JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: "New Majority" Takes Power In Jordan Neighborhood After Bruising, Emotional Procedural Floor Battle

Photo By John Hoff

Tonight, in an emotional and ugly parliamentary procedure brawl, an overwhelming new majority of board members took control of the reigns of power in JACC (the Jordan Area Community Council) and voted out the old officers. The "New Majority" was led by...

...Attorney Michael K. Browne, known as "Kip" Browne. It appeared new board member Anne McCandless was playing an equally strong leadership role, backing up Kip. The Kip Browne/McCandless group appeared to be up against a holdout group of "Old Majority" Board members, led by Chairwoman E.B. Brown.

(Browne and Brown appear to be no relation, however)

Battle In A Basement

As is often the case, JACC met at Jordan New Life Church. The church doesn't look like much from the outside, but is surprisingly modern and beautiful inside. The first thing I noticed was a police car parked outside, running. I later learned Lt. Rugel of the 4th Precinct had been asked to be present at the meeting.

Despite word the meeting would start at 6:30, the meeting apparently started at 6:00 PM. At about 5:59, a platinum blonde little girl, approximately five years old, was happily skipping around in the church basement as adults put tables and chairs in place. A woman pushed a cart with salads, Kool-Aid and iced tea, apparently intended for another event. There was talk of "getting the chili out." I couldn't help but wonder, "Will the chili be hot enough?"

I pondered it a moment. Oh, yes, the chili would be plenty hot, tonight.

People appeared to be making an effort to act casual, as though this was just a meeting like any other. But it clearly wasn't any old meeting, though JACC meetings are reportedly full of argument and controversy in the best of times.

But, even with that, this meeting was different. Board elections had just been held. The reported "altercation" involving JACC Executive Director Jerry Moore was the talk of Jordan and, indeed, the talk had spread far and wide, to City Hall and the blogosphere.

Brown Versus Browne With Dueling Agendas

The first battle was over the agenda or, rather, agendas. Both the "New Majority" and the "Old Majority" had arrived with a pre-printed agenda. The Chair, E.B. Brown, asserted the agenda had been made up in the usual way, and this was the way it was. The New Majority argued the agenda was unpublished, they had not seen it, they had not been advised of any meeting to put together this agenda and, in any case, the agenda wasn't the agenda until it was approved by those present. A motion was put forward to accept the New Majority's agenda, distinguishable by an emblem at the top, since there was more than one piece of paper floating around at that point called an "agenda."

A community member in the crowd--wearing a puffy blue winter jacket--looked at me and asked, "What's an agenda?"

Arguments kept erupting on the floor, not about issues, but about approval of the agenda to merely have a meeting. In this battle over the agenda, the New Majority kept bringing up "Points of Privilege" which (speaking as a former parlimentarian of the UND Student Senate) seemed more like "Points of Order," but the distinction may be irrelevant. Either a point of privilege or a point of order can get you the floor for a moment, to question something.

It was very clear the "New Majority" had a firm grasp of Robert's Rules, much more so than the "Old Majority." Furthermore--though it wasn't clear quite yet--the New Majority had enough votes to pass anything and block anything. Later, the votes seemed to break down roughly 9 to 5 or 9 to 4, with one individual frequently abstaining. I should make it clear "New Majority" and "Old Majority" are my labels, picked to be both accurate and fair, based on my observation of what was taking place.

In this conflict, when outmanuevered, the Old Majority was ultimately forced to rely on non-procedural rhetoric, sometimes assisted by individuals in the crowd--the guy in the Blue Puffy Jacket, mostly, who stated this was only the second JACC meeting he'd ever attended--but still he felt pretty free to shout out his opinions at any moment, and argue parlimentary points being debated on the floor by saying the Board needed to "keep it real."

"Yes, but it's nice to come through the front door, not the back," said a member of the Old Majority, when defeat on the agenda motion seemed clear.

Like a military force possessing both heavy armor and artillery against a force possessing only heavy armor, the New Majority kept winning by superior firepower; dropping a motion on the floor quickly, then forcing debate on that live motion and--per Robert's Rules--not allowing two motions on the floor at once. Given all the arguments and points of privilege, this took longer than shooting fish in a barrel, but the results were inevitable, and the same.

The chair appeared to be trying to put off a vote, well aware there weren't enough votes on her side, but still possessing a chairmanship which could run down the clock. There had been repeated statements that the room had to be cleared by 7:45, as it belonged to the church, and another church event has been displaced so JACC could meet. (And, as it turned out, crucify each other)

At some point the chair raised the idea of an "executive session" because of "something desperately needing to be discussed." It seemed pretty likely this was the reported altercation involving executive director Jerry Moore. And, all this time, there still hadn't been an agenda passed, and the motion on the floor was to accept the agenda offered by the New Majority.

