New York City Community Board meetings are too damn long. I attended the Manhattan Community Board 9 (CB9) meeting on February 16th. It started at 6:30pm with a scheduled conclusion at 9pm. Two-and-half hours is already too long, but at 9pm the chair of CB9 said there was still another hour-and-half of agenda items left. That blew my mind. This system needs an overhaul on timing if it wants to attract more representative and fulfilling participation from creative and hard-working New Yorkers.
Apr 5, 2023·edited Apr 5, 2023Liked by Zachary Thomas
Fully endorse. For my sake and anyone else's, some draft thoughts and references:
Chapter 70 of the NYC Charter, "City Government in the Community," Section 2800(h), "Community Boards" (https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-4249): "Except during the months of July and August, each community board shall meet at least once each month within the community district and conduct at least one public hearing each month. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a community board shall be required to meet for purposes of reviewing the scope or design of a capital project located within such community board's district when such scope or design is presented to the community board...At each public meeting, the board shall set aside time to hear from the public."
Community boards are required to meet every month except July and August (so 10x a year minimum), and to also hold a public hearing at the same rate. Usually those two things are combined, with the public hearing (admin agency presentations, liquor license applications/renewals, etc) coming before the board meeting itself (where the board conducts business and votes). These things could be split and held separately.
This might seem burdensome, but I don't think it has to be. You need a majority of members (26) to hold board meetings and conduct business[1]. But I'm pretty sure the city charter is silent on how many members need to be present for the public hearing--the board could just set a quorum (legally required attendees to conduct business) at like 20% of membership[2], and have board members only be required to attend a public hearing once every two or three months. Their committees could catch them up on any business they missed, or they could review the recorded meeting, rather than not pay attention with their camera off during it.
The upshot: members have less obligation (although the executive committee might have more), and meetings are shorter.
As to parliamentary procedure, pretty much every board designates Robert's Rules of Order as their parliamentary authority (insofar as it isn't overruled by CB bylaws, the city charter, and state statute). I think most chairs, and members, just don't understand how these things work and interrelate--or don't take them as seriously as they should. They definitely need to pass a knowledge exam before sitting on the board, or by the end of a probation period.
I think the public could also benefit from parliamentary training, because then they can write blogs (like this) about what's going right and wrong with their CBs. At the moment we don't have that kind of citizen oversight in almost any CB. So, we shall fix it: https://maximumnewyork.com/practical-parliamentary-procedure
[2] This would require bylaw amendments for most boards, which, after consideration in the bylaws committee, requires the 2/3 approval of members present and voting at the next regular CB meeting.
Fully endorse. For my sake and anyone else's, some draft thoughts and references:
Chapter 70 of the NYC Charter, "City Government in the Community," Section 2800(h), "Community Boards" (https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-4249): "Except during the months of July and August, each community board shall meet at least once each month within the community district and conduct at least one public hearing each month. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a community board shall be required to meet for purposes of reviewing the scope or design of a capital project located within such community board's district when such scope or design is presented to the community board...At each public meeting, the board shall set aside time to hear from the public."
Community boards are required to meet every month except July and August (so 10x a year minimum), and to also hold a public hearing at the same rate. Usually those two things are combined, with the public hearing (admin agency presentations, liquor license applications/renewals, etc) coming before the board meeting itself (where the board conducts business and votes). These things could be split and held separately.
This might seem burdensome, but I don't think it has to be. You need a majority of members (26) to hold board meetings and conduct business[1]. But I'm pretty sure the city charter is silent on how many members need to be present for the public hearing--the board could just set a quorum (legally required attendees to conduct business) at like 20% of membership[2], and have board members only be required to attend a public hearing once every two or three months. Their committees could catch them up on any business they missed, or they could review the recorded meeting, rather than not pay attention with their camera off during it.
The upshot: members have less obligation (although the executive committee might have more), and meetings are shorter.
As to parliamentary procedure, pretty much every board designates Robert's Rules of Order as their parliamentary authority (insofar as it isn't overruled by CB bylaws, the city charter, and state statute). I think most chairs, and members, just don't understand how these things work and interrelate--or don't take them as seriously as they should. They definitely need to pass a knowledge exam before sitting on the board, or by the end of a probation period.
I think the public could also benefit from parliamentary training, because then they can write blogs (like this) about what's going right and wrong with their CBs. At the moment we don't have that kind of citizen oversight in almost any CB. So, we shall fix it: https://maximumnewyork.com/practical-parliamentary-procedure
NOTES
[1] Section 2801 of the NYC Charter (https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-4280)
[2] This would require bylaw amendments for most boards, which, after consideration in the bylaws committee, requires the 2/3 approval of members present and voting at the next regular CB meeting.
🔥 This is awesome — the points about meeting minimums and reducing quorum thresholds are valuable contributions to this discussion. Thanks!!