Jefferson Banner - Opinion John Foust - Chamber

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:23:58 -0600 To: coc@jefnet.com (Jefferson Chamber of Commerce) From: John Foust <jfoust@threedee.com> Subject: Milwaukee Street Walk Bridge Cc: James B. van Lieshout <barbvl@jefnet.com> Dave, Can I get a confirmation that in February 1999, you sent the e-mail message below to Scott David Gray <sdavid@tiac.net>, the moderator of a "Robert's Rules of Order" discussion group on the Internet,  and that this letter is discussing the City Council's vote on  the Milwaukee Street Walk Bridge? Also, which two attorneys  were consulted in this case, and who paid for this advice? Jim, do you remember if Dave was carrying out this investigation  upon the orders of the Chamber Board? - John > At a recent city council meeting, a vote to approve a building project, was  > defeated by a 4 - 3 vote.  >  > The mayor, citing the fact that one council member was absent and two others  > failed to explain their reasons for voting "no", put the item back on the  > agenda for the following meeting. (Where it was again defeated by a 5 - 3 vote)  >  > I understand Robert's Rules of Order provides three methods for reviewing  > previously debated issues and prior actions:  > 1) Motion to reconsider  > 2) Motion to rescind  > 3) Motion to renew  >  > I'm pretty familiar with the motion to reconsider - must be made by the  > prevailing side, must be made at the same meeting, etc. In this case, that  > would not be applicable.  >  > The motion to rescind would not be applicable because there was never  > approval of the project. The vote was 4 - 3 to deny the project.  >  > I understand that a motion to renew is made when a motion is made and  > disposed of without being adopted. In this case the motion was "disposed  > of" because there was a 4 - 3 vote to deny it.  >  > We have conflicting rulings from two different attorneys. One says that the  > mayor can put the issue on the subsequent meeting's agenda and the other  > says that the issue is a dead issue and cannot be brought up again.  >  > The city council abides by Robert's and does not have any other rules.  >  > There has been a great deal of discussion about the procedures followed.  > Could the mayor do what he did? If not, how should it have been done?  > Could it have been done at all?  >  > If you'd like to respond by talking with me, my name is Dave Olsen, I'm the  > chamber of commerce executive director, and my phone number is (920) 674-4511.  >  > Incidentally, the chamber was in favor of the project and was trying to find  > some way that it could be brought back up for discussion. However, we would  > never be in favor of "bending" the rules for our benefit. We wanted the  > project to be approved, but only if the process was on the up and up. The  > prevailing side is now contending that the mayor was wrong in his actions.  >  > David Olsen  > Jefferson (WI) Chamber of Commerce  > Voice: (920) 674-4511