Monday, April 27, 2009
No Rules: Part II
So now we have a definitive answer...The BOS has no adopted rules of procedure. This bugs me why? As a member of the public, appearing for a hearing, I am subject to the arbitrary and capricious whims of the BOS. I don't care what their past practice is, since practices change as Boards change. How do I know what my due process rights are, unless I know the rules that apply? Can I speak during a hearing, or can I only speak if I don't piss off the Chair? Why does the Chair have the right to decide, since there are no rules that define his powers? Who says you need a second to discuss a motion, or that you must conclude a hearing before taking a motion? There are no rules...the Board's Secretary has said so.
Let anarchy and arbitrary and capricious decision making prevail. Maybe one of the new guys should re-make the motion Steve made on his first night. Go ahead...there is no rule in place to stop you.
Two immediate questions that arise from this admission:
1. Is the lack of rules a due process violation? In other words, is the Fifth Amendment right to due process violated, where there is no process in place, yet the BOS makes decisions that deprive you of property...e.g., like taking the life of your dog?
2. Does the lack of rules invalidate prior decisions by rendering them arbitrary and capricious?
The BOS needs to adopt rules for the sake of those in the public who appear before them, so that the public can have a expectation as to how the meetings should run, and a comfort that such rules will be enforced the same way for all people appearing before the BOS, without any discrinination.
Posted by AMB at 10:11 AM