"Vote, vote, vote!" folks in the crowd were shouting, at one point.

McCandles repeatedly asked that the question be called... that the chair woman call a vote on whether to accept the agenda put forward by the New Majority.

"CALL THE VOTE, MADAME CHAIR!" Kip Browne and McCandless kept demanding.

Finally, McCandless called the vote herself. She asked everybody to stand who was in favor of the New Majority agenda. At first, three people stood--including Kip Browne and McCandless--but then more stood. And defeat was evident in the face of the chair, as an overwhelming majority was standing, in unison. Defeat was inevitable. Playing for time was the only viable parliamentary strategy available.

"This Is The New Agenda"

The chair was immobile, saying nothing because there was nowhere to manuever. She'd been asked to call the question. Calling the question was an undiluted recipie for defeat--albeit a small defeat--but given the overwhelming majority silently standing in unison, this defeat over the approval of the agenda would lead to further defeats, until finally she was removed as chair, entirely.

Is this like the moment one dies, I wonder? What do you do, in that moment? Do you play a game with the clock, and decide you will defiantly live and breathe for another minute, another few seconds? For what purpose? So the time of death will be something different on the death certificate? Was the purpose to stand there, as dignified as possible, and say, "I tried. I fought to the last ditch."

"Motion passes," McCandless said. "This is the new agenda."

Despite their vast differences, the Old and New Majority had one thing in common. They agreed an executive session--that is to say, a closed session--was necessary to discuss a pressing matter. Everybody except board members was being asked to leave but, they were told, the session would be limited. Everybody would be allowed back inside at a certain time.

I turned to Lt. Rugel and said perhaps he shouldn't leave. Rugel said he needed to start his squad car hourly, to keep it running. I told Rugel perhaps he should stick near the door, just in case, after he started his car.

The Sergeant at Arms--one Steve Jackson, who wore a sweatshirt emblazoned with the words "NFL--Northside For Life"--more or less shooed folks out the door, into the hallway. The crowd left, more or less cooperatively. The Sergeant at Arms said the executive session didn't start until the last person was out the door. Included in the folks leaving was Executive Director Jerry Moore.

Well, Isn't This A Lovely Church?

The crowd milled around in the church foyer. In the hallway, right outside the closed meeting, members of the community kept hashing out the issues in the meeting. Upstairs, however, talk was mostly about the church building. How lovely and modern it was, inside. You really wouldn't know from the outside, would you?

"They should do something to make the outside as pretty as the inside," I said.

At one point, I heard a man telling a young woman in oversized glasses that she should maybe run out, get some cider and cookies.

"But I don't have any money," she answered.

Much Animated Standing

The session was "executive" only in the auditory sense. The members of the board were clearly visible through the windows in the church basement doors, though very little sound escaped through those doors. In the hallway, a man with dreadlocks down to the middle of his back said the Jordan neighborhood is effectively "defunct" because "it can't get nothing done."

In the executive session, there seemed to be much standing by Kip Browne. A man in the hallway kept his face pressed right up against the door, watching everything. I learned he was the husband of E.B. Brown, the embattled chair.

In the hallway outside the closed session, an animated political discussion was taking place. At one point, one of the participants asserted, "If you don't have the revolutionary who will pull the trigger, all you've got is a lot of intellectuals and their verbiage."

The Sergeant at Arms left the meeting, came into the hallway, and whispered urgently to the guy with dreadlocks down to the middle of his back. The guy with dreadlocks left and, it seemed, the result was Jerry Moore was fetched. Moore entered the closed meeting at 6:27 PM. He left about five seconds later. The executive session went on. At one point, shouting seemed to come through the doors.

The guy in the Blue Puffy Jacket--the one who spoke more than 75 percent of the board members spoke, though he had no title, and merely yelled things during the meeting--asserted that time was up, and he was now allowed to re-enter the meeting. The Sergeant at Arms asserted there was another minute left.

Inside the doors, a woman in a green sweater was standing and yelling, waving her arms. The Chair--and she was still the chair at that point--walked up to speak with the woman, at one point put her arm around her.

Following the angry fellow in the blue puffy jacket, individuals began re-entering the meeting. It wasn't clear whether the executive session was really over, or whether the Sergeant At Arms was asserting that he had the power to let people in the room. Perceiving that a majority of folks in the room might NOT want the executive session ended, quite yet, I entered the room but then quickly left. The Sergeant At Arms kept telling me to come back inside. Others entered. I finally entered.

