Misuse of Consent Agendas
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 <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/dallas-council-facilitates-pay-play-s…; target="”_blank”">my
blog post on this</a>)).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/grand-jury-lays-broward-county-fl-sch…; target="”_blank”">a
2011 blog post</a>, 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:<blockquote>
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.</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/nyregion/port-authority-moves-toward-…; target="”_blank”">An
article in today's New York <i>Times</i></a> 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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---