John Foust - Chamber
|
Jefferson Banner - Opinion John Foust - Chamber |
| Scott David Gray (sdavid@tiac.net) Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:00:12 -0500 Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Next message: hamptona@genco.com: "RROR: Question" Previous message: Scott Gray: "Re: RROR: Gavel" In reply to: RhionSligo@aol.com: "RROR: Gavel" David Olsen wrote: > 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 Many mayors enjoy a broad executive privilege, at least as far as being able to bring matters before a town concil. You will have to consult with your charters, and with common practice and common law, in order to determine precisely how you can proceed. What you may want to do, is to have the mayor simply put the matter before the council. If some members of the council object that he has no authority to, let THEM bring it to the courts to stop it. One thing you can do, is this. All bodies have the authority to set their own procedural rules. You may wish to present a "resolution, allowing the mayor to present the motion re building project: to the council again". You may need a 2/3 vote to pass this, as it may require a "rules suspension" in the opinion of the council (or its presiding officer, or instructions in its charter). One thing I do not understand is why a motion to reconsider would "not be applicable". If a one of the four people who voted against the motion (which failed) makes a motion to reconsider, that is perfectly in order as near as I can tell, provided that it takes place at your NEXT meeting (not later). In any case, if an intervening meeting has already occured, a member of your group who voted AGAINST the motion, can simply make a new motion identical to the first, by placing it in the record. -- --Scott David Gray http://www.sudval.org/~sdg reply-to: sdavid@tiac.net ICQ: 27291292 |