To the editor
In last week’s paper, it was reported that John Souren moved to appoint members to the Economic and Business Development Board and the Cultural and Arts Commission. Steven Sireci seconded the motion and then Mayor Tony Gwiazdowski said that since the motion was moved and seconded, the Township Committee had to vote, according to "Robert’s Rules of Order."
Mr. Gwiazdowski was wrong. The 10th edition of "Robert’s Rules of Order," the current and official version, tells how a motion should be handled in Section 4.
After Dr. Sireci seconded the motion, Mr. Gwiazdowski was supposed to repeat out loud the motion and ask there is any objection. If there had been no opposition, the motion would have passed and the action completed.
But there was opposition. "Robert’s Rules of Order" say that Mr. Gwiazdowski was required to open the motion to debate.
Voting cannot stop debate on a motion; either referring the motion to a committee, postponing action, limiting debate, or setting the motion aside are the procedures for controlling debate.
Here is a suggestion for next week’s meeting: Under the official version of "Robert’s Rules of Order," Sonya Martin can make a motion to reconsider the appointments. If the motion is seconded, the Township Committee would be forced to discuss the original action.
We rely on "Robert’s Rules of Order" as the basic guide for fair and orderly procedure in meetings. The rules make it possible for assemblies to free themselves from confusion and dispute over law.
Mr. Gwiazdowski confused the rules, violated the rules and then quoted them wrong. Ignorance of basic parliamentary procedure is no excuse. Making up rules to fit the situation violates "Robert’s Rules of Order" I suspect that it violates the Township Charter as well.
I’ve heard it said that a group only needs "Robert’s Rules of Order" when the group is in trouble. It seems to me that Hillsborough needs Robert’s Rules now, like no time in the past.
Oak Terrace