At one point, some board members were trying to get an older black male--with a kind of pastoral air about him--recognized to speak for "a moment of reflection." He'd apparently been asked to the meeting to speak, but that was under the OLD leadership, and the OLD agenda.

He was forced off the floor. Somebody in the crowd said this was "disrespectful." McCandless apologized, quite awkwardly at first, but ultimately managed to say business had to be conducted, and an agenda had been approved.

The guy in the blue puffy jacket kept yelling things, at one point saying this was the second JACC meeting he'd been to, and both meetings were "arguing and fighting." In his opinion, the whole board should be "started over" and there shouldn't be "just a few people in power."

An argument erupted over "people walking out with documents at the last meeting." One of the New Majority asserted state law says "I can take documents." There was an argument over whether laws had been broken, in the taking of documents, or whether the taking of documents was lawful. At many points, there was more than one discussion taking place on the floor.

"Board business!" yelled Megan Goodmundson, repeatedly, from the crowd. The Sergeant At Arms kept asserting there was a need to leave the building by 7:45.

Out With The Old, In With The New

The chair attempted to put forward a motion that "We do not re-open the election of board officers." The wording of the motion was awkward, and one of the New Majority said, "Why don't we have a motion that we DO re-open the election of board officers, and then we can vote that motion up or down?"

He was grinning through his whiskers, like this was just...a casual suggestion. Really, just to be clear on the wording. Because...he might get confused.

This little dance went on for a while. But defeat was inevitable, and when it came, it was a landslide. A united squadron of New Majority board members--silently lined up shoulder to shoulder, around most of 3 of the 4 sides of the table formation--voted to re-open the election of board officers.

Then came a motion by Kip Browne to remove all the existing officers. There was an argument by the chair that this couldn't take place, that there had to be REASONS for removal. At that point, prepared papers were passed around, not just at the table with the board, but with plenty of extra copies for the citizens in attendance. The papers read as follows:

Grievance #1

At the November 12, 2008 board meeting, the JACC board voted to extend the terms of office of two board members whose terms had expired. The members in questions (sic) were elected October 19, 2006. Two years from that date their term expired. The action taken by the board at the November meeting is a direct violation of the following JACC by-laws.

At V, Sec. 1c. DIRECTORS TENURE IN OFFICE Directors shall serve a period of two years and will be elected at the General Membership meeting in October.

Sec. 2a. The Board shall have up to fifteen (15) and not fewer than five (5) members.

Sec. 2c. ROBERT'S RULES--All meetings shall be conducted according to stated ground rules, but the meeting facilitator may impose Robert's Rules of Order if it is deemed necessary.

Since the by-laws do not address the problem incurred at the October annual meeting when the JACC executive director attempted in impose (sic) an illegal and incomplete ballot upon the voting membership, it would seem that this is one of those times when it is "deemed necessary" to impose Robert's Rules of Order. According to the 10th Edition (the latest published October 2000):

"The unqualified wording "For a term of...year(s)" should be avoided, because at the end of that time there would be no officers if new ones had not been elected."

While this may be an unfortunate use of terminology according to Robert's Rules, it is the terminology currently in place in the JACC by-laws. No election took place, therefore, the officers whose terms are up, are no longer board members. However, in the case of JACC, this does not leave the organization without a viable board to conduct the business of the organization. Nine board members remain active on the board with unexpired terms. Accoriding to the by-laws, the board needs a minimum of just five members in order to be viable.

As a result of this illegal action by the Board, two ex-board members were allowed to vote in violation of the organization's by-laws. This made a difference in the outcome of the election of board officers. Since the process was initiated illegally, the results are tainted as well and need to be overturned. This is not a precedent JACC, or any non-profit organization can allow to have stand.

The Sergeant At Arms made a speech about why the board members were kept on. It had something to do with their "wisdom" and how there was a need for "continuity." The discussion grew heated. At one point, a member of the New Majority said something about blood pressure going up, and harsh thoughts. The guy in the blue puffy jacket, meanwhile, was trying to interject his thoughts into the process...and was called out of order. Stealing a line directly from Al Pacino, the guy in the blue jacket asserted "the whole board is out of order!"

Out of order or not, there were--by my quick and rough count--9 "Yes" votes.

"You having a shotgun board, now?" a guy in the audience yelled. "You can't have nominations at this board!"

