Not interested in telling Councilmembers whether or how to vote, but as a former Councilmember who was a stickler for rules of procedure, I can't help noting that it is very likely that the original 5-4 vote was decisive. If there is a municipal rule that requires "that there be at least six votes for someone to be named to this office," it was made since I left the Council.

The only rule of procedure regarding Council voting that is in the City Charter stipulates that at least "six affirmative votes shall be necessary for the passage of all ordinances, resolutions or laws." It doesn't say anything about electing Council officers (which is not an affirmative vote, in any case). The section on Council officer positions only states that "the Council shall proceed to organize by electing two of their number President and Vice President of the Council."

During my tenure on the Council, the Council's enacted policy was that Roberts Rules of Order would provide rules of procedure for Council business except when superseded by the City Charter or another act of the Council. As far as I know, the Council has not overturned that policy. Roberts Rules are clear that, if a quorum is present, a majority of those present and voting shall be sufficient to make the act an act of the body.

[more]

Since the vote that was taken was taken with a quorum present, and a majority of those present and voting voted in favor of a certain Councilmember, that should have settled the issue.

Of course, the Council doesn't always follow its established rules of procedure, either out of ignorance or intent, and there is no practical way to force it to do so. However, I think it's always a good idea to point out the proper rules of procedure and to exhort the Council to follow them. That's a basic part of good governance.

I agree with Chris. The City Charter (http://proxy.nea.org/cgi-bin/patience.cgi?id=60d05f63-917d-4c7d-af8b-b1430e86c810 - would be nice if it was a searchable document BTW) taken as it is written would stipulate that Matt should have been elected with 5 votes out of the 9 present. As Chris points out, this was not an ordinance, resolution or law (well, maybe kind of a resolution, but not really) and therefore, as long as the quorum is there and if the Mayor abstained from voting, it is a clear 5-4. Does the City have a Parliamentarian?

The Council's parliamentarian is the City Attorney -- although municipal attorneys are loathe to step into the middle of a political imbroglio unless asked to, and it would be up to the Mayor to ask.

P.S. Yes, it would be very nice, indeed, to have a searchable Charter and Code on the City Web site. The old, primitive Web site had this basic functionality -- the snazzy new one should, too.

One thing he may know is that the City Clerk is now the designated parliamentarian for the Council. It seems that he is now acting in that capacity, although, up until I left the Council four years ago, the City Attorney functioned as parliamentarian. (Neither, by the way, are specifically granted that function by the Charter.)

Since the Charter requires six votes for the passage of legislation, I suspect most just assumed that it would apply to elections as well. But the Charter doesn't stipulate that. You need to look to other Council-enacted policies for guidance. As far as I know, the Council has never enacted a rule that six votes are required to elect a Council officer. Also, as far as I know, the Council has never repealed Roberts Rules of Order as the guide to parliamentary procedure when the Charter or other Council-enacted rules don't apply.

It's indeed possible there is something Mr. Barber or others know about that I don't, but I'd like to see a citation to the legislation.

No, I didn't -- although I did see Mayor Tartaro modeling one at the HPA dinner last Sunday and I couldn't resist teasing him: "Is that the English translation of 'L'etat, c'est moi!'"? ;-)

Interesting!