The following information on Chambergate has been taken from county records, newspaper articles and accounts from people who participated.

The January 1987 meeting in which the Commission "reconsidered" all of the 9 votes from the December 1986 meeting, at which 2 commissioners (Brown, Coward) were absent. Ed Turlington, Notestein and Wheat were in attendance at that meeting. Apparently, Jim Notestein choose this meeting (one of the first Wheat attended as a newly-elected commissioner in November, 1986) to bring forward nine items which he had been trying to get to the Commission for discussion.

**CHAMBERGATE PARLIAMENTARY ANALYSIS**

The "Parliamentary" aspects of Chambergate have never been fully analyzed or reported. Under Robert's Rules of Order (there were not any Commission rules until 1993), for the Commission to discuss/debate an item, and to allow public discussion about that item, there first has to be a motion and a second. To open full public debate and discussion, the motion has to be adopted (majority vote needed). And finally, for the December 1986 adopted "motions" to have the force of law, each of them required that staff bring back amendments to ordinances or the growth management plan. There would have been advertised public hearings - in which ALL interested people could participate, not just a special few designated by the Chamber of Commerce.

Under Robert's Rules of Order, there must always be a second to a motion in order for it to be discussed. A second to a motion does not indicate support for the motion, but is required to get an item on the floor for discussion. It usually means that the Commissioner who seconds the motion believes it is "worth" discussing. Since Notestein had been elected in 1984, he had put many motions on the floor, including these December 1986 items. However, none of them had received a second. That the-then Commission majority had not previously seconded his motions - no matter their "worth" - was rude not only to Notestein, but to the citizens he represented.

With the Commission majority at that time - if things were moved and seconded that they didn't want to discuss, they immediately "called the question" and voted to cut off all Commission and public debate and discussion. And they regularly did so. Thus, Notestein seized the opportunity on a night when he and Wheat were in the "majority" (and with two other Commissioners out of town), to bring forward 9 issues for full Commission debate and public discussion.

**CHAMBERGATE BACKGROUND**

Two County Commission meetings are at issue: December 16, 1986 and January 13, 1987. At the time, the County Commission was comprised of Commissioners Tom Coward, Ed Turlington, Leveda Brown (elected in 1982), and Jim Notestein (elected in 1984 as the first "neighborhood/environmental activist"). Penny Wheat had just been elected for the first time, and sworn into office on November 18, 1986.

In 1986, Wheat had been endorsed by the Gainesville Sun over then-Commission Chair Jane Walker, who had been elected in 1982. The editorial strongly encouraged the Commission to change.

During the December 16, 1986 meeting, only three commissioners (Turlington, Wheat, Notestein) were present; Commissioners Brown and Coward were attending a national county commissioners' workshop in Ft. Lauderdale. At the end of the December 16th County Commission meeting (under today's agenda, this would be called "Commission Comments"), Notestein brought forward 9 items. He stated that he had been "trying for 2 years to get a second to discuss these items, but no one would second his motion for discussion." Notestein stated that since he and Wheat were in the majority that night, he was "hopeful of finally getting these items on the floor for larger public debate and discussion". This was one of Wheat's first Commission meetings since taking office in mid-November.

Each of Notestein's 9 motions were approved, 3-0 (Notestein, Wheat, Turlington). While the December 16th County Commission adopted the motions, each of them required further Commission action: for example, to accept/reject information the Commission requested of staff, or to authorize advertisement of public notice and to hold a subsequent public hearing (to consider amendments to ordinances to make the motion effective.)