Benton – thanks for share this issue with all of us.
I stand with you as to your position on the Chairman Pro Tempore. Council needs to maintain the tradition of this position.
Soap box time…..this message is for all 12 County Council representatives:
The 2024 elections have brought to (and by) the citizens of Greenville County the possibility of “new breath” in how Greenville County is governed. We all have witnessed way too much dysfunction for many, many years. Yes, new names and new faces at the dais, but the same old “doing business and usual”…..dysfunction. You all have been given a mandate…..FIX THE GOVERNANCE OF GREENVILLE COUNTY. This what you ran on, this is what the voter elected you to do. Please make this happen. Stop with the “petty” behavior. It does not serve the citizens and voters of Greenville County. If any of you care to reach out to me for a productive chat…..941.773.8096
I trust your assessment and your judgment! Press ahead with your campaign! Good luck with the outcome! Your perspective on "public service" is refreshing and essential to rebuilding public trust in CC!
Conservatism rightly understood is rule of law-oriented, emphasizing historical traditions. Unless there's a good reason to change, which doesn't seem to be in this case, stick with the status quo. Thanks for standing up for principle!
Tradition? Doesn’t it depend??? We’ve had a long tradition of Kernel and Kirven. A tradition of unbridled growth, like-it-or-not. A tradition of an ineffective Planning Commission and an over-reaching planning Department.
The pro tempore position exists solely as a creature of Council Rules; it is not prescribed by Home Rule or any other state law. Law is my default. As for keeping the pro tempore just because it is a tradition? Meh…
I prefer to focus on the law. Most folks don’t realize that Council Rules do not have the force of law. Still, Council Rules are very problematic for many, many reasons. I limit myself here to the rule that problematically adopts as council’s parliamentary authority “Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure.” It is interesting to me that the only council members who appear to know and use Mason’s to good effect are Councilors Tripp and Semen, and possibly Fant.
Mason’s is designed primarily for legislative bodies of two houses; council is not the equivalent. Many of Mason’s rules don’t apply well in our singular legislative body. We should be adopting Roberts’ Rules because it’s a better fit to our body.
Also, Roberts’ Rules are better because citizens will have a clearer understanding of what is happening procedurally, and the latest volume of those rules is readily and cheaply available; that serves “transparency.”
Similarly (though I hate to say it) most council members appear not to be well versed in Mason’s…so Roberts’ may be better authority for them as well. Certainly, adopting Roberts’ Rules would even the playing field when it comes to parliamentary processes and Trip, Semen and Fant would not have advantages of invoking rules that affect outcomes in ways that citizens despise. (The 3/5 vote on the UDO is a great example of that!!!)
Without clear and aptly applied rules that assure a democratic process, democratic processes are thwarted. (We’ve had a belly-full of that in recent months… so I strongly suggest council adopt Roberts’ Rules and change Council’s Rules in meaningful ways. If you allow me, I can help...)
Relatedly – and since "tradition" is the topic at hand, Benton : ) ... why do we have Mason’s as the parliamentary authority in Council’s Rules? Tradition. Merely tradition. And not a useful or helpful tradition.
Sometimes, you have to break away from tradition.
Finally, I wouldn’t counsel anyone to die on a hill for any issue. My personal philosophy is “Live to fight another day… “
Agreed 100% on Roberts Rules and would have no problem changing away from Masons. As far as the last sentence…I believe integrity is what you take to the grave, so when I cross that line and go against it, outside of my family, I have nothing left to live for.
I agree... but this tradition does not present an Integrity or ethics issue.
In my opinon this issue is flavored with politics. It's not even related to practical effect. (And I'm wondering who planted the seed in your or any one's mind that this is (or should be) an unshakable, enduring traditon. Or that this is an integrity issue. The person who planted that seed may not be your friend...
So -I ask these questions:
Is this issue An Unneccessary Hill? Yes.
Would this be An Unnecessary Death? Sadly, also yes...
