You are here
Misuse of Consent Agendas
Thursday, March 20th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
Consent agendas, also known as consent calendars, are an excellent
way to get around the disclosure of conflicts (and, as Dallas showed
us in 2011, to amend ethics provisions without a discussion (see my
blog post on this)).
A consent agenda is a way to deal, in a single motion and a single vote, with routine, non-controversial items, in order to save often a great deal of time. Board members are allowed to request the movement of a specific item on a consent agenda to the regular meeting agenda, but this is rarely done. Often, few board members have a clear idea what is on a consent agenda. Voting for it becomes a habit, like voting to approve the minutes. However, sometimes matters are placed there, with or without the knowledge of board members, in order to be passed with no attention or to prevent the need for particular members to disclose conflicts they would have to disclose were there to be a discussion and vote on the particular matter.
In a 2011 blog post, I noted that a grand jury criticized the Broward County (FL) school board for using the consent agenda to expend funds in ways, and benefiting individuals, the board didn't want the public to know about:
An article in today's New York Times celebrates a "sea change" at the Port Authority for New Jersey and New York, an agency that has been drawing a great deal of attention for its misuse by board members for their political and financial interests and for the interests of their political allies. That "sea change" is having the authority's board actually deal with such things as lease agreements publicly, with a roll call vote, and with the vice chairman asking if anyone needs to withdraw from participation in the matter due to a conflict. Doing this would be a big change for thousands of councils, boards, and commissions throughout this country.
How did this change come about? Due to the criticism of the authority that began with the infamous George Washington Bridge lane closures, a special oversight committee was created. A few hours before the meeting, the committee voted to do away with the consent agenda. The question is, to get rid of a consent agenda, does it take a debacle that makes the national news?
Consent agendas do save a lot of time. But they can be seriously abused. Robert's Rules has only a short paragraph on them (it uses the term "consent calendar"), providing little guidance. If they are to be used, there should be clear restrictions, such as no contracts, grants, or permits that involve more than, say, $5,000. Appointments are often included on consent agendas. If they are to be included, the names should be read and members should be asked whether they have a special relationship with anyone on the list.
No item should be placed on a consent agenda unless it has been sent to all members at least three days in advance of the meeting, so that they have an opportunity to determine whether they would like to ask for a discussion of the item and whether they have a conflict. When the consent agenda is raised at a meeting, members should be asked whether they have read it, fully understand each item in it, have any conflicts with respect to any item, or know of another member who has a conflict, and believe that there is no reason to open any item to discussion. Conflicts should be disclosed, and any item where a member has a conflict should be moved to the ordinary agenda. If even one member hasn't read and fully understood the consent agenda, the items on the consent agenda should be placed on the regular agenda and brought up individually. Otherwise, there is no informed consent. These rules should be placed in the board's bylaws and carefully followed.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A consent agenda is a way to deal, in a single motion and a single vote, with routine, non-controversial items, in order to save often a great deal of time. Board members are allowed to request the movement of a specific item on a consent agenda to the regular meeting agenda, but this is rarely done. Often, few board members have a clear idea what is on a consent agenda. Voting for it becomes a habit, like voting to approve the minutes. However, sometimes matters are placed there, with or without the knowledge of board members, in order to be passed with no attention or to prevent the need for particular members to disclose conflicts they would have to disclose were there to be a discussion and vote on the particular matter.
In a 2011 blog post, I noted that a grand jury criticized the Broward County (FL) school board for using the consent agenda to expend funds in ways, and benefiting individuals, the board didn't want the public to know about:
The way the Board carries out its day to day business is set up to allow wasteful and dubious spending on ill conceived ideas, and to direct that spending towards friends, acquaintances or supporters of Board members without any accountability. One way they do that is by making informal decisions at Board workshops and retreats or even during training sessions, and then ratifying their decisions by use of a consent agenda.Consent agendas do make meetings shorter, but they are a great way to hide serious and often expensive decisions from the public. In Broward County, only expenditures of over $1 million were required to be debated. That figure is far too high.
An article in today's New York Times celebrates a "sea change" at the Port Authority for New Jersey and New York, an agency that has been drawing a great deal of attention for its misuse by board members for their political and financial interests and for the interests of their political allies. That "sea change" is having the authority's board actually deal with such things as lease agreements publicly, with a roll call vote, and with the vice chairman asking if anyone needs to withdraw from participation in the matter due to a conflict. Doing this would be a big change for thousands of councils, boards, and commissions throughout this country.
How did this change come about? Due to the criticism of the authority that began with the infamous George Washington Bridge lane closures, a special oversight committee was created. A few hours before the meeting, the committee voted to do away with the consent agenda. The question is, to get rid of a consent agenda, does it take a debacle that makes the national news?
Consent agendas do save a lot of time. But they can be seriously abused. Robert's Rules has only a short paragraph on them (it uses the term "consent calendar"), providing little guidance. If they are to be used, there should be clear restrictions, such as no contracts, grants, or permits that involve more than, say, $5,000. Appointments are often included on consent agendas. If they are to be included, the names should be read and members should be asked whether they have a special relationship with anyone on the list.
No item should be placed on a consent agenda unless it has been sent to all members at least three days in advance of the meeting, so that they have an opportunity to determine whether they would like to ask for a discussion of the item and whether they have a conflict. When the consent agenda is raised at a meeting, members should be asked whether they have read it, fully understand each item in it, have any conflicts with respect to any item, or know of another member who has a conflict, and believe that there is no reason to open any item to discussion. Conflicts should be disclosed, and any item where a member has a conflict should be moved to the ordinary agenda. If even one member hasn't read and fully understood the consent agenda, the items on the consent agenda should be placed on the regular agenda and brought up individually. Otherwise, there is no informed consent. These rules should be placed in the board's bylaws and carefully followed.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
