The state requires the board to discuss any items in which there is disagreement.
Gabriele described both criteria on the survey as somewhat "problematic."
On the first matter, he noted that, under state open government rules, it is "almost impossible" and often impractical for board members to be called together to discuss documents prior to public release. He noted that any such meeting involving a majority of the board would require advance notification of the meeting to the press and the public, creating the potential for a "never-ending circle" of meetings.
He also suggested that all documents are made available to board members prior to meetings and as they are requested.
On the second matter, Gabriele noted that board actions are governed by agency by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, a set of procedures for voting and debate widely used by governmental bodies.
As such, Gabriele suggested it is not possible for any single member to delay a vote, defer an agenda item or table an action as the rules require one member to make a motion, another member to second the motion for discussion by the full board and a vote by the board majority to take whatever action is being considered.
"There's actually no individual board member that's empowered to delay anything on the board," he said.
Board member Stephen Brady, who chairs the IDA's governance committee, said committee members felt both items merited additional discussion, but no formal action. Brady said he was confident that if any board member had an issue with the agency's practices moving forward, they would "speak up if they had any issues or concerns."
"I don't see any shrinking violets on this board," he said.