(Please allow me to say that You are needed for essential and consequential matters. Who made this issue essential or consequential? I do not see this issue as deserving such status.... I hope it does not force a consequential outcome when it comes to voting on a new Council Chair. That would be a tragic and disproportionate outcome and citizens would pay a heavy price. )
But this is your opinion on integrity. It is my personal thought on the matter with no external influence—much unlike the opposition to the thought. I wasn’t guided into this feeling. It came from within. At the end of the day, if my stance on this insignificant issue cost me the chair, it’s not a seat I desire to fill. I hope you know that I appreciate you and your legal mind on County matters. On this, we simply disagree.
Ben, Not knowing more than what you present in this emergency newsletter, I support your position, it seems to make perfect sense. But as others have stated, it would be good to understand why some members would want to change this. Keep up the good work. Thank you.
In the US, the position and role of Chairman Pro Tempore (CPT) was defined IN THE CONSTITUTION, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5. Sure, this applies at the Federal level, but the concept has found its way to every political aggregate in the US. Thinking of any reason why someone, with some kind of qualifications, shouldn't be defined by a political aggregate to perform the role under the stated conditions is, to me, irresponsible. What should the qualifications be? Elected? By Whom? Would the responsibilities be the same? If careful thought is given to the role, any rational person would come to the conclusion that a person with the most experience in the organization would be a valid primary qualification, especially since it would be likely an issue that would occur with short notice. I say the latter point with a heap of distrust for the political system, since I can imagine a scheme where both the Chairman and Vice-chairman would conspire with some political subgroup to be absent so that the CPT could execute some nefarious act, perhaps bring forth some vote that would be so disliked amongst the population or the political aggregate that the two in leadership would not want their fingerprints on it. All said, why would this issue be brought up now? There has to be a subtext that the population would not like if brought into the light. So, no way!
Oh...How I loved, loved, loved reading your comment!!! (I hadn't thought of the "scheme" hypothetical you raised, but it is a very interesting idea. I doubt that the current controversy - whatever it might be amongst those involved - included that concept, but who knows?)
My interest in this thread is mostly about the idea of a tradition-WORTH-dying-for. This is a question answered, I think, from the answerer's personal opinion/values.
I had the personal experience once of falling on my own sword because of my somewhat impetuous acceptance of a belief that there should be no departure-from-perfection concerning a very minor point, of an inconsequential rule in a team-building game. I took away from that experience that I should not-so-easily-agree to fall on my own sword. Sepukku? Yes, possibly...maybe. But ONLY for a sepukku-worthy infringement of principle. There are a few such principles.
As I understand the tradition that Benton described, it's not in the sepukkku category...which is why I wrote. Of course, that is my opinon based on my values, which favor the idea of balancing competing interests. Here, I balance the interest of an unneccessary "tradition" (of questionable origin - since the organizational parmeters of the federal constitution just doesn't apply in our single-body legislative county government which, interestingly, also lacks the 3-branch approach of federal government) against the interest of Benton serving as Chair. (BTW: I have no idea of why or how that became the question on the table; it need not be on the table!) "Greater good" tips the balance to Benton serving as Chair in my opinion.
What escapes me completely is the need for this discussion which appears to embrace an ultimatum. And that begs the question of Whose ultimatum? And Why, including Why Now?
The plot thickens, but the entire discussion seems a little premature because the council's rules, which is where the Prom Tempore question resides, is not on the table for adoption until a few weeks from now. The council chair must be elected first!...and the election for that position will take place later today. When the council rules (either one at a time, or as a package) are on the agenda for adoption they will be voted on by the entire council body, and if the majority of that body determines to eliminate the Pro Tempore position, it will be eliminated because it is not requried by the SC Constitution or any other law. Benton, like each of the councilors, will case one vote on question of accepting or rejecting the council rules or any one of the rules. The will of the majority will bind the body.
(Here's an interesting footnote: Adoption of the new rules would require following the adoption procedures prescribed under Mason's Rules, which are the current parliamentary authority and will remain the authority until the rules adopt a different authority - such as Robert's Rules!)
Anyway, all of this because I wanted to say Hello to you, and that I really appreciated your thoughtful and interesting comment!
