Legislative Malpractice on a $12 Million Vote

Vol. III, No. 338 - How Troy City Council Bypassed It's Own Rules on It's Biggest Project of the Year

Troy City Council voted Monday night to authorize bidding on the $12 million downtown safety streetscape renovation project, a long-term overhaul of the Public Square that has been years in the making. The vote itself wasn’t close. Six members voted yes. Two voted no.

But the more consequential story wasn’t the outcome. It was how the council got there.

Councilmember Jeff Schilling wanted to offer an amendment before the vote. He has been publicly outspoken about adding rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at the Public Square’s crosswalks — a pedestrian safety feature that wasn’t included in the final bid specifications. He signaled his intention to amend before the motion to adopt was on the floor. And then, procedurally speaking, the door closed on him.

After a motion to adopt was made and seconded, Councilmember Bobby Phillips called the question. It was clear Phillips had heard enough. He wanted to move to a vote and bypass whatever Schilling was about to offer. That impulse is understandable — this project has been in the works for years, and the majority of council was ready to move forward. But wanting to end debate and being entitled to end debate are two different things.

The confusion that followed was genuine. The council president worked through the procedural tangle in real time, consulting the city’s law director on the floor. No one appeared to have a firm command of what the rules actually required in that moment. The result was that Schilling’s amendment never received a second, never got a vote, and was simply left behind as the roll call proceeded.

Here’s the problem: under Robert’s Rules of Order — and more importantly, under Rule XV of Troy City Council’s own Rules of Procedure — calling the previous question isn’t a one-person power move. It is a subsidiary motion that must be seconded and then approved by a two-thirds vote of the body before debate can be cut off. The rule states plainly: “If the motion for the previous question is carried by a two-thirds vote, the question shall be put without further debate.”

A review of the meeting record shows that when Phillips called the question, no second was recorded and no two-thirds vote was taken. Council simply moved to the roll call.

That means Rule XV wasn’t followed.

To be clear: this piece is not arguing that Schilling’s amendment was right on the merits. Reasonable people can debate whether rectangular rapid flashing beacons belong in the final design. That conversation is worth having. What this piece is saying is that Schilling was entitled to offer his amendment, have it seconded or not, debated or not, and voted up or down by his colleagues. That is how the process is supposed to work.

It is also worth noting that Schilling voted yes on the motion to suspend the three-reading rule — the step that allowed this resolution to move to a final vote in a single meeting. He was not trying to kill the project or slow it down. He was trying to improve it before it went to bid. That distinction matters.

Robert’s Rules of Order and Council’s own Rules for Procedure exists precisely for moments like this one. These rules are designed to protect the rights of the minority while ensuring that the will of the majority prevails. Skipping a required two-thirds vote to end debate doesn’t just shortchange one council member — it shortcuts the deliberative process the public depends on to know that decisions were made fairly.

This council voted unanimously in March to keep its Rules of Procedure exactly as they are. On Monday night, it appears those rules weren’t followed. At minimum, that deserves an explanation.

Announcing our May Community Survey!

Every other month, this publication takes time to ask our readers how they feel about the happenings in their hometown! What are the challenges? What are the opportunities? Is your hometown headed in the right direction? Our survey is the easiest way for you to express your thoughts. Next month, this publication will report out on the results.

Thanks for your time and your participation! It is greatly appreciated!

This is what it looks like when residents stay informed. If you find value in this work, share it with a neighbor, a colleague, or anyone who cares about this community. Paid subscriptions keep it going — $5 a month.

Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.