

In addition to adding these two rules, Omodt’s motion also contained an amendment to Rule 5, changing the word “time,” to “turn,” when talking about the time limit on motion debates.

However, Commissioner Asia Williams said that in her memorandum from Omodt, Rule 12 is not mentioned at all. Because of this, she said she feels that the motion should either be tabled until next week when proper memos can be submitted or requested that the motion be amended to remove Rule 12 since it was not properly addressed in the paperwork.

Additionally, Williams said it looked like legal counsel had not weighed in on this agenda item and she felt it wrong to vote on the matter without that counsel.

“I also don’t know that, voting two to one, you can demand my vote be a ‘yes,’” she said. “It says, ‘Those who do not vote agree with the decision of the majority,’ so that would be a ‘yes.’ That’s not an appropriate thing to institute.”

The District 2 commissioner said that Omodt — who is the board chair — creates rules; then when other board members and the public follow those rules, he creates more rules for them to comply with.

“This board seems to be taking every action necessary to say, ‘Not only does the public get to give no input,’ but you’re not even letting a sitting commissioner,” she said.

Referring to the last portion of Rule 11, Williams disputed claims she is filibustering during the meetings. Instead, she said she is asking for real answers to her questions.

“The reason it feels like filibustering is because you two sit there and refuse to answer,” she said. “But I’m supposed to answer the questions of the community.”

Omodt responded by bringing up that, at the Jan. 9 meeting, Williams pulled out her own microphone and speaker during the meeting in response to what she claimed was an attempt to not be silenced by the other commissioners.

“To begin with, the lack of decorum that was observed last week was completely out of order,” he said.

Before he could continue with his comments, Williams cut him off, also stating the conduct at last week’s meeting was out of order — but not because of her conduct.

“I agree,” she said. “You shouldn’t have behaved that way. It was inappropriate. You’re going to be clear on who decorum was an issue with, and it was you. I totally agree with you, and so do many members of the community. The way you treated the community during that meeting and during the recesses that you called, the unreasonable delays that you caused the community were absolutely unreasonable.”

Omodt then returned to the motion at hand, saying he agreed with Williams that Rule 12 should be removed from the motion as it is not in the submitted paperwork. An amendment was made to remove the last rule, but before a vote could be taken, Williams said she had more to discuss about the motion.

“What you’re trying to do is justify, ‘Asia spoke twice, we’re done,’” she said. “That’s not the work of Bonner County business. That’s not what we should be doing as elected [officials]. It’s not going to work. We need to deliberate.”

Williams told Omodt that the reason she talks so much is because the other two board members continuously try to silence her. If they stopped attempting to do so, she said, she would talk much less because she could get her point across, have meaningful discussion with her peers and move on.

Now, she said she spends more time talking about the ways the other commissioners try to prohibit her from talking rather than only addressing the business at hand.

Omodt reiterated that the rule states commissioners can vote yay, nay or to abstain from the vote. State statute, as well as Robert’s Rules of Orders, make that rule very clear, he said. However, he told Williams it was within her rights to decide not to vote on any matters discussed at the meeting.

“However, the work of Bonner County will continue, regardless if someone attempts to talk over us, or attempts to rush this podium, or attempts to create out of whole cloth, new directions for the words of deliberation,” he said. “The business meeting is for the business of Bonner County, and that is what I intend to conduct.”

Williams argued this point, claiming that Omodt’s statements were contradictory to what he was attempting to pass in the new rules.

“You said every commissioner has the right to vote yes, no or abstain,” she said. “Yet in your motion for number 11, it states that you are going to take a non-vote as an agreement. So you’ve written something to violate what you just stated.”

A roll call vote was taken and the amendment to remove Rule 12 was unanimously approved. When Omodt attempted to call for a vote for the original motion to amend Rule 5 and add Rule 11, Williams claimed she wanted to continue the discussion as her questions had not yet been answered and she still had concerns regarding legal counsel.

“Fine, you guys bypass it, but you’re showing the community that that’s what your real goal is because this is ridiculous,” she said. “Answer the question. You literally gave us a speech that I agree with — you don’t have a right to control my vote. So agree with it.”

To that, Omodt responded, “I agree with you; this is ridiculous.”

After a few more back-and-forth comments where the two argued over what “deliberation” really means and what Robert’s Rules of Order allows deliberation to consist of, Williams made one final comment before the vote was taken.

“What you’re doing is you’re picking and choosing what you want to abide by instead of just going through the process,” she said. “Have a real discussion and we could finish this meeting faster. I would have my voice heard and so would the people. And there’s no lengthy filibuster.”

The motion passed 2-1, with Williams voting against it.