Admittedly, the position of Pro-Temp is somewhat redundant. However, there is that unlikely although possible state of affairs in which both the Chair and Vice-Chair are not available as a result of unforeseen circumstances. In that case, the Pro-Temp would be available to occasionally serve. If you wish to pursue the Pro-Temp position, there is no doubt you would perform admirably.
Agree with the above by JBC. Also agree with the sentiment that it's hard to go wrong with Robert's Rules. As well it's hard to fathom what the dissent is. What exactly is it? Nefarious purposes?
Benton, I really don’t see what the big deal is regarding the Pro Tempore issue either way as it will be the decision of the entire council at the appropriate time in the future well after the chair and vice chair are voted on. Additionally, it’s kind of moot as the odds of someone actually having to step in is extremely remote. I understand the “tradition” stance, but if by chance it is the will of the elected council to go in another direction, then so be it as the council is voting on behalf of their individual constituents and not a reflection of your integrity at all. Let the process take place. This is not your hill to die on.
I completely agree! That’s all I have said from the beginning. There are just those that don’t like that I wouldn’t personally vote against removing it. I fully support our new members to vote on what their constituents want!
It’s been my experience that, when people want to overturn a time-honored tradition, it’s because they seek an opportunity to break the rules with impunity. Tradition, as a generational concept, has served our country well in numerous capacities. Although time marches on, and new ideas are always welcomed, changing that which has been successful, in order to experiment with variations for its own sake, is hardly a sound prescription for future success. Hence, if past is truly prologue, then history has set the standard for future success. let’s not deviate from what works.
I support your stance in this political ploy and believe that the position of Chairman Pro Tempore should remain as it has been historically. We appreciate the information you share with us on a regular basis.
I appreciate you sharing this information. I would like to know what the person/s o wanting to change this has to say. I understand your view, but what is the opposing view? My concern is the majority of the council is Conservative which will always win. I'd like to see some balance in the council. Sharon Klompus
I support you 100% you have been open book from the beginning. Politics can be forced on those that are weak, I believe you are strong in doing the right for the people
I'm behind you Benton for preserving this position as it has always historically been
I support you in this position.
I am also behind you Benton. Keep politics out of long time tradition
Benton – thanks for share this issue with all of us.
I stand with you as to your position on the Chairman Pro Tempore. Council needs to maintain the tradition of this position.
Soap box time…..this message is for all 12 County Council representatives:
The 2024 elections have brought to (and by) the citizens of Greenville County the possibility of “new breath” in how Greenville County is governed. We all have witnessed way too much dysfunction for many, many years. Yes, new names and new faces at the dais, but the same old “doing business and usual”…..dysfunction. You all have been given a mandate…..FIX THE GOVERNANCE OF GREENVILLE COUNTY. This what you ran on, this is what the voter elected you to do. Please make this happen. Stop with the “petty” behavior. It does not serve the citizens and voters of Greenville County. If any of you care to reach out to me for a productive chat…..941.773.8096
I trust your assessment and your judgment! Press ahead with your campaign! Good luck with the outcome! Your perspective on "public service" is refreshing and essential to rebuilding public trust in CC!
Conservatism rightly understood is rule of law-oriented, emphasizing historical traditions. Unless there's a good reason to change, which doesn't seem to be in this case, stick with the status quo. Thanks for standing up for principle!
Tradition? Doesn’t it depend??? We’ve had a long tradition of Kernel and Kirven. A tradition of unbridled growth, like-it-or-not. A tradition of an ineffective Planning Commission and an over-reaching planning Department.
The pro tempore position exists solely as a creature of Council Rules; it is not prescribed by Home Rule or any other state law. Law is my default. As for keeping the pro tempore just because it is a tradition? Meh…
I prefer to focus on the law. Most folks don’t realize that Council Rules do not have the force of law. Still, Council Rules are very problematic for many, many reasons. I limit myself here to the rule that problematically adopts as council’s parliamentary authority “Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure.” It is interesting to me that the only council members who appear to know and use Mason’s to good effect are Councilors Tripp and Semen, and possibly Fant.
Mason’s is designed primarily for legislative bodies of two houses; council is not the equivalent. Many of Mason’s rules don’t apply well in our singular legislative body. We should be adopting Roberts’ Rules because it’s a better fit to our body.