A messy discussion took place about bylaws, whether JACC was functioning under bylaws at all, and which set of bylaws. It appeared that, like agendas, there were two sets of competing bylaws. The Sergeant At Arms stood and tried to vote to "table the meeting" until there could be agreement which bylaws JACC is operating under. However, there was already a motion on the floor at that point. Undeterred, the Sergeant at Arms said, "There can't be motions without bylaws" and attempted to bring his motion.

I had tried to be objective up to this point but, really, everybody in the audience seemed to feel free to shout their commentary, and were frequently recognized and allowed to pontificate. I had to point out the flaw in the Sergeant At Arms' logic:

"Then that's true of your motion, as well."

I may have effected something, at that point. I remember the Sergeant At Arms sitting down or--one should say--standing down. I felt like a time traveler who accidentally alters the future when, really, he should have been just looking around, taking notes. But what can you expect of a blogger? It's not like I answer to an editor.

"When do we vote on the bylaws?" cried a member of the community.

McCandless answered, "When Jerry Moore or whoever is the Executive Director gets his act together and puts them in front of the community, 30 days before."

Talk Of Seccession And An "Illegal Meeting"

There was discussion about how city officials had been queried, and some community members were told, really, there was nothing "on file" about which bylaws JACC was operating under. Clearly, this JACC board was operating under SOMETHING. With an open floor, and time running down, McCandless nominated Michael Browne as board chair.

While stating this whole process was "illegal," a member of the Old Majority nominated E.B. Brown. The vote was taken. Either way, the same name would be elected, albeit spelled differently. Michael "Kip" Browne won handily, of course. Members of the audience applauded. The future of Jordan was seated in front of them, smiling tightly but thankfully, and that future was Michael Browne, a handsome young attorney who had just Robert's Rules'ed himself to victory.

One of the New Majority gave a little speech about the "courtesy, the depth of character" of E.B. Browne, and how she was a fine example to follow. Lord knows it's not easy, dealing with a motion and vote for your own removal. Rather like a soldier calling down artillery on his own position, I thought.

Kip Browne's first move was to nominate E.B. Browne for vice-chair. The new chair was proceeding foreward rapidly with voice votes, not the cumbersome and time-consuming written vote process favored by E.B. Browne. There was no discussion. A vote was held. By my reckoning, E.B. Browne was unanimously elected vice-chair...she then stated that she declined the position of vice chair but said she promised to "be involved."

A guy named P.J. was then nominated for Vice Chair. A treasurer was elected. Anne McCandless became secretary...not that she seemed to want the position very much. The vote tally was pretty consistent, except one guy kept abstaining. In fact, he not only kept abstaining but sat a short distance away from the table...like it was distasteful to even be LOCATED at the table.

There was a motion to table the minutes, since some folks hadn't had opportunity to review the minutes. Even on this "housekeeping" motion, the votes broke down the same way.

With the night's dramatic business now completed, Abstaining Guy stood to make a short speech. First, he said, he was resigning. Effective immediately. Second, he said, "You're losing this part of Minneapolis...people want to go be partof Camden." He stated the portion of Jordan, from "Penn over" is not interested in being part of Jordan. He said something about nothing getting done.

The Sergeant-At-Arms addressed the crowd. He said, "I ask you, beg you to talk to your neighbors and get more people involved." A few moments after the meeting adjourned--the way meetings in North Minneapolis usually adjourn, by a "show of feet," the Sergeant-At-Arms walked up to me and said he wanted to tell me something. He wanted me to quote him.

"This is an illegal meeting," he said. He also added something about how he--Steve Jackson, Sergeant At Arms--was going to do his "homework" about what happened here, tonight.

I gave him my email address. I told him if he wanted to write out some kind of statement, I would publish it on my blog.

As I was leaving, Michael "Kip" Browne was receiving congratulations. The guy in the blue puffy jacket seemed oddly enthusiastic, now, and was nearly HUGGING Browne.

This is what I saw. This is my firsthand account. There was, however, complex parliamentary manuevering, and competing motions. Anybody who has information to add, anybody who perceived matters differently or caught facts I missed should feel free to use the comments function.

Addendum: I have gone through and corrected some typos, and also wanted to add the Star Tribune was not present at this meeting, despite some earlier information I had which led me to believe a reporter would be there.

The following information was kindly forwarded to me by a North Minneapolis resident who was at the meeting: Bob Scott, the (former) Treasurer, was the guy frequently abstaining.

The issue about the documents most likely occurred when the JACC office was opened for the Board members and others to come in and review documents, mainly the financial documents.

P.J. Howard was elected vice chair. Bob Hodson was elected treasurer.