The use of a consent agenda at New Jersey local government meetings is meant to help streamline the meetings by allowing one vote on routine, non-controversial items. The agenda is used by most governing bodies for things like paying bills, authorizing refunds, approving minutes, authorizing grant acceptances and the like. It is not intended to stifle discussion or disagreement.
In town after town across the county, the use of a consent agenda includes the right of any member of the governing body to have an item moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda for further discussion and a separate vote. There is no need for a motion, a second and a vote.
Except at county commission meetings.
At the commission’s Nov. 12 meeting, the commissioners showed that they do not use the consent agenda in the way that almost all of the municipalities do, and in the way that best practices organizations say it should be used. The effect was to shut down any discussion of a proposed long-term, $1 million county contract with a developer.
Commissioner Will Morey said he had several questions about the proposal, which was on the consent agenda for a routine vote, but the three other commissioners at the meeting voted down his request to move the item to the regular agenda for more consideration.
Numerous best-practice organizations that deal with local government actions acknowledge the need for a rule that allows easy withdrawal of an item from the consent agenda.
The Municipal Clerks of New Jersey Desk Reference is clear on the matter. It states: “Consent agendas provide rapid, effective action on matters needing no discussion.” But the Desk Reference goes on to say: “If any discussion is requested on a consent agenda item, it is removed from the consent agenda to the regular agenda.”
Robert’s Rules of Order, which many local government bodies adopt as a structure for meetings, state clearly as well that there should be no resistance to removing an item from the consent agenda if a member of the governing body wishes it removed.
“At the start of the meeting, the meeting chair should ask meeting attendees if anyone wants to discuss any of the items listed on the consent agenda. If it is determined that an item on the consent agenda requires discussion it must be removed from the consent portion and addressed individually,” Robert’s Rules says.
Herald reporting on the Nov. 12 commission meeting said, “When Morey asked Commission Director Leonard Desiderio why he wouldn’t give him the respect and courtesy of hearing what he had to say, Desiderio replied, ‘That’s the way I felt.’”
None of the sources that formally lay out the proper use of a consent agenda give the meeting chair such leeway.
The consent agenda resolution that Morey wished to discuss pertained to a 10-year, $1 million contract the county was proposing to approve for the development of a sports complex at the county airport.
The final vote on the resolution, which ultimately was approved, might have been the same if it had been moved to the regular agenda and discussed.
The difference is that if the item had been moved, the public would have had the full benefit of hearing that discussion prior to the vote.
The Herald’s story on the Nov. 12 meeting can be read here.
Contact the reporter, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.