Also, Roberts’ Rules are better because citizens will have a clearer understanding of what is happening procedurally, and the latest volume of those rules is readily and cheaply available; that serves “transparency.”
Similarly (though I hate to say it) most council members appear not to be well versed in Mason’s…so Roberts’ may be better authority for them as well. Certainly, adopting Roberts’ Rules would even the playing field when it comes to parliamentary processes and Trip, Semen and Fant would not have advantages of invoking rules that affect outcomes in ways that citizens despise. (The 3/5 vote on the UDO is a great example of that!!!)
Without clear and aptly applied rules that assure a democratic process, democratic processes are thwarted. (We’ve had a belly-full of that in recent months… so I strongly suggest council adopt Roberts’ Rules and change Council’s Rules in meaningful ways. If you allow me, I can help...)
Relatedly – and since "tradition" is the topic at hand, Benton : ) ... why do we have Mason’s as the parliamentary authority in Council’s Rules? Tradition. Merely tradition. And not a useful or helpful tradition.
Sometimes, you have to break away from tradition.
Finally, I wouldn’t counsel anyone to die on a hill for any issue. My personal philosophy is “Live to fight another day… “
Agreed 100% on Roberts Rules and would have no problem changing away from Masons. As far as the last sentence…I believe integrity is what you take to the grave, so when I cross that line and go against it, outside of my family, I have nothing left to live for.
I agree... but this tradition does not present an Integrity or ethics issue.
In my opinon this issue is flavored with politics. It's not even related to practical effect. (And I'm wondering who planted the seed in your or any one's mind that this is (or should be) an unshakable, enduring traditon. Or that this is an integrity issue. The person who planted that seed may not be your friend...
So -I ask these questions:
Is this issue An Unneccessary Hill? Yes.
Would this be An Unnecessary Death? Sadly, also yes...
(Please allow me to say that You are needed for essential and consequential matters. Who made this issue essential or consequential? I do not see this issue as deserving such status.... I hope it does not force a consequential outcome when it comes to voting on a new Council Chair. That would be a tragic and disproportionate outcome and citizens would pay a heavy price. )
But this is your opinion on integrity. It is my personal thought on the matter with no external influence—much unlike the opposition to the thought. I wasn’t guided into this feeling. It came from within. At the end of the day, if my stance on this insignificant issue cost me the chair, it’s not a seat I desire to fill. I hope you know that I appreciate you and your legal mind on County matters. On this, we simply disagree.
Ben, Not knowing more than what you present in this emergency newsletter, I support your position, it seems to make perfect sense. But as others have stated, it would be good to understand why some members would want to change this. Keep up the good work. Thank you.
In the US, the position and role of Chairman Pro Tempore (CPT) was defined IN THE CONSTITUTION, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5. Sure, this applies at the Federal level, but the concept has found its way to every political aggregate in the US. Thinking of any reason why someone, with some kind of qualifications, shouldn't be defined by a political aggregate to perform the role under the stated conditions is, to me, irresponsible. What should the qualifications be? Elected? By Whom? Would the responsibilities be the same? If careful thought is given to the role, any rational person would come to the conclusion that a person with the most experience in the organization would be a valid primary qualification, especially since it would be likely an issue that would occur with short notice. I say the latter point with a heap of distrust for the political system, since I can imagine a scheme where both the Chairman and Vice-chairman would conspire with some political subgroup to be absent so that the CPT could execute some nefarious act, perhaps bring forth some vote that would be so disliked amongst the population or the political aggregate that the two in leadership would not want their fingerprints on it. All said, why would this issue be brought up now? There has to be a subtext that the population would not like if brought into the light. So, no way!
Oh...How I loved, loved, loved reading your comment!!! (I hadn't thought of the "scheme" hypothetical you raised, but it is a very interesting idea. I doubt that the current controversy - whatever it might be amongst those involved - included that concept, but who knows?)
My interest in this thread is mostly about the idea of a tradition-WORTH-dying-for. This is a question answered, I think, from the answerer's personal opinion/values.
I had the personal experience once of falling on my own sword because of my somewhat impetuous acceptance of a belief that there should be no departure-from-perfection concerning a very minor point, of an inconsequential rule in a team-building game. I took away from that experience that I should not-so-easily-agree to fall on my own sword. Sepukku? Yes, possibly...maybe. But ONLY for a sepukku-worthy infringement of principle. There are a few such principles.
As I understand the tradition that Benton described, it's not in the sepukkku category...which is why I wrote. Of course, that is my opinon based on my values, which favor the idea of balancing competing interests. Here, I balance the interest of an unneccessary "tradition" (of questionable origin - since the organizational parmeters of the federal constitution just doesn't apply in our single-body legislative county government which, interestingly, also lacks the 3-branch approach of federal government) against the interest of Benton serving as Chair. (BTW: I have no idea of why or how that became the question on the table; it need not be on the table!) "Greater good" tips the balance to Benton serving as Chair in my opinion.
What escapes me completely is the need for this discussion which appears to embrace an ultimatum. And that begs the question of Whose ultimatum? And Why, including Why Now?
The plot thickens, but the entire discussion seems a little premature because the council's rules, which is where the Prom Tempore question resides, is not on the table for adoption until a few weeks from now. The council chair must be elected first!...and the election for that position will take place later today. When the council rules (either one at a time, or as a package) are on the agenda for adoption they will be voted on by the entire council body, and if the majority of that body determines to eliminate the Pro Tempore position, it will be eliminated because it is not requried by the SC Constitution or any other law. Benton, like each of the councilors, will case one vote on question of accepting or rejecting the council rules or any one of the rules. The will of the majority will bind the body.
(Here's an interesting footnote: Adoption of the new rules would require following the adoption procedures prescribed under Mason's Rules, which are the current parliamentary authority and will remain the authority until the rules adopt a different authority - such as Robert's Rules!)
Anyway, all of this because I wanted to say Hello to you, and that I really appreciated your thoughtful and interesting comment!
I support you Benton, glad you are on the County Council.
Admittedly, the position of Pro-Temp is somewhat redundant. However, there is that unlikely although possible state of affairs in which both the Chair and Vice-Chair are not available as a result of unforeseen circumstances. In that case, the Pro-Temp would be available to occasionally serve. If you wish to pursue the Pro-Temp position, there is no doubt you would perform admirably.
Agree with the above by JBC. Also agree with the sentiment that it's hard to go wrong with Robert's Rules. As well it's hard to fathom what the dissent is. What exactly is it? Nefarious purposes?
Benton, I really don’t see what the big deal is regarding the Pro Tempore issue either way as it will be the decision of the entire council at the appropriate time in the future well after the chair and vice chair are voted on. Additionally, it’s kind of moot as the odds of someone actually having to step in is extremely remote. I understand the “tradition” stance, but if by chance it is the will of the elected council to go in another direction, then so be it as the council is voting on behalf of their individual constituents and not a reflection of your integrity at all. Let the process take place. This is not your hill to die on.
I completely agree! That’s all I have said from the beginning. There are just those that don’t like that I wouldn’t personally vote against removing it. I fully support our new members to vote on what their constituents want!
It’s been my experience that, when people want to overturn a time-honored tradition, it’s because they seek an opportunity to break the rules with impunity. Tradition, as a generational concept, has served our country well in numerous capacities. Although time marches on, and new ideas are always welcomed, changing that which has been successful, in order to experiment with variations for its own sake, is hardly a sound prescription for future success. Hence, if past is truly prologue, then history has set the standard for future success. let’s not deviate from what works.
I support your stance in this political ploy and believe that the position of Chairman Pro Tempore should remain as it has been historically. We appreciate the information you share with us on a regular basis.
I appreciate you sharing this information. I would like to know what the person/s o wanting to change this has to say. I understand your view, but what is the opposing view? My concern is the majority of the council is Conservative which will always win. I'd like to see some balance in the council. Sharon Klompus
I support you 100% you have been open book from the beginning. Politics can be forced on those that are weak, I believe you are strong in doing the right for the people